Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 16: Difference between revisions

< November 15	November 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was Delete as unsourced and seeming WP:COI. Primary claim to notability is not established by reliable sources. The Xuzo article, conveniently created on 11 Nov 2006 and unattributed, fails the WP:RS test. Userfy on request. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Seely-Gant

Notability (fails google test) and a vanity article evrik ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep e-commerce is a big part of modern life and that makes him notable; though the article is in dire need of wikifying. Rlevse 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not. What would demonstrate that xe is notable are cited sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. This article cites no sources at all, and it is not enough at AFD to take an unsourced article at face value. If this person truly is the inventor of electronic commerce, sources will exist recording this. John Lake looked for sources below, using Google. Please do the same and look for sources yourself. Please actually do the research. Uncle G 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I said it needs wikified.Rlevse 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be confused as to what wikification is. It is nothing to do with you doing the research and citing sources. Moreover, doing the research to substantiate the claims is something that you have to do yourself. Uncle G 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have wikified the article, and formatted about as much as I am willing to do. I still think that it is afd material. --evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per submitter. I don't think the article really establishes notability. Tempshill 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have here is a failure to establish notability, it failed google hits and the writers name is mighty similiar to the article name.--John Lake 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What we have here is a failure to establish notability ← You should propose this for the next WP:BJAODN title... ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. None of the things he claims about himself make him notable. Wavy G 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a vanity article (considering the user himself submitted it) and fails to meet the standards of WP:BIO.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, nn notable.--Dakota 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute...at least don't speedy-- I found this: "John Seely-Gant, F. Gordon Zophy, Gary Heiselberg, and George Fonda, consultants at Booz- Allen & Hamilton established the first U.S.Government electronic commerce system in 1981. This system, known as Automation of Procurement and Accounting Data Entry (APADE) was developed and fielded for the U.S. Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania." in an article about "Ecommerce and its implications". There may be something to this. 24.73.183.101 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above post was me-- I don't know how I got logged out. OfficeGirl 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The "Ecommerce and its implications" article is not a reliable source. See my comment on Xuzo belo Bwithh 23:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here, it seems he was a preseter at a major Defense Contractors Conference: "DEVOR. R. E. and J. SEELY-GANT. World Wide Web-enabled my collaboration through dynamically linked engineering testbeds. Defense Mfg. Conf. (Dallas, Tex., Nov. 1995). " OfficeGirl 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is something to this, that isn't evidence of it. The web page that you linked to is a straight word-for-word, but not GFDL compliant, mirror of our electronic commerce article. The text that you are quoting was added to that article by Seelygant (talk · contribs), the creator of this article, in these edits. We still only have John Seely-Gant's sole word for any of this. Uncle G 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, dear, I had no idea I had stumbled on to a mirror site. However, I don't think John Seely-Gant is the originator of this article. It may be his son or a close relative who is very proud of him. I emailed the subject of this article directly to ask him how we might document his accomplishments. He responded with some initial information and promised to follow-up. What makes me think that he did not write the article himself is a change in language that he asked for, as he said in his e-mail: It may be more accurate to characterize me as a "pioneer" than as an "originator" (though I did devise the first U.S. DoD ecommerce system with some others while at Booz, Allen). While I concur with Uncle G's assertion that we still don't have documented sources, I think I can get real sources before this discussion is concluded and that this man has been a significant player in the history of the development of the Internet and e-commerce. I request that someone notify me before any Admin action to delete so that I can userfy this article and get it into good shape for re-posting as a good article. Thanks. OfficeGirl 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. No relevant hits on Factiva news database. No hits on google books, google scholar. No reliable hits on main google. Xuzo article linked is hosted by a website which accepts any article submission from anyone who wants "free publicity"[1]. If this guy really had a strong claim to be an ecommerce pioneer, there should be a much much greater internet information footprint than this. Bwithh 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since his involvement in the Department of Defense E-commerce work happened in the 1980's, then we may well need to rely on print sources for this, not internet websites. I really think the sources are out there. I'll let you know. OfficeGirl 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck, but its not as if the United States of the 1980s is poorly covered by internet sources, magazine/news articles or books which are archived online. Factiva database coverage goes back to the 1980s for major news sources in US or even 1970s for a few sources. Google Books archives books going back well into the 1800s Bwithh 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note to closing admin If this afd closes as delete, please may the e-commerce article could be purged of related content due to issues identified by Uncle G Bwithh 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bwithh, did you forget that you are able to boldy edit the electronic commerce article yourself? If no citation is give for the fact in that article, you are certainly acting within guidelines to take it out of the article. OfficeGirl 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This deletion discussion has not closed yet. It would be out of order for me to go ahead and remove the text related to this article in another article when the afd discussion has not been removed. Bwithh 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's okay with me if that's your interpretation of procedure, but I still think you are within policy to boldly edit in that matter. That's a completely different article and no citation of references is always a solid reason to remove an asserted fact, even if the fact is real and true. In any case, please keep in mind that we are talking about a living person here. Let's don't accuse him of things like fraud and a hoax when we have no evidence of that. We don't want to get into a slander an libel situation. All we know for sure is that the original author of this article did a poor job of documenting his sources-- actually didn't tackle the job of documenting sources at all before posting an article. I have begun rather extraordinary efforts to locate documentation of reliable sources for this article and I'm actually quite good at that task. Let's don't jump to a conclusion just because the source material doesn't just pop up instantly on our computer screens. Google isn't the only research tool that there is. I've seen many an AfD turn on a dime when the sources are located and change to "keep." As someone who has had no previous contact with this subject I think I will be able to give a neutral assesment of the documentation, and I will make this into a good Wikipedia article we can all be proud of if the sources turn out to be good. I know good evidence when I see it, and I wont be bashful about explaining that the evidence doesn't pass muster either. If the sources are iffy, I will report the same here on this AfD and advise the subject of the article that neither I nor any of the other editors on Wikipedia can do anything with it. I haven't even voted to "keep" yet-- just requested not to "speedy." A lot can happen in five days. I'm not just arguing a position-- I'm committed to do the work to back it up if this article can be saved. OfficeGirl 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invented e-commerce but is barely mentioned on teh Internets? That claim is smells so wildly overblown as to almost be a hoax. If you put his name in quotes you get even fewer hits. Plus, Google News and Books turn up goose eggs. JChap2007 00:47, 17 November 2006 (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 result was delete. Grand master ka 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist Fascist

This was a stub I wrote a long time ago about a local Baltimore band. It was speedied before I noticed, so I've restored it because it is clearly not speediable under A7. The article claims notability, and cites it (though the link didn't work because the source changed urls, I have found the new url and fixed the link). Whether or not it is enough is another question, so I have nominated it here. Tuf-Kat 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion as it meets WP:MUSIC 6. Tuf-Kat 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable garage band. •Elomis• 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One brief mention in a local paper is not enough to be a reliable source. Article doesn't meet verifiability policy. --Wafulz 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubby little article cites 1 source which is possibly a blog. Insufficient evidence of notability, not very encyclopedic. Edison 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete How does this assert notability? The link doesn't even say who the "prominent musicians" are. "Fascist Fascist is a punk rock supergroup, made up of Baltimore musicians from other notable bands. With female vocals over standard punk song constructions, the band pulls off a sound totally refreshing and relevant." This is 1. a passing mention, and 2. there is no claim that these other bands are notable for Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the edit it stilll doesnt meet the WP:MUSIC criteria.SkierRMH 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Music Amists ^{talk • contribs} 10:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC states that they must have either a number 1 hit or sold over 500,000 copies. Atlantis Hawk 10:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. I also believe that TUF-KAT, as the article's creator, shouldn't have used xyr admin privileges to undelete the article. He or she should have requested a deletion review instead. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I don't care what the content is. TUF-KAT should not have restored this entry without going through WP:DRV. For shame. -- Plutor ^talk 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Contested speedy deletions should go to AFD, not DRV in my opinion. Either way, cut the guy some slack for nominating the article for deletion on his own, will you? RFerreira 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But articles in which an admin is involved should not be undeleted by the admin himself/herself, as that is a misuse of admin privileges. TUF-KAT should have let another admin undelete the article following a request on DRV. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It still does not seem to meet the WP:MUSIC standards and its ghits turn up very few results for the band itself.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band. Tempshill 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. 0L1 Talk Contribs 22:29 16/11/2006 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC yet, but I agree with the nom that this was an invalid speedy deletion and support him for doing the right thing. RFerreira 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to come close to meeting guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC. The article should have gone to Deletion Review before being resurrected. Movementarian (Talk) 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, nomination by vandal, nobody else reccomends deletion. Also the issue of the nominator voting after his nomination, and claiming sockpuppets for no good reason. Complain about my boldness if you feel like it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Mathematics

non notable - 9000 google hits [2], vs. .5 million for Lutheranism [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.140.75 (talk • contribs)

Keep no reason given to delete. Significant teachings of a significant religious movement. Rever e ndG 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9000 google hits. delete. non notalbe not significan. spam. of Wikipdia as platform. possible sockpuppets and single article accounts.--137.146.140.75 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is significant for research purposes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.145 (talk • contribs)

Keep It is entirely irrelevant how many hits this gets compared to Lutheranism. That isn't a Wikipolicy. Additionally, the anonymous nominator (137.146.140.75) who put this up for AfD is a vandal. [4], [5], [6]. This is most likely a bad-faith nomination. IrishGuy ^talk 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Irish guy, this is probably a bad nomination.... Spawn Man 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD article was incorrectly titled and not listed in the daily log. I have moved and listed it. Fan-1967 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes my head hurt. Keep, but cleanup and put it in language that's actually understandable by someone not in the cult. --humblefool ® 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination in bad faith? Weak reason, not to mention 9000 seems notable Killerhun00 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The reasons given in the blurb is an outright non-sequitur (comparing this to Lutheranism? Gimme a break!), and s/he's giving a litany of reasons that mean nothing in the actual cast. I call bad faith as well. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at this point, I'm going to add to my listing that I suspect the user is also trying to prove a point for some reason (ref WP:POINT). This is strictly by instinct - AMMV. --Dennisthe2 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and heavy cleanup. Nominated by a regular vandal with no real reasoning. --Wafulz 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Back Again

Article is unsourced and probably unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - If it had a reference, I'd say keep... Spawn Man 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Try to find a source to reference. I couldn't. -- Donald Albury 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballism. Write the article once it's released. Shimeru 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shimeru. Big top 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator or anyone interested may want to put a single for this album, Mr. DJ (song), up for deletion as well. If this goes, then so must the song. As for "keep or delete", I think this is merely a prematurely made article that may become article-worthy in the future if this rumored album indeed gets released. Whether that means keep and wait or delete and wait, I don't know. —EdGl 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article consisting entirely of crystal balling and weasel words. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Tweet single "Oops, Oh my" (mmm Timbaland r0x0r!) but this is worth of delete Missvain 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is too speculative. - Richardcavell 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal balling, and even when issued, I'd still debate notability.SkierRMH 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More crystal balling. Why do folk waste our time with these articles. scope_creep 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sourcing and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" seems very apparent here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative lack of verification and speculative Mrbowtie 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the words "It has been speculated" come into crystal ball territory. Unreferenced, I googled it and found nothing about it.--John Lake 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Annis

This has been tried as a CSD and a prod, and on both occasions the tag was removed with little or no addition of notability-related material. Essentially, we're dealing with an article which was written by the subject and is about someone who appears to be a run-of-the-mill evangelist. I don't doubt that he's doing good works, just that he's notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles subject seems to mostly fail WP:BIO. Tarret 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see, really, even an assertion of notability. Google comes up with a few appearances (and a few genealogy sites) but not much else. And the article itself is dreadful: promotional, NPOV, possibly ~~vanity~~ COI. Fan-1967 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the lack of an assertion of notability - that was what I'd speedied it for. Turns out it had been prodded for much the same thing, so when the speedy was removed I felt it was time to view it as a "controversial deletion". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Calling him 'run of the mill' is probably insulting to mills. Encise 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
Keep He has a legitimate National Ministry across Canada. He is also VP for FCF of Canada, a Canada wide sister ministry of Faith Christian Fellowship International with works in 42 Nations of the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.161.139 (talk • contribs)

Notability has nothing to do with whether he's legitimate or not. There are tens of thousands of people with a "legitimate ministry". Fan-1967 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability is the importance of somebody or something, or the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to. Shawn’s work among Canadian ministries and churches make him notable or worth paying attention to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnAnnis (talk • contribs) — ShawnAnnis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Wikipedia has a definition of Notability that you should read. The problem here is that we do not have any external, third-party Reliable Sources that make Shawn Annis look more notable than thousands of other ministers and evangelists. Most of the article reads like personal accounts and descriptions, possibly autobiographical, rather than sourced, encyclopdedic data. Fan-1967 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, as above. --King Bee 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and this is an advertisement: "Shawn is anointed by God to help you get where you want to go and is available for vision facilitation and strategic planning sessions." OfficeGirl 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline ad. Fails WP:BIO in any case. Seraphimblade 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 ta-ta Missvain 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 06:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and would add it reads like WP:SPAM (advert).SkierRMH 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by admin. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FDR Contribution Fund

violates WP:BAND, non-notable, note number of red links, lack of sources, etc. SkierRMH 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:BAND -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of Wikipedia is not a myspace portal of garage bands trying to get famous. •Elomis• 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 - peace out! Missvain 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton School

Non-notable school which fails the proposed notability guideline of WP:SCHOOL. Tarret 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think it passes WP Schools Killerhun00 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the extremely generous WP:SCHOOLS does it pass? JChap2007 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - The part that says all schools are inherently notable, LOL! D e nni ^talk 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Encise 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
- Comment Any reason for keeping? JoshuaZ 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN private elementary school. --humblefool ® 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN elementary school with no sources. Shimeru 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced, private (so it doesn't even meet the "keep all schools because they serve a public service" criteria), rather newly-opened (so it doesn't pass the ridiculous 50-year criterion) elementary school. -- Kicking222 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just because a school is private doesn't mean that it does provide a public service. -- Librarianofages 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And just because a school exists doesn't mean it's notable. -- Kicking222 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All schools are inherently notable, including this one -- Librarianofages 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No they aren't, schools have to proove why they are notable. TJ Spyke 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any explanation of why all schools are notable would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whack it with a ruler No reliable sources in the article and I could not find any. JChap2007 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete However it can be listed on the page for List of private schools in Oklahoma. Missvain 03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. TJ Spyke 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SCHOOL. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Terence, last week you were telling me that all schools are inherently notable. Delete per WP:School Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no schools are notable, especially not this one! Xtifr _tälk 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails criteria WP:SCHOOL, has 480 students- I went to one that had 2000 and I'd vote delete on it for the same reason.--John Lake 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:SCHOOLS3. "All schools are inherently notable" is an opinion, not a fact. D e nni ^talk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make it go sit in the corner - Non-notable, fails WP:SCHOOL, WP:V, and WP:NOT. And I couldn't find anything on it either. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elaragirl: does not assert notability. Moreschi 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserted as a notable Catholic school in Oklahoma. --Vsion 04:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see our article on proof by assertion. JChap2007 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Show me some sources and then we'll talk. RFerreira 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for info on the school is not easy since multiple schools seem to have this name. I was unable to confirm the claim that the school is "the largest Catholic elementary school in the state of Oklahoma" which might constitute a weak claim of notability if true. Aside from that I can find no evidence of notable alumni, no evidence of clubs or teams performing at a notable level nor any other claim that could confer notability. JoshuaZ 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Largest Catholic school in a distinctly non-Catholic area is a claim of notability. Article needs expansion to provide addition context. Alansohn 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails pretty much any notability guideline, adopted or not. Expanded it and we'll talk. Trusilver 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth Ann Seton and perhaps place a footnote that this school is named in her honour. There is also a school of the same name in Alaska, otherwise I would have suggested redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. I don't see how this school is meets WP:SCHOOLS by it's own merits. Redirect discourages recreation! Movementarian (Talk) 10:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there some basis to that claim at all? Adding exclamation marks doesn't make the claim any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a repost. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts Glossary

Wikipedia is not a game guide. ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Deathawk 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, fancruft, Wikipedia is not: a videogame guide, a dictionary, an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This isn't game-guide stuff, it's just defining some terms that the reader might not know. If we had more KH pages link here, it might get better. ~ PH DrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This would be better off in a gaming wiki. --Wafulz 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP is not a game guide. TJ Spyke 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, with the suggestion to User:Xer to start a web page with this information - this is better suited to a web page. --Dennisthe2 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed, see below --Dennisthe2 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a game guide (just because it's a page that's not on the main page of a game, does not make it a game guide). However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary either and the page can't avoid being a bunch of dictionary definitions with no sources. ColourBurst 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT, fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a game guide SkierRMH 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information. Garrett^Talk 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It does not need it's own page. scope_creep 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT (game guide, collection of cruft, dictionary), and has nothing in the article that couldn't simply be merged in (and not much of that). --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Recreation. I can assure you that some entries are complete bullshit, such as "Corridoors of Light" and "Chasers". There's a lot of things that were never indicated as such in the games. Interrobamf 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not belong on the regular Wikipedia, article is more appropriate to create on: GameInfo, Encyclopedia Gamia, GamerWiki, or StrategyWiki.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's actually very little strategic content in the article, so there's a good chance the strategy wikis will reject them. The game wikis might take them if the licenses were compatible. ColourBurst 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Recreation as pointed out above, also WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Interrobamf. wikipediatrix 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This defies WP:NOT on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin! RFerreira 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Interrobamf, good call there. Posted the banner, it won't survive the night. --Dennisthe2 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Opportunity Index (DOI)

violation of WP:SPAM, clearly an advert for a NN business; author has removed the request for speedy delete SkierRMH 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks pretty non-notable to me. --humblefool ® 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, then. Still not enough there to justify an article. --humblefool ® 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other above... Cbrown1023 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Cleanup per Slgrandson -- ßottmi e siηi ^(talk) 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wait! Google has 23,700 exact results. Should we just consider rewriting it? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 27,000 results is a testament to good search engine optimisation skills, not neccessarily assertion of notability. •Elomis• 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above nom's Missvain 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though it was reformatted and more information given, if this is all the information avaiable, it should be merged. Missvain 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable WP:SPAM.--John Lake 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into International Telecommunication Union Not looking like spam at all anymore.--John Lake 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an advert/promo article has no place on Wikipedia. Does not meet notability guidelines either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Telecommunication Union, as humble stated above there is not enough information for this to be a stand alone article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? This is not even slightly spammy! Merge to International Telecommunication Union or Keep. I was all ready to jump on the evil spammers, but this is CLEARLY not spam! There is no way that an agency of the UN feels the need to spam Wikipedia! This is clearly bureaucratic, governmental jargon, and probably not yet notable enough for it's own article (although the very similar Human Development Index has its own article), but there's plenty of room for it in the article about the agency that originated it. And if it continues to be a UN standard, there's every chance it will come to deserve its own article before long (if it doesn't already). And guess what? I figured all this out with only a couple of minutes of research, mostly without even leaving Wikipedia! Xtifr _tälk 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've rewritten the article to make it a lot more clear that this is a UN standard, and I've put some information about the index into the article about the ITU agency, so we can easily go with either merge or keep now. Xtifr _tälk 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original proposer - would highly urge a merge with International Telecommunication Union; still nothing to indicate that this should be a stub.SkierRMH 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in light of a fairly clear concensus to merge, I've fixed the DAB page at DOI to point to International Telecommunication Union#Standards, where the index is mentioned, and moved the original article to Digital Opportunity Index, as a better location for a redirect (and, likewise, a better place for the article if an unexpected last-minute consensus to keep turns up). Xtifr _tälk 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Late dissenter: While this is something invented by the ITU, people may come across this out-of-context, and following a link into a much more general article is a confusing experience for the newcomers. Cost of having a separate article is low (I think). WRT comments about 27.000 hits being "search engine optimization": Look at WHERE those hits come from. People USE that concept. --Alvestrand 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodei

I first noticed this article when I saw users fighting back and forth on the reliability of forum posts as sources- there was a pretty heated debate about the software and neutrality. Anyway, I pointed out on the talk page that this article needs sources to be verified. I've pleaded for sources on the talk page and in edit summaries, saying the page could be deleted if none were presented. None have been, so it's my belief that the article does not meet WP:SOFTWARE and is not unverifiable. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources on Google either. Wafulz 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete it then someone is going to recreate it soon after, using the same sources. So what would be the point? And why does your google link go to the third results page? —Kn0wItAll 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, the Google link was on the page I was viewing. I've fixed it. If the page is recreated, it will be deleted on site and protected from recreation. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - On the other hand following WP:SOFTWARE "Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users ......."" can be referenced in the WIKI. There do indeed appear to be paid users of this software. I agree its marginal, but I tend to take the view that if there is a community demand for a page, and the editing and talk page discussions evidence this demand, then a page should stay. Timharwoodx 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any independent sources to verify anything though? Keep in mind there is currently a neutrality dispute on the page because nobody is presenting any sources about anything. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See SiteAdvisor —Kn0wItAll 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link has no actual information about the product other than stating its website doesn't have spyware. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with Timharwoodx. Vodei has 193,000 results in Google. There is clearly interest. —Kn0wItAll 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't matter if there are no sources. WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, while WP:V is a strict policy. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Timharwoodx misquotes WP:SOFTWARE. Software with a consistent number of users "may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)" There's absolutely nothing in the guideline that would justify keeping this article! At best you could argue for a merge if you could find some appropriate article. Otherwise, this fails both WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE and should be deleted. Xtifr _tälk 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMNSHO, Vodei is just a scheme to get you to download something that will then nag you for money. The software isn't particularly useful, and seems notable mostly for the number of people who are annoyed with it. As adware goes, it's actually fairly benign compared to some of the stuff out there. I really don't care if we delete this or not, but I want to point out that we have articles on Cydoor, Zango, and other such nuisances, so I don't see any reason why we can't have an article on this. -- Mcoder 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth letting the hounds loose to corral all of these, then, as Merge/Redirects to adware ? -- 62.25.109.196 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The WIKI is a community project. I can find lots of pages that do not strictly follow the WIKI guidelines. The bin Laden pages reference unverified anonymous sources (the video tapes), for example, and give them precedence over written verfied interviews from bin Laden. But I don’t seem to be able to persuade anyone to do anything about it, despite the fact it’s a blatant violation of content guidelines. At the end of the day, the case is marginal, I agree, but if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? Is the server running out of space? BTW, I thought the page was just starting to come together and look reasonable. Timharwoodx 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should remind you that "If article A then article B" is not an argument here. This is about Vodei's verifiability and lack thereof. This case is in no way marginal- there are absolutely no reliable sources presented. --Wafulz 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? — Because Wikipedia is not a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia. And its name is Wikipedia, by the way. Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a great resource for computer professionals like myself. The article itseld needs tidied up, expanded with more technical detail and sources added. scope_creep 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's what I've been saying for ages, but there are no sources. --Wafulz 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "It needs sources added." is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that there are no sources. Your only argument is to provide some, not to simply assert "Sources need to be added.". Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If no one can cough up proper sources in a day or so, they aren't likely to ever be. wikipediatrix 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a real codec. Make people aware of this fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.232.162 (talk • contribs)
- This statement is verifiable. The FAQ on vodei.com claims you need a "secondary codec" and instructs the reader to install ffdshow. The obvious implication is that Vodei just passes the video data to ffdshow for decoding. Thus ffdshow is the actual codec. --Mcoder 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that relevant to this discussion?—Kn0wItAll 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point being that there are sources for at least some of the claims made. Most of this debate seems to be about the reliability of information posted on the inmatrix forum. So it's worth pointing out that, at least with respect to the file format, the Vodei developers statements seem to corroborate those claims. --Mcoder 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe the solution is to edit the article to contain only information found on both the official website and the forum? —Kn0wItAll 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The official website is not independent, and the forum is not reliable at all. --Wafulz 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable due to lack of links to any third party coverage (or to material backing up any other claim to notability). Sandstein 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - keep socks were noted, also some keeps were on the grounds "what's wrong" and the delete advocates managed to "damage" some of these "keeps".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi!

Keep Come on, keep it. I don't even see the reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is a free conglormate of ideas, information about anything. And this is something.

An (admittedly cute) animation on YouTube. Best claim to notability is that a bunch of people on Fark and Digg liked it. Disputed prod. —Cryptic 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kiwi isn't just cute. It has a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.116.218 (talk • contribs)
Keep Kiwi is an excellent animation with a large fan base. There should be a wiki page for it if people want to know more about it. Definetly keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.116.218 (talk • contribs)

