Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:41, 6 June 2007

==

< June 5	June 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 'Mentioned in mainstream media news' or similar isn't enough - they must be independant and non-trivial. If the drummer's notable, heck, write your socks off. But at the moment, the article asserts no notability, and has no sources. Daniel 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Ra Riot

Strong Delete.Not very notable band, written like a fansite. Basically an article spouting Fancruft. Deletion Quality 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, agree on the fancruft above. themcman1 _Talk 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Done more research and changed desicion. themcman1 _Talk 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ban fulfil notability requirements having been subject of article in NME: http://www.nme.com/news/nme/28721 and Billboard.com: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003593382 77.99.135.197 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the articles found by the above anon user -- they appear to be the same article in two different places, but either way, there seems to be some notability at work here. They also have a (somewhat short) profile on All Music Guide. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. Zerbey 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. They're all over Google News - but most of the refs are regarding the drummer's death and there seems to be minimal reference to their actual musical career. 136,000 Google hits, too, but again a lot of that is blogs and similar refs to the drummer. However, hidden amidst all that, I do find non-drummer-related stories on CMJ.com, NME.com, a nibble on Buzzgrinder and a few others. I wonder if they'd meet WP:MUSIC without the news aspect of the drummer's death, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - mentioned in mainstream media/news. Madder 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The missing persons case, and eventually discovery of the body is certainly notable, even if the band hasn't made any notable pieces of music.--Kylohk 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article say that the band has one self-released EP. Hardly notable by WP standard. The drummer's strange/newsworthy death does not render the band notable. Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pike (musician) - Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources covering teh band. There are articles about the death of teh drummer, but they are specifically about the drummer with little attention to the band. -- Whpq 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently none of the members are notable enough to have articles themselves (all are redlinked). One of them died, that's it. No compelling claims that the band meets notability per WP:BAND (eg: published articles, chart hits, awards, competitions, use of music in media, radio play, broadcasts, certified gold sales, international touring beyond US and UK, major label support, unique style beyond run of the mill indies, etc.). No significant supporting info that meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles mentioned by the anon are articles about the death of a band member. A dead person doesn't assert notability, unless he was already notable (and this guy wasn't) - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert that this musical was ever performed anywhere besides a local theatre in Maine. NawlinWiki 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In our grandmother's attic

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this musical is notable. Zero Google hits for the title, and the closest thing I can find by searching for "Elaine Hewes" is a pastor in a Bangor church. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any evidence either. themcman1 _Talk 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link in the article is unrelated to the subject. Other than that, per nom. Yechiel Man 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pisschrist (band)

Delete. Non-notable vanity band page. Two sources mention that the band has toured but not every band that has toured is notable enough for an encyclopedia. External sources are the band's own site and its myspace page. csloat 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is quite POV. Deletion Quality 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - repost - Tiswas^(t) 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom as WP:VSCA and not meeting WP:MUSIC. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national tour (except Perth; par for the course) and international shows; meets WP:BAND. John Vandenberg 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unreliable list of tour destinations for the first international tour[1] (more reliable sources... [2]...). The current US tour[3] has a host of destinations as well[4] (scroll down to "OTHER TOUR DATES (BANDS NOT ON HAVOC BUT THAT ARE STILL RAD)" to see a full list of venues); some with Oroku [5], othertimes with Wolfbrigade [6]. John Vandenberg 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet section 4 of WP:BAND. They've toured internationally as a minor support act. *Anyone* can do that - even I can (and yes, I do play.) Orderinchaos 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if none of the sources are primarily about the band - they do verify sufficient travel / appearance that the band does indeed meet WP:BAND. Ga rr ie 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above alone does not appear to let the article pass WP:MUSIC. Also serious issues with finding WP:RS. Orderinchaos 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate; dB Magazine and Austin Chronicle are reliable sources for the bands shows, and WP:MUSIC allows for bands that "[have] gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." John Vandenberg 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources above say they toured. They however do not address the band's notability, which is the core issue here. Orderinchaos 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - these guys are quite a famous cult punk band, but unfortunately I can't find anything to verify the information—arf! 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayvdb -- had this been nominated for deletion exactly one year ago, we would have comedy gold. RFerreira 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and move to emergency hammer. Resurgent insurgent 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus mallet

I see this article as being inappropriate, it is basically about a small hammer-like object found on buses to smash the glass in case of emergency, is it really necessary. It could be merged into Bus but I dont even think thats necessary. The Sunshine Man 16:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - Completely lacks citation, zero Google hits on "bus mallet". The item referred to is a tool carried by emergency personnel to smash car windows and cut seatbelts, though it goes by a variety of trademarked names. If there isn't already an article on it, this sure isn't the place to start. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This doesnt qualify for speedy deletion per CSD. The Sunshine Man 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. My mistake. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sourced. This is a popular consumer item as well. The pictured brand seems to be the "Lifehammer", but I found others in the US and UK under other names. "Escape hammer" is probably the most common name. These show up in consumer magazines and TV segments, so it's probably a sourceable article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move. I've seen these things on every single bus I've ever traveled in within the boundaries of Finland. I do think WP should mention them somewhere. Not at Bus mallet, though --Agamemnon2 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a tool. We have articles on hammer. Granted a bus mallet (or whatever its called) is not as notable as a hammer, still it seems a commonly distributed tool. I'm not sure what the name of the article should be -- "Escape hammer" maybe? Herostratus 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as it stands, naming the article "Bus mallet" is wrong on a couple of counts. Firstly, the term does not apepar to be used as searching for "bus mallet" in quotes returns nothing relevant in google. Secondly, there are no reliable sources provided and tagging it as unreferenced may help, but the article being misnamed means few edittors may come across it. Not also that this device is used in vehicles other than buses. As far as I can tell, "windshield hammer" is a better name, but still does nto appear to be correct. -- Whpq 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change title As emergency hammer or something. I have to say I can't really see a need to delete it. These aren't just on busses - I've seen them on nearly every train I've been on too, so can't just merge into bus. Pedro | Chat 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further - a google on "emergency hammer" looks helpful.....Pedro | Chat 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid encyclopedia subject, and move page to emergency hammer or similar.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename - The term emergency hammer appears to be a very prevalent term for the device, and a sourced article would probably be possible. -- Whpq 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my above, a quick dig into Google shows that Emergency Hammer is the correct term for this device. Further there is plenty of resource regarding it's use. In view of that I am now going Strong keep but rename to Emergency Hammer. Pedro | Chat 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Saxena

Starting a company that is acquired by Commerce One and being a Michigan State Distinguished Alumni (presumably he gave some money to the university) are nice but not notable. His one slim claim to fame is being selected as Entrepreneur of the Year by Inter@active Week. But (if I recall correctly) Inter@ctive Week is or was a free giveaway magazine, which reduces its ability to confer notability, and anyway (assuming it's true, which we don't know as it's not sourced) that is only one minor honor. Herostratus 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only citations are his UM alumnus page and a non-notable blog...the Intera@ctive Week claim isn't even sourced. I also recall it being a free giveaway mag, but if I'm wrong and he can source the claim it might well meet WP:NOTE. Excepting that, though... Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UM University of Michigan are the guys in Ann Arbor whose team wears maize and blue. MSU Michigan State University are the guys in East Lansing whose team wears green and white. Arch rivals. Edison 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete "Interactive Week" is a "controlled circulation" professional magazine--it is primarily advertising-supported, and supplied free to people in a position to buy large amounts of relevant products or otherwise prominent in the industry--that's how almost all such publications are distributed. Only the outsiders pay. The quality varies, but some are excellent, and this is one of the better ones. Their entrepreneur of the year designation is probably significant, as for any other major trade journal, but I would not regard it alone as enough for notability. The significance of the MSU award would depend upon their selectivity: it's from the BSU Business school, not the whole university; they currently display 12 others, none of whom are in WP. Frankly, I do not know how to judge N for technical figures whose contributions are mainly in industry and therefore do not publish, and are not cited in newspapers, and are not in top positions at nationally known companies. I'm used to professions with publicly visible output. The only ones we seem to be able to tell, are for those in industries familiar to many people here. This gives a bias, but I do not know how to overcome it. DGG 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Core desat 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Krilis

Notability of this scholar is claimed, but goes completely unverified. Fails WP:PROF and largely violates WP:NPOV.

I did not find verifiable claims in the article that could be used to show that he meets WP:PROF. The article is, however, cluttered with POV and weasel-word statements ("made numerous discoveries that have greatly advanced...", "is at the forefront of medicine", "recognised as one of [...] the world's leading immunologists", etc.) Removing all the POV-laden parts, what remains is that S.K is a professor of medicine at an Australian university, who does research and publishes in scientific journals.

External sources I found are not convincing towards notability: Google Scholar shows that some of his publications are cited quite often (one is >200 cites), but judging just by these numbers can be grossly misleading. Also, there is an information page by his university, UNSW, with nothing particularly notable; a press release by UNSW; and he won an award issued by the same university (cannot be counted for notability, since not independent).

The previous AfD nomination 1 1/2 years ago resulted in "keep" according to closing admin, but maybe "no consensus" would fit better. Votes suggested that the article should be rewritten to be kept, but no such rewrite occured, just more unverified statements were added.

I propose to delete the article now. If S.K. is really such a renowned figure in medice, then sooner or later somebody will write a new, verifiable article about him from scratch. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would need a complete rewrite to meet WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:PROF, and it's barely more than a stub. Assuming the editor's been properly advised already, there's no sense in nursing this thing along. They can always come up with some actual citations and rewrite it responsibly. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination for deletion is not an excuse to allow unadulterated crap in BLP. I removed the crap. Don't care whether he stays or not, but stubs are part of Wikipedia, and there is NO requirement to delete stubs. KP Botany 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - Prof. Krilis is a genuinely notable academic, but this is a terrible article. No citations, no actual understanding of antiphospholipid syndrome (ah, its about blood clots! Eureka!), and peacock words galore. A reduction to stub status and then reconstruction with appropriate references and writing style could make this a worthwhile page. Euryalus 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And you edited it after I removed reems of crap--you should look at one of the older edits. Stunnin crap. I know an editor who might have some time to look at it, too. KP Botany 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I see what you mean. I also notice the very early versions also had more actual biographical info in them, which was removed some time ago to make space for more glowing plaudits. Take out the facts, add in the opinion ... anyway, if it survives AfD I'll add a more meaningful summary of his antiphospholipid research. Euryalus 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; strong google scholar results. John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a lot of published work which seems pretty notable. I may end up revising this myself. Sci girl 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the below: anyone who wants more actual citation results than provided by Google Scholar can ask me to check scopus or WebofScience. I'd rather do it without the time pressure of an AfD. In this case 120 peer reviewed papers on scopus, , the highest--in PNAS, absolutely top-flight journal-- 920 citations, followed by 284, 195, 147, 116 , 111. . All of this very good, as normally the case for full professors at research universities. I've added them to the article. There has to be a better way to improve these articles that one at a time at Afd. DGG 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all keep votes above. Lankiveil 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly notable don't use afd for cleanup--Buridan 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, improper useage of AFD as well. RFerreira 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dansynch

Neologism, no sources, except user submitted dicdef & friendster page. No attempt to establish notability, or even claim it. - Tiswas^(t) 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without the social information, all that remains is a dicdef.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources; all references given are self-published sources, even Merriam-Webster. (It's interesting that M-W now accepts user-generated content as well; but their notability checks do not seem to be very rigid...) --B. Wolterding 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how all of you seem eager to shoot down an unpopular coined word just waiting to blossom...I understand being a newbie here and still tweaking around with wikipedia seriously though why the bias? I can name a dozen wikipages here that don't, won't meet to your standards or to your interpretation of Wikipedia's standards...using your logic how would you deal with Ted Turner's word's do you delete any article published by his media magnate? Do you thoroughly comb each and every article here or just plainly because of the fact you just happened to pick my entry? Please reconsider or teach a newbie on how to? If blog entry's are not consdered then how would newspapers catch a glimpse of it and bothered to publish it if it wasn't first seen through a snapshot of an event. I'm sorry but i'm deployed to a ************* and have no access to the source ******************... I will post it once I get the chance please understand and reconsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyports (talk • contribs)

Comment re the unsigned entry above: What is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia are reliable sources. Blogs, Youtube, and other user-generated content sites are not considered reliable in this context. If the topic is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, then certainly newspapers, book authors, etc. have written about it. (I doubt that in this case, but if so, please supply the sources.) If not, it should not have an article on Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - furthermore, wikipedia is not here to further the spread of neologisms. - Tiswas^(t) 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. WP:MADEUP applies in spades, and I'm deeply distressed that Merriam-Webster is apparently publishing user-submitted neologisms without any evidence of their notability. I wasn't aware of that...anyone else think that might be worthy of a RfC? Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user submissions only appear in the Open Dictionary. Although it's also on m-w.com, it's pretty easily distinguished from the rest of the site. They all say "submitted by ...", for example. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bullzeye. Nice name by the way. Bulldog123
Delete, neologism, not supported by reliable sources. This Merriam-Webster "Open Dictionary" appears to be a clone of Urban Dictionary. NawlinWiki 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, word better describes an individual or a group of individuals seen in by a third person in the act of synchronizing the lips and body movements to a music heard from a PA or spear system. i.e. The term could be used for the acts made during a Music Video recording or the sudden urge of an individual or group who does the same in a public place such as a Mall, Department Stores, Fast Food, Restaurants, Supermarkets etc...Hence the term to Dansynch!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yfe uttarakhand

Non-notable with 10 google hits. Antonrojo 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of being verified - Even with references, I would be hard pressed to make head or tail of the article. And I'm a frikkin' genius. - Tiswas^(t) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be political agitation without any hint to notability; far from being verifiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --B. Wolterding 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even make a half-hearted attempt to look NPOV, so in its current form it is just propaganda. Also not well written. Maybe an article about this movement ought to be written, but better to delete this one than try to fix it. Capmango 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youth for Equality, which appears to be the same organisation. 82.35.8.10 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. Forgot to log in. BTLizard 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV, no content, borderline nonsense, you name it. NawlinWiki 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The Keep arguments - that it's a fine resort, that we should give the guy a break - are not strong. Herostratus 10:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Buena Vista Beach Resort

I can't find any notability for this place. There seems to be a Tribune article, but it's not linked. Whs itc hy 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources do not necessarily have to be on the web for them valid.- Tiswas^(t) 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know that, but he doesn't even have a specific article mentioned. For all we know, it could just be a simple review of the hotel and nothing else. Whs itc hy 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is reasonably NPOV and cites multiple independent sources. Unless someone looks all those sources up and finds them to be bogus, we should assume they are legit. Capmango 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just checked the SD Tribune site, this is all I got, unless they don't archive articles from 2000. Whs itc hy 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add-on comment most if not all the sources are in fact reviews of the place, nothing of real note happened there except for a fish getting caught. Whs itc hy 17:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --Kyle Emerick 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I created the page as my first entry into Wikipedia as I went there almost two months ago now and I thought the place was unreal compared to the other resorts areound it. The owner treated my family like royalty and so when I got back to the states I looked them up and found no Wikipedia page for them. There seem to be plenty of other resorts that have Wikipedia pages and there is nothing at all notable about them. I thought the underground river which makes the area super lush was a reaooddity as the surrounding area is desert and this place in like an oasis. Regaring the referneces, I found all of them on the web or from scanned magazines or newspaper articles either specifically on the region or the resort itself.[reply]
Delete, non-notable resort, no claims of notability, probably part of the Hotel internet marketing SEO scheme. Corvus cornix 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's another reason why I did this, could be part of that. Whs itc hy 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Kyle Emerick 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I visited the resort due to the resorts huge boat fleet which takes you out to one of the best Marlin fishing areas there are in the world. Cabo San Lucas just to the south has great Marlin fishing but the East Cape teems with life like no other sport fishing area, that me and my fishing buddies have ever heard of. The resort is far superior to the other hotels around it and is the reason why I picked it. I would not have flown my family down there had it not been for this places reputation of repeat customers and world renowned sport fishing. Maybe I did not state it well enough but I thought I kept it short and sweet, and I tried to add some history to it other than the place is world renowned for its sport fishing.[reply]
Comment The article doesn't look like spam or advertising. Having reviews in multiple independent publications is plenty to establish notability. Capmango 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It also looks like a promotional item rather than anything else. Virtually any place that was open for at least one season can now provide multiple sourced reviews. Hotel reviews is a weak source of notability. Alex Pankratov 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it looks valid to me and does not look like advertising. I just looked on the reort homepage and the links are all vaild. give the guy a break, its his first article. — 72.197.86.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:56, June 7, 2007 (UTC).
Weak Keep I am normally skeptical about the notability of hotels and restaurants whose only references are articles in local newspapers and tourist magazines., but I followed up the preceding suggestion and looked at the web page, where there are links to many articles from speciaiist fishing journals, and I'm willing to accept that it is a notable fishing resort. Inadequate article. Keep if the refs are inserted properly. DGG 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--Kyle Emerick 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I believe I have edited the references so they show up properly. Please let me know if there is something else I should change. I'd like to create and help out here on Wikipedia and not waste your time everyone. I just thought the resort was unique enought to have one little page on Wikipedia.[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel, unless multiple sources have written about them in detail. Corvus cornix 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: --Kyle Emerick 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC) In just a few minutes of looking, I have viewed over 40 references to the resort and 15 or more are magazine or newspaper articles devoted to the resort. I can add more if it helps but I thought a few references were sufficient. It is the most popular resort in its region by far [7]. It is know as the "Jewel of East Cape" and that region has pretty much the best sport fishing in the world. I'll also add a page to WikiTravel but I think the resort deserves a Wikipedia page. Ask anyone that goes deep sea fishing in that region and I guarantee you they have been to or have heard about the resort.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, and he's 14 per the article, not 16. NawlinWiki 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne O'Brien

The article does not specify which sport Shayne plays as a goalie, but it appears as though there is a 16 year old hockey player named Shayne O'Brien who is a goalie in the Atlantic Youth Hockey League. So, it seems like he exists, but there's no indication that being a star in that league is enough for an athlete to be regarded as notable by Wikipedia's definition. If anyone can find info about another goalie in Connecticut named Shayne O'Brien who is more notable, show us here. Leebo ^T/C 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gray

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any meaningful sources for the author (having a common name makes it harder). Each individual book had only minimal Ghits.Stellatomailing 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per primary criterion of WP:BIO, article subject has not been published on secondary sources. The Sunshine Man 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell WP:COI Whs itc hy 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia St. John

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minimal GHits. Virtually no news coverage[8].Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - claims notability with multiple exhibitions, but sources are needed - Tiswas^(t) 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exhibitions are trade shows and/or non-notable.Stellatomailing 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The degrees are in doubt, too, with the way this is written, presuming it is written by the subject. Established artists have exhibitions which show up readily in on-line google searches--gallery owners and museums know how to do this. KP Botany 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no references. Turgidson 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks NN to me, just a self-advert. Peterkingiron 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KP Botany and Stellatomailing. Freshacconci 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon M. Easton

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest claim to fame is having written six issues of a failed comics mini-series by a small publisher.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source of notability is a red linked article. Otherwise it is unverified - Tiswas^(t) 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling suggests he's actually better known for having written a script for a movie of The Man in the High Castle that was never produced than for any work he ever published. JulesH 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Oleson

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the former members of Newsboys(his name is -supposedly - misspelled as Olesen there). News coverage is trivial and related to his new band.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a member of a notable band, which is enough for WP:MUSIC - Tiswas^(t) 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Appeared on at least two Newsboys albums that I can source, both of which charted on the Billboard 200 Peak and the Top Contemporary Christian/Top Christian Peak charts. He also went on at least two major tours of the US with them. Passes WP:MUSIC. --Charlene 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the policy in WP:MUSIC (#6) gives merit to any member of a band that has an article to have a separate article. In this case, this is definitely a keeper. I am fixing the links on the band article to point to this one. Stellatomailing 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Albrecht

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assistant professor in an University, fails the Wikipedia:Professor test.Stellatomailing 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete his notability would be as a computer fraud detection specialist, not an academic, and I don't see it demonstrated here. DGG 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his notability as computer fraud detection specialist is unsourced and looks dependant on his academical career, I focused on this angle, what would be the only thing who could assert some notability.Stellatomailing 23:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to establish notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very few news and normal academic output. John Vandenberg 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, academic productivity looks appropriate for an assistant prof at a research university but not special enough yet to be noteworthy here. The article is full of fluff: Mormon missionary work, resemblence to Stargate characters, support of open source, spends time learning about new technology? Some amount of human interest is ok but this just looks like unencyclopedic filler. —David Eppstein 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Franklin

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Activist, biggest claim to fame is writing non-notable book.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a notable activist would at least be covered locally, but hte only George Franklin that the San Francisco dailies have covered is another guy entirely. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't actually done anything notable by Wikipedia standards. Nick mallory 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable hole in the ground -- even his band article the Funky Nixons -- was edited by him, and that should be tagged and deleted as well. Bearian 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Sarris

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promoter of a lesser known comedy festival in NY. The festival page claims to be a very famous festival, but the news coverage is limited to trivial sources.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This fellow is not notable. He had an ordinary business career, and then he founded a minor festival. The sources don't do it for me. Yechiel Man 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Carter

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the author had some pieces enacted by high-school students, and a movie that got an award in a regional festival. I couldn't find any information about the movie.Stellatomailing 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some very strong evidence can be found, this guy should not be listed on Wikipedia. The article creator is responsible for all the article content and has no other edits, hence WP:COI. Yechiel Man 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes film-related claims to notability, but I can't find him on IMDB under that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sprung

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-claimed aquarium expert, biggest claim to fame is authoring a non-notable book.Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of a number of aquarium and marine biology books per Amazon [9]. Volume 3 of the reef aquarium series does pretty well at number 19,953 in sales (out of about 4 million titles) at Amazon, for a $56 nonfiction book. Lectures widely, author of magazine articles. Edison 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarification, I used the Wikipedia:Notability (books) as a base for saying the book is non-notable. Stellatomailing 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guideline to whether a book is notable enough to have an article, not whether the author of multiple books is notable or not--or that's what it says in its introduction. Not all of Picasso's sketches are notable enough to have their own entry, this does not mean that Picasso does not merit an article--so don't use that argument, stick with the criteria listed. KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calm down, people. I am just citing that to show the basis of the comment the book was non-notable. Stellatomailing 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Edison. KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the data, looks like the subject has much more importance than what is in the article. Maybe somebody who knows about aquariums could expand/validate this view?Stellatomailing 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be expanded to be kept, though. I posted a note at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes for what it's worth. The guy appears to have written more books on marine aquaria than I thought existed. KP Botany 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a tricky one for me, because I'm a professional writer within the aquarium industry. I've also written books and articles, but don't have (and don't expect) a Wikipedia article on the strength of them. On the other hand, I do accept that some aquarium writers are influential and productive, and should be recognised at some level relative to their output. I don't like the Julian Sprung article as it stands for a variety of reasons though. Primarily, I'm not sure how he can be a "recognized expert". There's no BSc or PhD awarded to 'expert' fishkeepers. Writing for books or magazines doesn't bestow peer-group recognition upon you. It isn't like winning an Olympic medal or Academy Award. Saying he was "a zoologist by training" could mean anything. Does this mean he did a biology degree at university? Or does he have a PhD? Has he ever published anything in the scientific journals or been part of a scholarly research group? The rest of the article seems about promoting his books and company, something not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. So while I accept he may be worth an article here, I'm not at all convinced the article as it stands contains anything of real value. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these issues. He's a zoologist, that implies BS in zoology. It probably took me less time to fix these issues than it took you to write about them. They are the sort of thing that generally should be fixed on Wikipedia. So, now that these issues are fixed, do you have an opinion on keeping or deleting the article? KP Botany 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better now. Keep. I'd perhaps dump the "zoologist" bit though -- a BSc doesn't really make someone a zoologist, all it says is they have a zoology degree. Let's face it: unless you sleep through all four years of college, you can't really fail to get a BSc or BA in most modern universities! Anyway, a "zoologist" is a scientist who studies animals, and unless Sprung has actively researched and published in peer-review journals, he's not really a zoologist. By all means say he studied zoology at the University of Wherever, but to me, a zoologist is someone who was or is active in the field of zoology. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's debatable, but I don't actually know what his degree is in. If it is a BS in zoology, you're right though, it should simply say that. Can you check? KP Botany 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a zoologist BA.Stellatomailing 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? this says BSc. John Vandenberg 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSc it is. Sorry about the mistake. Stellatomailing 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; he is a big fish in the small bowl.. John Vandenberg 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure that's true at all. Big fish would be people like Dick Mills (publishing over 40 years, literally hundreds of books, or Herbert Axelrod, who set up what's become the largest publisher of books on pet animals in the world (TFH). To be honest, I'd not even heard of the guy until I read this thread, and I work in the trade (admittedly, on the freshwater site of the industry). So while he may be a significant figure in the world of aquaristic publishing, I'd not say he's any bigger than, say, Bob Fenner (US), David Sands (UK), or Frank Schaefer (Germany). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This could be a good opportunity to set the bar here. Neale, I understand that the coverage of aquarium books must be naturally small in the media - limiting the verifiability we could get, how could we attest the notability of a particular author? I.e., somebody can write 100 books, but maybe all of them are bad.Stellatomailing 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellatomailing, you're right, but I'm not sure how to answer your question. But as a first pass, you'd perhaps go with writers who have published with mainstream commercial publishers (as opposed to vanity presses, self-publishing, or club/association publications). Such books will usually have a brief biography for verifying details (I certainly know this to be true in my case). The nature of commercial publishing will also mean that such works will [a] have to have reached a certain quality standard; and [b] will have been printed at a certain volume such that the books are available and potentially significant. Beyond this, I'm not really sure how objectively one can "set the bar". I don't know Mr. Sprung's work at all, so can't say whether his 3-volume self-published work is a standard textbook or a vanity project or something in between. But I think I'm being fair to him by saying that while he may be a recognised writer within the marine aquarium field, he isn't in "the big league" as far as publishing goes any more than I am. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neale. Looks like his work is widely cited as good, but the sources are not RS (no NYT, Reuters, etc) but this comes with the niche as we discussed. What would be "big" conventions and magazines in the Aquarists' world?Stellatomailing 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, difficult to answer. The biggest publisher of aquarium (and other pet books) in the US (and indeed the world) is TFH Publications. Then there are smaller pet-specific publishers such as Aqualog and Interpet Publishing. Most other publishers who do non-fiction books, such as Dorling Kindersley and ...for Dummies have done aquarium books of one sort or another. For magazines, the two major league ones in the English language are Tropical Fish Hobbyist (part of TFH) and Practical Fishkeeping (part of EMAP). These two will have circulation figures comparable to other hobby magazines, though rather less sports or lifestyle magazines. There are whole bunch of smaller magazines in the US and UK. I'm not aware of any "big" convention that stands out as the worldwide meeting place for professionals. There are lots of regional ones, but many of the speakers at those won't be writers but breeders, collectors, and businessmen. Not sure how much this helps really. It's a niche market, so you're never going to have fishkeeping writers who get awards from media professionals in the same way as, say, journalists or biographers. On the one hand, you have people like Axelrod who set up multi-million dollar companies, so obviously deserve recognition. On the other hand, you have people like Bob Fenner and Julian Dignall who run web sites that get million+ hits per month as well as being prolific writers in books/magazines. On the third hand (!) you have the likes of David Sands who may be a aquarium writer but is also a scientist and collector, and has published taxonomic works on catfish that get used by other fish scientists, and are honored by the science, for example by having species named after them. So I think people like that obviously deserve recognition. But on the fourth hand you have people like Julian Sprung (and, dare I say it, me) who are basically doing this as a job. He (we) aren't any more influential than any other non-fiction writer, and such recognition as he (we) get will be primarily from the hobbyists. It's basically the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) situation. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like this article is going to be kept, so I am waiting for your article on WP soon. :-) Stellatomailing 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides reliable sources, which support the assertion that he is notable per WP:BIO. The article does not articulate them all very clearly, but that's cause for expansion and cleanup, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable expert within the field of fishkeeping, no need to extend any sort of WP:BIAS about it. RFerreira 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a marine aquarium hobbyist for a few decades, I have found very few "experts" that I trust. Sprung is one of the best. As a speaker for local reefs clubs, national and international conferences, he is great. I think comparing him to authors of freshwater aquarium books is like comparing apples to oranges? The above references to authors of other hobbies are moot?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.218.63 (talk • contribs) — 71.35.218.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel liaño

Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Stellatomailing 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is there not real assertion of notability, the whole thing sounds a bit wierd. He was a member of groups called "]]" and "." (assuming these are not typos). His infobox lists an instrument but no mention of music is made in the article. He joined the "Art League" (whatever that is) at age 12. Hmmm. Anyway, no indication of notable showings, reviews, etc. is given. Herostratus 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Anthony Walker

Another blow-by-blow crime report. Again newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. Is it just me or do these all seem to stress alleged racial overtones? -Doc^g 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely well-known crime, was widely covered at the time by all major British newspapers. Yes, a lot of these stress racial overtones: that's one of the things that turns an otherwise run-of-the-mill crime into something that makes front page headlines in national papers. Definitely notable by the definition at WP:N. JulesH 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of on-going notability? Sure, murders and trials hit the newspapers. So what?--Doc^g 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard news story blown up by the tabloid press due to the involvement of a relation of a professional footballer. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the crime was the subject of much news coverage at the time, I think this article would be more suited for Wikinews. The Sunshine Man 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder if murdercruft is going to be the latest trend on wikipedia. How many of these articles can people create? Lurker 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cases like these are a bit murkier than the usual notability dispute, as it does in fact meet notability guidelines and has multiple, reliable sources. However the victim has no notability beyond the murder, making this more a news article than an encyclopedia article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waffling keep. There is an abundance of murdercruft on Wikipedia to be sure, but this one surpasses the standard level of media attention that these sort of stories tend to generate. Burntsauce 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newscruft, murdercruft, whatever. delete. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the BBC isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is. And anyone calling something cruft isn't giving a reason for deletion that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Its just saying "I don't like it". It also is showing regional bias against events outside the USA. If it was covered on CNN you would have heard of the event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in the UK, and I'd also say delete any similar cases from any country. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also British and a great fan of the BBC. Please don't second guess people's motives ond certainly don't accuse them of bias.--Doc^g 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N in respect of crime figures (victims, criminals, defendants, witnesses) is in process of being fixed. WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Even though we do not have to keep an article on every crime which gets a couple of newspaper stories, per WP:NOT, this crime is somewhat more than ordinary in its import, since it was racially motivated (per "urban life Darcus Howe. New Statesman. London: Jan 9, 2006. Vol.19, Iss. 893; pg. 17, 1 pgs" the killers were angered to see a black student walking with his white girlfriend). This is not included in the article, and I'm not sure with all the BLP deletions if we are now allowed to mention it.), a killer was related to a prominent sports figure (not unlike Michael Skakel the Kennedy relative who was convicted of murdering a teenage girl Martha Moxley giving that crime enhanced notability), and they fled outside the country before being apprehended. Edison 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep nominator as well as subsequent "delete" supporters have not mentioned any specific wikipedia policies/guidelines this article violates. It says very clearly that when you nominate something you need to put that in there, and if the delete supporters can't even help you out, i don't know why we're bothering having this discussion. Barsportsunlimited 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A basis for deleting an article about someone or something which has been in the news is WP:NOT where it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and continues "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This should apply to articles about crimes or dead people, even though it was written with the apparent intent of deleting articles which might embarass persons who were in the news. Policies are also written by the consensus of AFDs, where it appears that a number of editors feel an encyclopedia is not a newspaper or a news/crime archive, or a collection medical oddities or water cooler stories or cute animal stories. Edison 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crime was a particulary grusome one and was purely racially motivated, involving to men who premeditated his death by rushing to get a murder weapon. You can compare it two other articles Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor. I strongly agree that not every crime or criminal needs a forensic examination on Wikipedia. But this is still a notable incident and is still used by journalists to demonstrate hate crime in the UK. Mike33 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not count the Independent front page as an measure of notability; I do count BBC. DGG 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just another article to be proposed for deletion in the binge being undertaken by DocG. This article is a highly notable murder as it was racially motivated and this was cited by the judge and a large voluyme of media coverage was given to this case.--Lucy-marie 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just an average murder - the racial motive, age/popularity of the victim and link to Joey Barton ensured this was front page stuff.--Vintagekits 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is denying this was front-page stuff. But front-page stuff isn't necessarily worthy of a Wikipedia article. The question is- is there a long-lasting effect? Lurker 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Racial murder cases get lots of attention. Think Emmett Till or Amadou Dialo. Certain crime victims, by the very nature of the crime, merit bios. Think Kitty Genovese. Rather than being "unencyclopedic", I believe that no encyclopedic purpose is achieved by deleting these sorts of articles. --JJay 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the BBC is a perfectly valid source here. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep - this was a notorious racially-motivated murder - not an "average" murder. Note for USA users: murder is much less common in UK than USA.User:Peterkingiron 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable (as in notorious) racially motivated murder worthy of encyclopedic coverage. RFerreira 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why? What is the clear evidence it was racially motivated? Just because the attackers were white and the victim black? Would you say that if it were the other way around? How do you know this entire crowd didn't know each other and hated each other for schoolboy reasons which had nothing to do with race? Wikipedia should not be an alternative emotive Daily Mirror. Thousands of people are murdered annually. David Lauder 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CPS and practically every media outlet regardless of political outlook would tend to suggest it was racially motivated. Got a source that says different? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my everyman opinion thats all. You know as well as I do that the media blow these things up. You will also know how youths behave towards each other and the language they use. My view is that actually proving a crime is racist is almost impossible. You will also know that the CPS plays to the gallery (and political pressure). Whatever, I cannot see how murders of this sort warrant inclusion in an encylcopaedia. There must have been thousands of similar murders int he USA, South Africa, etc., and if we include this we should include them. David Lauder 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I've already agreed with the deletion above, but there's no denying that it was clearly a racially motivated crime. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the articles first Afd - it was intially called Anthony Walker (now a redirect) and passed Afd in 2006. (It came up on my suggestbot today) Mike33 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High-profile, heavily reported murder case. In what way is this not encyclopaedic? -- Necrothesp 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As per nominator's remarks. Nothing encyclopaedic about this at all. It is just another page from the crime registers hyped up by the media. Had he been an MP or important figure it might have been different. David Lauder 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all murder victims are encyclopedic! --Counter-revolutionary 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tell us which ones are then. -- Necrothesp 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like Ian Gow, Airey Neave and Sir Norman Stronge, oh, and Prince Louis Mountbatten or Faisal II &c.--Counter-revolutionary 10:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it - when a bigot is killed then thats notable but when someone is killed by a bigots thats not. Glad I got that cleared up.--Vintagekits 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if they're famous before they're murdered then they're notable. If they're famous for being murdered then they're not? No Yvonne Fletcher. No victims of Jack the Ripper. Basically only people who have been assassinated. Sorry, I completely disagree. However, Vintagekits's remark was utterly uncalled for. -- Necrothesp 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ridiculously notable murder, one of the greatest in terms of media coverage in recent years. I'm surprised this got nominated, some news incidents are incredibly trivial and forgotten about very quickly (Essjay, Joshua Gardner etc.), this isn't. - hahnch e n 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable murders in recent times, heavily reported by non-trivial third party sources. Myles Long 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th Cat

Unnotable novel, poorly written article, unreferences, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 14:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently a very popular manga series in Korea [10]. JulesH 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep The article as it stands is useless. It does not give any kind of encyclopaedic information -- when was it written? In what medium is it published? In what language(s)? How many issues? Is it ongoing? The storyline section is unnecessary, but that's all there is right now. If it's going to be kept, it at least needs an infobox manhwa and an external link. The manhwa list includes 'The 11th Cat', which should be set up as a redirect here also. Capmango 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been changed to address my main complaints. I still think article is way to heavy on plot synopsis and way to light on encyclopedic content, but it has earned its 'keep'. Capmango 01:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this make me the 12th cat? -- Cat ^chi? 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable, but needs major cleanup. -- Ned Scott 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Ned Scott (Duane543 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Leneghan

Another one. Poor child was raped and murdered - do we need to record it. Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedic, no. We have too many of these British child muder victims - and many seem to be chosen for their possible racial dynamic. I don't want to imply anything, but.... -Doc^g 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the 'biography' of her killed Adrian Thomas (now made into a redirect) needs nuked too.--Doc^g 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh delete this, it appears to be motivated primarily by a political agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill this article. Appearing in the papers doesn not make an incident worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless the crime is particularly notorious, or has a long-lasting effect such as leading to the creation of a new law, it does not belong in wikipedia Lurker 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable crime. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability (speedy candidate therefore?) and very little chance that it can be expanded at this time. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, news article that is unsuitable as an encyclopedia article. No notability outside of being the victim of an otherwise non-notable crime. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, this happens every day, but it does not make the subject of such a crime worthy of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 17:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments in the Afd above. Carlossuarez46 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT] we do not have to keep an article for every crime which was in the newspapers. Otherwise it would be "Crimopedia." Edison 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, Guy, Lyrjer, violet, Arkyan and Burntsauce. JoshuaZ 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The racial dynamic is what makes them at lest newsworthy, and the general public agrees, as hate crimes statutes demonstrate. I think we can follow it. This was a double murder attempt. I however notice signs that t he articles are being written to a formula, though by different people, with emphasis on how long the guilty will stay in prison. To the extent we are encyclopedic, we should probably not include photos in most cases. DGG 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that you can get famous by murdering someone can encourage unstable minds to committing a crime.

Keep. High profile, heavily reported murder case. Very definitely encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED patent nonsense. -Doc^g 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futtergate

Contested prod. No references. No google hits. Of dubious signficance outside a local community. Rick Block (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valdeck Almeida de Jesus

Appears to be hoax, but not obviously so. The author of the article is capable of, and has written, other articles with better grammar, so I don't think the wackiness of the article can be attributed to language barrier. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or not, the article doesn't even claim (much less attempt to verify) any real notability. Almost a speedy for that reason alone, except that the list of places in which the poetry has been (allegedly?) published is fairly extensive. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Hmm. Looks like he is the same as this guy.Stellatomailing 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdeck de Almeida, still open. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO; please note that I created a proper English-language entry for Valdeck de Almeida, which is also being considered for deletion, unfortunately. He does exist and is a published author. jrk3150 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Ken

Previously speedy deleted per A7, the article has been recreated. While the radio station is indeed notable, notability does not necessarily flow down to programs on that station. While the article makes claims of notability, these are unsourced. Mattinbgn/^talk 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, a fair call on cascading notability not applying here. No establishment of notability for the individual show, no reliable sources to back up claims, I could go on but i'll label it WP:VSCA and be done. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with all points made so far. On top of that, I haven't been able to find any RS and, frankly, didn't expect to find any. The hosts wouldn't have passed WP:NOTRSH (which is defunct) and don't seem to pass WP:BIO. I'd say that if they make it big, they certainly should have their own article but, at this point in time, I believe their Myspace page and the station's website to be a more appropriate venue. So, yeah, delete. --Seed 2.0 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - Should be a paragraph or sentence under the relevant radio station's page, not an article. Orderinchaos 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no RS turned up in search. John Vandenberg 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS.Garrie 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you can provide RS for their being finalists you will probably find sufficient sources for each presenter to pass WP:BIO. Unless of course, nominations are based on "your own station nominates every show for every eligible award"Ga rr ie 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Thewinchester above. Lankiveil 13:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted G1 by NawlinWiki. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure).[reply]

Irish Brotherhood

Reason ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This article was completely made up by one author. There is no such author who made those books. A quick Google search for "john o'shea" "saints and sinners" "all saints' day" turned up nothing except this article. Most of the data is about Rainbow from Rainbow Six, but some of the names changed, most of the time not though. It's obvious that this content was invented by one person. By the way, this articles is almost identical to The Saints (special forces), written by the same author. ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, since the vast majority of the the article is copied from Rainbow Six, as noted. Propaniac 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Delete Well done by nominator for detecting the hoaxJdeJ 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete all g1, patent nonsense/hoax cut & paste. NawlinWiki 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Saints (special forces)

Reason ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This article was completely made up by one author. There is no such author who made those books. A quick Google search for "john o'shea" "saints and sinners" "all saints' day" turned up nothing except this article. Most of the data is about Rainbow from Rainbow Six, but some of the names changed, most of the time not though. It's obvious that this content was invented by one person. ColdFusion650 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are characters in these imaginary novels:[reply]

ColdFusion650 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, since the vast majority of the the article is copied from Rainbow Six, as noted. Propaniac 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as hoax material. 68.186.51.190 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious! Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well done by nominator for detecting the hoaxJdeJ 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Scrapbooker

This topic does not deserve its own article. The creator made it to highlight one website listed in the links section. This topic can be covered sufficiently in a subsection of the Scrapbooking article, and that is where it belongs. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article can't stand the way it is now, but it can be improved so its not constantly in 2nd person and a "How to" guide. I think that an article can only be deleted per WP:Nobility; otherwise it can be improved, as is the case here. W1k13rh3nry 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article does not seem to have significant content; as a second choice, whatever content is considered useful can be merged into Scrapbooking. --Metropolitan90 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is a personal essay about why this article should exist. Without sources I see no reason to keep, as this information would be appropriate for inclusion on the Scrapbooking page.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to notability issues, this article appears to be entirely original research, per WP:OR. -Chunky Rice 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article will be improved, I promise. -User:Yummytork
- You created this article as spam "on behalf of your clients." That's not what Wikipedia is for. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota E153 transaxle

The article is about a specific car part. I can't see how a specific implementation of a car part can be notable. The article does not establish any notability, is unreferenced, unwikified and appears to be information out of a manual. Harryboyles 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:Nobility. As google says: "251 for Toyota E153 transaxle". Not enough results to show nobility, and plus it sounds like it came straight out of a manual. W1k13rh3nry 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, although I should caution against arguing that there are "not enough Google hits to establish notability." (See WP:GOOGLE#Validity_of_the_Google_test and WP:GOOGLEHITS.) --Hnsampat 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staffroom monlogues

Article about a TV competition of apparently low notability, and appears to be a conflict of interest and faintly spammy (article creator is User:Teacherstv. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable programme on non-notable channel. Unencyclopedic tone. And spam too. BTLizard 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the channel is notable, this isn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. JMalky 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing. --Evb-wiki 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Whelan