Comment User's only edit. —EdGl 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I loved 'Kiwi!', and I think that on the off-chance that someone hears about it and wants to know about it, there should be a Wikipedia article that will introduce them to it. Please don't delete it. Perhaps someone could make the 'Kiwi!' article more acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbythebeach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as no assertion of notability. Possibly redirect to Kiwi if appropriate(???). —EdGl 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide enough audience for this, I don't believe that it needs deletion. -- Librarianofages 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify that? Can you edit this article so that it asserts notability? Then maybe I will rethink my vote. But as of now, you haven't convinced me or probably anyone else that it does not warrant deletion. —EdGl 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Simply look at the audience on Youtube, perhaps all we need to do is say " as of dd/mm/yyyy Kiwi! had xxx,xxx,xxx views on Youtube alone." Would that be ok with you then? -- Librarianofages 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No. Needs reliable sources. Random youtube viewers are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'll agree that YouTube as a primary source should be questioned. In response to that, I've added the director's website as an external link -- it also hosts the video (and at much higher quality than YouTube, I might add). However, using YouTube viewership as a gauge of notability should be fair play. If 2 million views is not some indication of notability, then I don't know what is. Chicago god 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Two million views is an indication of popularity, not notability. There are many temporarily popular things that are not notable in any way. This is a perfect example, along with scads of other Internet fads. In a month, no one will know nor care about this thing. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. It is notable because it is popular. Your comment about fads lacks credibility: Internet_fad Chicago god 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are reliable sources verifying this not just a Youtube viewer count. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster Missvain 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wonderfully cute and tragic, and I'm fairly confident that one day it will have sources. However, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and we can't do anything without verification, so for now it can't have an article. --Wafulz 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to write an article from. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brian | (Talk) 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote; you must give a reason for why this article should be kept. —EdGl 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't have to make a recommendation on every vote. Brian | (Talk) 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - As EdGl rightly said, this is not a vote. With no rationale, and more importantly no cited sources, your bare opinion will not count against the assertions that it is impossible to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, using non-trivial independent sources, on this subject. Your best, and only, arguments are sources, sources, sources. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course the debate is not a vote (that’s why VDF was renamed). I should have said on my “recommendation” however I did not. On AFD you do not have to make a detailed recommendation all the time. Brian | (Talk) 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm just saying, your vote has no weight if you can't tell us your reasoning. —EdGl 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as webcontent that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if I can vote since I created the article. In defense of the article: 2 million + views on YouTube. If that's not notable, then words have no meaning. Chicago god 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a reliable source -- to wit: the director's website (which also hosts the video) has been added as an external link in the article. Chicago god 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment you can "vote" all you want, but this isn't a vote. We're looking for arguments and discussion and (we hope) some form of concensus. And in this particular case, we're looking for multiple, independent, reliable sources. The directors website is hardly independent, and as a directly interested party, its reliability may be questionable as well. Xtifr _tälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed speedy delete tag. There is an assertion of notability and a discussion to be had here. For now, I think we still need reliable third party sources. As the director is not a third party but the creator, his website doesn't count. Chicago god might want to copy it across to his talk page until there are sources such as newspaper articles or reviews online that verify its importance. For now, Google News has nothing on it and Google News Archive has lonelygirl but nothing on this. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'Qubit Field Theory' has no entries in Google News or Google News Archive either, but Jimbo and I both think it's worthy of an article... and it is. Chicago god 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is irrelevant. We are discussing this article. Your only arguments are to cite sources. So please cite them. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable independent sources are provided. Wikipedia is not a web directory! Xtifr _tälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what kind of source information you're looking for. The source stating that it's a film? That it's animated? That it's digital? That's it's under 3 minutes? That it has a plot? That the plot is as described in the article? That it has a director? Chicago god 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ... that it's notable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and reiterate Keep There are 500+ hits for 'Dony Permedi Kiwi!' on Google, many of which are reliable, independent sources. Chicago god 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind pointing one out? All I see are blogs and forum posts, though I stopped looking after the first fifty hits. —Cryptic 12:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert notability. Having it watched by 2M+ people is not notability. Winning an oscar would. scope_creep 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Chicago god has created two keeps. As the creator of this article, these are ineligible. scope_creep 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This video must be documented by indepedent sources, however I do know it is very popular on youtube. Valoem ^talk 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I watched the video, and it's nice, but it's not really a notable Internet meme. The "external links" to the thousands of comments fail to change my mind on this. 129.98.212.69 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice little animation, I have to say. Sadly it's not notable as an Internet meme, but if it becomes one we can take it to WP:DRV. Notability would count as a newspaper/magazine article about the item, or a TV report etc. It hasn't reached those standards, yet. --SunStar Net 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not assert it's notability. Please review WP:V for a better definition. Typically, sir, blogs, forums, and internet sites are not taken as professional external sources. TV Shows, newspapers, magazines, and the like are. To other users, voting without a reason based on a WP:POLICY is usually not even counted by the closing admin, so you are quite frankly wasting your time doing that. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really like this film, but there's no evidence that it's notable. --Hyperbole 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unimpressed notability-wise. Moreschi 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only argument I've heard so far for keeping this article is that it has 2 million hits on YouTube. Big woop. There are many videos on YouTube that have way more hits, and they don't have articles. Why? Because, as said over and over again on here, no verifiable, independent, reliable sourses to back them up. A buttload of hits just means YouTube is popular! My vote still stands as "delete". —EdGl 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are fewer than 250 videos on YouTube that have more views than "Kiwi!" does. I guess that's what you mean by many. Of those many, most are unworthy of an article for the reasons you state. This film, however, is deserving an article. Chicago god 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, why is this deserving of an article? Here's a tip, take a look at Free Hugs Campaign, an article about YouTube video that actually is notable. See how many assertions of notablity, and how many sources cited? Compare that article to Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll gladly compare. Thirteen days after Free Hugs Campaign became an article, it still had exactly one source cited (YouTube). One source after nearly two weeks. Kiwi! has 6 sources in 2 days. Chicago god 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.isfat.com/happyjunk/kiwi.php is the only real source (reference) I see in the Kiwi! article. The other links just show where the video is and how many reviews it had. I count eight good ones in the Free Hugs Campaign article, and most of them are news articles. Hey, maybe you can find a few news articles for Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reference, in fact, mentions that the director may submit the film to some festivals. The news articles will practically write themselves at that point. Chicago god 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now, and because WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it can be deleted and restored later when it does get the sources. ColourBurst 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now" is both a falsehood and a deviation of logic. The article does, in fact, have sources. Chicago god 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant to say that although Kiwi! might have "good souces" in the future (independent, reliable, verifyable...), this article does not have any now and is not notable at this point. Like I said before, I only see one "good source". The rest are "fluff". Get a couple of news articles in there!!! I suggest copy/pasting this article to a user subpage, wait for some news articles, and recreate the article in due time. But this may not happen for a long time, if ever. —EdGl 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 5 minutes ago this clip featured on a mainstream New Zealand TV show Campbell Live [7] this shortly now can be classed as WP:Notable Brian | (Talk) 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I back the above comment up as I also watched it. Background information was given before the video was played. The video was played with permission from the copyright holder so it wasn't just played off YouTube. Nzgabriel 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Right now there aren't any valid third party sources mentioned so it doesn't establish notability. However, to people interested in keeping the article... I remember reading about this somewhere and it wasn't on YouTube, but I have no idea where I read this. This does mean that there is a third party source out there if someone looks hard enough. --The Way 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep "kiwi" "Dony Permedi" give 719 google hits at the moment, and it seems as notable as Lonelygirl15 cyclosarin 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a good comparison considering how many independent references Lonelygirl has (including several mentions from prominent news sources, the New York Times, and Associated Press). --Wafulz 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually a google search of kiwi Dony Permedi now seems to give over 12,000 hits, though I see your point and realise that google isn't everything. cyclosarin 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 22,000 google hits today. That's 10,000 more than yesterday. Chicago god 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality animation, well written article. What's not to like? --Billpg 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article isn't written well it all. It also contains original research like "There are many parallels that can be found between the film's kiwi and the human condition." The existence of independent sources would help quite a bit. --Wafulz 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Actually the article isn't written well it all." That's your opinion. The presence of one line at the end can be fixed by trimming that line. --Billpg 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense to you or the article contributor(s), but this article really is poorly written. I would love to go into detail, but it would take up too much space, and this is an inappropriate place to discuss it as well. If you're still inconvinced, would you like me to spell it all out for you on this talk page? (or the article's talk page?) —EdGl 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: May I add that a "quality animation" and a "well-written article" are not reasons to keep an article? —EdGl 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Well written" and "Quality" are matters of opinion. I happen to like both the film and the WP article on it. You are at liberty to disagree. --Billpg 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - EdGl : You're right, this is not the place to discuss the quality of the writing. The article may need improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Instead of spelling out the problems that you have with the writing, be bold and edit the article (or tag the article appropriately). Chicago god 08:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying it's a reason to delete! I'm saying that just because (Billpg thinks that) the article is well written doesn't mean that the article should be kept! Sorry for all the exclamation points, but I want to make sure you're reading my posts the way I mean them to say. As an aside, though, I would improve the diction, but since the consensus seems to be "delete", then I'm not going to waste my time. But if it were the other way around, I'd help it out. Or if doing so would improve its notability. —EdGl 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just complete nonsense that doesn't belong here. Anomo 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "complete nonsense"? This coming from the person who nominated "The Diarrhea Song" as a featured article two weeks ago. Please. Chicago god 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why must everyone wikistalk me? Anomo 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To summarize thus far: references have been added (secondary source), the video has been run on a primetime television show (notability), it has more than 3 million views on YouTube (notability), has gone from 400 google hits to 24,000 in about 4 days (does not exist in a vaccuum), and has been edited to remove the single line of original research (no original research). Chicago god 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cuteness is not inherently notable. WMMartin 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - very nice little cartoon, but not yet notable enough, although I suspect that may change if this starts playing festivals. TheRealFennShysa 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if there is room in Wikipedia for useless articles about World of Warcrap cities and obscure characters from the Star Wars universe, there is room for this. KEEP IT!!! Don't let the lame nazi censors delete it. Windows2142 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treat this article as a separate issue, please. And stop the name-calling. Can you give any reasons for your keep vote other than "there are articles on here that are even worse"? —EdGl 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. YouTube is notable. And this ranked #1 all-time in important categories. I suspect that YouTube and its succesors are becoming a valid medium for publishing of animation. If this had been made 50 years ago it would have been a short subject at the movies, I guess, and if had won the Oscar for best short subject it'd be notable. So this is sort of the 21st-century equivilant, in a way, I suppose. Herostratus 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying keep the article because YouTube is notable, and that being "#1 all-time" (proof please?) is equivalent to winning an Oscar? —EdGl 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G-11, advertising; then redirected to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan per discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moosejaw

violates WP:SPAM (advertising), NN business, solely an advertising page SkierRMH 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (CSD G11) -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - speedy delete per WP:SNOW amongst others. - wtfunkymonkey 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising. And the first line of the article is a hypothetical question about the its own validity! Wavy G 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with redirect to Moose Jaw, a notable city whose name often gets misspelled. --Charlene 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Seams like a probable misspelling of the city and I am confident that someone typing this is more likely looking for the city. Finally it should not redirect simply to Moose Jaw because that would be a double redirect.--67.71.77.44 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right you are about the redirect. --Charlene 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above or Wikify. ~ PH DrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, then redirect per above. MER-C 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moose Jaw and, obviously, speedy the current article content as non-notable spam. (In other words, I guess I'm asking for a speedy, protected redirect.) -- Kicking222 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep?/Comment I agree about redirecting. The talk page on the Moosejaw page states that they have been featured in various notable publications. I went from their offical website to articles featured in the New York Times, Outdoor, etc. There are valid articles discussing the business. I figure if the page was made to seem less "spammy" and more wiki, perhaps it'd be keepable? They have earned notability. Missvain 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very outlandish claims. If true, well, so be it, but I think some actual citation of sources will be in order. Wavy G 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and later redirect to Moose Jaw. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as advertising (possible G11) Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Teenybopper Brotherhood

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This "international alliance" of "150 factions across the United States, ... Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom" spectacularly fails the google test. Prod disputed by ~~hoa~~ article creator. —Cryptic 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nice idea, but seeming that it has the coveted 0 ghits I'd say it's notability lacking - wtfunkymonkey 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Hello32020 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, MER-C 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good idea, but I personally have more Ghits than this, and I am a complete nobody :-( •Elomis• 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wtfunkymonkey Missvain 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Из света, в тьму Mishatx 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for pity's sake, this is nauseating. Strong delete, with a motion to salt with extreme prejudice. Now pass me the Pepto-Bismol. --Dennisthe2 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was should have been speedied. Just keep re-adding the tag until a friendly neighborhood admin comes along. Grand master ka 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Velocet

violation of WP:BAND, non notable; new (2007) group, 1 'debut' album, no references or citationsSkierRMH 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marginal speedy. MER-C 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there a way we can trick all the garage bands onto a single article and then CSD it? •Elomis• 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the main guy has performed with some very cool bands, I'd consider him non-notable and almost even a speedy delete. Missvain 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, fails WP:BAND criteria. When are all these articles stop being created on Wikipedia, it is wasting space. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC . This should have been a speedy delete candidate. scope_creep 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS for that matter. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Admin attention; someone keeps reverting this page and removing WP notifications. I would suggest Salt the Earth

This was a proposed as a speedy delete but someone removed the tag before it was attended to.SkierRMH 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus - there is no such thing as precedent on Wikipedia, but nonetheless, the issue of whether to have an article on every episode of a TV series is mainly a question of whether it falls under 'indiscriminate information'. That question hasn't been answered by numerous centralised discussions and bulk AfDs and it certainly hasn't been answered here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare artifact, The importance of the Beauties of Nature

Episode 208 of the Naruto anime. This is just a plot summary, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Delete as indiscriminate information. Prod tag removed, so taking to full Articles for Deletion. -- Phirazo 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— Phirazo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete per nom. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:TVE--Gjeixs 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC) — Gjeixs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto Episodes. The inclusion of this episode is not indiscriminate as the nominator originally charged, as it's part of the complete and finite set of Naruto episodes who, as a whole, are notable and have survived a deletion attempt with consensus being "Keep". –Gunslinger47 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD you are referring to was to delete all Naruto episode articles en masse. This is a nomination for a single article. If you want to keep this article, name some reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, this is original research. Also, WP:NOT specifically says Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries. --Phirazo 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need secondary sources to say that, for example, Naruto's head disappears at time index 17:51. The primary source should be more than sufficient. The same goes for referencing the plot. What original research are you referring to? –Gunslinger47 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original research is a new synthesis - the article is picking out of the episode what is important and what isn't. --Phirazo 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding what warrants mention is a critical part of the editing process. You, yourself, are making a call about what warrants mention on Wikipedia by raising this AfD. This is by no means "original research". The alternative, in this case, would be to copy someone else's summary, which I'm sure violates a copyright law or two. –Gunslinger47 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Upon some research, I believe I see what you're getting at. After reading WP:NOT#IINFO, specifically this section,
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

You seem to have went off on a bit of a tangent. Pay close attention to the final sentence. The set of Naruto episodes are supplementary to the core topic of Naruto and cannot stand by themselves. Individual episode articles are created initially for the soul purpose of indepth plot review and only because such verbose information would be unsuitable for inclusion within already bloated higher-level articles. –Gunslinger47 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Giejdz placed a single purpose account tag after my signature. This is fascinating, since Giejdz's only edits are reverting mine [8]. Pot, kettle, black, etc. --Phirazo 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page pretty much declares straight up that this is an extra account of yours for use in protecting your anonymity during deletion debates. Your number of edits on this account is somewhat irrelevant. I don't see why Giejdz added the template. –Gunslinger47 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:NOT policy. Articles consisting entirely of plot information are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
The fact that they could not easily be merged into larger articles is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. The fact that these synopses are too long to merge into single articles is not a sign that they need to be placed in individual articles: it is a sign that they should be made shorter. This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences. — Haeleth Talk 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVE and WP:NOT.
Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. [...] This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences.

Actually, if you look at the Television Episode guidelines, the list of works following these guidelines shows that this format and level of detail is perfectly common.
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Where the WP:NOT policy says "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot", the work of fiction in question here is actually the whole of Naruto, not this single episode. The episode summaries are merely a small part of the 'article set' of this work of fiction (i.e. this work's article set is not solely plot summaries). So as required, they are an aspect of that larger topic. It's not unreasonable to split these into individual articles as per the WP:TVE guidelines.Crashwinder 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have made recommendations to keep "per WP:TVE". WP:TVE is not a guideline, it's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes which refers editors to what it describes as "the debate on writing articles on individual television episodes." That debate is a centralized discussion which states, among other things, "Elements which are best avoided in any episode article: A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show." In other words, most of this article is devoted to content which a consensus has agreed should not be included. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about using the term 'guideline', it's just that I assumed that was the right term from the list at WP:TVE titled "TV shows currently using these guidelines". Obviously to describe each scene in detail is pointless, but if the level of detail in this article (600 words) is too much, then there is an enormous amount of material listed under WP:TVE that needs cutting. Crashwinder 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there 200 odd pages each details an episode, which is hard to find unless you are a fan, and even harder to find if you were a fan and not seen it for yeard, i.e forgotten it. Complete waste of resources. Put all the plot summaries on one page. scope_creep 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability for this TV episode, WP:NOT a TV guide. Sandstein 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. There are episode articles for a great many shows. These articles have already survived one deleton attempt and it creates just as much clutter to individually afd each one than it does to keep them. Might as well start AfDing Star Trek episodes. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. Treima 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are these precedents? The AfD for all Naruto episodes isn't precedent; quite a few of the objections were about the scope of the nomination, not the articles themselves. A TV episode article should be more than just a plot summary, for example, see Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode). How is this article more than just a plot summary? --Phirazo 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Major Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode)... It's one thing to pick the penultimate episode of a season, but can you honestly say any given episode of any given series will have that kind of coverage? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I used Abyssinia, Henry as an example of what a TV article should aspire to. Interestingly enough, Major Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode) is notable, in a "Worst. Episode. Ever." way. Not every episode of every TV show is notable enough to warrant it's own article, and this episode isn't up to those standards. --Phirazo 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what more you want on this and most of the other Naruto episode pages but it's not going to get written if you delete them. While there may not be precedent to keep, you might want to consider the precedent you will be making if you delete. 86.20.30.144 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plot summary. -- Hoary 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many people are voting with unfortunate haste as Horay just did above. We've attempted to explain, without argument, that that single line of WP:NOT#IINFO is being misunderstood in this context. Plot summaries in general are not forbidden, only when an article on a work of fiction contains just a plot summary and nothing else. The work of fiction in this case, is Naruto. This is a sub-article and is not meant to stand on its own. It is an aspect of a larger subject, and therefor does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO #7. There are valid reasons to get rid of this article, but its being primarily a plot summary is not one of them. –Gunslinger47 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An article should be able to stand on its own. There simply is not enough about the episode as it stands to merit an individual article. If an article cannot stand on its own, then it should be merged (perhaps into List of Naruto episodes). --Phirazo 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  You don't make an argument against sub-articles in general, do you? As an article grows in size, it is a natural and encouraged part of its development to fork off into smaller subjects which may or may not have significance outside the context of its parent article. –Gunslinger47 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep (trolling). — CharlotteWebb 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart

Non-notable article that has some NPOV issues. Additionally, there really isn't much traffic on this page and http://walmart.com has much, much more information. --Nicholas Weiner 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: with, as eloquently pointed out by 152 and Garrett, no indication that MPOGD is notable (in fact, an article on the site has been deleted) and no arguments to the contrary, which means MPOGD cannot be said to confer notability through its awards, we have no non-trivial coverage by independent third-party sources or any other indication that this game is notable. Delete, not discounting arguments from anons, since a convincing case for deletion was made that has not been answered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space - Glory Through Conquest

Completing nomination by 152.91.9.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), no !vote from me yet. MER-C 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first nomination

Does not appear to meet the web content guideline nor the proposed software guideline. Google news gets zero hits and the first ten pages of a "normal" Google search fail to show anything like a reliable source that has covered this topic. Searching for the less-specific "Glory Through Conquest" in Google and Goggle news also yield no substantial results. Previous nomination debate actually looked like a clear "delete," so I'd encourage everyone to review that debate as well. The only real point of contention is the "multiplayer online directory" awards for "game of the month". These are not a "a well known and independent award" by any metric that has been proposed. Unless citations are provided that demonstrate notability and provide verification this should be deleted. 152.91.9.144 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a quick google search not sure is this should be delete because google hits brings up 1190 hits, and has several guides published. Simpleerob 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that really notable though for a game that has won 2 award from the same site in 4 years? I've heard of the game, but then it's the kind of thing I like to play. Robovski 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No sources outside its fanbase. The MPOGD awards are interesting, but that is rather generic and appears to be based on either IP-specific votes or ins/outs; neither of these methods are reliable or trustworthy. Within four(?) years this article has not attracted any reliable sources, so I doubt it ever will. Garrett^Talk 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its bona fides. Its tidied up though, with more detail added. scope_creep 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per anonymous nominator's rationale. Sandstein 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable within its genre, and has to awards to show for it thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE. RFerreira 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Czj 09:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I recommend cutting some of the game guide stuff down a bit (mainly the "Species" section). --- RockMFR 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite suprised if we ended up keeping an otherwise un-notable game thanks to an unknown award from a non-notable site. Internet awards need to have some provenance if they are to carry any weight. Looking at "mpogd.com" itself to attempt to determine its notability, I'd point out that:
1. It doesn't have a Wikipedia entry
2. It's only Google news entries are from itself.
3. While the website gets quite a few Google hits, none I could find were from an independant third party.
4. Its Alexa ranks is 46,752 which is far enough into the unreliable zone to be meaningless.
If this game can demonstrate that it's won an award from a notable website, or that it has had non-trivial coverage somewhere else, then this article should be kept. Barring that, it's tantamount to advertising.

152.91.9.144 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reopened this debate due to the fact the keep result was controversial and this debate was closed prematurely without a good consensus, and I would like to leave it to a person who is more experianced with the notability guidelines for schools. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't a school. --Czj 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was {{sofixit}}. ~ trialsanderrors 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update since neither the Wikiproject ND not anyoen else was willing to put any effort into these articles, I closed the list as Keep, and all golf courses as Redirect to their repsective communities. No action on the Association, as it was not marked with an AfD tag. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in North Dakota

A list of non-notable golf courses in North Dakota. Nomination also includes the golf courses on the list:

as well as the

North Dakota Golf Association,

which fails WP:ORG as a subnational organization not the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources. JChap2007 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawktree Golf Club BlueValour 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Bully Pulpit Golf Course, King's Walk Golf Course and Riverwood Golf Course. No assertion of notability. All are of the form "The Golf Club is an 18-hole golf course located somewher. It measures x yards from the back tees." MER-C 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and redirect to the locality articles except Bully Pulpit Golf Course, King's Walk Golf Course and Riverwood Golf Course. This was my suggestion to the Project North Dakota guys and they accepted it see User talk:Alexwcovington#North Dakota Golf Courses. BlueValour 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above If that's what the North Dakota folks want, then that's no problem with me. Robovski 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mer-C. Edison 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination as this issue has already been addressed. WPND is working on redirecting the smaller articles, but it's slow going. ~~I'm sorry we're not moving fast enough for you BV, but you're always welcome to help with the redirects if that's the case.~~ There is no reason to bring this up again. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expect an apology. This AfD was by JChap2007. I simply drew attention to the earlier AfD and defended your articles by saying Merge. BlueValour 12:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have it; I misread the nomination, sorry.

And I did not know about the nomination of the one article nor that it had been "settled." I had seen this list this spring. I nominated one golf course (whose name I cannot remember now), which was deleted. Once I saw that went through I planned to nominate the whole list, but didn't get around to it until now. If you want to merge the articles, fo for it. Although including the length of the golf courses in a particular city in the article about that city might seem a little strange. JChap2007 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The process to merge the less notable courses with their relevant city articles is ongoing. Check out which courses I have already merged. There are clearly many more courses which can be merged with their city articles, but just give us a chance to debate amongst ourselves which courses we would like to try to keep and expand and give us a chance to merge more articles. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of what happens to the individual golf course articles (likely merger for most), I hope that we would be able to keep the list of golf courses. It could be greatly expanded and the NDGA article could be merged into it. Having a comprehensive list of golf courses in the state would be a valuable asset. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list only. As for the golf courses, only leave the major ones in their own articles. The rest of the golf courses should be deleted. WP:NOT a directory and has no content besides where is it and how many holes are there. We don't need such information on an encyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all one/two liner courses and do it now! ND guys, you can un-redirect specific articles later, there's no reason to keep these stubs around in their present state. Keep the list (I usually hate listcruft, but this seems reasonably well-defined and encyclopedic), Weak Delete for the org. Xtifr _tälk 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep North Dakota Golf Association (and note that some commentators may not have noticed it set off after the main list above). Keep the list, even more useful if others deleted than if not because it connects up course names and cities. Keep Bully Pulpit and King's Walk. If expanded, which could easily be done on the basis of coverage in various golf magazines, keep Red Mike (Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort), else delete and keep open for creation later. Keep Riverwood if expanded even a little bit. Despite surviving previous nomination, Hawktree needs to be expanded now, immediately, else delete, since that vote was eight weeks ago and nothing has been done. Merge Ray Richards Golf Course with the University, and any other specific courses not kept with cities. Gene Nygaard 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change first one, Redirect North Dakota Golf Association to the list, and include some info about it there. As a list, it was inferior, and as an article, not likely to ever have much. Gene Nygaard 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including the list. I don't see any real notability in any of these articles - Arnold Palmer's firm designs a lot of courses, and being named the "second best public golf course in North Dakota"? Come on! Out!!! If someone wants to add the info to the locality articles, that's fine, but I don't think they will suffer without it. --Brianyoumans 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the golf course articles to articles about the locality as suggested above. No comment about the list. JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an excellent list of ND golf courses. There is NO reason to delete them. Weatherman90 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BlueValour. If the ND project has already decided that this makes sense, then we would need a good reason to reverse their opinion. Nothing in this discussion appears to rise to that level. Vegaswikian 07:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant copyvio of http://www.aisquith.org/history.htm. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisquith Presbyterian Church

Non-notable church building. Page was prodded and second prodded. Tags removed by page author MNewnham 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What an interesting old church! Besides, all churches are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Google news to indicate that anything notable ever happened in this church, and a "normal" Google search shows a fair number of hits, but while it existance can be confirmed the normal interpretation of the verification standard looks for more than this. Unless the facts can be confirmed from multiple third party sources, this article cannot be shown to be unbiased and thus violates Wikipedia's core principles. - 152.91.9.144 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-find barely anything on this church, seems not to meet notability or be mentioned in reliable sources. Seraphimblade 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not agree that "all churches are inherently notable" you said the same think about schools. There is nothing notable about this one. Missvain 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 160+ year old church. Edison 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most individual churches are not notable. --Metropolitan90 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all churches assert notability. There is really a need to introduce a special criteria for places of worship. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless they can substantiate any level of notability.SkierRMH 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King Wednesday

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Clear case thereof. Delete. --Alynna 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite literally, I would say: "Holiday among the Abington Junior and High school students..." Wavy G 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per nom, not notable, WP:OR, no sources, and dear god it's not even spell checked. --wtfunkymonkey 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an article about a group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. It's also Made up in school one (wednes)day, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:OR, a failure of WP:BIO and complete and utter bollocks. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete per all above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. The raw total was 11-3 Delete, with two of the Keeps being Weak. Aside fro Carrottop, nobody much think this article should exist. And Carrottop's arguments, while vociferous, are not strong. Herostratus 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hassum

Disputed speedy deletion candidate; contains borderline assertions of notability. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - pernom. no sources, no article. --wtfunkymonkey 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just don't see notability here. Dipics 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First of all I would just like to make clear that I am not Jennifer Hassum nor do I have a personal relationship with her, so this is not a vanity article. I created this article to connect two other articles in which she is mentioned and to provide extra infomation about her to readers of those articles. Jen is notable in both Canadian and toronto-area politics and I wrote a extensive rationale as to why I feel this way, which can be found on the discussion page of the article in question. As far as the issue of sources, I would be happy to add sources and expand the content if the article is allowed to remain. --Carrottop 79 02:36, 16 November 2006

You typically have 5 days to improve an AfD. wtfunkymonkey 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, both Toronto and Canada! Sometimes articles like this come up for politicians that are just notable to make it and this is one, I don't think it's deletable yet but if she falls from the public eye we can delete it then, conversely if she becomes prime minister of Canada we can flesh it out. •Elomis• 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added some sources for you guys (and any gals), any more input in that regard would be helpful. As far as the notablity, as I mentioned in the discussion page, Jen is currently the president of Canada's largest student union with forty-one thousand members, at one of Canada's top universities and she is the youth wing co-chair of one of Canada's major political parties (and will be for about 2 more years) which at last count had support of 22% of Canadians and in the last election received over two and a half million votes. --Carrottop 79 03:14, 16 November 2006
Weak Keep sourced article with some what established notability. Simpleerob 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is not notable. She may have lobbied for a cause, and have supplied quotes, but she has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Ohconfucius
Delete per Ohconfucius. We don't have articles about this person's counterparts in the USA, that is, the presidents of the Young Democrats of America or the Young Republicans, nor do I believe that we need them. Being an official of a political party organization does not necessarily mean that a person is of sufficient interest to the general public as to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This woman: 1) was/is active in party politics 2) demonstrated against the Iraq War 3) serves in student government. None of these activities, each a quintessential activity of college students, provides a basis for notability. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Weak delete She may be the head of the largest student union in Canada - but I would not, for example, consider the student body president at the University of Texas (which has, like, what - a gazillion students?) notable. The rest of it doesn't really add up to notability for me, either - the mention of media coverage helps, but doesn't put it over the top, so I'm a weakish delete.--TheOtherBob 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn bio. Tempshill 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These student activities are admirable. But the best objective test of notability is independent published sources, per the great discussion in User:Uncle G/On notability. This page fails the test.Obina 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was mentioned that the an official with the Young Democrats or Republicans wouldn't deserve an article but Lauren Wolfe president of the College Democrats of America has an article about her and her role with that organization as do other party officials in gerenal. To suggest that an official of one credible political party of worthy of an article mention and one of another credible party is not, is extremely partisan and if I am not mistaken Wikipedia is not a partisan body user Carrottop 79 14:55 16 November
- True - but in fairness it looks from the discussion page of that article that it was marked for speedy deletion at one point, and for some reason just slipped through. So maybe it should also be deleted.--TheOtherBob 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I totally agree with Carrottop on this one. So I have opened an afd entry on Lauren Wolfe. Dipics 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The president of the Young Liberals (Australia) Mark Powell (Australian politician) also has an article as does the previous president Alex Hawke. Ruth Cameron with the Scottish Young Greens has a page.Anna Sjödin chairperson of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth Leaguealso has a page, which also includes notable information about a “Drunken Bar Fight”. Ella Bohlin chairperson of the Christian Democratic Youth League, Johan Foressel chairperson of the Moderate Youth League and Tove Fraurud former president of the Young Left (Sweden) in that same nation all have articles as well.Back in the US, Paul Gourley chairman of the College Republican National Committee has a page, as does Michael Davidson who ran against him and was chairperson of the California college republicans and previous CRNC chairperson Eric Hoplin

I set out to find ten other examples of existing biographies for youth wing presidents (chairs, co-chairs or directors) of various political parties, if anyone wants more I would be happy to spend more time researching for more, however I feel I have made my point and have demonstrated that there is precedent for articles of this type on even less noteworthy subjects. If you want to go on a delete frenzy, I also saw a great deal of party official in other party wings with articles Carrottop 79 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI two of these has been considered for deletion, with result no concesus in both cases and three others are supported by the Wikipedia Politics and government work group Carrottop 79 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to keep looking for them, please do. This is a good start for preparing AfD's for non-notable bios. Your point -- that the encyclopedia sometimes accumulates articles that really should be deleted -- is well-taken. But I think you're wanting to go the next step and say "and so we shouldn't delete any particular one of these articles." Nah - we should delete them all (assuming they really are all non-notable, which should be decided individually.) What you are showing is that we need to be more active in deleting articles about people who are not notable. What you need to show is that this one particular artice is about someone who is notable, and therefore shouldn't be deleted.--TheOtherBob 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Student Council president is not a claim to notability, "continuing to be politically active" certainly isn't either. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian relativity

Indian relativity - delete - I want this deleted as the phrase is not notable in the field of relativity theory or well-known in popular culture. It doesn't meet WP standards. MP (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, the phrase is not even mentioned in the reference given. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's been a bunch of articles lately that are Indian perspectives on otherwise notable general theories (there was an Indian Impressionism article a while back, don't know if it is still around). Articles that provide no further details about a general thing by adding the perspective of a culture, race or country should not be included. •Elomis• 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yup. Missvain 04:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aryabhata's observation is not a statement of the principle of relativity. Instead it is an observation made later and independently by Copernicus. Kindly note that noone credits Copernicus with discovering the principle of relativity. --EMS | Talk 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, 25 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, does this really exist? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Aryabhata's relativity principle, which is the genesis of this business (and also up for deletion). However, the simple answer in "No". --EMS | Talk 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom & ems57fcva.SkierRMH 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verified, and fails WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Somebody has coined two words just for a fun .Good coinage! But no need in this wikipedia.There is no so called popular theory . I have heard of Aryabhatas theory of relativity. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also ongoing Afd on Aryabhata's relativity principle. Pavel Vozenilek 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Grandcolas

Tagged for speedy deletion and contested; "unencyclopedic" is not a valid speedy criterion. 9/11 victim with press coverage; that may be notability be default. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was definitely "unencyclopedic" when it was tagged for speedy deletion. [9] However, it has been rewritten. Grandcolas is one of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 to make phone calls. Her name is also linked on the United Airlines Flight 93 article. The phone calls are significant, as they give indication of what might have happened on the flight. The topic of phone calls also comes up from time to time in 9/11 conspiracy theories, with some belief that these calls came from cell phones. This call, like nearly all of them, came from an airphone and not a cell phone. --Aude (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that the call is notable, information about it belongs on a page about 9/11, for example perhaps in United Airlines Flight 93#Passenger and crew phone calls. Notability of the call doesn't justify an article on her. Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aude Missvain 04:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as independent coverage exists but the same goes for a large number of non-notable 9/11 victims and Wikipedia is not a memorial. I don't find the phone calls by themselves convincing, as there were quite a few phone calls made. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to the United Airlines Flight 93, although that would require a mrege of any other persons noted in that article.SkierRMH 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "...although that would require a merge of [others]" -- why not? Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Dhartung, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now includes more details, which I think demonstrate that she qualifies under WP:BIO.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (including newspaper articles)
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. --Aude (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Dis~~agree she passes WP:BIO (probably). Responding,

~~The~~ Some sources of which she is a primary subject are commemorative, like obituaries. They do not show notability as Wikipedia is not a memorial.
~~No indication that You Can Do It has "received multiple independent reviews" or awards.~~ In light of sources provided by Aude, I see the book has been covered.
Don't think it could fairly be said that she achieved "renown" (and certainly not notoriety). Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Ohconfucius' edits, some of the references were (inadvertently?) deleted. I have restored them and added more references, including Publishers Weekly and National Review. In all, Google finds 11,000+ hits [10] when searching "you can do it" + "grandcolas". One could search other combinations, and surely come up with more/different results. There is plenty of verifiable material out there. --Aude (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to association with very notable events. (If consensus objections are rasied from friends and relatives, then delete.) --Whiskey Pete
Delete per Amists. Tempshill 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regrettably, neither she, her husband, not her family passes WP:BIO, the media obsession for info of courage and human interest notwithstanding. The article is so skewed towards her non notable career that one would easily miss the claimed importance of the call she made. Anyhoo, to say that her last phone message to her husband was played in the Discovery Channel docudrama is a far cry from having a 30 minute program about her. This is a best case merge into trivia (of United Airlines Flight 93) scenario. There's already a place for that here - Wiki is not a 911 memorial. Ohconfucius 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has now been cleaned up as being more like a biography. Nevertheless, I maintain my original vote. Ohconfucius 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, plenty of independent and verifiable sources here to make this worthwhile. RFerreira 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ~~The only~~ Some sources of which of which she is a primary subject (e.g. in the Post-Gazette) don't show notability as they were published only to commemorate her as a 9/11 victim, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pan Dan's reply to Aude. --Pak21 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to keep as sources provided by Aude show she probably passes WP:BIO as an author. Comment: Because her book, not the call she made on 9/11, is her claim to notability (in my opinion), it should be mentioned in the lead. Pan Dan 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was non-notable before 9/11, and her book had not been accepted for publication at that time. The book itself is a non-notable contribution to the self-help genre, and, realistically, was probably accepted for publication simply so the publisher could cash in on her status as a 9/11 victim. I'm sure she was a good and nice person, but she was not notable. If we accept this article we start down the slippery slope to separate articles for every victim of terrorism, and, in due course, every soldier killed in the line of duty. Many good and kind people have died in sad circumstances, and every one of them is a loss to their friends and family. Notability derives from activity, not simple presence at a historic event. WMMartin 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - fails RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjiatun Concentration Camp

Poorly written and researched article that does not link to any existing pages, and the only link to such claims is very vaguely stated as "The Epoch Times". The claims lack verificaion to confirm it as a "concentration camp", as no major media besides the Epoch Times has reported the story. --PCPP 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 non-wiki ghits, thus unverifiable. MER-C 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the article means Sujiatun not Sunjiatun. Google returns a lot more results outside of Wikipedia (about 32,000) when you search for that spelling. Perhaps the article should be renamed? --Howrealisreal 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename as per Howrealisreal's comment above. Lankiveil 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge — I believe that the Epoch Times is operated by the Falun Gong, and thus this camp is not reported elsewhere (the Epoch Times is considered by some to be Falun Gong propaganda). I suggest merge into the Falun Gong article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. It is verifiable that there is controversy about this subject. So are the official positions of the Chinese goverment and of Falun Gong. The existence of the camp appears not to be verifiable from independent sources, so an article fails the policy WP:V. The best independent reliable source I've found on the subject is this Australian news article. There has also been coverage in the Washington Post and press release denials from at least one Chinese embassy. Other reliable coverage shows concern about organ harvesting in general in China, but usually not in contexts related to Falun Gong (and none I've seen in context of this camp.) GRBerry 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Redirect and merge it if sources are found. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Falun Gong only if there is some verification.SkierRMH 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terence Ong. The Epoch Times may or may not be operated by Falun Gong, but what it definitely is not is a reliable source. Even the better stories are entirely one-sided, and it's not unusual to see an article that runs along the lines of "All the legitimate scientific authorities say that X does not exist. But I read a webpage by some guy who says it does. Why are all the legitimate scientific authorities lying about the existence of X?" Merely appearing in The Epoch Times, I'm afraid, adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the credibility of an allegation -- certainly nothing that would justify the highly POV title of "Sunjiatun Concentration Camp". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and cleanup. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline

Over 180 kilobytes of indiscriminate mirroring from sources. Anything worth keeping should be in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda instead, so no point to keep this. Derlay 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the stuff can be deleted here, but this is a worthwhile and comprehensive timeline of all the claims and counterclaims. Such details do not belong on the main article, which is long enough already, but should be somewhere. Otherwise people will nickel-and-dime this stuff into the main article, as was happening before this article was created. csloat 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and keep per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.204.75 (talk)
Cleanup. The material in the article is mostly good, it just needs a little polishing.
Delete, pointless. Any useful content should go to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/ Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda after cleanup; goot timeline.SkierRMH 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Terence Ong and per Derlay: "Anything worth keeping should be in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a well written survey of a valid topic, with citations in place. BTLizard 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean as per csloat. --Howrealisreal 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge - TWO HUNDRED AND NINTY TWO SOURCES. I don't particularly care for timeline articles, and this one is particularly badly formatted...but it does not fail any policies except, really, WP:NOT. If there is a way to clean this up, it would make an EXCELLENT research reference. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a good article, somewhat long but very interested. It would be quite hard to define this timeline from the other two articles. Needs tidied up, more links. scope_creep 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all above. wikipediatrix 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Split I fear that this comment may start an argument I don't feel like participating in, but I don't see why this article combines these two topics. I would likely support a timeline focused on Saddaam or al-Qaeda, but why both in one? There is little connection between the two (this is the comment I fear will start an argument) besides both being recent targets of the United States. Combining them is too random, akin to any timeline revolving around to things that are very loosely related. --The Way 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main problem with the article is organization. some information appears multiple times in the timeline. i agree it's a good reference tool and should just be cleaned up.Anthonymendoza 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a good reference tool. Newspapers /cannot/ be considered reliable for such topics and the fact that one copies another is no proof of validity. Wait until the topic gets researched by unbiased scholars. Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what are you talking about? There are numerous sources here (290 someone else counted), certainly many different things besides newspapers including government documents and so forth. More importantly, the topic has been researched by many unbiased scholars. Finally, none of that is a good reason for deletion even if your points were accurate. csloat 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep and Clean Way Up Much of this conspiracy advancing travesty of an article consists of nothing more than Conspiracy Theory, Disinfo and Neocon propaganda from disproven Conspiracy Crufters like Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie. (edit maybe 2 seperate timelines - the proven one and the Conspiracy Theorist's version) -F.A.A.F.A. 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree, but this page also includes all the refutations of the conspiracy theorists. If we remove this page, the "conspiracy crufters" will add the nonsense back into the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page piece by piece, and someone will need to re-research each bogus claim and include that info (and then once again that page will be twice as long as History of the world). IMHO, this page is not the best solution but it is an adequate one. csloat 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, there is over 100+ WP:RS and WP:V sources that are in this article creating the timeline, though there does appear to be items that can be removed to shrink it down. Maybe some that can be added to balance it as well. But overall I think it should stay. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Clean up. Two words: "Loose Change." ~~Four~~Six more words: "This has better documentation than that." Jinxmchue 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Obviously, I can't count (or should not add words after I count them in my head). Jinxmchue 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete A7 (no assertion of notability) by User:RHaworth. ColourBurst 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Cochet

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC, questionable notability. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable musician, whose article is entirely about his one-man-band project, which has its own article as well (Mirrorthrone). Totally unencyclopedic tone and appears to be a conflict of interest. Nowadays, it seems like every kid who records a CD in his bedroom has to 1) set up their "official website," 2) set up a Myspace account, and then 3) write a wikipedia article, in that order. Wavy G 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable per A7 Missvain 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshore Mall

Yet another mall. No claim of notability whatsoever. Actually, this might now be speedy deletable under A7. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete total waste of space Missvain 04:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNN mall. Edison 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn mall. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn, nn, nn...SkierRMH 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. wikipediatrix 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but does not qualify for A7. hateless 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such thing as "mallcruft"? In any case, delete as failing WP:CORP. Seraphimblade 03:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what we get for not taking a firmer line on schools. WMMartin 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete A7. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxide Radio

Non notable student radio station per WP:ORG. Delete Ohconfucius 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced. MER-C 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn student radio station. Edison 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. simply nn.SkierRMH 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oxford University Student Union, as the station is operated by OSSL? The station has had an FM license (under a different name, see [11], and under the Oxide name, see [12]. Has also won Student Radio Awards as mentioned in the article, see [13]. Stannered 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Light Entertainment Society

Non notable student society per WP:ORG. Weak assertion of notability (reference to its long but interrupted history.) It is essentially an entirely new club which started in 1997 Delete Ohconfucius 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 55 non-wiki ghits, quite a lot of which are from Oxford websites. Nothing else of interest found, leading to verifiability problems. MER-C 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN with WP:V problems. Not even worth merging into Oxford site.SkierRMH 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Cambridge Footlights is notable but this is not in the same league. Fys. Ta fys aym. 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that one the same grounds you would need to delete the Cambridge University Light Entertainment Society page too. I should like to rebute the claim that it is a new society as of 1997. We do have contact with older members and the society history is recorded in the Bodleian Library societiy collection. There was only an interuption of two or three years. So, I do feel that this would be a shame but if it is in line with wikipedia deletion policy then so be it.
  - The light blue equivalent is not entirely the same: that article demonstrates its notability by referring to highly notable members. Were there any prominent people in OULES? Fys. Ta fys aym. 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please hold for a day or so to let us consult other members who have checked the archives.
Delete. Nothing like as significant as Footlights or OUDS. WMMartin 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, WP:BIO and {{db-group}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Secular Society

Non-notable newly formed student society. Created in 2006, claims notability by having had a notable speaker to address the club. Delete Ohconfucius 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horribly non-notable. MER-C 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ugh this is getting old. Missvain 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Samir (The Scope). MER-C 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFF (artist)

Does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) – Gurch 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You might also want to look at de:FFF (Musiker). MER-C 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Discography != Notability. •Elomis• 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Edison 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, WP:BIO and {{db-group}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society (SAPS)

Notability of the organization/website Bellhalla 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S.HUSSAIN ZAHEER MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL

Non notable school asserting no encyclopedic content, I don't think there's such thing as "regioncruft" but this articles assertion of "stalwarts like IICT, NGRI, CCMB" is also hopelessly relevant to only the region in which the article is commenting. The style and grammar would require a complete rewrite (with the capslock key levered off the keyboard) and the POV issues if removed would probably result in a 6 word article. Best to just bin it. •Elomis• 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no verifiable sources, very little on Google, no showing of notability. Agree with Edison below, I don't know why sports have anything to do with anything in the guidelines we have, but the Nobel bit is unique and impressive, so changing to a keep. Seraphimblade 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As irony would have it, I was cleaning away the rubbish as Elomis was listing it. I think we should beware systemic bias. It is probably of interest to people in India. I have also moved the thing. Still digging for sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*DELETE. EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEMS DESCRIBED ABOVE HAVE BEEN FIXED, THERE STILL REMAINS THE ISSUE OF VERIFIABILITY. ONLY 13 GHITS, THE ONLY THING VERIFIED IS THAT THE SCHOOL EXISTS. (Yes, I was poking fun at the caps lock thing). MER-C 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. MER-C 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google did not turn up anything useful Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL. Gonna go down pleading not paper as I drown in a SEA OF DELETE'S. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Stuff me with green apples and call me a pie. Good job, Alansohn. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per MER-C. -- Kicking222 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep per Alansohn. Inclusionists could learn some things from Alan, who, instead of just saying "keep all schools", actually went out of his way to assert notability and include reliable sources. Well done, my friend. -- Kicking222 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying WP:V and no evidence that the school is notable. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per Alan below. JoshuaZ 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment systemic bias?! pfft. I can only assume you are talking about the AfD process often having a common outcome of deleting an article. This isn't systemic bias (or if it is it's easily explainable and satisfactory), if any sensible Wikipedia editor submits an article through the AfD process, of course the chances are it will be deleted. Those that are suitable to the outcome of remaining in the Wikipedia aren't typically submitted to the process! •Elomis• 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Systemic bias" as in the fact that nearly every school in the USA has a page about it, yet this one gets picked for AfD even though it seems to be quite talked about over there. yandman 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that bad articles have been kept in the past is no reason to keep other bad articles. Bring some of those US or British secondary schools up for AfD, and I will happily (in most cases) vote to delete. Xtifr _tälk 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Assertions of notability. TJ Spyke 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unasserted notability is cruise control for removal. —ptk✰fgs 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, newly added sources do not assert notability. It exists, has a science program, hockey team, etc. Okay, it's a school. —ptk✰fgs 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No claim of notability and no multiple independent sources. Changing vote to Keep Sources were added. Sports competition notices in paper are pretty ordinary for a school, but the reference from a national paper showing three Nobel laureates interacting with the students in the science program is impressive enough to allow inclusion. Edison 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn school. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete no schools are notable! (I'm gonna spread this meme if it kills me.) :) But, in particular, this school is not notable and fails WP:V. Xtifr _tälk 10:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to weak, the article is much improved, but I still don't see enough to justify keeping the article--and, while I'm concerned about systemic bias, I would say the same about my own alma mater if it had this little to justify keeping it. In fact, if the high school I attended came up for AfD, I would vote to delete without hesitation. :) Xtifr _tälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt pass the (incredibly lenient) WP:School test. I am changing my vote to Keep per Alansohn (good research), I'm trying to keep to WP:School and this article definitely meets it. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no intimation of notability. BTLizard 11:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's hard to blame all those above who voted to delete the original version of the article as it appeared when the AfD was created, especially if anyone actually read the article. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from The Hindu, India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. Based on fulfilling the coverage requirements of criterion 1 and the fact that the "school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools" in compliance with criterion 4, the school meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:SCHOOL for retention. Alansohn 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Accurizer 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Far more notable than most of the school pages we have here. It's even talked about in the "Hindu" (India's "USA today"). yandman 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's been rewritten and sourced. Meets verifability criteria, and certainly meets the proposed schools notability criteria. Akradecki 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if/when this article is kept, will the closing person please rename the article SO IT ISN'T SHOUTING AT US?Akradecki 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: it is already moved. --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per (1) addition of quality verifiable sources, (2) its alumni, and (3) countering systemic bias. (Change to tentative delete. See below.) --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. Thanks to whomever did the rework. It was in a pretty sad state when it was up for Prod. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has been nicely expanded with some notability established Valoem ^talk 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename for reasons which I hope are obvious. There are multiple indicators of notability here, with thanks to Alansohn for the improvements. Silensor 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guarantee you that a comparable school in the United States would have more ghits and would be kept. The external links and references assert notability. 129.98.212.69 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Alansohn. bbx 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's on the Subcontinent doesn't make it less notable. Caknuck 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are by default considered notable. -- Librarianofages 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia, they're not! There's ample precedent to prove this claim wrong. Xtifr _tälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Change of comment to Weak Keep I don't think high schools are considered notable by default per Librarianofages, I don't think anything is notable by default and must always assert it's notability clearly (hence my exclusionist philosophy). Further, systemic bias is a weasely excuse to slow consensus forming for deleting articles, notability is to be independantly asserted, not asserted more than other articles per Arkadecki, voting is evil so anyone who was requesting change of votes either in this debate or via my talk page have earned themselves a rap on the knuckles with a ruler (and a smile for their good intentions) schools always have notable people talk at them (Nobel Laureates included) because important people educate tomorrows important people so that's should be taken thinly when asserting notability. BUT all that said, this article now reads quite nicely and seems to have rushed to attain a high quality quickly while on death row, I say an 11th hour repreive is in order. •Elomis• 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you compare this article with all the other articles about high schools, this one should definitley be kept. This article has sources and asserts nobility. Thats a lot more than I can say about most high school articles on here. Clamster5 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 07:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm opposed to the inclusionism surrounding high schools; I strongly feel that only a small few are notable enough to justify having articles. However, I have become resigned to the fact that I am in the minority on this matter as virtually all high schools are kept. Now if we are going to continue following this policy, then we need to accept foreign high schools as well. See what kind of doors this opens? ;) Regardless, this schools article is decently well written and appears that it may be notable anyway. --The Way 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. I have similar sentiments as The Way (see immediately above). I left them at the table before I came to the discussion, because I feel they are minority, perhaps even fringe, sentiments, but I now feel compelled to argue with conviction. I do not think that this high school, though it seems like an admirable high school, merits an encyclopædia article. I had Holocaust survivors, Stephen Covey, and wealthy businessmen speak at my high school, but I do not consider that to establish any notability. If a high school were to influence educational standards for a whole national region, or attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement (not, "They delivered N number of cans to FEMA") or fiasco (something on the scale of Columbine), then I would certainly consider it notable as to justify encyclopædic inclusion. --Iamunknown 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no idea what "systemic bias" is supposed to mean, but I do know how to define notability. Your "tentative" status is demonstrating an extreme version of deletionist elitism as to what schools merit inclusion in Wikipedia. At this school, the Nobel laureates lectured as part of an integrated program with the parent Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, unlike the feel-good appearances by those on the lecture circuit at your school, which had no connection whatsoever to the curriculum. By your logic, Columbine High School should not merit an article, as it was merely the site of a massacre. If the incident had happened at a local fast food establishment, would there be an article Columbine McDonald's that talked about the restaurant's menu and staff simply because a whole bunch of people were killed by two members of the wait staff who worked there after school? Or would there be an article for Columbine Post Office about the hours and services offered at that branch, if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had graduated high school and gotten jobs as letter carriers before they went berserk? As to your "influence educational standards for a whole national region" criterion, can you name more than a handful of schools (if that many) that would meet this criteria? We have to stop sitting up all night trying to figure out new hoops for school articles to jump through. And when did Wikipedia become a US only site that we have to question whether foreign schools should be admitted? Schools, as an integral part of our education system, and as demonstrated by the frequent, in-depth coverage they receive from multiple, independent and reliable sources, are often notable and deserve articles in Wikipedia, should they meet these standards. This school is simply one of the better-qualified for Wikipedia inclusion. Alansohn 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Your expeditious label of me as an extreme elitist is merely an underhanded tactic designed to discredit my justification to delete this article. Instead of addressing my points directly, you first prefix an accusation of systematic bias in order to label me as a miscreant and a systematically biased Western bigot. I ask you this: if I were an extremist like you explicitly accuse me of being, why would I be compelled to "tentatively" argue for the deletion of this article? If I intended to systematically delete this and every other article which did not fit in with my bigoted "deletionist [elitist]" views, would I argue to "tentatively delete" this article? No. If I were in fact an extremist as you accuse of being, I would argue vehemently for the deletion of any article which I did not include in the limited corpus of human knowledge I deemed appropriate to include in any encyclopædia. Because I in fact argue tentatively rather than vehemently for the deletion of this article, I am not a systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot as you readily accuse me of being. Thus I loathe your accusation that I am prejudiced by an "extreme ... deletionist elitism."
  - Further, nowhere did I argue that because Columbine High School was involved in one of the the largest, worst, most horrific school massacres in United States history that it should be priveleged to have data on its corresponding encyclopædia article including hours, staff, address, contact information, etc. My apparently systematicaly biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted minority/fringe views which you shamelessly accuse me of compel me to disagree with including the aforemtioned data on the grounds of it being unencyclopædic. If the data could be integrated into the article in the form of compelling, even brilliant prose, then including would be fine by me. But I view that including it in a pithy directory format in an easily accessible table right in view at the top of the page is exactly what Wikipedia is not.
  - And no, as to my idealistic (but ultimately bigoted and "deletionist [elitist]") school inclusion criterion, that the school "influence educational standards for a whole national region," I cannot name more than a handful of schools that would meet this criterion. But, in the spirit of my alleged systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted views, I feel compelled to include only these few schools in any encyclopædia. But I loathe your label; I ardently argue that I am neither systematically biased, nor "deletionist [elitist]," nor a Western bigot when I think that this article should not be included in Wikipædia. A Western bigot would argue that this article be deleted but not articles about high schools in the United States deleted; I argue that not only this article but also articles concerning high schools in the United States be deleted, thus I am not a Western bigot. An "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]" would argue vehemently that this article be deleted; I am not arguing vehemently that this article be deleted, but am arguing tentatively that it be deleted, thus I am not an "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]". (I am arguing vehemently that your accusations and abstractions of my arguments are underhanded, accusatory attempts to discredit my arguments in favor of deletion by labeling me as a systematically biased, "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot. There is a distinct difference.)
  - I still stand by my criteria for inclusion of high schools in Wikipedia. (I must note, however, that I do not pretend to hold them as a final decision. Indeed, I quickly summarized thoughts that had been floating around in my head upon which I have neither ruminated nor refined.) I do not use them as a strict policy, but instead I am informed by them, when I choose to argue to tentatively delete this article. --Iamunknown 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you claiming that you don't recognize that your argument that only those high schools that "were to influence educational standards for a whole national region" merit inclusion is not elitist? Again, how many schools in the world meet this criteria? It is a justification that is so irrational as to be meaningless. Your "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is another standard that is so arbitrarily unrealistic as to be useless. How many schools on this planet meet this criteria? By what existing Wikipedia standard have you derived these justifications? Please refer to anything, anywhere that justifies your nonsensical vote. Alansohn 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Generally, I would agree with the premise that most high schools (e.g., most on the planet) are not notable. I changed to keep on this particular one, as it has some very unique and special characteristics, and has been verifiably recognized in quite a few third-party sources. However, generally, Local High is not notable, any more then a local Wal-Mart or gas station would be. I would say there should be some additional exceptions, such as historic/event notability (Columbine, for example, or the first high school in a country), exceptional standards or styles of teaching (though if this is related to a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori, this should already be covered under the main "X Schools" article and wouldn't establish notability for the school itself), exceptional and historic controversy surrounding the school (of more than just local interest), massive and verifiable influence on teaching standards over a large region or nationwide (not just state/citywide), winning a major national (not local) award and receiving significant press coverage for it, or exceptional and region/nationwide (again, not state/citywide) notability for a program at the school. Seraphimblade 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Please immediately stop accusing me of being "irrational," "[voting nonsensically]," and providing "ludicrous arguments." I noticed that again, instead of arguing based solely on the apparent merit or lack of merit of my arguments, you prefix an accusation of irreparable and nonsensical bias. Why do I have to cite specific "standards"'s for my argument? I argued based on my conviction that only a few high schools are notable enough to be included in an encyclopædia. So what? My extemporaneous criteria are elitist. I know that Wikipædia is not paper; but that should never imply that Wikipædia should include everything of little notability and influence.
      - And why does it matter that my criteria are elitist? Precedent and consensus must start somewhere: an unrecognized and unrespected opinion. Does my argument offend you? Does it frighten you? Why are you so loathe towards my argument such that your reaction is first to alienate my argument, then accuse me of irreparable bias and nonsensical justification? Are you unable to discuss the apparent lack of merits you find in it, so you instead result to name calling? Bingo! That you are accusing me of elitism is again evident of your underhanded attempt to distance me from the mainstream. By attaching a label, you intend to stigmatize and alienate me from the average Wikipædian, based on the virtue that you dislike my opinion. Instead of arguing based on the perceived lack of merit, you attempt to create a divide via an automatic labeling procedure. Please stop.
      - I still stand by my criteria, even if they are "gasp" elitist. I nonetheless consider them a good set of criteria to apply to the inclusion of articles into an encyclopædia. If you want to discuss the merits or lack of merits of my arguments, instead of merely labeling them with divisive, stigmatizing, and alienating labels, please come back and do; otherwise, any further altercation would be superfluous, appalling, and redundant.
      - (Note: Consider the following clause from "wikietiquette". The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. You specifically accused me of "[not justifying my] nonsensical vote". I thought this was a debate, not a vote. I argued, either meaningfully or nonsensically, based on my conviction. My "vote" was a mere initial text to summarize my argument. Do you just want me to fall into line and vote strong keep, with little supporting argument, like the rest of the people you solicited to "reconsider their vote"? Perhaps you should cite any "existing Wikipedia standard" for your actions; that is, if you truly do require that to support any individualised action on Wikipædia.) --Iamunknown 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a vote. But the thing you typed where you wrote "weak delete" and tried to explain your justification is so far out of consensus as to be meaningless. Why is your requirement that a school "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" any more valid than "all schools are notable"? How can you quote an obligation to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments", which are solely based on your own personal biases, not on any relevant standard? If you read above, I detail the criteria by which this article passes WP:SCHOOL and would pass any other relevant test for such an institution. And you appeal to what, other than your own personal whim?? How many schools in the world meet your elitist criteria? Please give us an idea so that we can judge if there is any merit to the standards you've concocted. Alansohn 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To reply to the above comment by Alansohn, I don't find Iamunknowns justification meaningless at all and it could be construed as a personal attack... His requirements are more valid than 'all schools are notable' in the sense that they are actual requirements that can act as guidelines for determining notability while simply saying 'all schools are notable' is not, at least not in the same way. Rather, 'all schools are notable' is a discussion closer; it offers no further justification and makes the whole idea of notability rather worthless. Now, I am actually with you on keeping this particular article, but I agree with Iamunknown in claiming that this whole every high school is notable is a flawed approach that is not in line with most of Wikipedia's policies regarding notability standards. --The Way 11:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You got me on that one. Okay, let's try this: a so-called standard that only accepts those schools that "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is no more valid than a standard that specifies notable schools as those with "more than ten students" or "has been open more than two years." One excludes 99.99999% of all schools, allowing about four or five to slip through, while the other includes almost all schools and excludes a few dozen. They're functional equivalents at exact opposite ends of the spectrum. At least those who claim that "all schools are notable" have the intellectual honesty to proclaim their biases out loud, without hiding behind elitist mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that what they really advocate is "no schools are notable". The plain fact is that a significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are in fact notable by any reasonable definition. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 0.00001% that seems to be advocated by some here. The WP:SCHOOL proposal is a reasonable middle ground that is far closer to a rational middle ground than the wacky deletionist WP:SCHOOLS3 or the even wackier, even further away from consensus standard proposed proposed here. As a matter of fact Iamunknown has not listed any school (other than Columbine) that would meet his criteria. I guess any school that wants an article can always hope for a good, old-fashioned massacre. Alansohn 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, I would assert that most schools aren't notable (just as the local McDonald's or CompUSA isn't notable, even if in aggregate McDonald's and CompUSA are notable.) The idea of high schools is notable, but very few specific high schools are notable. I think WP:SCHOOLS3, while still a little loose, is a reasonable compromise between the inclusionist "almost all schools are notable" and the deletionist "maybe 0.01% of schools are notable." WP:SCHOOL is not, it allows far too many non-notable ones through the cracks. I'd also add that your argument contains a fallacy-just because two arguments are on nearly-opposite ends of a spectrum doesn't mean equal validity. "Almost no one believes the earth is flat" is correct, "almost everyone believes the earth is flat" is wrong, even though they're opposites on that spectrum. Similarly, I would assert that "almost all high schools are notable" is incorrect, while "almost no high schools are notable" is correct. Seraphimblade 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Individual local schools are regular recipients of "multiple non-trivial coverage"; Individual McDonald's and CompUSA rarely receive such coverage. Schools receive national and state awards granted on a selective and competitive; ixnay for McDonald's and CompUSA locations. That said, it's nice to have your extreme deletionist bias out in the open. Wikipedia has a a clear consensus that a significant majority of schools are notable, and a succinct proposal at WP:SCHOOL that offers succinct guidelines to define which are and which are not. Your "no schools are notable" dictate, and the formal definition of this credo at WP:SCHOOLS3, is so far out of the mainstream as to be invalid for consideration. A significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are notable by any reasonable definition of the term. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 1-in-ten thousand standard (converting your 0.01%) that you advocate here. If there are 20,000 high schools in the United States, only two would have articles. Which two are they- Columbine and what else? Alansohn 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One would imagine that a local McDonald's or CompUSA would receive coverage for grand openings, and possibly even for sales or the like-especially in smaller cities or towns. The problem and point here is, however, that the coverage is of only local notability. Also, please do not misrepresent me-I said the compromise point should be in between "include every school" and "include 0.01% of schools" (a figure which I made up on the spot anyway), so I never suggested the 0.01% as a correct figure. The criteria I suggested earlier were somewhat lost in the sea of text, but to reiterate-I believe that schools which are the subject of exceptional controversy (more so than just locally), are historically important (Columbine, or the first high school in a country), have a notable and very unusual teaching method, and are not a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori in which this is covered in the main article (many charter schools would meet this), have won major regional/national (not state or local) awards and have received significant press for this, or are a verifiably major influence on regional/national (not state or local) teaching methods or standards, are notable and should be included. Some other schools such as this one (with Nobel-prize winners as regular lecturers) may have some unique claim to notability as well, which should be examined on a case by case basis as it was here. Oh, and before you label me an "extreme deletionist", you may wish to note what I voted here. Seraphimblade 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a number of remarks regarding this conversation. They are as follows:

1. Alan, please try to be more civil. Making ad hominem attacks on Iamunknown simply because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Calling someone's views 'wacky' because they are different than yours doesn't help the situation and only heightens tension. Referring to your arguments as the only ones which are 'reasonable' shares the same problem. I don't see why reason dictates that you are more correct than others. I'm assuming good faith on this matter; I believe that we are all reasonable editors with different viewpoints and our viewpoints all have some validity.

2. This notion that those of us who would normally want to delete high schools are 'elitist' is perhaps somewhat correct, though it's a thinly veiled attempt to demean our position in favor of a more inclusionist one. As far as the way this term is being used in this context, I am of the opinion that encyclopedias are supposed to be elitist; they are not directories to have information on every school, hospital, restaurant and gas station rather they are supposed to discriminate and include information on those that substantially stand out from the crowd. Does the high school have a novel approach to education? If so, keep it. Has it won a considerable number of awards? Then keep it. Is it a typical high school, with a decent but average program? Then it doesn't need to have an article.