Another murder victim. Newsworthy - yes. Encyclopedic - no. We seem to have had quite a lot of these all seeming to highlight alleged evidence of race-crime in the Britain. Please delete this per the others. -Doc^g 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad to say, murder is far too common to confer notability on its victims. BTLizard 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a memorial or a newspaper, this is a news story not a biography. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Guy. By the own description of the story the news remained completely local. Maybe if it recieved wider coverage there might be an argument for keeping it, but being a murder victime is almost by defintion 15 minutes of fame unless the person is killed by a celebrity or the person's death starts a riot or something similar. JoshuaZ 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Also it has weakly supported, seemingly politically motivated undertones. --Evb-wiki 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The accusations of racial bias this story promoted are vaguely notable. Perhaps a better venue would be an article on racial bias in the British media, however. JulesH 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy, we really don't want articles on every single crime, leave that for WikiNews. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is not a news site Lurker 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, newsworthy information is not necessarily the same thing as encyclopedic information. Has no notability beyond showing up in a few crime-report bits. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, better off with Wikinews not here. Burntsauce 17:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not Crimopedia or a memorial or a newspaper. Delete per WP:NOT miscellaneous information. See essay WP:NOTNEWS. Could be put in Wikinews. Edison 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP Help 'ma boab. Well you could say at this point snow stops play -Doc^g 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Cup 2004-05

Pages like this covering the cup back to the 1940s. Info better suited to a sports guide? JMalky 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can only assume this nomination is a joke. How about deleting all the stuff about the English F.A. cup next? Or the Stanley Cup? Or the Ashes? At least the nominator gave the writers of the article a full seven minutes between posting a notability tag and putting it up for AfD. Nick mallory 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Plus there is already a precedent for such articles on domestic cup competitions - equivalent articles exist for FA Cup, German Cup, Danish Cup, Italian Cup, Norwegian Cup, Spanish Cup etc etc. With regard to articles dating back to the 1940s, the FA Cup follows along similar lines in that there is an article for each final. This is just the same thing, only the final has been incorporated with the full results for each round. Forbsey 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definetley notable. Mattythewhite 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept. definately notable. My reasons are also the reasons stated in the above Keeps. - Jackm (Talk - Contributions) 10:31, 6 June 2007
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the preceding comments. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Notable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well given the amazing outcry above it looks like it's going to stay. But whichever way you look at it, the article and it's siblings are essentially a long list of statistics. Notability of the Scottish Cup isn't in question by the way. But info who won the semi final in 1952 certainly is. Seriously guys, this is meant to be an encyclopedia. Not a football annual. JMalky 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the default action for notable articles which look like lists of statistics should be to introduce prose in between the statistical tables, expanding on what is contained therein. We should never just throw it in the bin without trying. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very useful, notable, verifiable, valid historical information. Certainly more worthy of its place in any encyclopedia than every single episode of a TV series for example. - fchd 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who are you kidding? W1k13rh3nry 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me it all looks like a bad faith nomination. --Angelo 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shocker of a nomination! WikiGull 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)

That is not such point to create this page while there is no reliable source to tell about the list of team, again this consider crystal ball. Aleen f1 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason as above:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic sports-guide cruft. JMalky 10:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no point in having these now. Punkmorten 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~still 3 years away, maybe needed in 3 years, but now now.~~ Ok, the qualifying starts alot sooner. Maybe merge? redirect? Jackrm 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk — Contributions)[reply]

Actually, when it says "2010 qualification" it means the qualification rounds for the 2010 event, which start next year I believe. The qualification isn't three years away. Still too early for any concrete info, though.... ChrisTheDude 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Qualification for the 2010 FIFA World Cup starts August 2007 in some regions, and early 2008 for the others, so I dont see the point in deleting these right now given they'll be back for good in less than six months time. Article does little harm where it is, needs fleshing out & referencing though. Qwghlm 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly (as I nominated this for deletion) I agree with this. The preliminary qualifying round draws for a number of confederations are likely sooner rather than later (OFC on 12 June is the first - the others were actually scheduled for May but will probably occur in June too) and therefore information will need to be placed somewhere. Eventually these articles will be too big to merge (so that seems pointless). It doesn't help that the person who recreated the article appears to be a moron (sorry POV) but there seems no point in deleting. But some changes will be required. --Jlsa 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned for making personal attacks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an empty article would explain it better. Consider also a redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification. --Angelo 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article holds no useful information yet, and won't until the time of the draw for the qualification groups. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a considerable amount of information already available about these qualifying tournaments that should be added to these pages (e.g., here). Deleting them would not be a good move, since they would need to be recreated pretty soon anyway - qualification for the 2010 World cup starts in only two months time. This is clearly a case of cleanup, not delete. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until there's any real information about the teams entering qualification. As it stands now, this is just a list of countries in the regions linked to their national teams - some of which (Djibouti is a classic example and I'm sure there are others) haven't even entered the qualification tournaments for recent World Cups. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if deleted now, it would have to be restored not so long from now when the schedules are available. The article is useful where it is now, as it shows the teams who have entered. And I found the article simply by typing in the title. It told me what I wanted to know. Deleting would be just plain silly, compared to the retention of many, many articles about detailed aspects of various fantasy worlds that Wikipedia has! Nfitz 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't like citing standards but you might want to look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. On anther note, nobody has mentioned the possibility of merging this information with another article. Might that be an option? JMalky 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I wasn't trying to say other crap exists. I was trying to say that crap exists, so why worry about the non-crap! But that aside - yes I can see an argument to merge; except that we all know that within a few weeks these articles will be necessary. So while I don't think I'd have bothered to create them at this stage, I don't see any point going to all the trouble and energy of deleting them. Now if someone creates an article for the 2014 qualifiers, then I can see deletion. Nfitz 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're very, very right about there being a lot of crap around. But one man's crap is another man's... not crap. It's actually with that in mind that I change my vote to Merge with 2010 FIFA World Cup. JMalky 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a quick point, there's nothing I can find source-wise which says that any of the countries involved have actually entered anything yet. Most of them will, I'm sure, but none of them appear to have done so just at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        FIFA have released the list of entries, or at least the fact that all members apart from Bhutan, Philippines, Brunei Darussalam and Laos have entered - see here - fchd 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm genuinely surprised, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I suppose this is not technically crystal ball material, there is no actual concrete information yet about the qualification groups, etc. - and so the article is completely pointless. Wait until there's something to be written about. Robotforaday 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pretty small in detail but perhaps it can be expanded? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just needs to be expanded. Manic Hispanic 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpublished facts WP:OR. Item 8 of Reasons for deletion.--ClaudioMB 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that information from FIFA's own website counts as "unpublished facts". "Facts from the horse's mouth", perhaps. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source reference in the article. If the information was already published, please add a link into the article. What I know is that almost sure all members of a confederation will compete in its own qualification, but that is not guaranteed. A member could be sacked by its confederation or FIFA. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.--ClaudioMB 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if deletead,the article may need to be re-written again.This still carrys some info about the qualifacation.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). The redirect will be protected for a month to discourage recreation. --Core desat 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000 (number)

This article keeps on coming back. See the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number). I still believe this article should not exist. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the result of the discussion at DRV was to relist (although the closer said that redirects are not open for discussion there), I've reopened this AfD and reverted my earlier redirect decision. Please let the discussion run for five days. Thanks. Sr 13 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When people are reviewing the page, please look at the page as it stood at the beginning of this discussion (that in history : 09:54, 6 June 2007 by Sr13), rather than the one that has been substantially changed by another user, with, IMO, nonsense sentences on 'it is quite a large number', etc. Looking at the original page hopefully provides the best context and consistency for this discussion. The Yeti 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Its just a load of rubbish. — Taggard (Complain) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would we need this? JJL 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Delete, protect if necessary. Jmlk 1 7 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can somebody pass the salt?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well put comment above. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever salvageable and redirect to the existing Tera article. The latter would be an adequate indirect method of salting. Other than that, I guess it qualifies as a... WP:POVFORK! Niko Silver 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAFT per above Whs itc hy 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) like its brethren, and then protect. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and salt. Edison 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan is a preferable solution. The Orders of magnitude (numbers) page does a decent job of covering 10¹². Possibly the three Fibonacci numbers could be merged. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete as per most others. Dalejenkins 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) per above. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, guys, in case you didn't notice my message above, there is an existing sub-article of Orders of magnitude (numbers), which directly relates to the specific number. It's called Tera, and it is consistent with Kilo, Mega, pico, nano etc. Give it a look please; I think we should redirect there. Niko Silver 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan, merging any content not already covered in Orders of magnitude (numbers). This number is only semi-interesting because of the scourge of creeping decimalism, which must be resisted in whatever form it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, that's one of the most inspired arguments I've ever read here! I doubt most readers will know what we're talking about though... Niko Silver 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not the number article in itself, but what links to it - the point is that when billion/trillion is typed into Wikipedia, it brings up a disambiguation page for these terms (try them & see). The disambiguation page has come about because there are two different numerical numbers for billion/trillion (see long and short scale). To keep the disambiguation pages 'clean' and to avoid arguments and edit wars on the billion/trillion pages, it is simplest to link through to the actual number (1000000000000). I dont care about 10^11 or 10^13, but 10^12 does have its uses ! In fact, according to WP:NUM#How far to go?, powers of ten upto 10^11 are considered OK to exist. Why is 10^12 deemed one too far, particular when it has the billion/trillion ambiguity and then also has standard word name(s) and an si term ? With regards to the previous nomination, the billion and trillion pages have gone through large changes since then. At the very least it should be a Redirect to ~~the sub-article of Orders of Magnitude~~ Tera. The Yeti 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:NUM#How far to go? says "... Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10^11, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property." Since 10^12 does have a standard SI prefix for SI units, and also has not just one but two different standard word names, having an article on it would clearly be okay according to that even without the special need for disambiguation which "trillion" presents. Cardamon 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect, then protect. There are infinitely many numbers of the form 10^X, and WP cannot have articles on each of these. The redirect is appropriate, but deleting the content before redirecting discourages the creation of similar articles. Xoloz 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tera, not order of magitude (numbers). Astroguy2 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I have encountered the problem that User:RJHall described in the original June 2006 AFD discussion, many times -- namely, some well-meaning wikipedian, who, counting on their fund of general knowledge, "corrected" something, so that it was actually no longer correct. It is maddening. And, sometimes avoidable. In this case, it is avoidable. So, let's keep the article and avoid the problems RJHall described.
- Hut 8.5 wrote:"we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't." —— I agree, only that we don't need articles about every number. But, there are a bunch of numbers that are special, and should have articles about them. Not just zero and pi, but dozens or hundreds of others. I believe a strong case has been made that this is one of them.
- I do not agree that a redirection to Tera would best serve the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage delete fans to apply a what links here -- sanity check. Over one hundred articles use a link, or a piped link to 1000000000000 (number). The links I have looked at from the "what links here" list are all nouns. Tera is not a noun. It is either an adjective, or just a word fragment, a prefix. That would be inherently confusing to readers.
  - Does it really make sense for someone who clicks on trillion in an article on the Federal Reserve System, or the Weimar Republic, to find themselves at Tera? I don't think so. We might all be numerate. Everyone here in this discussion might be comfortable with number, not suffer from discalculi. But that doesn't mean we should make the wikipedia less accessible to those who aren't numerate, who do suffer from discalculi. I question whether any article that deals with 1000000000000 in a monetary context should link to tera.
  - Consider One trillion (basketball) -- does it make sense for a click here to send the reader to tera?
  - Consider standard cubic foot, does a link to tera really make sense.
  - I wish those making nominations for deletion, or endorsing deletion, would make the effort to check the "what links here" list first, and think about how the deletion they favour affects the articles that link to the article they want to get rid of.
  - Cheers! Geo Swan 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just... stupid... If this lives, I'm going to find a way to justify making my phone number an article... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and unlink the references to it (and trillion) in other articles. Same arguments as the last AfD are coming out again - no surprise there. - fchd 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So that people can continue to wikilink to it to when they use the word "trillion" so as to make it clear what they mean. Cardamon 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to a deletion and then a redirect to Tera. To address Geo Swan's concerns, I'd propose the compromise solution of redirecting to the subsection of Orders of magnitude (numbers) which discusses the particular number: Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 (only it doesn't look nice since "12" is not ^superscript. Coming to think of it, shouldn't there be a centralized discussion for all these numbers somewhere? I'd hate it if (a supposed) 1 000 000 000 was redirected to giga rather than the subsection of "Orders of..." if we decide differently here... NikoSilver 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tera is only for SI units. It is not really correct for a quantity that is a pure number, or for non-SI units. Using Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 risks someone only noticing what article they were sent to and not realizing that the section of the article to which they were sent was meant as a disambiguation. Actually, for the very fastest disambiguation, I would prefer to rename the article to 1,000,000,000,000, which is currently a redirect to Names of large numbers. Then the main point of the article would be apparent just by mousing over trillion, and would also be the first, and largest font-size, part of the article to hit the eye of those who clicked through. Cardamon 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I've been wondering what number follows 999,999,999,999 and precedes 1,000,000,000,001. But now I've found out, just Delete it. Masaruemoto 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numbers should be considered notable when there is something noteworthy to say, adnd for this number there is, and the above discussion has proved it. if it were, say, one higher or lower, we would have deleted it without discussion.DGG 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). Alone, this article is totally pointless. Useight 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect some place useful, and protect. >Radiant< 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trillion. I find it difficult to understand how I am the first to suggest this when it seems so obvious, or am I missing something? LittleOldMe 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something, and that is that not everyone calls this number a trillion. Clarifying that is the main purpose of the article IMO. --Itub 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This number is notable precisely because of the ambiguity of its name. At the very least it should stay as a disambiguation page. A redirect to tera is not appropriate, because tera is an SI prefix, not a number. --Itub 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that could apply to any number over 1,000,000,000. As an aside, what do all the "other 13 digit numbers" listed on the page add to the article? - fchd 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the naming problem applies to any numbers greater than or equal to 10^9, and I would certainly not advocate creating an article for numbers such as 10^360. However, I think 10^12 is notable because it is the first or second smallest number suffering from such ambiguity (depending on how you count), and it is possibly the largest order of magnitude that people actually bother spelling out, or even writing as a number without scientific notation or other type of abbreviation. People talk about billions and trillions frequently. The same is not the case for octodecillions, for example. --Itub 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus! We definitely need a centralized discussion for all these! We have two English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales), we have scientific names (kilo, mega, tera etc), we have the numbers themselves (1,000,000; 1,000,000,000 etc), and we have an article containing all of them (Orders of magnitude (numbers)). Now multiply this times all notable numbers; and you will see how many different results may be decided in separate AfD's!! Is there a Wikiproject or something discussing these? Niko Silver 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So there seems to be as many people for delete as redirect in this discussion, and the keeps are also closing in. Of the redirects, there's confusion on whether Orders of magnitude (numbers) or Tera is better. Is there really a desperate need to delete this one article from Wikipedia, given there seems little consensus on what to do, and all the ambiguities? The Yeti 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [edit conflict] Personally I doubt this is controversial or anything. We just need to get our thoughts together. Strike redir to Tera, and make it to Orders etc; not an issue by me as I'm mostly convinced. What I'm concerned about is consistency with the rest. I think we need to discuss the following agenda:
  - Confirm that the main article for all will be Orders of magnitude (numbers).
  - Address which numbers will be dealt with in there (up and down limits).
  - Clarify how the information will be separated between:
    - Main article (Orders...)
    - Numbers as such (1 000 000, 1 000 000 000, etc): separate articles? / redirected to Orders? / deleted completely?
    - English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales): redirected and merged to Orders? / piled together?
      - Trillion/billion x 2 scales - God no! We're trying clarify things, not make it worse!
    - SI terms (kilo, mega, giga, tera etc): separate articles? redirected and merged to Orders?
- I think this agenda should be discussed (or if it is already discussed pls point me to the discussion); and then we will be all happy. We can always salt everything outside the conversation to be safe, and we will point links to this centralized discussion in all relative talkpages. Then we're done. Niko Silver 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete), because the nominated article has no information besides what is in Orders of magnitude (numbers). Sentences like "1000000000000 is the number between 999999999999 and 1000000000001" are not useful information. I really doubt we could write more than a couple of sentences about 10^12, and articles that are necessarily so short are routinely merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the same format layout as that for 1000000 (number), 10000000 (number), 100000000 (number), and 1000000000 (number). (ie) 'consistency witht the rest' The Yeti 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I got this the first time. I agreed before, I agree even more now: redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and protect if necessary. Niko Silver 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete) Per User:Jitse Niesen. The last AfD, from June 2006, also ended with a verdict of 'Redirect and delete'. Since the editors who re-created an actual article (without any intervening DRV) were overriding the decision of the AfD, I believe that this time the creation of a protected redirect is justified. The present article has little informational value for our readers, while Orders of magnitude is quite well written and can answer some of the same questions. EdJohnston 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per trillion/billion linkage cleanliness and to allow discussion about possible redirect as mentioned by The Yeti and Niko (and others) to occur in a cleaner environment than AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as billion/trillion ambiguity provides sufficient encyclopedic content, particularly for linking those words. After keeping it, consider renaming to 1,000,000,000,000 (but not immediately because that needs broader discussion about naming principles for articles about large numbers). The silly sentences about 999999999999 and 1000000000001, as well as the various multiples of 1111111111111 in the table may well be purged from the article without deleting it completely. –Henning Makholm 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (alrady voted delete...) I would think that "this article provides a place for people to link to" is a poor justification. There's no really useful comment in the article that's particular this number other than adding a few more digits than in 100. We judge article based on what they contain, not how many times we can link to something that doesn't really say much but has pretty boxes. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity to be particular to this number? Strange. –Henning Makholm 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it's little more than a dictionary defintion issue, not the basis for an encyclopaedic article. - fchd 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the complaints about possibly losing a link to the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity - how does wikilinking to this page help the user determine which one is being used? Not much. Articles for the words "billion" and "trillion" already exist and already document this ambiguity, a seperate article for the number does nothing to help inform. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are two more reasons for keeping this page. This shows that at least one non-native speaker of English recently searched for 1000000000000 in order to find the English word for it. So the page can be useful to non-native speakers of English. Also, the content, while admittedly far beneath the notice of professional mathematicians, could possibly be useful to, say, middle school students. Please consider that an encyclopedia is written for its readers, and that Wikipedia has a lot of readers and potential readers in the categories I have mentioned. Cardamon 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All this can be achieved by redirecting to order of magnitude. My point is that the only thing that the page should say is that the number is usually called trillion in English, but sometimes billion. An encyclopaedia does not consist of loose facts, it consists of articles which collect facts together. Thus, one fact does not make an article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would prefer to see the article title with commas "1,000,000,000,000", if it is kept. The string of zeros is difficult to take in. However, what is perhaps needed is substantive, rather than disambiguation articles on billion, trillion, and quadrillion, in which case this article could be retained as a disambiguation page. The present articleis certainly stuffed with the inconsequential, but the solution to that is to delete, not AFD. Peterkingiron 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this page be a disambiguation page? The number 1,000,000,000,000 is not ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me spell this out. As you yourself mention above, the English words billion and trillion are ambiguous. You can use 1000000000000 (number) as a disambiguation page as follows: To disambiguate trillion, if 1000000000000 (number) is the number meant, type [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] into the edit box rather than just typing trillion. That disambiguates the trillion by pointing the reader to the actual number that is meant. ~~Or, if you had an old quote which used the word billion to mean 1000000000000 (number), you could replace the word billion with [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion ]] , thus disambiguating it.~~ Cardamon 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm sorry, I think that is the least user-friendly of all the suggestions so far. - fchd 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ???? How are wikilinks like trillion "the least user-frendly solution so far"? Granted, moving the article to "1,000,000,000,000" would be better than keeping it where it is.Cardamon 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd expect that if the word trillion is linked, it goes to the article [[trillion]] . That's what links usual do. If you're concerned that the reader may misunderstand trillion, then you should explain it in the article (see also Septentrionalis below). It's not user-friendly to expect the reader to realize that the link [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] is an atypical link put there to explain the use of the word trillion and to click on the link. That's bad practice and thus not a good reason to keep the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 1,000,000,000,000 (number). This number is notable in being the largest number that is generally talked about outside of scientific usage. Voortle 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hurts my eyes, and it is pointless. There should at least be commas, or title it "One million million". Oh, just delete it.
Keep. As Cardamon points out, the terms billion and trillion are ambiguous. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a good idea to end the confusion about "Is that a million million, or a thousand million"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No additional information above Order of magnitude (numbers). The differences between US and Euro uses of number words is fully described in Long and short scales. -- MightyWarrior 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not keep an article around just to disambiguate trillion. As a financial term, trillion is in practice unambiguous, unless someone can come up with a genuine citation for £10¹⁸. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article that uses billion to mean 10^12 in a financial context, and uses the page you want to delete to disambiguate it. Is that close enough for you? Cardamon 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I grant that billion is ambiguous. But (precisely for that reason) the article should say "one hundred million million (10¹⁴)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is about German banknotes which used the German "billion" for 10¹² during hyperinflation. Here is an example which both says "Fünf billionen" and "5000 milliarden" (milliard = 10⁹). Others at [11] only said billion. PrimeHunter 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of message forwarding in Objective-C