3. While this may not be directly on topic, it ties in with my above comments. After looking at WP:SCHOOLS3 I have to say I still find it too inclusionist based on its first criteria and the fact that a school must only meet one. Virtually all schools, including elementary ones (and even many preschools) will meet that criteria. Local newspapers often have several articles on each school in that locality every year. This criteria makes the other three meaningless since it's going to end up resulting in articles for all other schools. I personally, and I recognize this isn't the most appropriate place for this discussion, feel that criteria one should be required in conjunction with one of the other three criteria.

4. Finally, as a matter of self-defense, please keep in mind that I did vote keep in this particular instance. --The Way 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed my notes to reflect some begrudging support for this based on the fact that the article had been cleaned up and removed some of the glaring problems that it originally had, but seeing some fellow exclusionists weigh in a little I'm inclined to comment further towards getting the consensus. I am unreservedly elitist in my view on Wikipedia, as an exlusionist I believe that articles should exist representing the top x% of schools. Those which are notable above and beyond the usual collection of schools that all of us (presumably) went to and each of which had their own unique facets associated with them. Some of the following need to be considered before we can reach consensus here.

1. Is this school unique in any way which is unique to uniqueness? This horridly phrased question means, all schools are unique in some way or another. Each has individual personalities, innovative programs and achievements which set them apart from a category or categories in which they may participate. Some have nobel prize laureates give speeches, some have presentations by the Coca Cola yo-yo team (mine did), but by their nature schools do things that other schools don't. Their unique achievements need to be considered in line with this, and should be more unique to assert their notability than perhaps a Safeway or McDonalds should. My highschool in Australia had an annual festival whereby inordinate ammounts of dutch fruit and donut balls were cooked and sold to raise funds, it was very well known in the surrounding towns for it. No other school did this or anything similar but schools do unique things, this doesn't make them notable.

2. Systemic bias is a horrid labelling accusation designed to drag a debate into the mud. It is Reductio ad Hitlerum in the worst possible manner, designed to villify arguments by directly associating them with a widely despised phenomena. Essentially the thin veil of accusations of racial vilification are being used to draw attention away from the fact that the school in question here, and often any school whose notability is up for debate, is hopelessly relevant to only a very select area. We should not feel guilty about this, and we should wholesale reject any Godwin's law-esque accusations designed to make people feel guilty for expressing a valid opinion provided it is backed up with fact.

3. Further on geography, I don't think we should take into consideration the location of a school when deciding on it's worthiness of inclusion. Let's just drag this down to common sense, let's assume that each Wikipedian reading my comments now is a vaguely intelligent person. Let's say they randomly think up the names of 5 educational institutions. For me it was University of Sydney, UCLA, MIT, Oxford and Lund Universitat. Let's assume they think up 10 more, let's assume they are then asked to think up 1000, 10,000, 100,000. Will an average person given ANY period of time, have the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School pop into their head? Notability doesn't mean fame I know, but would any 500 english speaking people chosen randomly across the globe when asked directly about the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial School know what it was from a source other than the Wikipedia? Now apply the same test to MIT, University of Sydney, Lund, Oxford, Standford, Julliard, University of Toronto, Hiroshima University...

4. This final one is entirely my good-faith opinion, may be entirely wrong and is almost certainly going to be misinterpreted and leave me the subject of personal attacks. I believe that a part of Indian culture is a unified feeling of immense pride in India's educational institutions, particulary those related with the technology industry. While applaudable this sense of pride needs to be considered with caution when evaluating encyclopedia articles on that subject matter, the cultural pride in India's schools may lend itself to editors of articles on them taking criticism of their notability personally. I'm making no comment on the actual quality of India's schools, only that inside of India the opinion held by people outside of India on the notability of Indian schools may be overestimated. •Elomis• 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please help avoid systemic wp:bias this is a notable school within india Yuckfoo 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, but move to proper case title if that hasnt been done already. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is almost B class.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apathetic Keep As it stands right now, I would probably say delete. However, this article shows a dim promise of notability that might come out if given some time to ferment. Trusilver 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Well sourced and researched and notable, per comments before, much more than many Wikipedia articles sadly. Kudos for doing the work to further this encylopedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you talking to me?
Keep started looking into this because I was instantly suspicious of the slightly hamfisted american-centric perspective exhibited in the nomination. Decided it was a keep. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. --SandyDancer 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's start looking at this sensibly people. I am sick to death of the systemic bias garbage, being called hamfisted and american-centric (as an-even minded and tactful Australian this is nothing other than a personal attack by any sensible person's reckoning and SandyDancer is to be admonished for it), my reasons for nominating this article are that it is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS so spectuacular that it rivals a new-year's eve fireworks display. That the comments for it's inclusion in the AfD debate are backed with ricepaper-like prose while considered discussion for the deletion of it seemed to be ignored in favour of the volume of "keep all schools rox kthx".

This debate was re-opened because I petitioned the administrator who closed it to take another look, thanks should go to him for being open-minded enough to let some more consensus form. The comments on his or her talk page were as follows and should be noted here.

(BEGIN)

I'd like to request you have another look at this debate, I think the consensus achieved was actually in the negative. If you consider that the aim of an article for deletion debate is to reach a consensus, not vote on an outcome, the consensus was overwhelmingly for the article's deletion.

But first, this school still spectacularly fails WP:SCHOOLS as follows

The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.

No, or none stated which is the same thing. This school has not been the subject of any non-trivial publications in the world at large, it is only notable within one country.

The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.

This school has existed for 27 years, a little over half of that requirement. Even if we halve the requirement as per WP:SCHOOLS it just makes it.

The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth.

Again, no. The article states two fields of endeavour in which it has been successfull. This is again a case of if the requirements set out in WP:SCHOOLS were halved it would still just make it.

The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.

My understanding of this (perhaps you disagree) is that the school would have to have something very specific about it that sets it apart. A school which provides for IT industry certifications as part of it's highschool education curriculum, a school which teaches braille or sign lanugage as part of it's curriculum in servicing the blind or deaf, something which sets it apart from highschools. This is another spectacular failure of WP:SCHOOLS.

Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.

None. The school has not been awarded any state awards, or had any commendations from notable people as would be outlined in WP:Notability.

The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)

No, or not stated, again the same thing. You could almost consider that it's namesake is notable, but I'd doubt it and I think the other considered arguments for deletion would agree.

The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.

No. I assume that this school is not on board a spacecraft, under the sea, at the 150th floor of a building or in a building which has existed for time immemorial as an example of a particular period of architecture.

As you can see this is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS that can not possibly get any worse. Further the debate that was meant to achieve a consensus, only tallied votes. These "keep votes" had such nonsensical explanations as "Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)", or "KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)" a cursory counting of heads and people weighing in. There were paragraphs upon paragraphs of weighted, supported, considered reasons for it's deletion.

(END)

Guys my (hopefully) final word on this is that this school is not notable, it is not made notable by having a hockey ground even if it is a very nice one. It is not made notable by important people speaking at it (ALL schools get important people speaking at them), it is not made notable by a sea of people saying "Seems notable" without providing any information as to WHY it seems notable to them and on what version of WP:SCHOOLS they are making the assertion.

Any Wikipedians who comment on this AfD further, would be doing me a personal favour for which I'd be most grateful if they didn't drag the debate into the mud with Godwin's Law-esque accusations of racial villification, calling people ham-fisted, a doodie-head, or do anything else to try and detract from the actual subject matter at hand in favour of a petualant race-card play. Any editor offering "keep it seems notable although I've never read any of the guidelines defining what that word means on Wikipedia" or "keep you are racist against India" or "keep This school now has two Google hits, nevermind both of them are Alansohn requesting on user's talk pages that they reconsider their opinion publically", should be discounted and if nobody can offer actual reasons why this article is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia the matter should be closed and resolved for deletion.

•Elomis• 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33 the Great

Does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) – Gurch 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He made one album with a song featuring one member of a popular rap group. Google finds nothing. Article is unverifiable. --Wafulz 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7. As I always say..."I slept with a famous person...does that mean I'm famous?" Missvain 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moxa Technologies

Delete - This article fails to establish notability with respect to the WP:CORP criteria and I believe it is primarily an advertisement. The two main contributors are single purpose accounts: Moxa (talk · contribs) and 60.248.66.82 (talk · contribs), which is a Moxa corporate IP. It failed the prod process. JonHarder 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. •Elomis• 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanicruftertisement. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 05:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. Khoi khoi 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was'Delete'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Jut

Does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) – Gurch 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)a[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 that means we also need to delete Screwed Up Fo Life word up!! Missvain 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge i think we should merge this article with Screwed Up Click

Bazel 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Didn't think it was a speedy candidate, so I removed the db -- Samir धर्म 06:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7SkierRMH 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Screwed Up Click Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and unlink all the redlinks at Screwed Up Click to save us having the same conversation all over again next week. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Completely fails to assert notability. scope_creep 17:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tashiro Festival

User Hatto created this page because he isn't happy with the current amount of space dedicated to this "phenomena" (as he choses to call it) on the original Masashi Tashiro page. This "phenomenon" is hardly notable enough to warrant its own article and merging it would be pointless (as everything in this article is information that other editors removed from the original article). Mackan 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gnulxu 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep, It's my freedom whether I write this article or not. Although Mackan isn't an administrator, he keeps on interfering with me. He should have no need to do it with me! I'm extremely annoying that he says to me guideline, guideline, guideline! and deletes unnecessary sentence to himself at any times. A person like him may be hated because he dogmatically deletes the sentence that he can't accept. Freedom and right to create the articles must be secured for everybody. I don't think what he does is correct. Actually, I think I'd like to expand Tashiro's article without being interfered by him but I have trouble because he keeps watch over me. By the way, Tashiro Festival is frequently used on 2channel. When I wrote about Tashiro Festival on Masashi Tashiro's article, I created this as an independent article because Mackan deleted the description about Tashiro Festival and I was unpleasant to be done it by him. I'll ABSOLUTELY beat his eccentric nomination for deletion! --Hatto 07:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The substance of this article is already covered at Masashi Tashiro#Trivia. As a remote second choice, if the name "Tashiro Festival" is that important, then turn Tashiro Festival into a redirect and add the following sentence to Masashi Tashiro#Trivia: "The nomination of Tashiro for Person of the Year is sometimes called Tashiro Festival." --Metropolitan90 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if Mackan wants to delete this article, he lets me write the perfectly same sentence as this on Masashi Tashiro's article. Being deleted is OK for me if he do it but I want to keep this article if he doesn't do it. --Hatto 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hatto. Don't create new articles to try and "blackmail" other users into accepting your edits. Mackan 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan. Looks like a classic POV fork (although more trivial and harmless than most). Also looks fairly non-notable. Hatto, we have guidelines for a reason. Mackan, do try to remember WP:BITE; Hatto sounds like he's feeling bitten. One or both of you might want to look into WP:MEDCAB or WP:3O. Xtifr _tälk 10:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hatto is not a newcomer and he keeps on causing troblems refusing to listen to other users, people have been very lenient to him but it didn't get anywhere. I've tried and debate with him but he ignores/deletes my messages. See his request for comments (link on his talk page). Mackan 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for that discussion (nor was I volunteering to get involved). Disputes should be resolved through dispute resolution, not on AfDs. Xtifr _tälk 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not surely a newcomer but is feeling bitten. I could purely edit Tashiro's article until I was attacked by Mackan. I assume a strong attitude for him daringly, and I think I have no need to talk with a xxxxing terrorist like him because I'm getting so angry to him. Though I just wanted to describe about Tashiro Festival on Masashi Tashiro's article, I was made to shorten a description about it in Tashiro's "Trivia" section by his wish. Originally a description about Tashiro Festival is not written in the section of "Trivia" and the description was written in the section called "Provisional winner of Time Magazine's Person of the Year poll in 2001". (See [14] [15]) I made this section and write about Tashiro Festival because I thought that festival was important but he shortened a description about it and moved it to "Trivia" section because he thought it was not important. I, therefore, can't accept all his sense of values. --Hatto 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not the place for this! But however long you've been here, I have to assume you're a newbie, because every other explanation of your behavior that I can come up with is a violation of WP:AGF. Xtifr _tälk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2channel. --- RockMFR 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Objectively, although this event is real, and verifiable, and likely notable, it is best covered in the article on Tashiro, and perhaps an article on Time person of the year. A redirect would be fine only if there is good evidence that this not-obvious name is most often used to describe this Time voting event. This is asserted but I dont's see the evidence.Obina 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. "Festival" my foot: It's as bad as sockpuppetry. Ohconfucius 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable enough for an article - this sort of thing is not particularly unusual (see, for example, the article on Lowtax for a similar stunt pulled by Something Awful forum members). As well as the trivia section of Tashiro's article, the event is also mentioned on the page about 2channel. Ironfrost 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was CSD A7 - crz crztalk 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkal Morottaja

Article does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) – Gurch 04:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because it doesn't. Delete. •Elomis• 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete omg is it over yet?!!>? Never!!! Missvain 04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NaSTA

Informal group of Student television stations whose sole aim appears to be meeting up and giving each other awards. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See nominations below for several other student radio stations which have little or dubious notability. In any event, student societies within the context of a given university are not usually notable per WP:ORG, and these stations are no different. Listed separately to avoid train wreck. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with the addition of Ray Addison - Missvain 04:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does he help the article? His sole potential claim to notability (not made in his article even) appears to be being chair of this society. Other than that, he's worked as a producer on a couple of minor tv shows. Bwithh 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. I don't see why this student television station needs an article here, stations like this are very ordinary. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have another read, this is not 'a' student TV station but a larger association of student TV stations. You give the impression of having completely misunderstood the (admittedly rather bad) article. Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIts an association similiar to RTC or BAFTA, i think this is notable as it is a major spawning ground of talent for the british film and television industry, particularly when every school in america has an article and i doubt this notable to anyone outside the US if that. this is notable within the UK. Capt Jack Doicy

But does it meet WP:ORG? From the other views expressed here, the answer is most likely no. MER-C 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Plus, the decision that NaSTA is NN seems to have been based purely on the (quite poor) article itself. JMalky 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:ORG and nn mutual admiration society.SkierRMH 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most trade and industry associations (e.g. BAFTA) could be called 'mutual admiration societies', as you're unlikely to find such a body that exists to knock back and criticise it's membership...Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every TV channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. I also fear Capt Jack is correct when he says there's evidence of America-centric behaviour when it comes to Wikipedia, especially in what is allowed to stay and what gets dumped. Also MER-C please just detail your reasons for deleting the article instead of replying to every vote to keep the articles in question, it does you no credit at all.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP & REWRITE Utterly shocking that this is up for deletion. This is ENTIRELY AGAINST WP:ORG, because NaSTA is a national organisation (the clue is in the acronym), and has been discussed countless times in the national press (if proof is needed, I can provide it). This article must be kept, it can be dramatically improved if needed, and there is no good reason at all to delete it. I'd like to add that the comments made by Ohconfucius about UK student TV have been particluarly offensive and ignorant. I know we should all 'assume good faith', but his tone is totally out of order. Honestly this makes me furious, is he suggesting that UK student TV IN IT'S ENTIRETY should be removed from Wikipedia? NaSTA is not an informal organization (that was a mistake in the entry), it is a long standing union of student TV stations, recognised in the UK television indstry. Granted, the article as it stands is pretty poor, but given time it can be expanded into a useful, valid, relevant entry. Being ignorant of this organisations existence is no reason to delete it. JMalky 11:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted by the Times [16], the Independent [17], and the NUS [18] Antonality 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times link refers only to NaSTA as an external link at the bottom of a list; Independent article[19] appears to be a list of student TV stations, mentioning which ones have won the NaSTA awards - in addition, this article is an inside job and not actual journalism - it is described as a "plug" (i.e. an advertisement in disguise as, or embedded in, an article) on the Nasta forums[20] where it is made clear that the author of the article is in the employ of one of NaSTA's TV stations. The Independent article is consequently an unreliable source (also, media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability). NUS is not a news source, and the mention in the link given is trivial - a brief description and an external link Bwithh 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles, but I'll need to track them down in electronic form. JMalky 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The NUS is not a news source, but as an enormously important national union, it's endorsment of NaSTA is good third-party verification of NaSTA's validity as required by WP:ORG.Tomisaac

KEEP There only a very small number of student TV stations in the UK, and ALL of them are watched by industry profesionals looking for fresh talent - especially at the time of the NaSTAs. and the NaSTAs are SO much more than awards - it's a conference, where we can all meet each other, and meet key industry people etc. NaSTA exists (ask Greg Dyke, he'll tell you!) - and there is no reason it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia...! adamhunt 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bona fides article. scope_creep 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No claims made to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this fails WP:ORG - it's a large formal organisation (hundreds attend the conference, it covers well over a thousand members of student TV stations), and I've seen a few national newspaper articles (often in the media supplements) on student TV that are centred around NaSTA. I've not got links as most papers don't publish every article (especially features) on the web. It's certainly regarded in the TV industry as the thing to watch for new television talent, and considering that many smaller university-specific student bodies are regarded as notable, this large multi-university media organisation surely must be. The article as stands doesn't do NaSTA justice, I'll try rewriting when I get some time.Tomisaac 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, from WP:ORG "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source" - NaSTA is certainly national in scale, we have third-party sources, (NUS, papers) therefore is notable.Tomisaac 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This afd discussion has been publicized on the NaSTA forums[21]. Welcome, NaSTA forum members Bwithh 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a message was sent out to alert existing Wikipedia users who are aware of NaSTA, in order to let them help safeguard the entry against rampant, uninformed deletionism. There is no guideline against that. Everyone realises that this is not a ballot. On the basis of discussion, it's pretty clear that the entry has been proved valid, as per WP:ORG. I hope the above message wasn't written as a means of invalidating those arguments... JMalky 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it could certainly use beefing up. While the article subject is most certainly encyclopedic (as the 'pedians above me have proved well, I think), the information as it stands is somewhat lacking. Also, it should probably be moved to National Student Television Association and NaSTA made to be a redirection to the former. DezSP 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, with a third for those who were asked to provide source for the claim to notablity, as it's readily available from Google books. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York Student Television

Student TV station and the biggest and most frequent recipient of the self-lauditary awards from NaSTA. It claims to be the longest continuously-running student TV. Methinks "So what?" Delete Ohconfucius 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, really? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should stay particularly since they also hold a guinness world record (Capt Jack Doicy)

Care to give us a source? MER-C 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Some of the comments made about student TV have been really ignorant and offensive. Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply because its a reall tv station and asserts notabiliy. scope_creep 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like most student TV stations, it's probably not notable enough to be featured in multiple independent reliable sources. As for the claims to notability in the opening paragraph, if there aren't multiple independent reliable sources to verify them, then they are either false or not genuinely noteworthy. Pan Dan 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student TV stations have a lot of influence in the UK student population. To say YSTV (and NaSTA and other student stations) do not have sufficient notability is a farse. A quick google finds results from organisations as diverse as the BBC, the National Union of Students, MediaUK and Media Directions. The latter has produced a print article on YSTV, as have local press, and the NaTA orgabisation (of which YSTV is a part) has been featured in at least one UK national paper. Article should definately stay. Rowan 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "NaTA orgabisation" should read "NaSTA Organisation". Djomp 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As to your refs: The BBC article is trivial because it's of local interest -- note it's in the "where I live--North Yorkshire" section. Your second link doesn't reference this station at all--I don't know why you include it. Your third ref is a directory/contact info listing. Your fourth ref has two quotes about the station. Given that these are the most promising sources you could find, I can say with more confidence now than before that, like most student TV stations, this one is not the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources. Finally, your comment that student TV stations have influence in the UK might be relevant to a discussion about whether to have an article on student TV stations in the UK, but it has nothing to do with whether we should keep this article. Pan Dan 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you so desperate to delete this article? Where you bitten by a student TV station as a small child?
    - If you must know, yes. (Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.) Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. YSTV has been running longer than many national TV stations, and has had plenty of media attention over the years. The NaSTA awards are judged by professionals from the industry, so I think it's completely unfair to call them "self-lauditary". DezSP 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. YSTV meets the criteria for notability on account of the multiple media references linked on its talk page. If you claim the NaSTAs are self-lauditary, then you imply that the same applies to the BAFTAs, Academy Awards and any other award organised by the community or industry that it is relevant to. Additionally, only the response from pan dan suggests any reason for deletion.Labmonkey 12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "media references on its talk page" that aren't passing or trivial are from York University itself. To show that something is notable you have to show that the outside world, as represented by sources outside of the subject, have taken note of it. Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree that the other references are 'passing'. More have already been listed on this page too. Rowan 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Can you point to a single reference that is not passing (e.g. the blurb in the London Independent), trivial (e.g. the Media UK directory entry), or local (the BBC "Where I Live--Yorkshire" article)? Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment An article by the BBC featuring only the station's web launch is hardly "trivial". If you would claim that this is not "outside" the subject due to the BBC being a broadcaster, then what references should *any* media organisation on Wikipedia use? Yes, local news, but by a national broadcaster, and on a national site. It's notable.144.32.128.113 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply The BBC clearly classifies the article as being of local interest only. As I said above, it's in the "Where I Live--Yorkshire" section. Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment These arguments about the notability of sources are getting a little pedantic. Wether or not the article complies with the guidelines in WP:ORG is essentially a matter of opinion. Given that the majority view is that the article should be kept, can we not just give YSTV the benefit of the doubt? JMalky 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply If the discussion seems pedantic to you, think about the general idea that's being illustrated here: Most student TV stations are not notable as reflected in the fact that outside publishers usually do not see fit to issue non-trivial works featuring a particular student TV station. After examining the sources, this student TV station is no exception to that idea. Pan Dan 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment As pointed out above, the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used to find any possible way of removing an article. It's one thing to request deletion of a page that nobody bothers with, but persisting in attacking an article that has widespread support just seems like a refusal to back down.Labmonkey 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply "the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used as a to find any possible way of removing an article" -- Please read my above reply more carefully. You imply that the delete voters here are using the guidelines in a lawyerly fashion to try to search for some tiny, inconsequential reason why this article should be deleted. But the opposite is true. This article violates both the letter and spirit of WP:ORG. Most local organizations, including student TV stations, are not notable, and this one is no exception. Pan Dan 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Actually, I just imply that you and the contributors requesting "keep" have differing viewson the interpretations of the se guidelines. I respect the fact that you were the only one who came up with a reply that was neither empty "Delete- really" or plain spite "Delete OMG WTF the whole bloody lot of them", but as it is, this boils down to your assertation that the media mentions are trivial, against multiple explanations of why they are not.
        Comment "Multiple explanations"? I don't see one. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Seriously, why are you pressing for deletion againt the wishes of so many other users? No stupid questions, no stupid answers. Just come up with a new, valid case for deletion or admit that you either can't bear to lose an argument or that you have some personal dislike of student TV.Labmonkey 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment To participate constructively in this and future AfD debates (this one's almost done), please stop making silly assertions about people you're debating with and start addressing my/their arguments. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        ReplyThis is just going round in circles. I have already addressed your argument with reference to media mentions, as have other users. You then claim that the media mentions are NN. Explanations are given my JMmalky, Rowan and are backed up by the links on the discussion page of the article. You have never used any other argument than an opinion that the stories linked are not notable enough, based on your interpretation of a proposed guideline, WP:ORG. That doesn't even stand up if you discount the BBC site, as Media Directions is a published magazine which falls under the guideline.
        
        Furthermore, I agree that this discussion is almost over. The majority of contributors favour keeping the article and there's a clear list of sources that you are the only user to continue to dispute. I offered the chance to provide a new case for deletion, but you didn't do so. With regards to making "silly assertions", repeatedly disputing sources does seem to be an attempt to drag this out, and just seems to me like you have a personal problem with the article. I may be wrong, so just explain why you want this page removed so badly. Just stop deflecting, and say what you have against the article.Labmonkey 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - nobody has a right to an article - you need to prove merit, another keep didn't have a reason, copyvio concerns, ....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoic tv

NN student TV station Delete per WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - copyright concerns: awfully similar to the pages linked to from here. MER-C 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible copyvio. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to copyright concerns-K37 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Capt Jack Doicy)

Why? AfD is not a vote. MER-C 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason why the LUST page should have remained so i refer you to those arguments, further the copyright fears are unfound since this page was likely written my a member of the station (Capt Jack Doicy)

But it was deleted anyway, forming a precedent. And all Wikipedia content MUST be under the GFDL or a compatible license, regardless of who created it. We cannot assume that content appearing on other sites, even if it is by the same user, without a specific grant of permission. MER-C 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JMalky. These are genione TV stations. The article clearly asserts notability. scope_creep 17:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won "Best Broadcaster" in the "National Student Television Awards". Two students won the "Best On-Screen Male" and "Best On-Screen Female" in he same awards. Rewrite any copyvio, I don't see it myself. This seems to be enough for me[22]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - One of the keep advocateds gives no rationale, another says an assertion of notability is enough, which it isn't, and another claims that it has a "right" to an entry - policy requires it to earn an entry by showing notability.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LSUTV

NN student TV station per WP:ORG. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Delete Ohconfucius 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - verifiability issues. 15 non-wiki ghits, all of which are from student websites. MER-C 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Capt Jack Doicy)

Why? AfD is not a vote. MER-C 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again I agree with JMalky. The article clearly asserts notability. scope_creep 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of assertion of notability would be grounds for speedy deletion, but even if one asserts it, it does not automatically mean it's notable. Ohconfucius 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. Jayden54 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow University Student Television

~~NN student TV station per WP:ORG. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Delete Ohconfucius 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

nomination is withdrawn per re-written version. Ohconfucius 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean/rewrite Founded 1964. the oldest student television station in the United Kingdom. predating most comercial stations. all the content is produced by the station itself on a low budget. The article sucks, needs a good clean up. cloudo 08:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Capt Jack Doicy)

Why? AfD is not a vote. MER-C 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em. (UNLESS there's a substantial rewrite, and possibly then could inlcuded in history of broadcasting in the UK).SkierRMH 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's really still just a stub, give it some time. Student TV stations deserve to have entries. As Cloudo said, GUST is the longest-running student TV station in the UK, plus it's been a training ground for hundreds of media professionals. If needed, I can provide a small pile of articles on GUST and NaSTA from national newspapers, and the station has sold content to national broadcasters (as per WP:ORG). Some of the comments made about student TV on wikipedia have been really ignorant and offensive. (and why are all the UK student tv stations up for deletion, but not the US ones?) JMalky 11:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add that GUST is also the second oldest student TV station in the world, beaten only by Ithaca College Television which was founded six years earlier (confirmed through wikipedia and some internet searching, but further proof could be found if needed). However, ICTV is administrated and partly run by paid professionals, so you could legitimately say that GUST is the oldest student-run TV station in the world! So could everyone please think carefully before typing the letters 'NN'? JMalky 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again I agree with JMalky. This article clearly asserts notability scope_creep 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the articles could be pruned - much of what has been included is of little relevance to most people - but to argue they should be deleted entirely is excessive - by the standards used so far, half of the articles on wikipedia could be deleted. Historically, and in the context of the development of television both within the UK and in the world in general, the GUST article and others of its kind are invaluable. Also, just visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Society_of_Change_Ringers to see an example of a student society which is of little interest to anyone but those involved in it. I don't think any of these should be deleted - why set a limit on the extent of human knowledge available in these pages? - but if any could be deleted, the GUST and NaSTA pages are the least deserving. And as to the comments of NaSTA being self-lauditary (sic) by ohconfucius, I would respond that the awards are judged by industry figures not directly connected with the stations themselves. One wonders exactly how much actual research is being done on the notability of articles before they are slated for deletion? Cheers mathewannis | Talk | Contribs 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for this page, or any other student socities on Wikipedia. Incorporate in broadcasting history somewhere and possibly create a page on Student TV Stations in which GUST has a (prominent? it is the first) entry. These stations all have their own websites, they don't need to use Wikipedia for the same purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.138.242 (talk • contribs)
Just a question: when will this discussion be considered 'closed'? Also, any more suggestions on how to improve the article? I agree that it needs a clean-up. There is more info to add, but some sections (in particluar the programming section) could be made more concise. JMalky 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done on the re-write :the article has now earned its place, and nomination is withdrawn. However, I would advise you to be civil and in future not to make personal attacks, whether here on on users' talk pages as these violate WP:CIVIL. Ohconfucius 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - there is no "right" to an article for TV stations - it must prove merit. Also, assertion of notability is not sufficient. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GlamTV

NN student TV station with very small output per WP:ORG. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Six of the Best Ohconfucius 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too non-notable. - Richardcavell 04:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay particular since it was featured in the sunday times, or is the world leading newspaper no longer a source of notable information? (Capt Jack Doicy)

But it wasn't the main focus of the article, which it must be to be notable. MER-C 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
- Comment - I agree that student TV stations have as much right to an entry as a national broadcaster. I also agree that some are older than national broadcasters... but this one isn't. - Richardcavell 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, each station should be judged on it's merits. Whilst I believe that all student TV stations should be allowed a page, it is true that some are more 'notable' than others, although I hate that word in this context. There doesn't seem to have been much thought put into nominating all the student TV stations for deletion, and in my opinion careful consideration of each article is what's needed. But it's not happening! JMalky 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again I agree with JMalky. This article clearly asserts notability scope_creep 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserting notability is not enough, and there isn't enough third party coverage to actually provide notability. B.t.w., nothing has a "right" to a Wikipedia article - at least I'm not aware of a law that would provide for such a right. Sandstein 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really didn't mean that so literally. What I mean is that I see no good reason why the article shouldn't exist. JMalky 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - the two keeps are invalid. There is no "right" to inclusion - one has to prove merit. Also, assertion of notability does not prove notability as required.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon TV

NN student TV station per WP:ORG. Winner of two self-laudatary awards from NaSTA. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Delete Ohconfucius 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay (Capt Jack Doicy)

Why? AfD is not a vote. MER-C 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing has a "right" to be included in Wikipedia. If the station is not notable then the article should be deleted. If you find US student stations that aren't notable, feel free to nominate them. If you believe that this station is notable, back it up with citations. Otto4711 13:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article clearly asserts notability. scope_creep 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual indication of notability. Sandstein 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The assertion of notability means nothing. A Google search for "Demon TV" yields 1,820 results when you remove Wikipedia mirrors, with the top five results giving us their own site, two non-related TV.com articles, another self-made site, and an advertisement for the domain name "demon.tv." The idea that one student-run station deserves to be included because some student-run stations are notable is downright absurd, like saying that all people who own pest-extermination companies should be included because one extermination company owner is included. The same can be said for the argument that this article should be allowed to say because similarly non-qualified articles exist -- instead of letting the crap pile up in the bowl because no one's flushed the toilet so far, we should hold the handle down until nothing floats back to the surface. Consequentially 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - again, nobody has a right to an article, you must prove merit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick TV

NN student TV station per WP:ORG. Won two self-laudatary awards from NaSTA. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Delete Ohconfucius 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well; student TV news programs, which exist at so many colleges, are rarely notable (as so very few people watch student TV). Allon Fambrizzi 08:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

This should stay particular since it was featured in the sunday times, or is the world leading newspaper no longer a source of notable information? (Capt Jack Doicy)

But it wasn't the main focus of the article, which it must be to be notable. MER-C 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Capt Jack Doicy" the only proponent in this series — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs)
Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again I agree with JMalky. This article clearly asserts notability scope_creep 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep: I'm closing this AfD early. It was opened by a user account with no previous edits only 7 days after a previous AfD on the same article and, as with the previous AfD, it has already degenerated into a slagging match between two editors

Twikker

Most other University Rag Mags (and even most university student press) don't have a wiki page, why should Twikker? — Jen Kettle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Delete~~ Changed to neutral. Despite the problems with the nomination (this represents the nominator's only edits), there are notability and verifiability problems here. 300 non-wiki ghits, nothing really interesting. MER-C 05:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is demonstrably no verifiabilty problem as the material in the article has been comprehensibly referenced.
Jen Kettle asks, why should Twikkker have a wiki page? It is arguably the archetypal Rag Mag. It is also probably the first Rag Mag (recorded as being published in 1925 and with copies kept in copyright libraries since 1930). There are other reasons too; see the article!
I'm not sure how MER-C's ghits are relevant; 'nothing really interesting' is a subjective view; and anyway, ghits show many examples of old Twikkers being traded on eBay so it seems that it is still valued by collectors.
Reading MER-C and Jen Kettle's comments, I get the impression that they have not fully read the article and formed a premature conclusion. Ewen 06:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any reliable sources except for the BBC one. Did you? Citing the subject magazine doesn't count. MER-C 06:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't citing the subject magazine count? It is a published source which is available at copyright libraries around the UK. Private eye cites the subject magazine. Deadline magazine has no references at all - implicitly it only references the magazine. Ewen 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source in the context of the article. Reliable sources should be from unrelated third parties. Would you believe a magazine which stated it was the "number one magazine ever" without any evidence? MER-C 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - and your question ('Would you believe a magazine...?') is an irrelevance. The information taken from the magazines is not self-congratulatory or otherwise doubtful. It is simple statements such as 'The editor in 1947 was...' or 'The introduction in 1988 was written by...'. As I said, (and you have not answered this); in what way are these citations different from the ones in the Private eye article? BTW; We're agreed that the Cambridge Uni Library catalogue is a reliable source, aren't we? Ewen 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral. MER-C 11:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: referencing/Private Eye, three of Private Eye's eight references are from itself. seven of Twikkers nine are from itself, and one of the two which isn't is about a rock climb, which is in no way linked to the magazine! L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your guess is that the rock climb is 'in no way' related to Twikker. My guess is that it is, and I think it's a better guess - can you think of another reason the climb is called 'Twikker'?

Sure, the proportion of Private Eye's self-referencing is lower than that of Twikker's; but you conveniently ignore the Deadline example where self-referencing is all the article has to go on. Besides, either self-referencing is to be included, or it isn't. The Private Eye article is just one example where self-referencing in this manner is accepted. Does the degree matter? Ewen 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - congrats to the authors, one of the most interesting of wiki pages. I am amazed to see (given the number of refs in the article today) that it has a 'refs reqd sticker'. If the 1947 Twikker says Kornberg was its editor, I would believe it - I can't think of a better source for this sort of info than the mag itself. roundhouse 12:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the refs required was added by me and only for the rock climb section. The article states "A rock climb in the Derwent Valley in north Derbyshire is named 'Twikker', presumably after the magazine..". Presumably is not evidential, and the rock climb article does not mention the magazine, hence "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable". L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per nom (lacks notability) & poor referencing (see above). L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire article because of one questionable reference? Besides, I've checked about the climb and it was named by a group from Sheffield University. Until I contact the group and confirm the reason for the name I think it's fairly safe to presume that they named the climb after the magazine, isn't it? Why demand this incredible level of proof? Ewen 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start this bullshit with me again Ewen. I said delete per nom and poor referencing. I stand by this. Many other student mags don't have a wiki article. Many national mags don't have a wiki article - and why should they? L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude. I have explained why Twikker is an exceptional case. If other mags don't have articles then perhaps it's time they did, but I'm not in a position to fill every gap in wikipedia. I've tried with Twikker. People appreciate my efforts and some have been helping to extend the article. Ewen 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as unsourced. Any article, to meet Wikipedia's standards, must do two things: 1. Assert the notability of its subject, and 2. document this assertion. The assertion of notability here is that the measure had ramifications outside the community and became precedent for other measures nationwide. After checking the links provided I find that the evidence for this has not been forthcoming. Simply put, if this measure was a landmark event reliable sources should not be hard to come by. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Measure A

Controversial town planning measure. Of interest only to people in this one city in California. -- RHaworth 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local measures are rarely notable, and this one is definitely nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is of interest to people outside of Alameda - the world around - because Alameda is a microcosm of the ongoing debate in metropolitan centers around the world regarding land use, "slow-growth," affordable housing, and toxic waste sites. (Alameda Point is a federal superfund site that needs to be redeveloped.) It is instructive and useful to people all over the United States, indeed, the world over, to follow what goes on in Alameda regarding land use.

And anyway, so what if it is only of interest to people of Alameda? Who says that geography is the proper delimiter of communities of interest in Wikipedia? The Britney Spears page is only of interest to people who like Britney Spears. Perhaps the City of Alameda web page is also only of interest to people from Alameda? People from Alameda are entitled to look to Wikipedia to find information that is of interest to themselves as well, even if it doesn't have broad geographic interest, no? You would dis-enfranchise the citizens of Alameda from using Wikipedia to learn more about what goes on in their city?Mowster 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These folks in New Jersey [[23]] for example, might be interested in following what goes on in Alameda and redevelopment on Alameda Point and the federal toxic waste superfund site. Shouldn't they be able to look it up on Wikipedia, if they hear about Alameda, and Measure A? If, for example, they received an email from someone like myself trying to talk to them about their experiences with superfund sites? -- Mowster 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These folks in New Jersey ... might be interested... Then rent yourself some web-server space and serve it up to them. Or maybe you could just e-mail them yourself, cut out the middleman. Me, I could use some info on the local train schedule, what time is sunset and sunrise, and what movies are coming to the downtown multiplex, but I'm not expecting Wikipedia to provide those for me. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some info.... This isn't train schedule information, or information that changes periodically like the tides, sunrise, sunset, movies at the local cineplex. There's over 30 years of history behind this issue. People in Alameda shouldn't be dis-enfranchised from finding out about it in Wikipedia. Where are the stats in Wikipedia that report who's hitting what entry? Mowster 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free clue: the analogy isn't to how frequently the information changes.

People in Alameda shouldn't be dis-enfranchised from finding out about it in Wikipedia' If it's so damned important, if it's the Talk of the Island, then why the frack does it require Wikipedia's help to propagate? Don't they already know about it? --Calton | Talk 10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relevant for anyone interested in urban planning. Quite Wikipedic. Stammer 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. This article doesn't. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any important information to Alameda and delete the rest. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I fail to understand the objection to this ballot measure, which is of such obvious public policy interest with many cities legislating on this issue, having its own article. A merger would solve nothing and the completeness and coherence of the present article would be irrevocably lost. Allon Fambrizzi 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

If the Keep !voters will provide multiple non-local sources indicating that people outside of the Bay Area consider this measure as notable, then I will consider changing my !vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, I doubt that Mowster and his meatpuppets will be able to provide anything from further away than Oakland. The only people here besides Mowster who've voted keep are people who only contribute to AfDs or who've only contributed to Alameda articles. Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is subjective. What is non notable for one man may be for another. Having referenced and verifiable information is never harmful. -- Drini 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Drini, I am shocked an appalled that you would attempt to overturn months, if not years, of xFD discussions by attempting to claim that notability is not a requirement for keeping articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Zoe - here is a link [[24]] on slow-growth initiatives that mentions Alameda County and San Francisco, and the start of the movement since the 1970's, of which Measure A was part. And here is a reference to a state-side survey [[25]] Mowster 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither one of those links mentions this measure, and, in fact, the only reference to "Alameda" is to the county as a whole, and in both cases, one passing reference. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a former long-time resident of Alameda (the county), I've heard diddly about this, even in local discussions of land-use. I love how the second paragraph practically begs for mercy to not be deleted. (This is important! Really!) --Calton | Talk 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is of interest to the fields of development and urban planning. However, the second paragraph in the introduction reads like it was written strictly to campaign against this AfD and is very unencyclopedic. This should be removed... The paragraph reads "This is of interest to people outside of Alameda - the world around - because Alameda is a microcosm of the ongoing debate in metropolitan centers around the world regarding land use, "slow-growth," affordable housing, and toxic waste sites. (Alameda Point is a federal superfund site that needs to be redeveloped.) It is instructive and useful to people all over the United States, indeed, the world over, to follow what goes on in Alameda regarding land use." --The Way 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'm sure you will be able to provide sources verifying the claim? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - how long have you been living in Tokyo, and away from Alameda County? And yes, the second paragraph was entered by myself specifically in response to this AfD and I'm happy to remove it. And yes, those two links refer to land-use generally, and not to Measure A specifically. But how are people supposed to know that "Measure A" in Alameda refers to land-use if they look to an encyclopedia and can't find it? Happy to add tags/links tying this article to land-use specifically.Mowster 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once. And how are people supposed to believe that Measure A really does mean more than to just the people of the city of Alameda if we don't prove it, and so far we haven't, which means that so far, it's just a local proposition that doesn't mean anything outside of the city. Despite grandiose claims, you and the article's supporters have still failed to prove your claims, and I am hoping that the closing admin will take that into consideration when deciding how to close this. If you do come up with some outside sources to prove your claim, that will go a long way towards keeping this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're too focused on term "Measure A" - I agree, you probably will never find anybody outside of alameda refer to the term "Measure A" - but that's not the point. The point is that 'land use' is an issue of great interest to people outside of Alameda, as other people have pointed out. This article is a land use article. People in Alameda know it by the term 'Measure A.' And again, you haven't provided any reason to dis-enfranchise Alameda residents from learning about it through Wikipedia. As for voting twice, that was not my intention - using Wikipedia amounts to using a programming language, and I'm not about invest half of my life learning another one. And yes, I've made some suggestions for improvement on my wiki page. Mowster 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then write a small paragraph in the Growth management article. This article is clearly non-notable as you just proved above. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how long have you been living in Tokyo, and away from Alameda County? A lot less time than I spent living, working, and going to college IN Alameda County, reading the East Bay Express (before they were swallowed up by New Times) and Oakland Tribune, and hearing bugger-all about this supposedly important measure. The crude ad hominem fallacy you just attempted was pretty laughable, by the way, and nothing new. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. >- User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Mowster 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it yourself -- or did you entirely miss the point of the mention of the ad hominem fallacy, which was my comment on your action, which was your badly disguised personal attack. Oh man, the irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been a POV campaign piece since its inception, despite repeated efforts to clean it up and require references. Argyriou (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argyriou is biased ARgyriou's vote doesn't count. Argyriou wants to delete it because he has been on the opposite side of the Measure A question from me since the beginning. I have worked with other people to make it more balanced, and suffered Argyriou (and his friends, I presume) editing the document over the past two months to repeatedly make it one sided in his own favor, forwarding his own Point of View.Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Argyriou (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARgyriou's vote doesn't count To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD should be kept open at least an extra day or two - I just today notified three previous editors of the Alameda Measure A article of the existence of the AfD. Argyriou (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those three other users are against Measure A, and are likely wont to delete it. They are not un-biased. Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notified those three people because they were the only ones (other than bots) who'd edited the article who haven't spoken up here yet. I didn't check the content of their edits.

You really don't understand this, do you? You're trying to turn this AfD into a referendum on Measure A, rather than a question over whether Alameda's specific policy is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. All that your complaining about other people's biases does is make it appear that you don't have any real argument that Measure A is particularly notable. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly slight merge to Alameda. Not notable on its own. If anyone outside this city would actually care about this, we'd have sources for it by now. Sandstein 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get hung up on the title - the subject is land use, and people outside of Alameda care about land use. See the previous entries.Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People outside Alameda have their own land-use regulations, and most don't consider them to be Holy Writ. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know I will be attacked no matter how I vote on this, so here goes. I think the tug-of-war over this Measure A article is ridiculous, and not just because I disagree with Mr. David Howard (AKA Mowster, AKA IP address 70.137.142.153) on the underlying issue. Measure A is of great interest to a number of Alameda residents, but I honestly don't think too many people beyond our borders are following it … though I must admit that whenever I tell people that it's illegal to build town homes, condominiums, and apartments in my town, it usually does raise an eyebrow or two. At any rate, I tried to use restraint in the few edits I made to the page, but nothing seems to satisfy Mr. Howard. Just as Measure A is a draconian measure to stop bad multiple-unit development by banning all multiple-unit development, my "delete" vote is a draconian measure to stop bad writing about Measure A by banning all writing about Measure A. MichaelJKrueger 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the real test for deletion of this article should not be its notability outside Alameda, but rather the guidelines under Conflict of Interest: Campaigning. In particular, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." Mr. Howard, the author of the article and its predecessor (which was also deleted), is one of the founders of a political action committee whose stated goal is the preservation of Measure A. The group, Citizens for Alameda Neighborhoods (FPPC#1288721), funded literature supporting slow-growth candidates in the November 2006 mayoral and city council races in Alameda. I don't have an outside source to verify Mr. Howard's involvement (you'll have to take my word for it), but this appeal for support on his Measure-A-themed blog links him to the group through this form. I realize that I belong to a community group (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense) on the other side of the Measure A issue, but I would be happy to forgo editing any Wikipedia pages about Measure A as long as Mr. Howard agrees to stop misrepresenting HOMES' position. MichaelJKrueger 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ENSCO Inc.

Procedural nom. Reprod. Prodder's concern was WP:CORP. I abstain. - crz crztalk 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like an "about our company" type page. I can't see any evidence in the article that it meets WP:CORP. Thryduulf 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like advertising, fails WP:CORP criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert SkierRMH 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Given that they seem to be some kind of military contractor that does business in both the USA and the PRC, this might be a notable business, but it ain't shown here. An article that overconfidently claims that the company is a provider of "solutions" must be rewritten from the beginning. (Unless, of course, they dissolve stuff.) - Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work they do for NASA seems signifficant -confirmed here [26] and I've found at least a couple of WP:RS articles on them. [27] [28] --Oakshade 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Murawinski

Was prodded for WP:BIO. I think the deletion of this article is not uncontroversial, but couldn't just deprod it and leave it to lie in its current unsourced state, for I figured I'd bring it here. My vote for now is Conditional Delete unless sources are located. - crz crztalk 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the google test; this guy seems like a reasonably well known sports cartoonist. I am not sure about sourcing issues here but I would be very reluctant to delete an article simply because it lacks sources unless such article could never be sourced satisfactorily or there is some reason to think the article is misleading. Allon Fambrizzi 08:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Comment Passing the google test in not an measure of notability. scope_creep 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources and fails to assert notability. scope_creep 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not a means to solicit for sources. That is what the {{sources}} tag is for. hateless 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for telling me off. This AfD was in lieu of outright deletion. Your comment is uncalled for. - crz crztalk 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't disagree with your nom if it were on procedural reasons, but that point seems to be obscured with your vote. If you want to make clear your nom is procedural, then make it clear. Otherwise, if sources is the problem, and sources seem to be obtainable, deletion is not the answer. hateless 04:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what Allon means, I'm not getting anything on him on Google at all. No indication that he even exists. I suppose I could be doing something wrong, but what? Anyway, in addition, the article is horrendously bad, removing the cruft would reduce it to an unverified stub. If someone wants to write a decent article on the guy, they might just a well start from scratch. Herostratus 04:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not much to redeem it in its current form. The writing style is poor and the article, being thin on facts, states the obvious, an example being - "He is the second of five children. He has an older sister and three younger siblings.". Go figure! LittleOldMe 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a couple of sources and added the fact that he was nominated for a Reuben Award. The article could still use a bit of cleanup, including the deletion of some of the personal information.--FreeKresge 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series

Original research, original literary analysis--I seriously doubt you can find a reliable secondary source to identify deus ex machinas in a comic strip. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced. MER-C 06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Deus ex machina" has a pretty well-settled meaning, even to laypeople, so no Ph.D. is required to identify one. I consider this article not as OR but rather as a list like any of the thousands of interesting lists concerning comic books/Pokemon/Star Wars, etc. that exist on wikipedia. I'm not aware of any literary analysis of the Tintin comics, so expecting secondary sourcing is unrealistic. Allon Fambrizzi 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Strong Delete Orignial research, unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and utterly pointless. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept, someone had better check what the correct plural of "Deus ex machina" is (if it is indeed pluralised) and also drop that upper-case M. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Amists. Fancruft too. Bwithh 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of articles like this is Wikipedia, re Simpsons, why not TinTin. The article has genine knowledge but needs to be expanded and tidied up. scope_creep 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont see how other articles like this on wikipedia make a list of moving inanimate objects in tintin; notable, encyclopedic, verified, or anything other than original research. Expanding and tidying up will not change this.Amists ^{talk • contribs} 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) too much original research and a bit too crufty.-- danntm ^T _C 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tintin has a high rate of surviving gun wounds."? "The Bad Cops' poor aiming."? This list is entirely POV and original research. Delete. Interrobamf 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and listcruft. However, the plural is, from what I can remember of my school Latin, correct (first declension nouns in the ablative case take suffix '-as'). I do wonder, however, whether the person writing the article knew this (my memory may be less accurate than I like to think, as well). And if scope_creep can point me to the Simpsons article like this (I'm too lazy to look), I'll nominate it for deletion as well. The Crying Orc 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR and unencyclopedic; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of lists of events in comics. Sandstein 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An external force deletes this article - Got pwned by WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT.
Delete - listcruft. Moreschi 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original-research-o-rama. But just wait, an unexpected turn of events will suddenly turn up and save it... --Calton | Talk 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruftalicious. Danny Lilithborne 08:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Its the poster child of original research. It violates WP:NOT for its shear randomness, not encyclopedic by any means. And to top it off, its listcrufty too. --The Way 10:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substubs about Unitarian Universalist Association Districts

Sub-stub articles for Unitarian Universalist Association districts. Each article (with exceptions I discuss individually) reads "The X District of the Unitarian Universalist Association is a district, serving Unitarian Universalist congregations in [states] X, Y and Z." Included in the nomination are:

Ballou Channing District
Central Midwest District
Clara Barton District (also contains a few sentences on namesake)
Florida District
Heartland District
Joseph Priestley District (also contains a few sentences on namesake)
Massachusetts Bay District
Metro New York District
Mid-South District (has 3500 members)
Mountain Desert District
New Hampshire-Vermont District

Northeast District
Ohio-Meadeville District
Pacific Central District ("They have a very active Young Religious Unitarian Universalists community..." no independent source is cited for this)
Pacific Northwest District
Pacific Southwest District
Prairie Star District
Southwest District
St. Lawrence District
Thomas Jefferson District

These articles were nominated (along with the list Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association) on September 2nd and the result was Keep. Normally I don't like renominations, but the first nomination was primarily for the list (which I am not nominating) and I am presenting different arguments for deletion than were raised in the first AfD. Moreover (and more importantly) the arguments supporting keep were particularly unconvincing. They were as follows:

"This is a fairly sizeable and notable religious domination, as are Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc." According to our article Major religious groups, the Methodists and Baptists have 70 million members and the Presbyterians (and similar churches grouped with them) have 75 million. Unitarian Universalism has 800,000.
"Each of the entries in the subarticles provides useful information, such as the link to the home page of that district." The information provided in the articles is largely limited to the name of the districts and what states they contain, information that is already accessible on the map on Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The information on the districts' namesakes is better covered in the articles about such persons. That there are "very active" Young Religious Unitarian Universalists has not been established by independent, reliable sources. The primary function of most of these pages is indeed to provide a link to the home page of the district, but this is a reason to delete per WP:NOT a linkfarm, webhosting service, etc.
"[I]t is listed as one of the top 20 major religious groups by population (800,000) on Wikipedia's Major religious groups entry. Getting rid of this would require getting rid of the entries for most of those, as well, yet all are very notable religious groups." Actually, it is number 20, right behind Tenrikyo and Neopaganism. Even ignoring the "If Article X, then Article Y" fallacy, this argument is wrong for several reasons. First, even by this logic, deleting articles pertaining to religion number 20 would not imply deleting articles pertaining to religions number 1-19. Second, the nomination did not propose deleting Unitarian Universalism or Unitarian Universalist Association, it proposed deleting pages relating to districts of the UUA.
"...otherwise we must delete all Catholic diocese and parish articles." This is similar to the previous argument and was repeated by several different participants, but is problematic for the same reasons. First, we do not have (nor should we have) articles on each Catholic parish. We do have articles on Catholic dioceses, but these differ from UUA districts in several respects: (i) Catholic dioceses will on average comprise more members than UUA districts: the UUA has 800,000 members in 21 districts, so their average size is only 40,000; the Roman Catholic Church has 64,621,000 members in the United States and 194 dioceses [29], so the average size is ~333,000 (Larger Catholic dioceses for example, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago have more than a million members [30]; a more typical example is the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse in Wisconsin with 200,000 [31]); and (ii) Catholic dioceses are organized primarily at the diocesan level rather than the parish level, with the diocese being responsible for schools, social services, supervision of priests, etc., while UUs primarily organize at the congregational level.

Most important for our purposes, the individual districts are not covered in independent, reliable sources and so, each taken on its own, is not notable. JChap2007 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are re-nominating these articles because you don't agree with the results of a decision from 5 weeks ago? It's pretty bad form to re-nom this quickly - the original nom did run it's 5 days. Robovski 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not participate in that AfD, so it's not sour grapes or anything. There just seems to be a lot of cruft in this category and I'm trying to clean it out through merger, deletion, etc. JChap2007 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot per nom. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources (WP:ORG). Some may be speediable as few appear to have any assertion of notability. Membership information is self-referenced, and may fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfucious. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfucious. WP:ORG is pretty clear in this case. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfucious. The Unitarian Universalist Association is notable; its districts are not. --Metropolitan90 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfucious, WP:ORG. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfuscious (and thanks) WP:ORG SkierRMH 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I'm convinced by JChap2007. - Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:ORG is controlling in the specific circumstances of this case.-- danntm ^T _C 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohconfucious. Is there a policy available for this. scope_creep 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, collaries in user membership counts and notability from WP:V and in some cases WP:RS. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got rid of most of the associated Young Religious UU groups a while back for the same reason - they are not individually notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable things. --Brianyoumans 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why all of these substubs are really necessary. If someone can enlighten me, please do so. RFerreira 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You hit the nail on the head. WP:CORP and WP:ORG specifically mention and exclude the cases of individual chapters and franchises. Ohconfucius 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Rama's Arrow. MER-C 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audun Halland

Non-notable member of a dubiously-notable band (Circles_End). Erik Swanson 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also tagged the related article Nifs for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. Erik Swanson 05:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of passing WP:BIO. No tours, no albums, no reviews, zippo. Ohconfucius 06:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no possibility of meeting BIO standards.SkierRMH 09:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per tag at A7 Missvain 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its a puff piece and a waste of valuable resources. scope_creep 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - a combination of borderline notability and dubious sources pushes this across the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single File

Contested prod: Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, has yet to publish their first album (and on what label?). No independent resources, the 55 distinct google hits for single file plus my best defense[32] give no more info. No more info or confirmation of the Ed Rose connection (32 distinct Google hits, most from myspace[33]) Fram 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND, non-notable. Hello32020 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep ~~as above. Maybe come back when/if the Vans thing transpires with the album release. And then only if a fan thinks they are worthy.~~ Bubba hot ep 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Seems there is more info out there than at first is obvious. Bubba hot ep 07:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could you specify to what info you refer? The only thing I'm aware of is AMG, and that is hardly enough to be deemed notable. I still don't see how this band meets WP:MUSIC in a verifiable way (the long post by the band, while possibly correct, is not verifiable: no major reviews, no major releases, no important awards, chartings, ...: all wehave is a tour that has apparently gone completely unnoticed by the music press). Fram 09:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AMG thing was a big factor. It is deemed a reliable source insomuch as it can be used in the "Reviews" section of an album infobox, therefore it should be deemed worthy of at least hinting at notability. Don't get me wrong, this is still a borderline case, hence the weak keep. Bubba hot ep 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, the AMG article is indeed their strongest claim. Fram 10:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the article asserts national tours, and AllMusic Guide also cites "a handful of national tours". That's enough to qualify under WP:BAND, criterion 3. I'm a little concerned about verifiability, but from what I can see, they do meet the requirements (albeit barely). Xtifr _tälk 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AMG also mentions the Ed Rose connection. And AMG is generally considered a moderately reliable source (better than a random blog, at any rate). :) Xtifr _tälk 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 47,000 MySpace fans and over 1.3 million plays, completing the entire Warped Tour circuit this year plus other national tours? Sounds notable to me. Verifiability might be helped if someone can track down the issue of Asylum Magazine that lists them along with bands like Copeland, Story of the Year, Brand New, and The Pixies as one of the top 50 bands of the year; I can't seem to find it online. Chubbles1212 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't care about myspace, and "Asylum magazine" for the moment is a myspace only "magazine" which hopes to get a printable version, and later to get on the magazine racks... [34]. So, still no verifiable sources, no reviews, ... 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - crz crztalk 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is what it says on their "tours" on the MySpace:

After that they then have up to present time promoted five national tours (250 out-of-state shows). They did this all themselves seeking no outside help.

Driving around the country by yourself and playing at random bars does not count as a "national tour". They don't list the names of any of their venues. They claim to have played 250 out-of-state gigs, but that's entirely unverifiable. We don't know a thing about them: their mobius-website leads right back to their myspace.

By the way, MySpace is not, has never been, and will never be a reliable source for anything! It doesn't matter if they have four million friends on MySpace, that just means they know where the "add to friends" button is. This is the second time this week I've seen a MySpace defense of a band's notability on AfD; if the best source for a band is MySpace, that's a pretty clear indicator that the article should be deleted.

And as for Warped Tour, playing stage two at a music festival does not count as having a national tour.

Fails notability standards and verifiability policy. - Che Nuevara 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Update I revamped the wording and added several sources. They've been cited for having a nationwide following and have gotten regular airplay on a Denver radio station. They're also headlining on their latest tour. Chubbles1212 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (denver.yourhub.com) is a user submission site, so not reliable according to WP:V. The second one (campuuscircle.net) seems borderline, I'll let other people decide that one. I have not seen the confirmation that they are "headlining on their latest tour", and airplay on one radio station fails WP:MUSIC, just like one (to be released) album. Thanks for adding the sources, but to me they still are not notable enough. Fram 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the re-write it still fails WP:MUSIC, still is a NN band.SkierRMH 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Driving around the country by yourself and playing at random bars does not count as a "national tour" - (User:CheNuevara). Why not? If theyre booked for every night and you have an itinerary why is it random? I though WP:Music just required that the tour is independently verified, but no stipulations on the size of venue or on who books the tour. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, technically, but in this case, where are the verifiable concert reviews? They were booked on the Warped tour (played apparently 2 concerts in 2005, and an unknown number in 2006), and none of their performances has been noticed in the professional music press or in the mainstream press. And being reported is explicitly included in the "national tour" line of WP:MUSIC, so they still fail that... Fram 13:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. The band is only 3 years old, and completly fail to assert any notability. scope_creep 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is VERY shaky under WP:MUSIC but completely fails WP:V, WP:RS and is STILL not notable. According to Amists, if I rock out on my guitar and travel to 10 states and get booked, I'm worthy of an article? --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment your "personal tour" would be unlikely to merit mention in a source like allmusic guide. (And if it did, maybe you should get an article. But I'm not holding my breath.:) Xtifr _tälk 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal. I think that this band would meet WP:MUSIC if it met WP:V (and allmusic asserting national tours makes it a borderline case in the first place). I'd be willing to try and shepherd this article a little bit, and try and find some print sources (trawling Google is a terrible way to verify things, anyway). I'd like to propose that the AfD be 86'd with no consensus for the time being; I just need more than three days to do this (I have exams!). And if anyone else is willing to help, it would be appreciated. Chubbles1212 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always recreate the article when the band gets more notable or when notabiltity is verified. I don't think a "no consensus" is correct when the current consensus is clearly going to delete. Fram 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, the yourhub article, I believe, was published in some print source, which I'm still trying to track down (I don't live in Denver). Two, If you check the 8 Most Wanted on KTCL's webpage for this week, Single File is #7. [35] So, if I can exhume the yourhub article, that's three sources asserting national exposure (which meets criterion 3 of WP:MUSIC), and two sources asserting rotation on a major national ClearChannel station (which meets criterion 11 of WP:MUSIC). I'm willing to continue to look into this to try and find other sources; since the article is already here, and someone is actively working on verification, isn't it better to just say Wikipedia is not paper, slap an unsourced tag on the page, and close the AfD pending further research? Just to pose the flip side of the coin, we can always come back in a few weeks and delete it if nothing comes up. Chubbles1212 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 11 is: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Being played in Denver <> rotation nationally, so it does clearly not meet criterion 11. Fram 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a major radio network, if not being in rotation on a high-wattage ClearChannel station in a city with a metro population of two million plus? Chubbles1212 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KTCL is one radio station from a major radio network, not a complete network. If it would be in rotation across similar Clear Channel stations across the USA, then it would be "played in rotation nationally by any major radio network". Now it is "played regionally by one radio station of a major radio network". I hope the difference is clear. Fram 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i find it funny how much effort is going into this. a fan notified us of this pending deletion; i'd be happy to clear things up. you can be the judge (national vs. "bar band").