Not appropriate for an encyclopedia Jibjibjib 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:NOT#INFO. Placeholder account 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but investigate the possibility of 'transwiki. Wikibooks may have a use for this sort of material. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest shortening and merging into Objective-C, but it already has such an example. Digwuren 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Capmango 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing encyclopedic about it. Per above. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Pankratov 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirely López

The biography of a child who was allegedly the survivor of a massacre. Number of problems here 1) Can't verify it. [[12]] - Google almost blanks. 2) May violate BLP - as only notable for involvement in one incident. 3) I'd be tempted to merge the article into an article on the massacre, except the massacre is undefined and may not be notable enough for an article. 4) The first afd someone rather absurdly said keep "unless de-verified" and the closing admin seemed satified. So, delete unless verified. If verified please merge.--Doc^g 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, signifigance is only regional. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. I'm surprised this got even regional notability. Resurgent insurgent 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot be verified. Maybe the original author can track down some more references - Until then, lock it away. - Tiswas^(t) 10:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V, WP:BIO. The Prensa Libre link is the only one of a handful of relevant links that isn't a Wiki mirror, so this would fail WP:V on that account alone. The Prensa Libre link, incidentally, isn't loading. RGTraynor 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here is a news report for the event; four people were killed. The details of the article dont match exactly. John Vandenberg 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a weekly news gazette. WP:NOT says "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." One article , which does not even support all the claims in the article, specifically the claim of a massacre, does not justify an encyclopedia article. Edison 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, soapbox, crimepedia, cruft. Bearian 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend toward trying to find some place for these topics, but I don't see one here. This "massacre" was apparently the murder of four people in the same household. A tragic crime, to be certain, but from the article's phrasing, I was expecting the subject to have survived some sort of significant paramilitary action. There is no evidence that this event, or this subject, has had a significant impact in any wider debates, controversies, or issues. Serpent's Choice 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to S Club 8, leaving a redirect in place. Note that this is a form of Keep. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Asforis

Delete.Non-notable unsourced vanity page Smerus 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted in having been a member of a notable music group. Admittedly, this looks like some kind of vanity, but that's no reason to delete. Someguy1221 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Clearly passes WP:MUSIC with membership of notable group - Tiswas^(t) 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with S Club 8 Perhaps someone can point me to the part of WP:MUSIC that says that members of notable bands are de facto notable enough for their own article. The WP:MUSIC that I'm reading says no such thing, and WP:N suggests that band members can generally be treated within the article on the band. Nor is there any suggestion that this person has himself met WP:BIO - not the band, but this individual member. Natalie 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's an inference, more than anything - WP:MUSICcriterion 6. states that bands are notable if a member was once in a notable band - this suggests that the notability is with the person. Otherwise, it assumes that, on leaving notable band A, the person becomes non-notable, and on joining, the new band becomes notable, inheriting the notability, as if the person carried the notability like a recessive virus (which is the only analogy that I can think of). - Tiswas^(t) 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While he passes the notability criteria for musicians. There's very little material not related to said band. I think it's a good idea to Redirect and merge to S Club 8. (But I think it's an even better idea to lump this nomination in with the rest of the members at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Evans. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge - On further consideration, as the constituent members have done articles are mainly repetition. Treat them much as you would WP:EPISODE - start the articles in the main band space, the hive them off as the members become notable in their own right. - Tiswas^(t) 12:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Arthurs

Deletenon-notable, unsourced, apparent vanity page Smerus 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award-winning musician.[13] JulesH 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#A7 & fails WP:MUSIC entirely - Tiswas^(t) 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference given by JulesH is helpful, but it doesn't convince me of notability. Not every music award is worthy of a Wikipedia mention; is the award itself notable? I don't know. Yechiel Man 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSIC. I'm unsold on the notability of the award, which is given to young musicians who show "originality." A directed search on Google UK for "Peter Whittingham Award" (minus Myspace, Wikipedia and the award's website) turns up only 81 hits [14], just about all of them from the websites and bios of various winners. Given that the subject doesn't show any notability outside this award, I'd have to give a thumbs down. RGTraynor 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't even assert notability -- he's a hole in the ground. Bearian 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Exploding Boy with a reason of (Original research already removed several times from another article. No possibility of ever becoming an article. Content already covered on Romanization. Clear case of POV pushing). --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maccha or Matcha Spelling Perspectives

Original research article, states things that the "International Standards Organization" recognises a spelling (spelling of languages is not in their remit) and seems to be a spill off from another user trying to edit the Matcha article and being reverted by consensus of other users. This user has only ever edited two articles and seems to be trying to push an WP:OR WP:POINT. Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this underinformed essay (by a user with remarkably similar minority interests [powdered tea and the romanization of Japanese] to those of User:Newshinjitsu). -- Hoary 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Hoary 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
d̪ēḸêŤę Topic is not encyclopedic Fg2 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrelevantly specific. A section within a larger article, describing the debate of "tc" vs "cc" to represent 「っち」might be worthwhile, but its not a problem relevant solely to tea, nor a large enough, notable enough one to warrant an entire article. LordAmeth 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by David.Monniaux with a reason of (CSD:A7 + complaint on m:OTRS). --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Darkhorse

I cannot find any evidence that this person satisfies WP:N or WP:BIO. He has published a collection of poetry [15], but I don't see any independent, reliable sources that discuss the work or the author. There is also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by Donniedarkhorse (talk · contribs). -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. soum (0_o) 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Andrew

Deleteunsourced (to any outside references), non-notable, little information, vanity page Smerus 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per no assertion of notability (A7), so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to The American President (film). --Core desat 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shepherd

Delete. non-notable, unsourced, apparent vanity page Smerus 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, no sources confirm notability or even existence. Filled with speculation. Once deleted, redirect to The American President (film) as this is the name of the fictional president from that movie. Otto4711 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Otto4611. Propaniac 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect apparent hoax: I don't believe 50,000 copies of a record could be sold without google having a single non-wikipedia hit on its title. JulesH 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to do anything, from the below. Pursuing an editoral-based merge may be good, though. Daniel 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary-size comparison

This article appears to have no clear purpose. The text reads like a school essay. The way, the truth, and the light 07:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What's the rationale for deletion here? I don't see the reasoning behind saying it has 'no clear purpose' and though the nom may think it reads like a school essay it's certainly not original research. Nick mallory 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It's all encyclopedic content. More sources would be nice, but this shouldn't be deleted. Useight 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a decent scientific information page that may be useful. Perhaps it could do with a descriptive intro paragraph and maybe even a rename, but the content seems fine. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Showing the relative sizes is useful and the data on the sizes is provided. It could be merged with the List of solar system objects by radius but make sure the table and the gallery are kept. I don't see why this should be deleted.
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collector of information. The diameters can be obtained from other lists and tables, and table of the ratios of each object's diameter to each other's is bith confusing and trivial. (If someone wants to know the ratio and the diameters of Jupiter and Pluto, they are much more likely to use a calculator than to go off looking for this article, assuming that they even know it exists.) --EMS | Talk 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information is redundant - planetary statistics are available in multiple other articles, including (but likely not limited to) the individual planet articles, Planet, Solar System, List of solar system objects by radius, Dwarf planet, Natural satellite .. need I go on? I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but repeating the same information again and again - and in this instance with no additional context - seems silly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius. No need to repeat stats, as Arkyan says. The table should be either be deleted (my preference), or at least have a title or explanation. But definitely keep the gallery somewhere. Clarityfiend 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius...wasn't aware of that one. This is double information coverage to be sure. My previous keep is striken. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above two comments Alex Pankratov 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to merge, redundant with List of solar system objects by radius and others. The way, the truth, and the light 01:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a re-expression by the nominator of his desire to delete the article. Spacepotato 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's all encyclopedic content. --YoavD 10:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius. The size-comparison illustrations should be kept, as they're useful—especially Image:NewSolarSystem2.jpg, Image:Gas giants and the Sun (1 px = 1000 km).jpg and Image:Terrestrial planet size comparisons.jpg. Spacepotato 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interlang transwiki to the Simple English Wikipedia? 132.205.93.83 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Silly, waste of space, need I go on? All of this belongs in the planet's article. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Present article has a title that nobody is likely to search for.--Mike18xx 09:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of solar system objects by radius, all info's there. --Tone 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recaptured literature