In the past 2+ years we've been a full-time band, we've pulled off the following:

-6 US tours,over 300 shows and counting -Completed ALL of 2006 Vans Warped Tour -Completed 2 weeks of 2005 Vans Warped Tour -All tours completely self-booked and promoted -Nearly 1.4 million plays on myspace.com (over 10,000 plays daily) -Nearly 48,000 friends on myspace.com -Featured artist on myspace.com twice in a single year -Shared the stage with such acts as Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, The Gym Class Heroes, Waking Ashland, Sherwood, The Higher, The Summer Obsession, The Afters, Over It, and many more. Will also be playing as main support for Snow Patrol on 12/5/2006 @ the Fillmore Auditorium in Denver (3,600 capacity hall)... -Single 'Zombies Ate My Neighbors' now in full roration on Denver Clear Channel station 93.3 KTCL, recieving a 99% positive listener feedback rating (hasn't happened in history of station), as well as more requests than the last unsigned band they put into full rotation back in 2004...The Fray. The song (as of this week) is now in the second tier of rotation, and currently KTCL's number 8 song and climbing. -Songs featured on ESPN and FOX Sports ("Best Damn Sports Show Period") -Sold through 7,000 copies of our current EP 'My Best Defense' (released: 5/05) -Self produced/recorded 3 EP's, and; -Completed debut full length album under famed indie producer Ed Rose (Motion City Soundtrack, Senses Fail, Emery, The Get Up Kids, Brandtson, Reggie & The Full Effect, etc.)... -Ranked #2 (above Ben Gibbard) in the alternative radio charts in the "A&R Worldwide Music & Media Newsletter - October 9th, 2006"

nope, we don't have a website. nope, we don't have a label, though we're in talks with 3 of the biggest labels in the world (including virgin and epic), and several indies (including doghouse).

here are some sources, feel free to contact them (as well as any venues listed below):

ed rose (producer, www.edrose.com): ed@blacklodgerecording.com KTCL (top denver clear channel station): ericclouse@clearchannel.com (eric clouse, music director) kevin lyman (head of warped tour): kevinwarped@aol.com asylum (magazine): atari@asylummagazine.com (laura cleveland) yourhumb.com (news paper): daviss@yourhub.com (seth davis) colorado music buzz (magazine, print): 303.797.1800 (we've been featured several times) broomfield enterprize (magazine, print): kathryn.richert@gmail.com lyrics featured in worldwide distributed "revolution on canvas 2" - chris@wethepeoplerecords.net (chris haynie) sodajerk (local promoter, verify sold out shows): mike@sodajerkpresents.com

there are many, many more, but these are off the top of my head. please feel free to contact me for more...(email below)

lastly, here's our tour history (from old to new) -- please note we've played over 35 shows since this list was generated, several of which we headlined and sold out:

06/02/2004 - Canoga Park, CA - The Cobalt 06/28/2004 - Hollywood, CA - Knitting Factory (front bar) 07/02/2004 - Hollywood, CA - The Cat Club 07/06/2004 - Hollywood, CA - ClubLingerie 07/21/2004 - Canoga Park, CA - The Cobalt 08/01/2004 - Denver, CO - Larimer Lounge 08/02/2004 - Arvada, CO - Pink-E's 08/03/2004 - Arvada, CO - La Dolce Vita 08/04/2004 - Denver, CO - 15th St. Tavern 08/06/2004 - Fort Collins, CO - The Starlight 08/26/2004 - Universal City, CA - Hard Rock Cafe 09/03/2004 - Universal City, CA - Universal Bar & Grill 09/06/2004 - Los Angeles, CA - The Good Hurt 09/17/2004 - Old Town Pasadena, CA - The Equator 09/26/2004 - Universal City, CA - Universal Bar & Grill 10/20/2004 - Los Angeles, CA - The Good Hurt 11/04/2004 - Los Angeles, CA - USC Mega Show

Winter tour 2004/2005:

12/13/2004 - Santa Barbara, CA - The Velvet Jones 12/14/2004 - Hollywood, CA -Knitting Factory (front bar) 12/15/2004 - San Diego, CA - Dream Street 12/16/2004 - Las Vegas, NV - The Boston 12/17/2004 - Albuquerque, NM - The Atomic Cantina 12/18/2004 - Denver, CO - 15th St. Tavern 12/22/2004 - Arvada, CO - La Dolce Vita 12/23/2004 - Denver, CO - The Hard Rock 12/28/2004 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 12/29/2004 - Cedar Falls, IA - The Reverb 12/30/2004 - Saint Louis, MO - Off Broadway 12/31/2004 - Chapel Hill, NC - Local 506 01/03/2005 - New Orleans, LA - The Neutral Ground 01/04/2005 - Austin, TX - Redrum 01/05/2005 - Oklahoma City, OK - The Conservatory 01/07/2005 - Phoenix, AZ - The Emerald 01/08/2005 - Hollywood, CA - Knitting Factory (alterknit)

Misc 2005...

01/23/2005 - Universal City, CA - Universal Bar & Grill 03/04/2005 - Tucson, AZ - Gameworks 03/05/2005 - Tempe, AZ - ASU 03/06/2005 - Phoenix, AZ - Willow House Coffee 03/11/2005 - Studio City, CA - Global Cafe 03/13/2005 - Marina Del Rey, CA - Brennan's 03/31/2005 - Hollywood, CA - Knitting Factory (front bar) 04/09/2005 - Burbank, CA - Que's River Bottom 04/13/2005 - Los Angeles, CA - Ground Zero (USC) 04/14/2005 - Hollywood, CA - The Hotel Cafe 04/23/2005 - Los Angeles, CA - USC's Relay For Life

Summer tour 2005...

06/28/2005 - Santa Barbara, CA - The Wildcat Lounge 06/29/2005 - Hollywood, CA - Knitting Factory (front bar) 06/30/2005 - San Diego, CA - Brick by Brick 07/01/2005 - Tucson, AZ - Gameworks 07/02/2005 - Phoenix, AZ - The Emerald 07/03/2005 - Sedona, AZ - The Raven Heart 07/05/2005 - Las Vegas, NV - Brewed Awakening 07/06/2005 - Bakersfield, CA - Studio 99 07/07/2005 - Fresno, CA - The Belmont 07/09/2005 - San Jose, CA - Tower Records 07/09/2005 - Campbell, CA - The C-Spot 07/10/2005 - Campbell, CA - The Gaslighter 07/11/2005 - Oroville, CA - Mug Shots 07/12/2005 - Portland, OR - The Paris Theatre 07/14/2005 - Missoula, MT - Higgins Hall 07/15/2005 - Bozeman, MT - Vans Warped Tour '05 07/16/2005 - Salt Lake City, UT - Vans Warped Tour '05 07/17/2005 - Denver, CO - Vans Warped Tour '05 07/18/2005 - Arvada, CO - La Dolce Vita 07/19/2005 - Denver, CO - 15th Street Tavern 07/20/2005 - Durango, CO - The Abbey Theater 07/21/2005 - Amarillo, TX - The Nat Ballroom 07/22/2005 - Oklahoma City, OK - The Showroom 07/23/2005 - Dallas, TX - The Door (main stage) 07/24/2005 - Austin, TX - The Whiskey 07/25/2005 - Houston, TX - The Southmore House 07/26/2005 - Bton Rouge, LA - The Darkroom 07/28/2005 - Jackson, MS - W.C. Don's 07/29/2005 - Memphis, TN - Tower Records 08/01/2005 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 08/02/2005 - Nashville, TN - The 5 Spot 08/03/2005 - Birmingham, AL - Upsidedown Plaza 08/06/2005 - Gainesville, FL - Tim & Terry's 08/07/2005 - Orlando, FL - Vans Warped Tour '05 08/08/2005 - Jacksonville, FL - Jackrabbits 08/10/2005 - Washington, DC - Vans Warped Tour '05 08/11/2005 - Scranton, PA - Vans Warped Tour '05 08/12/2005 - Concord, NC - Jillian's 08/17/2005 - Chapel Hill, NC - Local 506 08/25/2005 - Lakewood, OH - The Hi-Fi 08/26/2005 - Grand Rapids, MI - 10 Bells 08/27/2005 - Muncie, IN - 525 Wheeling 08/28/2005 - Orland Park, IL - Mojoe's 08/30/2005 - Cedar Falls, IA - The Reverb 09/01/2005 - Hannibal, MO - Jave Jive 09/03/2005 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap

Misc 2005...

09/10/2005 - Scottsbluff, NE - The Underground 09/11/2005 - Arvada, CO - La Dolce Vita

Fall tour 2005 (#1)...

09/22/2005 - Denver, CO - The Climax Lounge 09/23/2005 - Gunnison, CO - The Alamo 09/24/2005 - South Jordan, UT - The Blue Note 09/25/2005 - Elko, NV - Brew's Brother's 09/26/2005 - Reno, NV - Tower Records 09/27/2005 - Oroville, CA - Mugshots 09/28/2005 - San Jose, CA - San Jose Skate 09/29/2005 - Fresno, CA - Tower Records 09/30/2005 - Bakersfield, CA - Studio 99 10/01/2005 - Isla Vista, CA - UCSB House Party 10/02/2005 - Ventura, CA - The Livery Theatre 10/03/2005 - Los Angeles, CA - Knitting Factory (alterknit) 10/05/2005 - Yorba Linda, CA - Java Joe's 10/07/2005 - Tucson, AZ - Gameworks 10/08/2005 - Flagstaff, AZ - The Lo-Fi 10/10/2005 - Amarillo, TX - The Nat Ballroom 10/11/2005 - Austin, TX - Redrum 10/13/2005 - Norman, OK - OU (Student Union) 10/14/2005 - Lewisville, TX - Fat Daddy's Sound Shack 10/15/2005 - Baton Rouge, LA - The Darkroom 10/17/2005 - Memphis, TN - Tower Records 10/18/2005 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 10/19/2005 - Cedar Falls, IA - The Reverb 10/20/2005 - Omaha, NE - Sokol Underground 10/21/2005 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 10/23/2005 - Arvada, CO - La Dolce Vita

Misc 2005...

10/31/2005 - Denver, CO - The Climax 11/05/2005 - Denver, CO - The Climax 11/12/2005 - Scottsbluff, NE - The Underground

Fall tour 2005 (#2)...

11/21/2005 - Denver, CO - The Climax 11/25/2005 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 11/26/2005 - Papillion, NE - The Rock 11/28/2005 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 11/29/2005 - Memphis, TN - University of Memphis 11/30/2005 - Baton Rouge, LA - The Dark Room 12/01/2005 - Houston, TX - Fitzgeralds 12/02/2005 - Austin, TX - Redrum 12/03/2005 - Dallas, TX - The Door (theatre stage) (cont’d on page #2) 12/04/2005 - San Antonio, TX - Cafe Revolucion 12/06/2005 - Amarillo, TX - The Illuminati 12/07/2005 - Albuquerque, NM - The Cell Theatre 12/08/2005 - Flagstaff, AZ - The Campus Coffee Bean 12/09/2005 - Phoenix, AZ - Four White Walls 12/10/2005 - Tucson, AZ - Gameworks 12/11/2005 - San Diego, CA - The Zombie Lounge 12/13/2005 - Hollywood, CA - The Troubadour 12/15/2005 - Bakersfield, CA - Studio 99 12/16/2005 - Las Vegas, CA - The Alley 12/16/2005 - Fresno, CA - The Belmont 12/17/2005 - Cedar City, UT - Hoover Nights 12/19/2005 - Midvale, UI - The Circuit 12/20/2005 - Elko, NV - Brew's Brothers 12/21/2005 - Salt Lake City, UT - Kilby Court 12/22/2005 - Cheyenne, WY - The Tivoli 12/23/2005 - Denver, CO - The Climax

Misc 2006...

01/07/2006 - Scottsbluff, NE - The Underground 01/19/2006 - Denver, CO - The Bluebird 01/27/2006 - Scottsbluff, NE - The Underground 01/28/2006 - Fort Collins, CO - The Starlight 01/29/2006 - Pueblo, CO - Fortino Ballroom 01/30/2006 - Colorado Springs, CO - Sand Creek HS 01/31/2006 - Castle Rock, CO - Grindwell Skatepark 02/01/2006 - Grand Junction, CO - LIFF Auditorium 02/03/2006 - Albuquerque, NM - The Cell Theatre 02/04/2006 - Amarillo, TX - The Illuminati 02/17/2006 - Brighton, CO - Riverdale Clubhouse 02/18/2006 - Scottsbluff, NE - The Underground 02/25/2006 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 03/11/2006 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 03/18/2006 - Papillion, NE - The Rock 03/21/2006 - Denver, CO - The Gothic Theater 03/24/2006 - Fort Collins, CO - The Starlight

Spring tour 2006...

04/13/2006 - Littleton, CO - The Ascot Theater 04/14/2006 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 04/15/2006 - Saint Louis, MO - Mississippi Nights 04/17/2006 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 04/18/2006 - Owensboro, KY - The Brother's Pizza 04/19/2006 - Chapel Hill, NC - The Local 506 04/20/2006 - Charleston, SC - Music Farm 04/22/2006 - Pensacola, FL - Sluggo's 04/23/2006 - Baton Rouge, LA - The Darkroom 04/24/2006 - Monroeville, AL - Our Place 04/25/2006 - Shreveport, LA - Flannagans 04/26/2006 - Houston, TX - The White Swan 04/27/2006 - Austin, TX - Redrum 04/28/2006 - Canton, TX - The Mad Goat 04/29/2006 - Dallas, TX - Tower Records 04/29/2006 - Dallas, TX - The Door (theatre stage) 04/30/2006 - Tulsa, OK - The Pinkeye 05/02/2006 - Amarillo, TX - The Illuminati 05/03/2006 - Albuquerque, NM - The Cell Theatre 05/04/2006 - El Paso, TX - The House of Rock & Roll 05/05/2006 - Tucson, AZ - Gameworks 05/06/2006 - Los Angeles, CA - Fais Do Do 05/07/2006 - Bakersfield, CA - Studio 99 05/08/2006 - Fresno, CA - The Belmont 05/09/2006 - Sonoma, CA - Sonoma Valley High School 05/10/2006 - San Jose, CA - San Jose Skate 05/11/2006 - Elko, NV - Brews Brother's 05/12/2006 - Denver, CO - The Bluebird

Misc 2006...

05/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Rock Island 05/27/2006 - Fort Collins, CO - The Starlight 06/03/2006 - Denver, CO - The Larimer Lounge 06/09/2006 - Albuquerque, NM - Hyperactive Music Festival 06/10/2006 - Amarillo, TX - The Illuminati 06/17/2006 - Centennial, CO - The Lifespot

Vans Warped Tour 2006...

06/19/2006 - Bonner Springs, KS - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/21/2006 - Nashville, TN - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/22/2006 - Jacksonville, FL - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/23/2006 - St. Petersburg, FL - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/24/2006 - Miami, FL - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/25/2006 - Orlando, FL - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/26/2006 - Ladson, SC - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/27/2006 - Raleigh, NC - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/28/2006 - Atlanta, GA - Vans Warped Tour '06 06/30/2006 - Houston, TX - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/01/2006 - Dallas, TX - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/02/2006 - Selma, TX - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/03/2006 - Las Cruces, TX - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/04/2006 - Phoenix, AZ - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/06/2006 - Chula Vista, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/07/2006 - Pomona, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/08/2006 - San Francisco, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/09/2006 - Fresno, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/11/2006 - Ventura, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/12/2006 - Los Angeles, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/13/2006 - Marysvale, CA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/14/2006 - Boise, ID - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/15/2006 - George, WA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/16/2006 - St. Helens, OR - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/17/2006 - Salt Lake City, UT - Kilby Court 07/21/2006 - Denver, CO - The Climax Lounge 07/23/2006 - Denver, CO - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/25/2006 - Maryland Heights, MO - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/26/2006 - Cincinnati, OH - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/27/2006 - Pittsburgh, PA - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/28/2006 - Noblesville, IN - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/29/2006 - Detroit, MI - Vans Warped Tour '06 07/30/2006 - Tinley Park, IL - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/01/2006 - Darien Center, NY - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/02/2006 - Fitchburg, PA - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/03/2006 - Camden, NJ - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/04/2006 - Scranton, PA - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/05/2006 - Uniondale, NY - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/06/2006 - Englishtown, NJ - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/08/2006 - Charlotte, NC - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/09/2006 - Virginia Beach, VA - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/10/2006 - Bristow, VA - Vans Warped Tour '06 08/11/2006 - Cleveland, OH - Vans Warped Tour '06

Misc 2006...

08/13/2006 - Hannibal, MO - Java Jive 08/15/2006 - Topeka, KS - The Boobie Trap 08/31/2006 - Denver, CO - The Hi-Dive

hope this helps.

--sloan sloan@singlefilerock.com

Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. And a note on the YourHub mentions above - just to be clear on this, YourHub is a citizen journalism site, with regular users writing their own stories. It is generally NOT based on reputable news sources, and suck links should be treated carefully. TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think at this point, it's clear that the band is notable under WP:MUSIC; the only problem is whether it passes WP:V. Again, I need more time than AfD permits, but I think this band is notable and this article can eventually pass muster. Chubbles1212 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Mall

Second largest mall in the Lansing, Michigan area. No claims to notability. JChap2007 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article makes clear (but my nomination unfortunately didn't), Lansing only has two malls. I grew up near there and this mall is incredibly non-notable. JChap2007 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable mall. Edison 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable why? The article claims nothing. Shimeru 07:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be useful for WP to develop criteria for mall articles specifically. Some undoubtedly deserve their own article and many clearly do not. Where does the community wish to draw the line? (I know nothing of Lansing, MI and thus cannot comment on the significance of this mall, though the article is pretty well-written so I lean to Weak keep). Allon Fambrizzi 08:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Weak Keep, since Lansing is the capital of Michigan, I believe that this mall asserts some notability as it is quite a big mall. The second largest mall in a big city is considered notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note, Lansing is not what most would consider a "big city." It is comparable to Ann Arbor, MI and Kalamazoo, MI in size, and far smaller than Grand Rapids. Allon Fambrizzi 08:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- And, just to note, it only has two malls. JChap2007 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still don't see how a Mall, a bleedin' shopping centre, can be notable, no matter the size.SkierRMH 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that malls like West Edmonton Mall have some claim to notability, but I think most malls, like, um, most schools, do not merit space in Wikipedia. D enni ^talk 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are tons of big malls like this one. No encyclopedic value here. Macy's in New York, GUM in Moscow, La Rinascente in Milan or Galeries Lafayette in Paris may qualify due to their historical significance, but this one? There is a cute grocery near my home, selling excellent cheeses hard to find elsewhere. It smells far more distinctive than this thing. Stammer 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even a big mall. JChap2007 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who cares, Wiki isn't a travel guide Missvain 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completly fails to assert notability scope_creep 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do have a List of shopping malls in the United States and articles on many other malls. I don't know how that cuts (maybe they should all be deleted) but just wanted to throw it out there.--TheOtherBob 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MALLS. Denni ^talk 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a whole project? Interesting - I'm always amazed at the variety of interests people have. Anyways, I'm not sure I understand yet why this mall fails WP:MALLS. I don't think I disagree with you at all (I don't think I have an opinion one way or the other, to be honest), I just don't think I understand.--TheOtherBob 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have stopped the rot with schools. WMMartin 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, should be discussed at WP:RM and appropriate article talk pages -- Samir धर्म 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalese language

This is a redundant page of Sinhala language, as the proper name should be Sinhala not Sinhalese. It is best to provide a redirect instead. එරංග 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Go discuss renaming somewhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the place to rename an article is WP:RM, not AfD. Khoi khoi 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why even bother with Requested moves? The page isn't move protected. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but Sinhala language has an edit history, and the article's original title, Sinhala, has been turned into a disambig. page—so it is impossible to move the page back without the help from an admin. Khoi khoi 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer (album)

This was speedy deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus overturned after the speedy was contested with reference to media reviews. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No one has challenged Machinae Supremacy's notabilty. ¬rehevkor¬ 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the band is notable, there's no reason to get rid of their album, which was released on an imprint of a major label. -- Kicking222 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable band, notable album. Voretus ^talk 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable, and popular, within the SID revival band community. --Mperry 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond. ¬rehevkor¬ 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Machinae Supremacy has a quite large fanbase, all of which I'm sure would count the band and this album as notable. « SCHLAGWERK ^{Talk to me!} 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. R. Avery

Non-notability Subject has not been demonstrated as notable per WP policy. Article heavily edited by subject's associate. Delete Green hornet 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not a policy. It is a guideline. The policies referenced in WP:N are WP:V and WP:NPOV. - Che Nuevara 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject won a nationally broadcasted competition. If its biased, it needs to be edited out. hateless 06:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. Cleanup article and NPOVise the article. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Terence Ong, needs cleaned up,linked, depoved, expanded with some real detail. scope_creep 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Huan

WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; NN Chinese artist, hard to determine G-hits w/Chinese characters. SkierRMH 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Please see References section of article, source that is already there verifies that he meets WP:MUSIC Musicians criteria 10, at the very least. Also has released 20+ CDs with major labels. [36] cab 06:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MER-C 06:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Notable artist from China, sources have been cited also. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I hate the MyWikiSpacePedia phenomenon as much as the next guy and more than the one after him, but this musician remained at number one for ten weeks in a country of 1.3 billion people. It needs a clean up sure, but this is not non notable. •Elomis• 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a bona fides star in China. scope_creep 14:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google is not research (a non-fully researched google search more so). He definitely satsfies WP:MUSIC as well, having a top-seller in China, plenty of music with major labels, and The baidu news page for him is extensive (though I'm not sure how reliable the news sources are). ColourBurst 01:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hope the excerpt "His song ... remained in the number one position for ten weeks on mainland China radio" is self explanatory. RFerreira 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Walker

violation of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; bio piece on NN artist SkierRMH 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is part of a famous and notable band, has had international tours, over half hour broadcasts, and actually does not fail the categories. Notable enough to deserve an article on his own. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very obviously meets WP:MUSIC on a number of counts. He might be in a crappy band, but that crappy band just won MTV's (ugh) award for video of the year. Skier, I strongly suggest you actually read WP:MUSIC before you nominate articles for AfD, as you did for this and other clearly notable musicians. -- Kicking222 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, for above reasons. All bands nationally or regionally notable Missvain 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a very notable band, and complies with WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.161.193 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 November 2006
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.137 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 November 2006
Keep per above. digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete --pgk 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie atkinson

contested speedy delete; nn person, violates WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, SkierRMH 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC scope_creep 14:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphington Grammar School

School built in 1989 whose entire claim to noteworthiness appears to be the fact that a teacher at the school was involved in an automobile accident in which, through carelessness, he caused the death of a 6-year-old near the school. I do not accept that as a valid claim to the noteworthiness of the school. (If it'd happened in the school, maybe.) None of the information in this article that's actually about the school is sourced by anything other than the school's homepage, nor does it amount to more than a directory entry, nor do I find any potential independent reliable sources through various searches -- just directories. Shimeru 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sound like an ad, and doesn't assert notability. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty close to advert SkierRMH 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's almost an advert, also no claim to notability. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school is distinctive because of its connections with the Greek Orthodox community, although it identifies itself as non-denominational. It offers classes in Traditional Greek Dancing. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do greek dancing classes confer notability? There is some media coverage of the teacher running over pupil incident, but it's limited local coverage and I still err on the side of deletion for now Amists ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable. -- Kicking222 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. This again falls into the catagory of "just cause it is a school/church/mall does not make it notable" argument :P Missvain 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet a single criterion of WP:SCHOOLS3. D e nni ^talk 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please stop quoting that - you are quoting in bad faith a proposal that is supported by only a handful of people and is being used to justify deletions of schools that wouldn't under other proposals. Precedent in Australia has kept all high schools like this. Just because the article reads like an advertisement does NOT mean it should be deleted, it means it should be fixed up. JROBBO 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who support keeping every school in the known universe are about equal in number to those who expect schools to demonstrate the same degree of notability as all other article criteria demand. The inclusionists "win" because any no consensus outcome always defaults to "keep". What evidence can you bring forward that "only a handful of people" support WP:SCHOOLS3? Of =course= it will justify deleting some schools - that is the whole point of a policy, proposed or otherwise. The structure and intent of WP:SCHOOLS3 is no different from WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB - all are intended to separate the wheat from the chaff. I will not stop quoting WP:SCHOOLS3 - I believe that it is use that drives policy. If enough people continue to use this set of criteria, eventually a proposed policy will become de facto policy. And high time in a situation where some claim "every school is notable". D e nni ^talk 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JROBBO, please stop assuming bad faith. While WP:SCHOOLS3 is currently in a state of some flux and I don't see it as necessary useful to reference, it isn't bad faith to reference a proposal. Furthermore, it isn't obvious to me that WP:SCHOOLS has any more backing. JoshuaZ 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another nn school. Lankiveil 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like a directory entry to me, but does appear to be verifiable through normal sources plus limited news coverage. Merging to Alphington, Victoria is also a fair option. RFerreira 05:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that a school that is 125 years old might well be notable for something, but unless someone provides evidence of that, Delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TruthbringerToronto, serves a particular community.--Vsion 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Drugstores serve communities as well. That doesn't make them notable. JoshuaZ 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Truthbringer can find any evidence that outside sources have considered the connection to the Greek Orthodox community notable then it might be notable. As it is, there is no plausible claim of notability that I could find. JoshuaZ`
Delete as that this is a non-notable school. A kid getting run over by a teacher doesn't confer notability alone. (unless maybe Ted Kennedy's car was somehow involved, I don't know, we'll see.) However, as stated above, a school this old should have some evidence of notability. Trusilver 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you strip out all of the non encylopedic material and the directory information you have an article that fails all of the proposed school guidelines. Vegaswikian 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there some basis to that claim at all? Adding exclamation marks doesn't make the claim any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important to Melbourne Greek Orthodox community. I guess. Herostratus 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No valid policy-based arguments to keep have been made. wikipediatrix 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Funny Side...of Covent Garden

nn clubs. Sizuxng 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nnSkierRMH

The result was Keep after sources provided. Yomangani ^talk 10:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Street

nn website. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amie Street) Sizuxng 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost/unremarkable webcontent (tagged), else delete - no evidence provided to meet WP:WEB, unreferenced. MER-C 06:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and as advert SkierRMH 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nn. tagged it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy does not apply. Not claiming to meet WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion. But this doesn't claim to meet WP:WEB, so we should delete it. (Removing speedy tag.) Mango juice^talk 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean it doesn't claim to meet WP:WEB? I added some discussion of the articles mentioned below in the actual article, but isn't it implied that if a website is on wikipedia it meets WP:WEB? Why does it have to claim to meet it as well? Seems screwy to me. Paul^C/_T+ 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Meets WP:WEB for press coverage. Site is sole focus of article in The Press-Enterprise, and this article in The Wall Street Journal. --Howrealisreal 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Howrealisreal indicate notability. --Oakshade 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources previously noted, as well as others here satisfy the notability requirements at WP:WEB. The article still needs work tho, no doubt. That said, notability is established so there is no reason for the article to be deleted. Paul^C/_T+ 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not trying to imply anything, but it seems a bit weird that the nom's only contribution to wikipedia is nominating this article for deletion. I think that should be pointed out. Paul^C/_T+ 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable through media coverage linked to above. Sandstein 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Gurch. MER-C 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumba Interactive Group Pty Ltd

non notable company. Sizuxng 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per CSD G11, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 06:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfield

From speedy. Speedy is contested Alex Bakharev 07:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best I can tell, this band fails WP:MUSIC. I also tried to get an accurate number of google hits, but doing so was fairly difficult as Waterfield is also a surname. Searching for waterfield "drew little" brought up 12 results. By comparison, a search for "be good tanyas" "Frazey Ford" brings up about 10k results. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, another band that is non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete yet another nn band.SkierRMH 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as claims to notability (listed by Edison) are not verified by independent sources. Google Books and the reference desk at the local library are good starting points for offline searches for sources, but as it is the article fails Wikipedia policies. As with every deletion for lack of sources, the article can be restored or userfied if sources (which don't necessarily have to be online) are found. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sowders

From speedy. Should go to AfD instead Alex Bakharev 07:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actually it should have been speedy deleted. Google search excluding copies of this article gives nothing but results from this guy's own church and related promotional sites. Fails WP:BIO as noted in the speedy tag. MartinDK 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, almost reads like advert SkierRMH 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO scope_creep 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes 2 claims to notability: 1)"In 1935 he opened the “Gospel of the Kingdom Campground" in Shepherdsville, Kentucky, where his teachings were adopted and spread by other pastors." 2)"It has been estimated that during his lifetime, at its peak, there were 300 churches and 75,000 believers in the fellowship.[citation needed] Today there are churches worldwide, notably in the U.S., Haiti, Europe and Africa , that have been affected by his ministry." In addition, "william Sowders" gets 1440 Google hits, most to the subject of this article. He is widely written up in pentecostal web sites. He had the misfortune to live and die in an era before there are online publication archives, so what references he had in print are likely not online. There is no reason to exclude as sources his own church, unless you are willing to delete all Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc. sources in articles about figures of those religions. He clearly had influence within his denomination far beyond that of average pastors. Edison 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sowders should be kept, not only for his currently obscure church, but because he had/has influence on a great deal of modern evangalicism, particularly the church of the 4 square gospel and other early evangalicals V. Joe 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Edison, because I have found the statement about him living before any archives that would be online to be true. I have been researching Sowders for over 10 years, and that is fact. There just is not alot of online information on him. His influence was strongest in the mid-west and south-east areas of the states, and in these areas specifically his teachings have had influences in many of the pentecostal denominations. User:Wyldkardde 18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Smashed to pieces (aka Bj'd and redirected to Chinese porcelain until something excavates it and turns it into a real article.) ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ming vase

Wikipedia should have an article on Ming porcelain, and this page could then be a somewhat useful redirect. But it seems that we don't. Having an article titled "Ming vase" which contains nothing but references to slapstick comedy and video games is worse than nothing. I redirected this to Chinese porcelain long ago, but the silliness has been restored. u♦p♦p♦l♦a♦n♦d 07:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not an article on Ming porcelain; Wikipedia does not have an article on Ming porcelain. There is no such article to vote on. This is a completely unreferenced substub on the occasional mention of "Ming vases" in comedy or video games. If you want to keep an article on Ming porcelain, this is not the place to hang out; there is nothing in this stub remotely relevant to keep in a real article on Ming porcelain. If, on the other hand, you think Occasional references to Ming vases in comedies and video games to be an appropriate topic for an article, this is the page you are looking for. But, if you feel inclined to !vote "keep", I suggest that you demonstrate that this topic has been covered by reputable secondary sources. This page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, as it just confirms the view of wikipedians as teenage geeks who don't consider anything important except insofar as there are references to it in "popular culture" (as defined from the perspective of the average 17-year old in Ohio). Uppland 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If article expanded, and sources cited. Notable as a gag or "macguffin" often used in fiction. Wavy G 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs to heavily expanded,wikied, pics and sources added and linked to chinese porcelain and ming dynasty. I'm surprised there is not an wikipedia standard artlicle on this already. scope_creep 14:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be expanded and get some sources, but I base my vote on whether it can become good, not if it is. Notable per Wave G. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I might update this myself. To collectors, Ming Dynasty porcelain is rather unusual, and vases are of particular stylistic note. It must be cleaned, expanded, cited, and wikified. Obviously anything widely used in popular culture is notable.--Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Ming porcelain in popular cultural is of no importance to its notability, and an actual article on the topic (which this is not) should not even mention comedy gags and obscure video games, as it is just not relevant to the topic
Redirect it back to Chinese porcelain until someone cares to write more about the subject than "A Ming vase is a vase from the period of the Ming Dynasty in China." You could've done so without coming to afd. —Cryptic 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, I already did that, but the redirect was reverted. u♦p♦p♦l♦a♦n♦d 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the time this debate is closed, I look forward to seeing the article either (1) rewritten from scratch to be about Ming porcelain and moved to that title (and no references to comedy gags, please; it is just not relevant), or (2) expanded to be about comedy gags involving Ming vases, and citing some good secondary sources on that topic. upp♦land 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable gag that occurs frequently in pop culture. AFD is not a means to expand an article. hateless 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to new stub, Ming porcelain or else merge to section in Chinese porcelain. I do not support an article on Ming vases alone - they should be contextualized with other forms of Ming porcelain, unless people are going to write so much on every kind of Ming porcelain that a spinoff is needed for space issues. Whatever happens, the article should be talking about the actual ming porcelain first and foremost, with its use as a cliche phrase in English as a secondary section. And for god's sake, remove the reference to the video game. This is not just a gag or fictional device, it refers to actual historical artifacts e.g. Recent article on US$10mm auction of Ming Dynasty vase] Bwithh 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A redirect is appropriate, because the "Ming vaahs" is, as the article states, a stand-by prop in sitcoms and Vaudeville routines, so it's quite likely that the term would be entered in a box by anyone wanting to know what's so special about a Ming vase, as well as people looking for Ming dynasty pottery in general. I agree with the rest of what you say. Geogre 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :: frankly, this is a stub, and a not-very-useful one. If there isn't an article about Ming porcelain then perhaps there should be. if there is, then the iota of useful material can be squeezed out of this, the title made a redirect, and the video-game cruft expelled into Outer darkness, there to languish until rescued by whoever runs the Wiki for people (Whether 17-year-old Ohians or not) with too much time on their hands. Sorry to sound callous, but I normally err on the side of keepign stuff if it looks marginally useable, but this does not. -- Simon Cursitor 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way this article is a keep. It contains no useful information and frankly should merely be a redirect to Ming porcelain as earlier mentioned. 193.129.65.37 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese porcelain pending someone writing an article on Ming porcelain. Delete the content, nothing worth merging. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: We should have a redirect, but what's there now is hilarious. Do any of the people voting to keep know why Ming dynasty pottery is inherently valuable? Anything about the clay and the firing process? The tin can usually tied to the car bumper is what we have here instead of the car: pop culture "Ming vase: object frequently broken by rubes in 1960's TV sitcoms, found in the following video games, w00t." If the choice is delete or keep alone, then delete, as what's there is not a valid seedling for an article on the porcelains. Geogre 04:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh yeah? Well, what about the highly notable event when the Monkees had to spend the night at the haunted mansion, and Mickey Dolenz ended up getting hit over the head with a ming vase? Or what about the time Ricky said, "Luuucyyyy, I have to keep an eye on this ming vahhse for my boss toniiiight. I'm going to set it here on de table! Oh, and I have a show tonight, and as part of the act, I get hit over de head with this prop vase, which looks exactly like the real oonnnne, and I'm going to set it right here next to it, so don't get any ideaaaas!!" Wavy G 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archive to WP:BJAODN then Redirect per everyone. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Bond Book 5

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Suipd Lorry 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a bad faith nomination, it was the OPs first contribution. This series of books is popular and well known, and I think it's as valid as having a page for the last Harry Potter novel which also hasn't come out yet. Ben W Bell talk 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination. As Ben W Bell said, if Harry Potter Book 7 has an article, why not this article? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the book's not due for release for another three years and the YB series has nowhere near the same popularity of the Harry Potter franchise. Not to mention Book 7 is due out in under a year. RHB 12:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Somebody crystal balling again. scope_creep 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far as I know, we have no other articles for books that will be released in THREE years. The highest I can get is A Memory of Light, in two. Thus arguments based on "HARRY POTTER BOOK!" make no sense. Besides, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly too soon to have an article for this; 2009 is quite a ways off. --The Way 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No crystal balling here as this book has been announced. 23skidoo 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced article - no crystal ball here. And, for a book coming in Jan 2009 we actually know quite a lot about it. More could definitely be written. K1Bond007 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the start, the Young Bond series was announced as a five book set that chronicles James Bond's years at Eton. Before the release of SilverFin, author Higson gave plot details for all five books and spoke specifically about the importance of Book 5 as a series closer that will tie all the books together. So why should Wikipedia's Young Bond information only include 4 books? One the first questions many fans ask about the Young Bond series is, "How many books will there be?" As it stands now, Wikipedia answers that question at a glance and goes one better in providing accurate plot details of ALL the books in series. And there is no "crystal ball" at work here. Thus far, all the info on Book 5 has come from author Charlie Higson himself (who starts writing the book next year). If Wikipedia wants to be a source of information about the Young Bond series, eliminating Book 5 and everything we know about it makes no sense. --Zencato 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bromsgrove Conservative Future

NN chapter of national organisation, fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete yep, A7...nn...SkierRMH 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose (BDSM organization)

I proposed this for deletion for lack of real notability, and no real content edits in over a year. It was then deprodded, with two additional references (the first content edits in over a year!), so I am taking it to AfD. So far all third-party references are from two online news sites, the first from 1999, the second from 2003. Weak delete. JIP | Talk 07:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is weak either way. The club has managed to get itself in the news (and the Salon and WorldNetDaily articles are not insignificant) so I vote for Weak keep. Incidentally, this group sounds utterly appalling and like most people I wish it didn't exist, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Allon Fambrizzi 08:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Weak delete for the same reasons that Allon Fambrizzi mentioned, but I fall slightly on the other side of the fence on this one. Simply no notabliity.SkierRMH 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability seems pretty obvious to me. Due to the nature of their purpose I wouldn't expect a whole lot of third party verification, but they have obviously garnered some media attention. They seem pretty active still so it's not a case of being has-beens. Perhaps they're just better at keeping out of the scornful view of main-stream America. The article could definitely use some attention, but I don't think that an article should be frequently edited in order to avoid an AfD. wtfunkymonkey 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and sourced; noteworthy per multiple independent reliable sources. Needs cleanup and expansion, but neither of those is a valid reason for deletion. Shimeru 10:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wtfunkymonkey. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 14:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Black Rose is one of the biggest and most influential and important BDSM groups in the country. They host huge events, they promote a huge aspect of safety, security, and comfort within the BDSM community. I have been quite active in "the lifestyle" in the past, and Black Rose is a very well respected and important aspect of BDSM history and culture. Missvain 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Black Rose is also very gun-shy of the open press. This is one of those unhappy situations where if you aren't in "the lifestyle" you may not hear about it. It does need some cleanup and expansion, I agree. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are somewhat written about, in semi-independant media. A book (added to list of references) includes information about Black Rose. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of the group isn't overwhelmingly obvious, but what is there seems sufficient. RFerreira 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Missvain. Danny Lilithborne 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - Harlsbottom's keep does not address notability problems - and the author advocated "keep" twice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds University Conservative Future

Non notable chapter of national organisation. Ohconfucius 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Leeds University. Those chapters are routinely deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is a useful source of information on what is supposed to be a useful source of information. [Edit: The organisation is clearly well known in its area. All I see is someone on a deleting spree.] --Harlsbottom 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh??? Which policy/guideline/consensus is that? Ohconfucius 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a campus information service or a free webhost/marketing site Bwithh 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia) and this article appears to have been authored by six users. The subject organisation is clearly notable enough and there's enough to say to make an article. At what point does it stop being relevant? When it only applies to 10,000 people? 1,000? 100? There are no clear distinctions as to where we draw the line and I would like to see information on how many people are members of this branch. Its activities seem to merit mention (if we are to proceed on the basis that it is too small to be of importance then we could apply the same reasoning to many small towns), so an idea of how many people it is relevant to might be a way to go (membership size for example). But I don't believe this is a suitable candidate for deletion - Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia for all things and removing articles like this is unnecessary. Mogh 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is arguing that this is a single-editor article. Ohconfucius 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Berkeley Democrats ~ trialsanderrors 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge per Trials. Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia of all things" and should not be, as obscure, unwatched articles have lead to legal troubles in the past. WP:N is a guideline, but it's a concensus guideline. Xtifr _tälk 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Individual chapters of national organizations need to show special notability to justify own article separate from national organization. Bwithh 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an organisation LUCF is autonomous. It is a member of the National Conservative Future in name only and receives the scantiest of benefits from that nominative link. As a constituent society of Leeds University Union it receives even less benefits, and therefore merging it with the University page would not only be incorrect but also insulting. The society's recent record as described on the article speaks for itself and can be described as notable - probably not understandable to people not concerned with Leeds or the British University Political scene. --Harlsbottom 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact is that per WP:ORG and WP:CORP, branches are not notable by definition, and the burden of proof for notability shifts to the editors of the article. It is not notable merely because it exists, or is autonomous in its financing : each McDonald's franchise is autonomous, but WP:CORP clearly excludes individual shops. Also, it is common practice to as the sitting MP of the constituency for endorsement with an Hon Presidency, and to ask prominent political figures to come to speak, so that these associations are also insufficient to establist notability. Ohconfucius 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not fail WP:ORG because WP:ORG is a *proposed* policy and as such is not binding. Since this organisation exists there is very little point in deleting a factual page about it. Wikipedia has the capacity to outgrow the limits of paper and bound volumes; why *shouldn't* it catalog the world? Nobody is forced to read the article or forced to acknowledge its presence but its there for anyone who wants to read it, and that really is the service we should be offering. I've yet to see a good argument as to why deleting it has any advantages over having it there for those who will read it. Mogh 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, if you prefer, it fails WP:CORP which amounts to pretty much the same thing. Oh and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dump for every kind of information about everything out there as per WP:NOT. Filling Wikipedia with every kind of info with a carte blanche/anything goes mindset undermines its status as a reputable encyclopedia. You can get your own page on a free webhost for that kind of thing. Bwithh 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a faulty and broad assumption that any article you don't like is simply there because the organisation in question cannot afford webspace. Clearly this organisation can, because their home site is mentioned in the links at the bottom; so let's dispense with that indefensible position. Wikipedia's status as a reputable encyclopedia is hardly challenged by covering factual articles in depth, and with a broader mandate than that which could fill a traditional encyclopedia. Just because you personally don't think the page is of interest doesn't mean that other users don't (and perhaps we need some facility for tracking how many users visit pages as a metric for whether they are valuable). This is a factual article written in a neutral tone about a real organisation. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why a factual, up-to-date and real-world relevant article requires deletion simply because one or two people don't think it's "worthy". I reiterate: nobody is forced to read it but it's self-evidently useful for those that do, and we should not be purging useful information or else what is the site for? And whilst I think on, can you site which part of WP:CORP it fails?Mogh 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP#Criteria_for_clubs.2C_societies.2C_and_organizations Bwithh 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a Factiva database search for this society. Only hit - a single sentence mention in a letter to the editor in a regional newspaper (Yorkshire Evening Post) in Sept 2003.On google, brief vox pop opinion from society member along with other random local conservative society representatives in this bbc piece[37]. Other than that - very few (6 spread over 3 websites) unique hits on google outside of wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors[38]. Aside from the encyclopedic reputation issue, another major reason for notability criteria is to safeguard wikipedia from being a free publicity space for anyone and anything out there. Wikipedia is a major target for spam and self-promotion efforts due to its prominence on search engines. Such efforts also benefit from Wikipedia's credibility as a source (while at the same time eroding this). Bwithh 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bwithh, completly fails to assert any notabily at all. scope_creep 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czolgosz & The Vanzettis

No Google hits for Czolgosz Vanzettis or "Big 386 Records". ~~Likely hoax.~~ Unverifiable and likely not to pass WP:MUSIC. Nomination also includes their album. ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Largely indeterminable informs me that "Go to Sound Idea in Brandon, Florida and you can buy any one their albums." So I changed my nomination to reflect this. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing is verified. --Sbluen 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I verify then? If it's a localized act and I clearly stated that. Largely indeterminable 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Look at the WP:MUSIC guideline. Generally the band has to have been talked about by multiple non-trivial secondary sources that aren't related to the band (ie. not blogs, not fans, and not band members or their friends), must have charted on a notable chart (anywhere in the world), must have had multiple releases on a major label, or the like. Most local bands don't meet WP:MUSIC and therefore aren't notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't for everything that exists; it's for things that are notable and can be verified. --Charlene 08:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diabolic, Whole Wheat Bread ...and these people charted did they? I'll find more examples if you want.Largely indeterminable 08:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Hate Myself ---> another one. Largely indeterminable 09:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then propose them for deletion. Pointing at other non-notable articles to justify your article doesn't say anything one way or the other about the article in question: it just shows that we need to prune some more. --Charlene 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability should be easily determined by the contents of the article. Sources should clearly show this. In this article they don't. scope_creep 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then prune, delete, erase and circumsize for all I care. I'm going to keep writing the articles on my user page and as soon as I find sources I'll redo the pages. It's a little difficult when the only "source" you people would accept would be my father's obituary that doesn't even mention the band. Guess what shut-ins? Not everything of importance out there will produce your precious Google hits. For all the fascism and sterility of this site we may as well be Britanicca. And call those personal attacks all you want, I was speaking in general.Largely indeterminable 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearline Studios

Fails WP:CORP. The studio gets 72 unique Ghits, most of which directory listings and wiki mirror sites. No meaningful press articles about the company. Delete. Ohconfucius 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above, fails not only WP:CORP but verges into advert SkierRMH 10:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Was this not deleted before, several weeks ago.scope_creep 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Russell

Delete: Non-notable semi-professional footballer playing in third tier of Scottish football (semi-professional league). Forbsey 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep per below. MER-C 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Forbsey 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless Motherwell F.C. is a non-professional club. Punkmorten 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Motherwell F.C. is a professional club and play in the Scottish Premier League!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGull (talk • contribs)
"He has also played for Glasgow Rangers". If that can be confirmed it sounds like a keep to me! Grutness...wha? 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing nearly a 100 games for Dumbarton & Brechin is easily good enough for me. No record of him playing at first-team level for Motherwell or Rangers though. - fchd 12:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he plays in a professional match with a Scottish team. Rakuten06 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well notable. scope_creep 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His appearances for Motherwell make him eligible. Keresaspa 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-notable? He played for several premiership clubs in his history. Appears to be washed up now, but definitely notable due to his history. Ben W Bell talk 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It must be a nightmare being washed up at 24 ;-) ChrisTheDude 08:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ben W Bell, he played for ONE premier league club and even at that it was only 5 substitute appearances! - Not that this comment will make any difference to voting! Forbsey 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, urge withdrawal, WP:BIO appears to be fufilled per above. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete.

Cyriva Club

Non-notable student organisation. The "membership" of 1000 is no doubt due to the fact that it's default. The content might warrant merging into the Republic Polytechnic article, but I'm not even sure of that (I'm sure there are dozens of student clubs, and this one is only for the engineering students) yandman 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability (A7). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no sources, badly written. Need I go on. scope_creep 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Valley Institute of Art and Architecture

questionably notible school, violates several of the proposed criteria in the WP:SCHOOLcriteria, parts read like advert SkierRMH 10:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any non-trivial coverage of this at all, and none is cited within the article. Very promotional tone to article. Don't see anything that verifiably passes it on the WP:SCHOOL criteria-and those are far, far too loose to begin with! Seraphimblade 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a postsecondary institution, and was given degree-granting authority by the government of Pakistan. On that basis, it appears to be notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a bona fide college. scope_creep 14:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above but coudl use a little bit of expansion. SYSS Mouse 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colleges are typically notable and just because it's from a developing country doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Whether or not it needs to be cleaned up is not an issue for AfD. --The Way 10:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepAppears to be highly notable. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any reason for that impression? JoshuaZ 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete I am unable to find non-trivial independent sources nor any claims of notability (and no, to those above, being accredited is not a claim of notability any more than being given citizenship is a claim of notability for WP:BIO). This is only a weak delete because there may be a language issue here that is preventing me from fidning more sources. However, since this is listed in the Pakistan related deletions this will change to a full delete if sources aren't given in the next few days. JoshuaZ 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to very weak keep per discussion below with JJay. JoshuaZ 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, though I am opposed to it, there is a long-standing precedent that we keep all high school articles. Given this, there is also a precedent, this one I do agree with, that virtually all colleges, particularly accredited ones, get articles. As such, this article should remain; we can't have a general policy of keeping all American colleges and then go ahead and start deleting Indian ones. In my opinion, consistency is very important in these matters. --The Way 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Precedent isn't always something that should be followed and I'm not sure that this has anything to do with American v. non-American. If there are American colleges that are similarly non-notable then one should consider AfDing them just the same. JoshuaZ 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have we gotten to the point where the mania to delete school articles means that Universities are now fair game, particularly when they are located in poor third world or muslim countries? Is cultural bias the new buzzword at wikipedia? Not as far as I am concerned. This is the third ranked art & architecture university in Pakistan [39], [40] - the sixth biggest country in the world by population. It fully qualifies for inclusion based on the Wp:Schools, not that it matters since that's just a proposed guideline (and not too long ago, those non-existent guidelines were being frequently cited as grounds for disqualifying "keep" arguments). For those who want to learn more about the school, google is a good start. For example, Jamiluddin Aali spoke at the 2005 graduation, when 87 degrees were awarded [41]. The school has been discussed in the Hindu magazine [42] or architecture & culture magazine [43] and I'm sure there are a lot more sources if I spent more than 5 minutes searching. Let's not send a message that art, architecture and education in Pakistan does not matter to the English wikipedia. Finally, I hope no one takes up JoshuaZ's suggestion to start "AFDing" American colleges (which would just further strain wikipedia's limited resources in more futile debate). Instead, I would encourage people to improve/expand articles on institutions of higher education worldwide as we strive for comprehensive coverge that goes beyond the elitist US/UK Unis and meets the needs/interest of our global reader base. --JJay 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not going to address the claims of "mania to delete" "cultural bias", "elitism" or implications about some sort of anti-muslim sentiment since they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The references you gave are not obviously non-trivial. The article in the Hindu has less than a paragraph about the school and the other article has little useful information for a school article. If you think that a useful article can be salvaged from those references add them to the article and then tell us. In any event, I still don't see this school as even meeting the primary criterion of WP:SCHOOLS let alone meeting the stricter one of WP:SCHOOLS3 or any other more restrictive set. JoshuaZ 03:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Address what you want to address, but if you don't believe that being the third ranked architecture university in Pakistan is significant, than, as per your suggestion, you should start AfDing whole boatloads of American universities. I think the article is highly "useful" in its present state and can only improve from here. --JJay 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be the third ranked. Its also the bottom ranked on that list. It appears that there are only three in all of Pakistan. Being the bottom ranked might be notable for its own reasons, but let's not pretend that being third ranked her is somehow saying anything good about the school. JoshuaZ 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly what I'm pretending. I'll further go out on a limb and pretend that, for a start, we should have articles on all the top ranked universities in every country in the world - even if the country in question only has one university. You are of course entitled to pretend the opposite. --JJay 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not convinced that a single university in a country would be necessarily notable by itself given that even countries themselves are not inherently notable. Nevertheless, this enough to make me switch to very weak keep for now. I need to think about this case in more detail. Again, if there are any language issues here, I welcome users who are more familiar with Pakistan helping find sources. JoshuaZ 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I welcome your change of position on IVS Pakistan. However, I am intrigued by your remark "that even countries themselves are not inherently notable". Assuming we are talking about countries on the planet Earth, I would have thought that a presence on the world atlas would be sufficient, or a UN seat, or participation at the Olympic Games. I'm also sure the inhabitants of those countries would be surprised to learn that, according to wikipedia, they live in a "non-notable" state, presumably with a non-notable history, culture, language, etc. Would you be so kind as to point me to the "non-notable" countries currently included at wikipedia (so that I might contribute to helping to establish their "notability"), or point me to country articles that have been deleted for 'non notability" (so that I might help fill the gaping hole in our coverage). Please enlighten me on your thinking here.--JJay 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JJay's first post. bbx 11:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete Mango juice^talk 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IVS Alumni Association

Their only criteria for this article is that the school has one, so they get one too... I have submitted the school as non notable under WP:SCHOOL, so don't consider this a possible merge candidate SkierRMH 10:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no notability assertion. Replaced speedy tag as author removed it initially. Seraphimblade 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. MER-C 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. yandman 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per seraphimblade. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close Fails to assert notability in any manner scope_creep 14:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah Shoher

Unverifiable, possible vanity. His name is not known in Israel and searching for עובדיה שוחר yields almost nothing. The only thing that can be notable about this is the fight against Amazon.com, and even that is dubious. Seems to me that whoever is behind this is trying to use social websites such as MySpace, Amazon.com and now Wikipedia to promote his extremist political ideas. Amir E. Aharoni 10:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sources are found: there are no reliable sources in this article whatsoever (4 are his website, the other two are pay-to-post press-release sites). However, I don't find that the article tries to paint him in a positive light. I'm more concerned that this whole thing is either a) Libel or b) A hoax. yandman 11:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't paint him in a very positive light, because i tried to neutralize it a bit and removed the most preposterous claims in hope that this article might be useful as a study case on Internet censorship (see article's talk page). It is also possible that it is, indeed, a hoax - i am not sure at all that he is Israeli. For all i know Obadiah Shoher may be as real as Ouze Merham. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with yandman. Its needs real sources. His book is sold on Amazon, but that does not make this notable. I can see a possible trend developing here, were people create a load of web sites focused on an individual in the hope that they will become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. scope_creep 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: His book is sold on Amazon.com, but it is published by Lulu.com, which is pretty much the same thing as printing a blog (correct me if i'm wrong.) --Amir E. Aharoni 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case Amire80, I'd say delete.
Delete There are enough things going on with this page, as if it hasn't been marked with enough wiki-mark-ups too. Amazon means nothing, my butt can have a book published and put on Amazon too. Missvain 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a very intelligent rectum, madam. I didn't know it was that easy to get on Amazon, though. Good to know for future AfD's. yandman 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks vanity, anyway it's awfully written. --Attilios 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - the RS and concerns about the triviality of the citations pushes this over the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey D. Falk

Contested prod. NN per WP:BIO, no WP:RS. Leibniz 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Completely fails to assert notability. Fails WP:BIO completely. The article itself is a puff piece. scope_creep 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author. Notable critic of popular new age writer Ken Wilber. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable published author per WP:BIO, no third-party coverage lnks. Sandstein 21:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated here - M Alan Kazlev 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author is not notable. Kazlev above only gives citations which are not sourced or are trivial and refer only to the self-published output of author. There are no sourced references to the one published work. Author no longer recognises the published work anyway. --Oldface 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Evagora

Delete - article does not assert notability of subject. No references, orphaned. I would contend that a minor radio personality does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO --SandyDancer 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn radio personalitySkierRMH 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. scope_creep 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not speedy-able under A7, asserting expert status on a topic in major broadcast media certainly is "asserting notability". Don't be fooled by the article's failure to use boilerplate text "X is notable because...". Un focused 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this person is notable, the article isn't doing a good job of verifiably demonstrating it. RFerreira 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richer Sounds

Based on tone and history, appears to have been created as advertising. Notability suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup / Keep. It's a very prominent high street store in the UK. Many branches. The article does read like an advert though Amists ^{talk • contribs} 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no problem with notability; could do with a cleanup, though. BTLizard 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. Needs cleanup, but the notability and verifiability of Richer Sounds is not in doubt; not only are they a major high street brand, they are also responsible (at least as far as I can tell) for a substantial shift in the entire hi-fi market in the UK. One might fairly characterise them the Virgin of sound equipment. Oh, plus Julian Richer is a top man :-) Guy (Help!) 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & Keep very notable high street shop in UK. --SandyDancer 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notability and sources is not a porlbem here. Just need to cleanup the article's tone. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C;eanup & Keep - too much like an advert but notable. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs radical tidy. Its a well know shop chain in Scotland. scope_creep 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep - Notable and well known high street home cinema and hi-fi stores. Although I do agree that the article needs cleaning up badly. --tgheretford (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:JzG. It is indeed well known. Wouldn't necessarily go so far to say that Julian Richer is a top man, though. Ohconfucius 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JzG and send in the WikiMaids for a routine clean up. RFerreira 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Incredibly strong in influencing how we listen to music at home in the UK. A large company with a huge impact. Ben W Bell talk 08:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It pains me to say it, but Keep. Whilst I feel that Wikipedia shouldn't be a directory of businesses, this one probably counts as a notable one. WMMartin 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this looks notable to me too Yuckfoo 02:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of liberal leaders

The list is not even here, just a notice that the content is now located in other articles. Even if it was there, identifying people as "liberal" (or as "leaders" for that matter) without sources constitutes original research. Bletch 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no value whatsover. Quick decision to delete is needed. scope_creep 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: There's no purpose for this article name space. No information on the page and nothing important links to it. --Howrealisreal 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to lack of content. I thought the problem with this article would be that it was POV to determine who was "liberal" or who was a "leader", but in fact the biggest problem is that the actual "list" content was moved out of this article almost two years ago. --Metropolitan90 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What you're looking for ain't here!" Delete. Interrobamf 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall into Speedy Deletion catagories, however, it can be deleted! Missvain 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, maybe besides some nuggets of information that could have value in the talk page (which can be moved out if needed), I think the article page falls under Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. --Howrealisreal 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be speedy, how about Snowball Delete? Is Ken Salazar a liberal or Conservative? What about John McCain? Joe Lieberman? Are they leaders? They're Senators... what do they lead? Terms can't be objectively defined. ;-) Balloonman 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is (was?) worth, there once was a full list - just go a bit further back in the history, or check the talk page, but even if that list was there, it would still be deletion material. --Bletch 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Perfect example of an original research violation. There are many ways of defining liberalism and what constitutes a liberal; its an entirely subjective undertaking. Where are we going to draw the line between moderates and liberals? What types of liberals do we include? How many issues does someone have to be 'liberal' on to qualify for this list? --The Way 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ORT Software

Contested speedy. Article makes some vague claims of notability but these are hard to sustantiate. Google presence appears minimal. More detailed research may show notability, this is a procedural nomination. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The only sites that talk about it are download sites or their sites. yandman 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak assertion of notability, however i feel it is a faulty assertion claiming it was most famous for a 2d copy of another game. Does not sound that notable to me. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. None of their games are notable. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion per A7 WP:CORP and WP:BIO Missvain 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all of the above. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems fine to me. ORT Software was a very important part of the early PC shareware scene. The recent changes to the article seem to address most of the comments above. [DomincParche] 11:21, 18 November 2006 — 59.167.82.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The result was delete - Brad and JROBBO point to Music band criteria 7 - but this states the leading band/orchestra in a city - this is a university club, and no claim to being the leading group in the city is stated.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Jazz Club