This article has no sources, and I can find no evidence that this term is used by academics, reviewers, or anyone at all. Every Google hit is a reference to this article—there are no other online references to this term anywhere. When the article first appeared, I asked the originating editor to provide print references for this term. No such references have been produced. ShelfSkewed Talk 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. If anyone adds sources to the article, I'll reconsider. Deor 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation, unless some kind of reliable sources are found. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After twenty minutes of fruitless searching, I've found that this movement is either in the beginning stages and has yet to receive mainstream acceptance or just doesn't exist. ShelfSkewed is correct that most Google hits (there are only twenty-two for the exact phrase, by the way) are Wikipedia mirror sites, and I highly doubt reliable sources are available after looking through a few Lit journals at my disposal. WP:V and WP:NOT. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter 2

Non-notable freeware game. The article author claims it's one of the most popular freeware games ever, but I haven't had any luck finding any references backing up that claim, and there are none in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced unnotable game per WP:SOFTWARE. It has seven other-language wiki articles, which is about seven more than I expected, but none of them have obviously independent sources either.--Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I was inclined to agree, but according to Download.com the game has been downloaded from them nearly four million times. Granted big numbers aren't everything, but that's still an indicator that the game is notable. The only question now is whether sources can be found for verification. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to Delete. I still haven't found anything, and I don't think the Freeloader article is enough. I thought there'd be more, but I suppose not. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to ask how that number compares to other software downloads from Download.com. Without context, I have no idea how popular or unpopular that makes this piece of software. Chunky Rice 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BIGNUMBER, but the Doom 3 demo only managed to score a little over 600,000 downloads on the same site. The Half-Life 2 demo sits at just under 300,000. I imagine that the demos' sizes and system requirements, being larger and higher than Little Fighter 2's, were a factor but... Yeah. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also checked, and we might want to use the Starcraft demo as a better metric, as it's been on the site a similar length of time. That's still sitting under the one million download mark by over 100,000 downloads. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment ... how should download figures note into noteworthiness? I don't know if downloading something (which has a name rather close to Street Fighter II) neccessarily means the downloader is aware of the actual contents or not. IL-Kuma 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not sure how we're going to write an article based on a number of downloads, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was primarily an indication that the game is fairly popular, and nearly four million downloads (from just one source, where multiple sources exist) indicates that the subject is not, as pointed out in the nomination, non-notable. Unable to be verified by reliable secondary sources is a very different story, but still a condition for exclusion from the 'pedia. If I can't find anything and nobody produces anything else within the next couple of days, I'll switch my Weak Keep to a Delete. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notable means not covered in reliable secondary sources. It has nothing to do with popularity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. A quick search turned up this Freeloader feature on 1UP.com. Given that the game is, at present, approaching eight years old it might be more difficult than expected to find more sources. I'll add it to the article for now so that it can be used later. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This game is notable in Asia. Vitruelugia 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence for that? --Scottie_theNerd 09:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 09:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; the Freeloader feature looks fine, but ideally we should have multiple sources. I've had a good search; IGN has an entry but with no real information. Even searcing for '"Little Fighter 2" -download' doesn't come up with any reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources. I have no doubts that it is popular, but that's not enough. Will keep looking though. Marasmusine 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I moved the info to a gaming wiki it can be found here. So it can be deleted --Cs california 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have at least one secondary source for verifiability, and the download count for notability. Most coverage of a game is going to happen when the game first comes out. If that was eight years ago, then searching now isn't going to help. On the other hand, a freeware game that's still going strong after 8 years seems notable to me. Capmango 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above, the number of downloads from a site is not an indicator of notability, and many non-notable freeware programs can continue for years without ever becoming notable. If the game had little to no coverage when it came out, it brings into question if it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Scottie_theNerd 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. Sarah 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur cloning

I'm a member of Wikiproject Dinosaurs & have written a few Featured dinosaur articles. I've also seen quite a few short dinosaur article on dubious specimens and some which may never be expanded due to lack of information. And then there's this article - it screams NN, OR & its subject matter is ripped from the Jurassic Park movies. It has no references, yet refers to "research" & says babble like "Many scientific controversies could be resolved by watching live dinosaurs interact with each other in nature parks" among other stuff. It is made by a user who apparently has created some other speedily deleted stuff also. I'd nominate for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure how to right now (will investigate), but be my guest if you want to for me (copy & paste?). It is obvious this article will never be encylopedic material. Leaving this sort of article makes new editors think that it's okay to add all the trivia from Jurassic park to actual dinosaur articles & makes a hard job harder for the Wikiproject Dinosaur team. Anyway, Delete or Speedy delete as patent nonsense -- Spawn Man 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It may not be patent nonsense (unintelligible gibberish), but it is nonsense and original research for sure. Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources for this notion, I'd say it was extinct before it began. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... never knew this would be a pun AFD... :) Spawn Man

Delete. I considered the possibility this could be a halfway decent article about the obviously popular idea, but there's nothing there but the tar pit of WP:OR. No incoming links save a variety of creative alternate names. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy, BLP violation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling

Original research / essay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR --RaiderAspect 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be entirely original research. --Haemo 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the comment that this page can be covered if appropriately sourced on J. K. Rowling and if it grows enough, spun-off. I don't see that as necessary right now though. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Bigdaddy1981 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a little worthwhile information there (that actually is cited), and it should be merged into the main article (which I see already has such a section, but I'm not sure if all the usable text is there). However, most of it cannot possible be attributed to a reliable source, so the article should go. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - OOR (Obvious OR). Spawn Man 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - original research essays trying to reconstruct the subject's views and philosophy are clearly unacceptable. Violates the spirit if not the letter of BLP.--Doc^g 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Pike (musician)

notability-drummer of year old band, information duplicated in band article Chris 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls just short of a speedy A7 because the antecedent band is barely notable. As to the fact that he died, R.I.P., but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Placeholder account 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Capmango 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with the others. --RandomOrca2 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned in mainstream media/news, eg. [16] Madder 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable drummer from a non-notable band. Being mentioned in the mainstream doesn't mean a lot, anymore. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article say that the band has one self-released EP. Hardly notable by WP standard. The drummer's strange/newsworthy death does not render him nor the the band notable. Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Ra Riot - Nabla 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no redirect. --Core desat 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Allen and the Broken String

This article has absolutely no content at all except for a vacant infobox and headers. I'm merely completing a malformed nom here, so I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy A7 because the reference given as a link is to an unreliable blog. Placeholder account 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bishop Allen unless some actual information is added. According to WP:MUSIC, "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." However, the article provides absolutely no context other than the infobox, so it should really just redirect to the band's article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Haemo 07:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't that fall under A1 or A3? Whs itc hy 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep geez, the article was only created today. Presumably more information will be added soon. If the article stays empty for a month, then delete. Capmango 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A3 Delete unless notable content is added by the end of this AfD. A1octopus 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need a redirect, as the article title is an odd concatenation of group name and album name. According to the band's label, the album won't be released until next month. I'm guessing (and willing to be corrected) that the article was created and then abandoned? At any rate, assuming that if the album becomes notable, it should be listed under it's title, no? Not speaking to notability here of the group or album at all.... 216.201.119.71 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as information-free (inc. notability, sources. tomasz. 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT (merging not needed and anyway, the content will be available at the article's histories) - Nabla 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Reptizar (Shadow Raiders)

A group of articles about planets in an animated series that ran from 1998 to 1999. None of these are notable enough to have their own articles. I have no objection to these being redirected to List of Shadow Raiders planets if people think that there's a possibility that someone might search for "Planet Reptizar (Shadow Raiders)". Either way, no merging is necessary as List of Shadow Raiders planets appears to already contain the same information as all the seperate articles.

Masaruemoto 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into one article, may be a good idea. List of Shadow Raiders planets could be a good place to merge to, but make sure that the individual articles are integrated. GrooveDog 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I already mentioned, the list contains the same information as all the seperate articles, so there's nothing to integrate. Masaruemoto 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to stick with Delete here. The list o' planets is apparently tagged for a WP:DRV, but that they were all split out into their own articles doesn't make much sense. It makes more sense to me to keep the main article and just live with that at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect everything. The series didn't last very long, but it does exist, and the planets were reasonably important in it, so some coverage is appropriate. Whether it's to the main page on the series or the list, I don't know. I think the DRV is bound to be closed by now, it's at least a month old. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even see it on the DRV page. I'll get rid of the banner. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Groovedog - Integrate all the articles into the List of Shadow Raiders planets, but if that cannot be done, delete. Spawn Man 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is anyone actually reading my comments? For the third time; Merge is not an option here. Not because I'm against it, but because it's physically impossible - there's nothing to merge that isn't already in the main list. Uhh. Masaruemoto 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the articles on their own completely lack context anyway, but someone might search for them so don't delete. Capmango 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect 132.205.93.83 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Yasinsac

Subject does meet the WP:Notability requirements. No major awards, press coverage or any other notable achievement in career that are noted. Only references are subject's sole publication. 60 hits on Google. Ozgod 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject does not meet notability guidelines (just a little stub) GrooveDog 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds rather promotional. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:Notability Bigdaddy1981 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaverton 911 truth

Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy group. Contested speedy deletion, and with comment left by one of the admins, I felt it may be better to bring to AfD. No reliable sources can be found to verify any notability. Wildthing61476 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be reporting these people to my contacts within the secret labs. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or move to PROD. Non-notable, no sources, and article contradicts itself in talking about the founding of the group. GrooveDog 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I placed the speedy tag based on WP:ORG. --Evb-wiki 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karl Rove and the baby eating neo-conservative cabal paid me a million dollars to say this group isn't sourced or notable. Nick mallory 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that's how much Nick needs to be bribed in order to vote "delete"...JUST KIDDING, please don't take offence...but yest, he's right. The group is not notable. Placeholder account 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice one Placeholder Nick mallory 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable conspiracy theory mentalists Bigdaddy1981 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local schism of loosely-defined conspiracy theory "movement" Eggishorn 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like one of the group's goals: "Educate the public to the existence of groups such as the Skull and Bones, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Committee of 300, and the true beliefs behind the Freemasonry." That almost makes the article worth saving for entertainment value, but since we're an encyclopedia, we can't really do that. So, delete this article and send a shipment of tinfoil hats to Beaverton, Oregon. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we might be able to. The term BJAODN comes to mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom of WP:NOTE. Darn Tinfoilhatters don't even have a website for my personal amusement. Lipsticked Pig 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another non-notable 9/11 "Truth" group. Not notable enough to be merged into 9/11 Truth Movement. (Also, not that this is an argument for deletion, but it's one of the most POV 'articles' I've come across recently -- "Group goal: [to] expose the fact that rogue elements of the U.S. Government orchestrated the events of 9/11", indeed!) -- simxp (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another group of people creating conspiracy rumours. Skullblade 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locopops

Organizations that are local in scope are not usually notable per WP:ORG, I do not think that this article has sufficiently established notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. Local company, not notable. Reads like advert.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but correct a couple NPOV problems. GrooveDog 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, this article has neutrality problems, but it satisfies the primary WP:ORG criterion of being the subject of secondary sources. Hut 8.5 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a total advert written by the owners themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.67.11 (talk • contribs)
Keep. The article could use a rewrite, but the sources are a good indicator that the subject is notable enough. RFerreira 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage appears to be essentially trivial restauront reviews of the kind rutinely carried in newspapers and thus does not establish encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local business that has only been in existence for 2 years. Article primarily written by two SPA's, parts read live an advert ("Locopops does cater and can also be reached by email at locopopsdurham@yahoo.com"). Fails WP:CORP. Caknuck 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CORP doesn't list who created the article or the current tone as criteria... it just calls for existence of non-trivial sources. And they seem to exist here. See also [17] --W.marsh 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam--Mike18xx 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Favorable restaurant reviews don't establish encyclopedic notability. — Scientizzle 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as disambiguation page. utcursch | talk 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán

I certainly would agree that Stefán is a nice name, but honestly, is it worth having a wp article on the 9th most popular male name in Iceland, which is nothing more than the Icelandic variant of Stephen or Stephanos? The debate is open. Stefán 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it, we also have an article on Jón, which is very similar to the one on Stefán. Stefán 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stephen and John (name). FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per FrozenPurpleCube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a possibility to merge but what should be merged. Take a look at Stephen, there is no reasonable place in that article for the information that Stefán is the ninth most common male name in Iceland. Surely we are not intending to put the graph showing the distribution of people named Stefán in Iceland according to which year they were born. Then we only have the list of people left. If you take a look at the list of people mentioned in the Stephan article we have a subsection each for saints, royalty and church figures. Finally there is an "Other" subsection with five names, does anybody think it would be a good idea to throw these five or six Icelandic people into that section? Stefán 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the variant of the name with the statistic can be merged. Beyond that... well, ain't nothing. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Change~~ Leave as a disambiguation page Note that Stephen is already disambiguation page serving the same function, but already combining too many variations of the name such as Stevenson. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there something to disambiguate? --Dennis The Tiger(Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. All the people listed in the article with that name. It already is a disambiguation page with a short history of the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen. JJL 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I am asking people to look at this article, perhaps people would comment on whether the graphic on the page is of any value. It shows the number of people named Stefán who were alive in the middle of 2005, distributed after the year of birth. It is thus a population pyramid with some random noise. You can sort of guess that the popularity of Stefán has gone down a little bit in the last decades. This falls under WP:NOT#INFO, right? Stefán 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I went ahead and removed the image. Stefán 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is a right step, as the statistics do inform the reader about the decreasing or increasing popularity of the name. I can't see a worthless information here and would be glad, if the image could be replaced in the article. Jón 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have written the article and think, although I am not a experienced user on the English WP, that this ambiguation page should stay as it is. Regard the article "John" and especially John (name) for example: There are many variants of names which have for good reason an own page. It should be done all the same with "Steven", as it is a not very convincing structure of the article. In icelandic wikipedia, each Icelandic name has an article similar to that I have written here (f.e. look at is:Jón). Although they are stubbs, I think, they are fine. You get all the interesting information with one look, and you don't get this in the article Stephen. Best regards, Jón 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3000 bot-generated name articles on the Icelandic Wikipedia are useless and I wish I had got a consensus to delete them. As to whether Jón or Stefán can stay as disambiguation pages I have no opinion. They are certainly better than is:Joshua or is:Gnurr. Haukur 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per similar decision in the past. Lists by the first names should be discouraged. Pavel Vozenilek 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Icelandic is somewhat unusual here in that there are no more last names than there are first names and the first name is the primary one. Thus you often only remember someone's first name when you want to look them up, rarely do you only remember their last name. Haukur 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exact the reason why the disambiguations should be left here and not included in the other names, IMHO. Jón 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hmm. If the page is ket this information should be visible in the text, to avoid people using the page as precedent to create huge lists by first name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I have edited the article to try and make this clear. Take a look. Stefán 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page. I started this discussion and I believe that after the changes made to the article and the point raised about Icelandic names that the article should be kept as a disambiguation page between those Icelandic people named Stefán. Stefán 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. - As Stefán already explained it. Jón 13:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán Arason

Contested prod, main claim to notability seems to be a not very notable prize, Europäischer Komponistenpreis. Falls below the notability threshold in my opinion. Stefán 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, NN --RaiderAspect 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A lack of Google hits for the prize does not quite confirm its non-notability. I don't speak Icelandic, but the "press" section of his website points to a few blurbs about him in print media. I think the subject does meet WP:V; if you perform a Google search, you'll see a number of reliable sources featuring him (he actually has 1,350 hits, which isn't bad for a new classical composer). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this a while ago and it still seems to me that the article does not establish notability. Haukur 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough sources to establish notability. Ford MF 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most search engine results are blogs or forums, it seems. The rest are of the composer and probably his record label, hence there are not enough reliable sources.--Kylohk 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Lewis

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Subject is a minor radio personality, but third-party published coverage is very limited, and coverage by reliable sources (not blogs, etc.) is non-existent. Just another talk show host working conspiracy themes. -- Donald Albury 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the government told me to argue for this article's deletion, on the grounds that he's not notable. Lankiveil 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He's kind of a fringe personality but there's enough to keep him around. First there are multiple sources and there seems to be some additional sources that could be added by someone knowledgeable. Whether the sources are WP:RS may be another matter. His movie roles should be considered too. JodyB_talk 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does he meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)? [[Where are the multiple reliable sources? His own website does not count. -- Donald Albury 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JodyB. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the article never got the {{afd1}} tag to direct editors here for discussion. I added it to the article, and I'm relisting it to June 5. KrakatoaKatie 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough in this bio to imply notability. —SlamDiego_←T 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone in the radio industry this long has been discussed by reliable sources many times. I'll add a couple of them in. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been listed among the likes of Long John Nebble and Ace Hayes as contributors to fringe topics. He has been seen on national shows as an expert of sorts. He is also the voice of the Toxic Avenger for Troma. He has a cult following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.169.34 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you should delete him. Clyde has appeared in various television programs. (Most recent being Pen and Teller's B.S.). He has had articles written about in multiple magazines and newspapers. (Including Rolling Stone and Talkers Magazine). His current status in radio not withstanding, his history within national talk radio warrants a listing in Wikipedia.Geekinthecity 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) ~~— Geekinthecity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [18][reply]

Keep. Mr. Lewis has a large cult following throughout the world. He has been nationally syndicated, and is considered by many to be the next Art Bell. He has been on several TV specials, including Penn & Teller's BS, and is currently filming a special with Lewis Black. Also his voice acting credits alone warrant an article. Read the article before making assumptions, all the relevant information is available there. TEG 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clyde is huge in the Portland Oregon area, and has a big national following. He is definitely worthy of being mentioned. Tony in the Couve 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Tony in the Couve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Several citations and links to outside sources have been added to satisfy requirements for notability. Mordant Kitten 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please, people, remember to sign your comments. I'm seeking a copy of the Rolling Stone issue so that I may cite it properly; if you have it, you can do so; please feel free to. It's the August 25th 2005 issue with White Stripes on the cover; I lack a page number.Mordant Kitten 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable fringe personality with more than sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of Eureka Seven

This article is just a copy of information that was formerly on the page it refers to. It's unneccesary, and the article can't hold its own Tempest115 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the correct course of action for universe sections that grow too large is to trim them down; the is very little here to sustain a full article on the subject (i.e. there's a coral, it makes trapar, mechs use it to surf). --Haemo 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there's nothing to merge as it is a copy of the main article. -- Whpq 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to merge and I doubt the title is a likely search term. --Farix (Talk) 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is only a copy from the main Eureka seven article. (Duane543 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per above. Placeholder account 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a literal copy of Eureka_Seven#Setting. No info no merge, no need for a redirect as nothing links to the page now, and doubtful anyone would search by this term/phrase. Tarc 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redner's Warehouse Markets

Unreferenced spam article, a clear example of an "advertisement masquerading as an article". Looks like something I'd expect to find in one of their marketing brochures. Tagged for speedy as such, but the tag was removed. Suggest deletion as spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nom.(WP:CSD#G11) -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom says it was tagged as such and removed; for future reference, CSD tags are not PRODs. If there has been no improvement you can re-tag. (Or has that changed?) Morgan Wick 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a rule of thumb, if a CSD is disputed (other than by its original author) then it's best to take it to AfD to get a full discussion. I mentioned the CSD tag removal in the interest of disclosure (so that readers can see that at least someone felt it wasn't speedy-able). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was technical knockout. --Core desat 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable boxing fans

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, and indiscriminate reason for a list. As pointless and unencyclopedic as a List of notable people who like the opera or List of notable people who like Italian food. Masaruemoto 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial intersection for a list criterion. --Haemo 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure unnecessary and unencyclopedic trivia list--JForget 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.O. (i.e. Delete) - Textbook case of a list of loosely connected things, in thise case a list of people who have no connections other than that they all have said they like boxing. --Hnsampat 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though as usual with these lists, it was fun to read! JJL 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia; smacks of OR Bigdaddy1981 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article had ANY sources (which it doesn't), it would fail WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, trivia, loose connections Hut 8.5 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being interesting and intriguing, it is pointless, unsourced and no one cares about it ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources, and will be extremely difficult to keep up with. The title is also to broad, making it difficult to include every notable boxing fan. --Nehrams2020 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all. Bulldog123 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unmaintainable, potentially unlimited, unsourced, original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE (no sources about his work) - Nabla 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Rupley

The article contains two (possible) assertions of notability: a) The person is an editor for a major magazine; b) he is covered on CrankyGeeks. In my opinion, a) is not a secondary source and b) is not independent, with S.R. being something like a co-publisher. Thus the subject fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary coverage. Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand I've never seen, so far as I recall, an AFD nomination longer than its respective article. I did a search engine test and found more than 100,000 Google hits, and about 200 citations on Google scholar. I'm not willing to work on this further, but there might indeed be a case for notability. YechielMan 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since September 2006, no one else was in fact willing to work on this further (i.e. to add secondary sources), the notability warning has been on since then. Also, Google hits do not establish notability. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Those GS hits are interesting--some are his columns in PC--GS apparently includes that as a scholarly journal, which is news to me; the majority are citations to his patents, even mentioned in the article. DGG 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the Google scholar hits support notability. If S.R. were a scientist, and PC Magazine were a scholarly journal, then maybe 200 hits would show that he is "widely cited", and this is a criterion for notability by WP:BIO. (Still, just counting search engine hits is a dubious argument.) In this case, however, the hits just show that PC Magazine is popular and widely known. That makes the magazine notable, not its editors. As for the patents, what are "his" patents? I only found patents that cite an article of his. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Question Exactly where does it say only scientists who write in scholarly journals are considered noteworthy enough for articles on Wikipedia? Wow! This is entertaining. KP Botany 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not claim that "only scientists who write in scholarly journals are considered noteworthy enough [...]". I argued that citations to an article have a different meaning (towards notability of the author) when that article is published in a scholarly journal, vs. that article being published in a mainstream paper. --B. Wolterding 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" If S.R. were a scientist, and PC Magazine were a scholarly journal, then maybe 200 hits would show that he is "widely cited", and this is a criterion for notability by WP:BIO." Then why say, "if he were a scientist?" What precisely does that have to do with anything, that he isn't a scientist? Nothing, this is not scienapedia. And how do hits for this particular editor just show that the magazine is popular? The current editor of Vogue has her own page, and she's not a scientist, and Vogue isn't a scholarly journal. I'm trying to understand your arguments, and they don't really make sense, because they don't appear to have much to do with this article. Not being a scientist is not a criterion for dumping a biography in Wikipedia. KP Botany 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all I was saying with that statement is: Because he does not publish in scholarly journals, one should not judge his notability by his hit count on Google Scholar. We should just look for secondary sources as described in WP:BIO. (And no one came up with any of them, yet.) As for the Vogue editor, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --B. Wolterding 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except frankly, that's what everyone is basing their deletes upon, your assertion that he's not in Scholar. Why did you even bring this up? So, you're relying upon your initial assertion that his being an editor for a major magazine is not a secondary source as a reason for deletion? Well, Tony LaRussa's being the general manager of a baseball team is not a secondary source, either. What does that have to do with anything? Bats aren't tigers. Oranges aren't glaciars. I am really not following your nomination at all, and I don't think your replies are helping. None the less, your arguments that he's not in Scholar where you don't expect to find him seems to be carrying weight--good grief. KP Botany 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in Google Scholar supports real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Yes he writes articles, and article-writers quote him(Google news Google web). But these and Yechiel's Google scholar search turn up no reliable 3rd-party sources we can use to write an article about him (or his work). Pan Dan 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment' as I thought everyone knew by now, that is not the only way to attain notability not everything in the newspapers is notable, and vice versa. Notability is within a subject. applied computer people determine what counts for notability among among applied computer people, and so on. Articles citing a person are a secondary source, just as book reviews are. Since most people in science and applied science cite each other a good deal, we rightly require (and have here) more than the 2 or 3 citations that would be enough if they were book reviews. DGG 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a lack of newspaper coverage doesn't imply non-notability. Coverage in any kind of reliable source is enough to show notability. The problem here is that even the Google scholar hits (including articles written by applied computer people, which you emphasize) turn up nothing non-trivial about him or his work. A list of citations to his work doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that nobody has shown interest in improving the article since it was tagged as sadly needing improvement almost one year ago. That isn't an official criteria, but it should be.Garrie 06:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after 8 days at AfD, the article is still only one line plus two external links.Garrie 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is NO criterion that says short articles are deleted--what precise length do you think articles have to be? This is the one that gets the most comments on the list serve, all of the deletionists who cry out, "It's short--it must be deleted because it's short!" Where are these criteria coming from? What's the deal?KP Botany 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks this should be a criterion, then it should be proposed at the Village Pump--our rules are subject to change if there is consensus. About six months ago there in fact was an attempt to change in exactly this direction. The policy proposal was called speedy deletion for unsourced articles -- "speedy" being somewhat of a misnomer, because the proposal was that anyone could tag an article and there would be two weeks to find at least the minimal two sources. The proposal was soundly rejected, and the comments were that in practice it would destroy the encyclopedia. DGG 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yudonia

Delete - difficult to tell from the article but it appears this is a fictional country mentioned in perhaps one episode of a television series. Most of the article is an original research attempt to locate the country (all of paragraph two and some of paragraph three) and there does not appear to be the sort of notability either within the show or in the real world which would warrant an article. I have no objection to a redirect to the relevant episode if one can be determined, but I can't determine one from the article. Otto4711 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and fix - The article is lacking any references but it is sufficiently notable. I propose proper sourcing and cleanup, rather than deletion. --Javit 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cool Blue and Sci girl --Javit 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. fails general notability guidelines, specifically: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Barsportsunlimited 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, delete - I've watched the series, and it is appeared in one country, and it is only mentioned. Not notable whatsoever. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Fictional sources from Yudonian writers? Clarityfiend 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fictional country is not notable. If you really wanted too it could be mentioned in the main show article but not an entirely separate article of its own. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some fictional countries are notable. This one does not appear to be. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge add a sentence to Josh Nichols and delete the rest of it. Sci girl 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil twin (wireless networks)

some journalist tries to create a "fancy" new name for Man-in-the-middle attack, probably hoping to follow in the footsteps Jesse James Garrett, and wikipedia automatically gets an article on it? this is vanity, plain and simple. Misterdiscreet 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Neologalism? --RaiderAspect 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe redirect to Man-in-the-middle attack? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term wasn't invented by a journalist, but by a UK security expert[19] some two years ago[20] and has some currency in the tech press. It is described as a variant of man-in-the-middle[21]. One problem with that article and a merge is that it's almost wholly about cryptography as opposed to the more general intrusion principle.--Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- cryptography was invented to "solve" the man-in-the-middle problem. sure, some cryptographic algorithms solve the problem better then others, but even an algorithm that's susceptible to replay attacks can still provide protection against "passive" eavesdropping. if the man-in-the-middle article doesn't make this clear, the solution doesn't seem to me to be to create a new article, but rather, to "improve" the existing article Misterdiscreet 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need not merge every single similar thing to its greatest abstraction. There appears to be sufficient material for an article on the particulars of this, if you will, specific type of man-in-the-middle attack. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man-in-the-middle attack -- it's a specific and now rather common example. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it has sourcing from 5 reliable sources. The term is used by the Illinois attorney general and various computer journals and newspapers. Disagree with merge to Man in the middle which is a cryptography article. This is about some crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room. Edison 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room is man in the middle. if that is not clear from reading the man in the middle article, the man in the article needs to be improved. one well written article is better then two badly written ones. for now, i suggest you read the Beyond cryptography section of the man-in-the-middle article. as i said, cryptography is, with varying degrees of effectiveness, the solution to the general problem. the solution and the problem should be discussed in the same article. or maybe you also think that XSS#Avoiding XSS vulnerabilities should to be split off to it's own article? i disagree with that and with this. in fact, i think your misunderstanding of man-in-the-middle reenforces the need for this article and man-in-the-middle to, at the very least, be merged. Misterdiscreet 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to sourcing by Edison. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but requires a fair amount of cleanup. Useight 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with man-in-the-middle attack. Neither article is particularly long, and evil twin seems to just be a specific variant of man-in-the-middle. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should make a reference to man-in-the-middle-attack, since that is what an evil twin is used for; it's not a specific case of it, though, it's a tool you can use for it. Capmango 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten and sourced, this is a subject we should be covering in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon (JavaScript)

Neologism. No citations. also, in all likelihood, wrong. this article describes a cross-site scripting virus, of which Samy, released in late 2005, is generally considered the first. Misterdiscreet 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know the technical details, but it's not attributed. Placeholder account 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. too small and unreferenced. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor technical detail, can change (or changed) overnight, WP is not computer virus database, content not useful for even virus writer, insufficient context what it talks about, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even news worthy. (Do they really give names to every IE bug?) John Vandenberg 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-platform Application Interaction Manipulation

Neologism. Wikipedia is not here to boost Mr. Barneck's vanity. the article is a complete rip of XSS. i think this quote from this article says it best:

“

The most accurate acronym coined by Jared Barneck is Multi-platform Application Interaction Manipulation (MAIM). Verbalizing this into the term MAIMing makes the idea better understood than previously used acronyms.

”

Misterdiscreet 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's almost a word for word copy of the XSS article, and doesn't provide any sources for its claim that the term XSS is no longer used. Sci girl 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism wrapped in copy of an existing article. Remove it from Cross-site scripting too. Speedy delete, if possible, it is waste of VfD time. Pavel Vozenilek 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, term has been dreamed up. John Vandenberg 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka

Belongs in Wikinews. It's a breaking news story, not an encyclopaedia article. We need to wait some time before we have a historical perspective on whether this is considered independently significant. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Terence 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems unlike an ordinary crime case, in context of the larger conflict in Sri Lanka. It has multiple sources from far afield of the location of the crime, and is about the events and not biographies of the victims, criminals, or the like. I take issue with the "wait and see", isn't the purpose of Wikipedia where the wiki comes from the Hawaiian word for "quick" to put content quickly on-site. Should editors have held off on the Virginia Tech Massacre or any other "breaking news" story until the dust settled? No. The article will no doubt improve over time as new sources and perspective can be brought to bear, but that's no reason to delete a notable, sourced event. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not create an article everytime 2 more people are murdered in Baghdad or in Miami. Why should Sri Lanka be different? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and per WP:NOT we do not have to have an article about everything that has newspaper coverage. If it proves to have national or international implications, an article could be created then. Breaking news can go in Wikinews. Edison 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have WP:PAPER. Just because we don't have to have any article, doesn't mean we can delete it based on that premise. We don't have to have any of the 6,833,571 articles in Wikipedia. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take into account Edison's point, but since these workers were volunteer Red Cross workers, abducted whilst on their training program, it is quite a significant case. The fact that these people were aid workers is different, and even the President of Sri Lanka is getting personally involved with the case, and attended the funeral. Surely if the President of the country feels it is significant enough to attend, it is a notable event? It's not like Bush attends the funerals of every murder victim in the USA? Thanks. Thusiyan 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Ummm... I'd be a bit more compelled if there were some specific policies listed that constitute a violation. While I realize that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, it seems to read like an encyclopædia article, and we have plenty of 2007 _______________ incident articles. No doubt in my mind, keep. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. You demand policies, and then advocate speedy keep, which policy says cannot be applied in this case. So: policy is WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep cool, the question what is the policy violation that led to the nomination ? But no where in NOt did I see that a notable event that also happens to be a latest news cannot be an article ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Definitely not an encyclopaedic article.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a serious incident involving International aid workers in a War zone Harlowraman 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's a serious incident of killing their own people by the so called liberators of Tamil nation, to put the blame on the GoSL. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am some what persuaded by the nominators arguments about the timing but I still think if it had happened in the USA or the UK, the potential for AFD might have been much less. Just because Sri Lanka is an obscure third world country, does not mean that this notable incident written with reliable sources in a neutral tone does not belong in Wikipedia. In realilly it is a stub and as more information comes out we can improve this article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the status of Sri Lanka, it's a news story, Wikinews is thataway ---> Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a Notable event and wikinews that is notable ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Murder of a ICRC personnel is a NOTABLE issue and Encyclopediac. This is a significant case in the latest of HR violation in the Srilanka. Also as per Thusiyan Watchdogb 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If the United Nations, UK, US and many other countries think this is important enough to issue official condamnations of this event, i think it is important enough to be in an Encyclopedia.--12345ka 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Can somebody also add Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo to the list. Wikipedia is being reduced to a scoreboard to keep the latest scores in the conflict. Shameful really. Sarvagnya 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per CoolBlue. Praveen 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from the initial media coverage into the deaths, a week later there is almost no follow up coverage of the incident. That should pretty much illustrate the lack of notability of the murders. That aside, there is as yet no confirmation that these people were killed because they were red cross workers. Right now, all we know is two men were murdered. That in itself is not significant enough to warrant an article of Wikipedia. Their occupation could have absolutely nothing to do with their murders. As per Guy, unless there is any historical perspective of this incident, it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coverage of press releases, media statements etc should remain in Wikinews. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keg Tossing

Fails WP:RS. Punkmorten 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tagged it as unsourced. Apparently people do toss kegs. Whether its organized and has developed techniques as stated in the article is not verified. The one link is dead. The whole thing could well be a hoax. My gut feeling is that it is not. Herostratus 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It still appears to fail the criterion about coverage in non-trivial publications. People might toss kegs, but then again people might do lots of non-notable things. Punkmorten 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. However, I can't tell if this is non-notable enough to be deleted or not. Maybe keg tossing could go under the Scotland article as a heading? Meldshal42 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punkmorten's comment about a lack of coverage is probably the key issue here. I find about 1,300 Google results for "keg tossing," and it's obvious that it's something people do (mostly college students, judging from the dozens of blogs and college newspapers that mention it), but nothing actually focuses in on it as a sport. It is a part of the World's Strongest Man competition on occasion, it should be noted. But, as a sport, it's not really established or covered. Weak delete unless someone comes up with some results indicating notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say it's just as relevant as the article on beer pong, but maybe a bit less organized Gabefarkas 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an event in the World's Strongest Man competition, plus it involves throwing stuff and beer ~ Infrangible 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like the comment above, I've seen this on ESPN's World's Strongest Man competition. Chengwes 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular activity at beer festivals, part of the strong-man competitions, and is also a recreational activity. It's at least as notable as Squirrel fishing, Dwarf tossing, or Cow tipping.ColtsScore 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is certainly a popular event, being an event on the World's Strongest Man tournament should be sufficient to establish notability.--Kylohk 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dead Rising Endings

There was a prod on this for a few days (I placed the prod), but it was removed for absolutely no reason. Game guide/fancruft content, not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aim for the head - No need for a separate article; endings are not notable outside of the context of the game itself. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vaguely interesting, but not really all that notable. Might be good for a gaming wiki but not here. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Agree that the information is non-notable outside the context of the game itself, unless there's something truly historically significant about these endings. Someguy1221 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zahakiel. JJL 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Moreschi ^Talk 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPV, Still Picture Video

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about the same topic:

These articles look rather spammy to me - either links to some actor's showreel or an unverified assertion that he invented the term. Canley 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jasonjjwillis (talk · contribs) has created a duplicate article, S.P.V., Still Picture Video, which I have redirected to this article (and added to the list of articles nominated for deletion). Neil916 (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. The article admits the term is new, "coined by Steward Clinton", a non-notable actor. Can't dig up anything about either the term or the actor. Neil916 (Talk) 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an advertisement and is full of original research. I remember tagging this as unreferenced when it was created and notice the tag has been removed and there are still no references; possibly because it is unverifiable, as Neil916 has suggested above. - Zeibura ^Talk 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The articles are about a non-notable neologism and read like advertisements. Would whoever closes this discussion also please handle the accounts involved? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moneyskillz (talk · contribs · logs) – created SPV, Still Picture Video
- Jasonjjwillis (talk · contribs · logs) – created S.P.V., Still Picture Video
- Stewardclinton (talk · contribs · logs) – created Still picture video, spv
- Janetpeterson12 (talk · contribs · logs) – created Talk:Still picture video, spv and Marketing tools (another advert)
- 168.28.200.38 (talk · contribs · logs) – edited Still picture video, spv and SPV, Still Picture Video

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator withdrew. John Vandenberg 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Openshaw

Withdraw/quit. Seems notable with new stuff now Cornea 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, seems pretty notable to me - the numerous sources and others such as this BBC story fulfill the primary criterion of WP:N, and as for BLP, well the story of Openshaw's "awkward statement" is verifiable and well-sourced. The article is not written as a smear either. --Canley 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ per CSD G10, article exists solely to propagate disparaging material about Mr. Openshaw. This is not a "biography" in any sense of the word - if incident is deemed encyclopedic, merge it somewhere else. We don't write single-incident-source biographies anymore. Period. FCYTravis 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it be a speedy delete instead. Please delete it. Cornea 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to speedy it and will let this AFD proceed as there's already one vote to keep. -- Netsnipe ► 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll tell Travis. Cornea 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley.--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important man. He is not just some country judge. Further the issue raised by his comment, 'There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it,' is also important. See "I don't really understand what a Web site is.". WAS 4.250 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biography. I've redirected to the statement. If we can have a verifiable article about the statement, that's one thing. We don't have enough to write a biography of him. FCYTravis 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you know we do not have enough--you mean the article at present does not have enough--there is no requirement that we complete all articles to keep them from deletion, as long as he subject is notable. DGG 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Openshaw didn't make the widespread belief comment, Ed Felten did.--SarekOfVulcan 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to sourced discussion of his statement. We don't need two separate pages saying the exact same things, and we should avoid pretending that this one incident is Mr. Openshaw's entire life. Thus, a page about the statement is a good choice. FCYTravis 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Openshaw Internet statements. Only notable for that. Cornea 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there's no reason to duplicate pages & content here & Openshaw Internet statements. — Scientizzle 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge. near as i can tell, Openshaw has two main claims to fame. (1) he was appointed to be a judge on the same day as his wife and (2) he said something about the internet that got a lot of attention. the BBC may think (1) is notable, however, i don't. and (2) is about as notable as

Vincent Ferrari, an article i think should be deleted (and will probably nominate at some point) Misterdiscreet 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and summarize the trivia about the web stuff. Wait until the AfD is completed before forking ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A seperate article covering the publicity around a single event is in accord with WP:BLP section "Articles about living people notable only for one event" where it says "Cover the event, not the person." Ifn fact this person is a notable judge and should have an article on him. But the coverage of this event in the article on him must not be givenundue weight. Having a seperate article on the statement, the media coverage of it, and the reason for the internet attention to the statement is not a POV fork, but is proper coverage of an issue. Blowjob is not a POV fork of Bill Clinton either. WAS 4.250 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and judge appears notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bio article and Deletearticle on statement. We are not Quotapedia, with an article for every stupid sounding statement made by every non-notable person, and we certainly do not need to create a biography for the unfortunate individual, even if it made a little splash in the papers or was a water-cooler story. Both articles could be deleted per WP:NOT as indiscriminate information. On the other hand, someday it might be as famous an incident as Senator Ted Stevens saying the internet is a Series of tubes. (Perhaps they should call each other for tech support). Edison 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the UK its is as important as Ted Stevens. People who try and delete articles because they never heard of the topic, or because they are from sources such as the BBC, the Guardian or Reuters, are just plain wrong. You showing regional bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I give here and here. But, some might think I'm biased, being the article creator; maybe, but I've actually read the reports and the following comments.- Peter Ellis - Talk 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is surely notable, the article is sourced and the tone of the article is not disparaging. Even without the Internet statements the subject would be notable by way of the positions he holds and has held. If an article was to be deleted then Openshaw Internet statements would be the better candidate, but I see no reason for deleting that either. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he would be notable as a high court judge even if he had not made that statement--but neither his career, nor the incident of the statement itself are adequately discussed. DGG 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Vista game compatibility

Previous AfD reached no consensus two months ago; most keep votes were based on the article being well-sourced and in need of improvement. It's in much worse shape now, with a fair bit of blatant WP:OR. -/- Warren 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is next to impossible to maintain a high quality of such a list. This would become the crash database of every other Vista gamer. --soum ^talk 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not what Wikipedia is for, and would be difficult to maintain. --Nehrams2020 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Certainly is difficult to maintain and remove OR, and despite the likelihood of being a crash database; this list is and would be useful, and I consider that's what Wikipedia "is for." Yes there is original research there, but decent Lists aren't built in a few ~~weeks~~ months. *shrug* I don't even own Vista; I just know it would be relevant to people. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Disclaimer: I created the list as part of my incorporation of DirectX 9 EX into Wikipedia articles.[reply]
Delete Seems to violate WP:NOT as well. Whs itc hy 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Garrett^Talk 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt is very useful information, there's no denying that but it is very WP:NOT - X201 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a useful list. Shanekorte 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all "useful" things belong in an encyclopedia. Morgan Wick 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no other lists on the internet as comprehensive. Shanekorte 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had a look at what it was like 2 months ago, and although it's gotten worse in terms of sourcing, it's gotten better in terms of usefulness: back then it was mostly composed of games with no issues, which would (hopefully) be most of them and quickly become unmaintainable; at least now it's confined to games with known issues. -- simxp (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for one thing I don't like the way the list is specifically limited to "a list of older games designed for DirectX 9 (or earlier) that will install on Windows Vista and run (or almost run) on its DirectX 9 EX. Please list only games with known issues..." (the description itself seems rather contradictory IMO), which seems rather arbitary, as why only list games that use a certain API (rather than say OpenGL or indeed MS-DOS)? Plus without sources we can't be certain that entrys in the list aren't just a single editor's issues with their own systems configuration etc. Plus the theorectical issue that to be 100% accurate, we would need sources for every single game every to ever have used "DirectX 9 or earlier" (if that's the criteria) and it's compatability with Windows Vista to be sure the list is accurate. FredOrAlive 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensive application compatibility simply isn't encyclopaedic and would do better as a few specific examples in the Windows Vista and/or Criticism of Windows Vista articles. While this would make an interesting wiki project (Wikia hosts the similar Classic PC Games project), Wikipedia is simply not the place for it. Garrett^Talk 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It strikes me that such a list will tend to vary from system to system. There are some "issues" there which I simply don't experience on my own Vista system. It's going to be very hard to maintain accuracy, even if there are sources available. 80.193.211.68 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Ra Riot}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In our grandmother's attic}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisschrist (band)}}