Tagges as WP:CSD A7 (non-notable club), but notability is asserted. Probably just another student club, but claims a couple of famous former members. Definitely not the Footlights but will do no harm to think about it for a while. Procedural nomination. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see this expand as I suspect it may be able to assert notability but it certainly doesn't at the moment. Have you contacted those who created/contributed to the article to notify them of deletion debate? --SandyDancer 12:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MUSIC (band #7). --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, fails WP:ORG. The only notable member, Miles Kington, specifically claimed by the article is principally known as a humourist/journalist, not a musician. Even he was primarily a musician, this does not automatically confer encyclopedic notability onto this society. Claims made about Lol Coxhll and the Oxcentrics are that the club presented at least one pub gig where they played. I'm sure these musicians have played in many pubs and nightclubs. This doesn't mean every one of these venues gets an article based on this association. No claim about encyclopedic notability in article, even if all claims were properly verified. No indication that this club is significant as a representative of any "Oxford jazz scene", if such a scene is in fact important.And this reminds me, I've been meaning to clear out some of the Cambridge clubs Bwithh 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and as non-notable ber Bwithh. Sandstein 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per BradBeattie. JROBBO 12:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete G12. Copyvio from: [44], which itself is a copy of [45]. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Belles

Tagged as G4, repost of content deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Belles, but content is different and there were only two !votes. Subject scores under 120 ghits, among which I did not see, at a quick skim, anything which might count as a reliable source, nor did I see any evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Looks like vanispamcruftisement, but you decide. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This group fails WP:MUSIC. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Carefully ready the article and there is no assertion as to why they are notable. Marked it for speedy under A7. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have come across them a few times, they are something of an Oxford insitution and have been on TV and performed at major events (not just in Oxford). --SandyDancer 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Clearly fails to assert any notability. scope_creep 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cogan primary school

Tagged for speedy (that way lies ArbCom!), this is a very short article for a generic primary school, written in the first person. Seems like someone has misdirected Year 6 as to what Wikipedia is for, so will a schoolwatcher please pop over and be Kind at them for a bit until they realise the problem? Anyway, I say merge to the community. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom and WP:SCHOOL. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry merge to what? Delete per WP:School Amists ^{talk • contribs} 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there were something to merge to, what would get merged? Very obviously, there's no notability asserted. Now, let's see how many inclusionists vote keep without actually looking at the article. -- Kicking222 14:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please permit me to suggest that you not vilify the inclusionists. I realise that you "...have nothing wrong with AfD ... school inclusionists," except when they "...can't provide any rationale whatsoever besides 'this seventeen-student-strong elementary school is Mozambique is notable because all schools of all kinds are notable....'" But your opinion that "... when [inclusionists] just state 'all schools are notable,' [they're] doing nothing more than voting" appears to be a fallacious Guilt by association argument: a tactic to discredit all inclusionists, whether they vote without reading the article and providing rationale or not, by associating them all with voters. Please note that I do assume that you are acting in good faith, and am not attempting to attack you in any way. What I intended to do was leave a friendly suggestion after becoming frustrated with repeated, what I think are, fallacious Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments at another school afd. Also, as protection for myself, please note that I am more deletionist rather than inclusionist; if you want proof, check my user contributions and go to the other school's afd. --Iamunknown 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything else. I thought I saw the last of "Do this per a proposal I support" at WP:CHILD... Stop using controversial proposals like policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told that the only way proposals become guidelines is by people citing them and using them from both sides of the argument, until they are accepted. If I want to see WP:School become policy, I have to cite it. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not remember any specific details about proposals becoming guidelines, but I would suggest two things. First, Amarkov, please do not discredit someone's argument solely based on the fact that it is "convtroversial". Only by introducing new, potentially controversial ideas into discussion can we change. By polarizing arguments, one merely stagnates the discussion. Second, Amists, I would suggest that you not provide citations to proposals as your only argument for your decision. Consider providing a thoughtful analysis and argue why the article should be deleted. Granted, your thoughts may parallel a specific policy proposal, and you may wish to append a statement such as, "Thus my thoughts are parallel to X policy," (but use something extemporaneously, because that statement is awkward and silly), but nonetheless, this is a discussion, not a vote. And please do not consider me condescending at all. I do not intend to be. I merely got frustrated at another school afd and intend to go out and read the other afds and offer any suggestions I can. --Iamunknown 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't particularly care what the outcome here is; but I stubbed and added a ref. I agree with JzG, if kept this will need watching because the kids who created this could use some guidance.--Isotope23 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the WP:SCHOOLS3 criteria. D enni ^talk 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on over to the Cogan article, there is nothing here at all to warrant a dedicated page. RFerreira 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too little context. --Vsion 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. lack of notability or content makes it unsuitable for a stand alone article. Trusilver 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Audiobooks 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pointing out... The nominator is pushing to merge not delete. The fact that the last two editors here said "delete per nom" fills me with a meaure of pessimism concerning, what I'm really starting to see as, the lost art of reading about an issue before commenting about it. Trusilver 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by Mackensen - Yomangani ^talk 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando stacchini

Violates WP:Auto and possibly WP:Note Amists ^{talk • contribs} 13:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notabily. scope_creep 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 WP:BIO the user who built the page is Stacchini and the same bio is listed on his userpage as well. Missvain 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Gaelic Athletic Club

Deletion nomination Encyclopedically non-notable university sports club. Gaelic sports are not a major sport at Cambridge. Makes dubious claim of connection with 19th century patron of GAA but club only started in 1995. College/varsity sports in UK nowhere near as important as college sports in US (and this club is for a very minor sport in the UK too) but still I'm taking this to afd rather than speedy delete due to club's participation in university gaelic sports league and the BUSA championships, whatever that may be - seeing if any gaelic sports fans want to argue for encyclopedic notability here Bwithh 13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nn. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: University sport in the UK is (in general) non-notable, and there's no indication here that this club rises above that (BUSA is the British Universities Sports Association into which essentially any University can compete); for what it's worth, I was a student at Cambridge for 8 years and never heard of this lot. --Pak21 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mention of Charles Parnell as first patron of this group is (in my view) the most serious claim to notability. However the Parnell article says nothing about this club, so I'm agreeing to delete with the other commenters above.. EdJohnston 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as an unsourced attack article listing the perceived failings of one specific person by xyr co-workers. This person is identifiable, both from the name of the article and from the picture of the person that was included in an older version of the article. Uncle G 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coxism

nn protologism, no valid ghits so suggest made up in school one day, almost speedy A7 but taking here to be on the safe side Amists ^{talk • contribs} 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, and so on...Obviously a term someone coined and put it on here Mitaphane _talk 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waste of time reading it. I think I know the guy they are referring to, Graeme Cox, re Coxism. Here's the website. http://www.dns.co.uk/aboutus/companyhistory/ scope_creep 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1039 (Gillingham) squadron ATC

This article has had a notability tag hanging on it for quite some time. Some changes have been made, but none of them have made this article anywhere near notable. Right now, this article is describing exactly what the club is doing from day to day, something that is not notable. Diez2 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT soapbox and indiscriminate info. Article asserts no importance of group and reads like an advertisement for the group. Mitaphane _talk 15:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) Non-notable nonsense.--Hús ö nd 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitth'ure'nourodo

This article was nominated for speedy deletion over a week ago, but no admin has deleted it. I'm moving it to AfD instead, to clear out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and to get some more input. Note that the term Mitth'ure'nourodo gets no google hits outside of wikipedia. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Drivel. --Folantin 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it's... not... real. riana_dzasta 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy, unless we apply WP:SNOW). I know why it hasn't been deleted; the author removed the speedy tag (despite the instructions right on the page not to do so) and they don't show up on the main speedy deletion cat anymore because of this. They used to be placed on the main page as well; I wonder what happened. ColourBurst 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was removed from the template by Mets501. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. Garbage. Moreschi 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete crap. scope_creep 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much more to be said, really. I can't think of any more synonyms for 'crap' or 'garbage'. Exrecement? Typographic defecation? Never mind... The Crying Orc 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati

Wikipedia:Verifiability "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. According to Talk:Jonathan Sarfati, When this article was being heavily disputed I looked for WP:RS-compliant sources that were critical of Sarfati and was unable to find any other significant ones. The bottom line is that David is correct, Sarfati is almost off the radar screen. Furthermore, he and AiG have become even less on the radar in the last few years as the main focus among evolution groups has been dealing with intelligent design. JoshuaZ 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - In other words, he's a very minor figure in the creationist movement that it may be impossible to write a balanced article on. If we can't, we should delete him as non-notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issues of notability and balance are totally separate. Don't pretend that someone is non-notable if that is not the issue. You wouldn't delete Reagan or Clinton because it's hard to write in a balanced way about controversial figures.60.242.13.87 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails to assert notability. scope_creep 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By a bit of online research I'd say he is a very minor-character in the world of Creationism. I also think if someone with a bit of knowledge about Aussie Creationism could step up to validate his notability it'd help. Regardless, google searches came up with non-notable articles and his book(s) being sold through Amazon. The most notable thing he has done it seems is win a chess tournament, IMHO. Missvain 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is asserted as author of numerous books for sale on Amazon, with "Refuting Evolution" ranking 28,000 in overall sales. He appears to meet WP:N criteria. Notable as chess player, independent of authorship, as a national chess champion. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with his creationism, he appears to merit an article. Edison 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't do an article well, though, then we can't do it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does seem to be a minor figure in creationism. He is a minor author on the subject. He is also a minor figure in chess. From what I can tell his standings appear to be somewhere in the thousands world wide and has never been much higher. Scientifically he has a few articles but so do many. The article is definately way too long for such a minor figure. My take is he is a minor figure in several areas. Seems to be a smart guy with a moderate level of success in an odd array of fields. All of these minor achievements are well spun together into a compelling biography that makes him look important.

--Nick Y. 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Look, the page is a damned war zone, with huge boxes all over the page about banned editors. The entire article is POV. He has no independant sources outside of the circle of creationism and appears to have gotten no mainstream press. If writing a book is an indicator of notability, then I might as well have an article too. I'm also very uncomfortable with having a bio of a living person as controversial as this on Wikipedia, since it will attract nothing but trolls, Christian Creationist bashers, and POV pushers. While the article makes a valiant attempt at neutrality, it still fails WP:V and WP:RS. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is incorrect to say there are no independant sources for Sarfati. His work is criticised in scientific commentary by Scott E.C. and Branch G. (2003). Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities BioScience: 53(3):282-285. He is clearly verifiable so the speedy delete is not satisfied by that criteria. The real issue is notability. He is borderline notable and this could go either way. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is not suitable for speedy deletion, but being in one book does not make for notability. Borderline is being extremely generous. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going by some of the other crufty stuff I have seen here in WP. The fact he is rebutted by Talk.origins [46] and the Pharyngula blog [47] (both respected sources on the evolution/creation debate) lends more weight to his notability. As far as a support or oppose opinion from myself, I abstain. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely per nom and Elaragirl. He has a big web presence but I have to agree with Adam here: I've never seen such bad POV. The sources are completely unbalanced, and the notablility seems dubious as well. This article stinks, not to put too fine a point on it. Moreschi 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone who voted delete Jim62sch 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources from David D. Also if it counts at all he has been frequently rebutted at Scienceblogs which has in the past been considered to meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no evidence of the sources being biased (assume good faith!). As far as notability goes; he may be down the scale, but he is part of an important debate (Creationism vs Evolutionism) which is only going to increase in the public arena. ^ross^nixon 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uh Ross, the vast majority of the sources are from AiG and its breakaway group. The only genuinely independent sources are for chess aside from some minor criticism. And no, AiG and other creationist ministries are not reliable sources by default. Indeed, if anything, the opposite is the case. JoshuaZ 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. POV disputes are not a reason for deletion; they are a reason for cleanup. I've seen this guy's name bandied around in multiple c vs. e discussions, and websites like Talk.origins and Pharyngula should count towards WP:RS. Zagalejo 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no limit on the number of articles in Wikipedia, and it seems that this man is important enough to appear in an encyclopedia with no page limit (WP:NOT#PAPER). -Preposterous 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PAPER is not a valid reason in an AfD debate. It still fails WP:V and, for gods sake, , Zagalejo, usenet is not a reliable source!! PLEASE review WP:RS. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to the talk.origins site as a whole, and not simply the usenet postings. The talk.origins archive includes dozens of well-sourced articles, essays, and FAQs, and is pretty much universally respected by mainstream scientists. Look through this and tell me what you think. This isn't Mario's Tylenol Fan Page we're talking about here. Zagalejo 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Since I have too much to do to commit to this discussion, I'll just leave you all with these newspaper articles that mention Sarfati (some of which are about Sarfati). Discuss:

Shaw, Bob. "Ex-Wgtn man's book on evolution popular". The Evening Post (Wellington). 5 February 2001. p. 13
Sheil, Pat. "Prepare ye for fire, brimstone . . . and lunch". The Australian. 23 October 1996. p. 17
Ker, Anthony. "Sarfati shows top form". The Evening Post (Wellington). 17 April 1996. p. 10
Lockman, Terri. "Conyers man makes his mark with creationist credo". The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. 11 November 1999. p. 8JR.
Ker, Anthony. "Swiss pairing brings tournament problems". The Evening Post (Wellington). 1 May 1996. p. 19
"Polls show many people do not believe evolution". Columbus Dispatch. 7 January 2000. p. 10A.
Box, Gavin. "Geelong 'bunyip' could be dinosaur". Geelong Advertiser. 5 December 2005. p. 15
"God and religion". Mornington Peninsula Leader (Australia). 6 June 2006. p. 34.

Keep. The man is was chess champion of his country and is still highly ranked in that country almost 20 years later, so his creationist views should not disqualify him. FWIW, his first book Refuting Evolution has 450,000 copies in print. This is more than, for example, Sam Harris's equally polemical first book attacking Christianity. And an opponent calls him "Answers in Genesis' number one propagandist"[48], surely a testimony to notability.60.242.13.87 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - This account is not a SPA and should not be labeled as such. Elaragirl.[reply]

FWIW, Answers in Genesis' book catalog said that his Refuting Evolution was "Our best selling book ever". So creation may be rubbish, but it seems that he is one of the best selling representatives of said rubbish. 58.162.2.122 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for his accomplishments in Chess alone. Fix POV on the rest. --Czj 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As public figure (in Australia and New Zealand) speaking on a controversial issue, he deserves an article in Wikipedia. David Cannon 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ken 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
Keep. I find Mr Sarfati's views laughable and potentially dangerous, but I think he definitely deserves an article. As long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. Snalwibma 17:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author, scientist, chess champion of NZ, tragic waste of a fine mind. It should all be documented. We were at school together. Wikid 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dr. Sarfati's first book alone has 400,000 copies in print. Compared with the normal circulation of a non-fiction book, that is enormous. He is one of the notable figures in the creation/evolution debate and as such deserves an article.156.110.211.130 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for most of the reasons already cited. WMMartin 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable. The article is supposed to be about Sarfati, which includes his beliefs. His beliefs are presented as his beliefs, not as truth, and the sources used must surely be considered reliable sources of what his beliefs are. Yet this is somehow claimed to be POV, despite there being a section titled "Writings and criticism", responding to his beliefs. I struggle to find an evolutionist on Wikipedia with a section titled "criticisms" or similar, but on Wikipedia it's considered POV to simply describe a creationist's beliefs. And some of the criticisms are presented as truth, such as "those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith". The only POV in this article is an anti-creationist one. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that what you're seeing is a highly revised version, in which a lot of very bad passages were moved to the talk page. It was much worse when I nominated it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Shifman

NN spammer. Restored from prod-deletion at user's request, with agreement to bring it to AFD for consensus. UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was covered in The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, Wired, The Montreal Gazette, and on national television, as well as Slashdot. Schwatzman's page about Bernard Shifman received 4 million hits in one month (January 2002). I feel the notabililty standard has been met. I agree the article neads cleanup, and I will happily do it if the article is kept.--Skyraider 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up a must, and per reason Skyraider Missvain 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of cleanup and must adhere to WP:BLP. Edison 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperuatas

Non-notable general for one year in ancient Greece. Google gives me 11 unique non-wiki results. MartinDK 14:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needed to keep the rest of the article in context. scope_creep 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And by article he means Achaean League which already consists of many non-existent articles. A red link on an article does not qualify, sorry. Now if this was a template I would understand the argument but this seems like classic bending of policies. MartinDK 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Can be merged into Ancient Greece perhaps, but, his minor rule and influence on Ancient Greece is minor and next to non-existant, non-notable. Missvain 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand notable historical general with copious google hits. Valoem ^talk 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~General officer~~ commander in chief of a notable belligerent in a notable conflict, that's notable enough for me. Sandstein 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may not be a proper means of asserting notability, so feel free to discount this 'vote,' but I tend to feel that if a person is still known to histroy by name 2,500 after they died then they are notable enough to have an article. Furthermore, being a general in the Achaen League is rather notable; there should be much more information out there about him. --The Way 10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a very valid argument. Unfortunately there is nothing about him to be found. Really it should be in the Achaean League article where people can look him up anyway when searching for him. But the thing about this is... he is already there and the article is just a copy of that text. So it is really just repetition of what is already in the main article. MartinDK 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sandstein. WMMartin 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Victor Hugo

Fails clearly WP:PROF. Very few relevant ghits Optimale ^Gu 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Optimale, complete waste of valuable seconds looking at this article. scope_creep 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending some indication of the notability of the subject's research. If someone can provide a list of the subject's published research papers (inc. times they have been cited), then I'll upgrade my vote. Caknuck 17:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he has really done pioneering work in synthetic antimicrobial whatsie-thingies, lets have the proof now-- something that shows the scientific community has recognized him as a standout, per WP:PROFTEST. But this isn't even an attempt to create a stub here. If there aren't some very big changes to the article during the course of this discussion, there's no reason to keep it. Someone can write a better article later if this professor is the real deal if there's no one here ready, willing and able to work on the article and bring it up to standards. OfficeGirl 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the original author (username Vhugo indicates it might also be the subject of the article) deleted the article content and the link to this discussion - I have restored both but it seems the author agrees with the deletion request. Optimale ^Gu 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted --HappyCamper 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation for the unusual close - the article as it was written did not seem to be created to serve primarily as an encyclopedic article. It was also created by an account editing atypically on Wikipedia. Subject might be notable, there is an inclination that a rewrite would be better. --HappyCamper 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hehir

There is nothing in this article to suggest the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:BLP, and it seems to be a page about a radio employee, with nothing to assert notability, or indeed, anything that proves this is encyclopedic. SunStar Net 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known radio girl... --The New Wileyred 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable; more so than Charlotte Church. --Dixer 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Aryabhata. The article contains material that might be usefully included in the Aryabhata article, but per the arguments the title of this article is WP:POV unsupported by the sources and as such not acceptable by policies. Edit history remains, so editors can merge the useful elements (a 5th century text is not copyrighted btw). ~ trialsanderrors 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryabhata's relativity principle

This article violates WP:RS as the reference is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and therefore the view promoted violates WP:OR. Also I suspect a violation of WP:COPY since the text is lifted wholesale from the reference. Finally, the quoted text is not a principle of relativity. See talk:Aryabhata's relativity principle for more info. Delete -- EMS | Talk 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come on. It's not even a GOOD hoax... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source for the article is hosted in arxiv.org which is the repositoty for scientific papers, which means the paper has had some face time to verify it, othewise it would not be hosted. What do Wikipedians think. scope_creep 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper is listed under "History of physics" my impression is that the bar for being listed in the history sections of the ArXiv is very low. JoshuaZ 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bar for ArXiv as a whole is fairly low. You need to either be an established academian or endorsed by an established academian to put an article in there. In general these are articles for which publication is being sought. However, many (if not most) arXiv papers are not published. More to the point, a "journal-ref" field will be filled in by the author once publication has been achieved, or a notation made in the "Comments" field if the article has been accepted for publication. Neither is visible in the abstract page for the cited article, hence the conclusion that it is not a reliable source --EMS | Talk 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as outright idiocy and OR. The Crying Orc 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One paper that is not peer reviewed does not suffice. The author of the paper at arXiv is a PhD student in electrical engineering at Louisiana State University. It is my understanding that papers submitted by somebody attached to a bona fide university will be accepted at the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html says "During the initial deployment of the system, we may also give automatic endorsements to submitters from known academic institutions"). However, I haven't found an explanation of the details of the procedure. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All that I can add to this is that the goal of the new arXiv system is to keep the "cranks" out of their system, while permitting a much academic material to be presented as reasonably possible. It makes sense that LSU may be an "open" domain for arXiv. This also would be far from the first time that arXiv has had someone post an article on a topic which falls outside of their primary area of study. --EMS | Talk 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per EMS' initial posting above. MP (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 13:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also ongoing Afd for Indian relativity. Pavel Vozenilek 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The idea of different worlds in motion with similar laws (obvioiusly not equivalent to modern relativity but a relativity principle nevertheless) also occurs in Yoga Vasishtha (an important later text, which allows us to determine how the cryptic verses of Aryabhta are to be interpreted). Here're two early references that speak of Aryabhata's relativity:

The Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata, An Ancient Indian Work on Mathematics and Astronomy by Walter Eugene Clark: Reviewed by M. J. Babb, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1931), pp. 51-52

Aryabhatiya by Aryabhata, translation and commentary by Shukla and Sarma. Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1976.

Early commentaries by Somesvara, Lalla, and so on, on the Aryabhatiya (Aryabhata's book) indicate that his understanding was in terms of the same laws applying to objects that were in relative motion, as is evident from the above two references.MarcAurel 04:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is almost a joke. The article has been edited to explicitly claim that the principle of relativity was being used, but no additional evidence is presented. Mr. Aurel is also holding up two new references here at the last minute, but fails to quote anything out of them. (I also find it odd that these references are being presented now instead of having been cited in the article initially.) Even this posting raises questions: Mr. Aurel talks about Aryabnhata thinking of "different worlds in motion with similar laws", but the relativity principle calls for all reference frames to have the same laws, not similar laws. In the article Mr. Aurel now also correctly notes that Aryabhata must have been aware of the concept of a frame of reference. That is all fine and dandy, but the idea that a dropped ball will fall the same way with respect to you no matter how you are moving along the surface of the Earth is a major breakthrough for which the concept of a frame of reference is only the foundation. Overall, if the term "Aryahbata's relativity principle" is not a neologism, then it certainly is a misleading phrase which implicitily gives Aryabhata credit with something that he did not achieve. As I see it, Aryabhata really did achieve a lot. There is no need to exagerate his accomplishemens. --EMS | Talk 05:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant portion from the 1931 reference is:

Most interesting and surprising are (IV,9) "as a man in a boat going forward sees a stationary object moving backward, just so at Lanka a man sees the stationary asterisms moving backard," and also in (IV,12) last sentence, "the gods and dwellers in hell both think constantly that the others are beneath them." This appreciation of relativity reconciles Aryabhata's position on the stationary earth for which he has been criticized by other Hindu writes.

The appreciation of relativity is indeed interesting and should probably be noted in Aryabhata, but it is not the relativity principle. The reference does not claim that Aryabhata understood that the same laws apply to objects in relative motion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jitse - I think that it would have been more appropriate to write "The appreciation frames of reference is ...". There is not an appreciation of relativity here, but an appreciation instead of relative viewpoints. --EMS | Talk 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete :-Bharatveer 05:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reword -- Some facts about modern relativity theory: Modern relativity theory came about based on a long series of observations and experiments (Fizeau, Michelson-Morley,Newton's onservations etc.) that Aryabhatta or his contemporaries could not possibly have done. The statement "Just as someone in a boat moving sees the stationary objects (on either side of the river) as moving backward, similarly are the stationary stars seen by people at Lanka (reference co-ordinate on the equator), as moving exactly towards the west." has more to do with a kind of vague Galilean Relativity than Einstein's Relativity. Special Relativity is based on the invariance of the Minkowski metric and the fact that it generates a transformation law that is counterintuitive as compared to the Galilean Transformation.Plus, General Relativity would be completely beyond people in the 5th century BC. While it is ignorant to call this a "hoax" (as people above did), and Aryabhatta's observations and notes here are interesting in the context that it does seem to talk about "Frames of reference" in some roundabout way.Thus, it is technically correct to call it a "Principle of Relativity".However, since the phrase "relativity" is invariably associated with Einsteinian relativity it becomes misleading to call Aryabhatta's a "Principle of Relativity" as it creates the misconception that he came up with the fundamental postulates before Einstein. The best thing to do is to explain that he was talking about a very basic philosophy of "frames of reference".Now, I glanced through the Parakh paper here. The ref "Roger Billard, L’astronomie Indienne. Paris: Publications de l’ecole francaise d’extreme-orient, 1971" seems to show that Aryabhatta's observations were grounded in experiments and that he showed that the Earth rotates. I'm not sure on how to reword it but I think that the basic precept is sound.Perhaps "Aryabhatta's Principle of Relative Transformations" or something.Hkelkar 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- using "relativity" is no problem, we have Galilean_relativity, and nobody but our most illiterate readers will think that means Galileo discovered Einsteinian relativity. It is justified to compare Aryabhata's two verses to Galileo. It is also well known that European science only in the 17th century caught up with things that had been known since at least 400 BC, and it is very plausible to state that Aryabhata was aware of things that were at the time unknown to western science (but that doesn't put him 'first' automatically). I argue for merge below since these are essentially speculations based on two verses of Aryabhata's treatise that may well be treated in the main Aryabhata article, there isn't really all that much to say about it. dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least this poster agrees that a description involving the use of frames of reference does not constitute a statement of the principle of relativity. However, I cannot go along with making up a new name for Aryabhata's observation as that would be a neologism and therefore a violation of WP:OR. --EMS | Talk 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Einstein didn't discover relativity, see Relativity_priority_dispute. Dionyseus 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequitur, but it's raining outside. The Crying Orc 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This vote is irrelevant - The crux of the issue is the principle of relativity, not the theory of relativity. --EMS | Talk 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Aryabhata. There is very little material worth keeping here. The fact that Aryabhata was aware of frames of reference is certainly notable, but it fits very well onto his own article. The claim that this is the earliest discussion of the topic 'in the history of science' badly needs a reference. Off the top of my head, you can find at least as sophisticated discussions of this in Lucretius, and that's just an artistic adaptation of 'science' predating Aryabhata by at least eight centuries. dab (ᛏ) 09:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Hkelkar.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The interpretation given is original research, the sources given don't suppport the claims. --Pjacobi 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Man (game modder)

A game modder is not someone who creates computer games, but only creates expansion sets for them. It is possible that some member of this class may achieve encyclopedic notability for that, but I don't see evidence of it here. Note: I am listed as the creator of this article, but only because I moved the material that kept getting added to the unrelated article The Pumaman to its own article. Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Antaeus Feldspar, You've already nominated the article for deletion, you don't need to do it twice scope_creep 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a reason that I got into the habit of separating my nomination (if it was mine) from my "vote". Very often, important information comes up during the course of an AfD which significantly affects the votes already cast (if, for example, the article was thought to be a hoax and unambiguous proof that it is real has surfaced). That information should be put up with the original nomination at the top, while "votes" should go in chronological order. Separating the two allows this to be done cleanly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should NOT be deleted. Aside the fact that it is a small article, it is also verifiable by no less than 6 reference links to its accuracy. There are also several other encyclopedic content about game mods and modders on wiki, examples: Weapons Factory User:Blacken/Drafts/InfiltrationMod Enemy Territory Fortress to name a few. --Pumalegacy 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of the "few" that you name as examples, one of them is only a draft. It's not an example of the community coming to consensus that this is encyclopedic content, because the community probably hasn't even been made aware of its existence yet! And all three of your examples are about the game mods themselves, not game modders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see an argument for an article on GIANTS, as it's a fairly noteworthy mod, but I don't believe its author meets WP:BIO. Shimeru 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I dunno but I do not think scope_creep nominated this for deletion. I could be wrong, tho. Please confirm scope_creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumalegacy (talk • contribs)
Comment. Not entirely sure what you're talking about here. Antaeus is the nominator for this AfD, and an article on GIANTS doesn't appear to exist and hasn't been nominated to my knowledge. Shimeru 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article for GIANTS should be started... I'm not sure how to do that excactly :( Btw, @ Antaeus, here is an example of a game mod developer listed on wiki Black Widow Games. There are others but I'm too lazy to find them right now. :p --Pumalegacy 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting article. I didn't actually know that there were professional companies who worked for the likes of Sony Pictures to develop game mods, but it appears there are. However, I would say that there's a difference in notability between a hobbyist and a professional company whose clients include Sony Pictures, even if they are working in the same field. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. The mod itself might be notable enough for an article, but this guy doesn't appear to be. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 10:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy M. Williams

Unverifiable. Created October 18, 2006. On October 17, 2006, the initial author User:Guyinredsuit had created a quite different article with the same name about a teenager born in 1992 in Victoria, Australia. Delete as a likely hoax unless verified. Lupo 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for starters, I couldn't verify this. Beyond that if falls short of the WP:BIO guidelines, even if his existance could be verified.--Isotope23 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sad to say it needs deleted, as their are no sources. These stories of bravery turn up all the time, for instance, my grandfather was a Japanese prisoner of war, and worked, i.e slave labour on the Burma railway, and saw many acts of extreme bravery that went unreported. scope_creep 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Missvain 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete midnight raid on Tokyo Harbour in Japan in 1944 Uh huh, sure, and the History Channel special will be out next week, too. User:Guyinredsuit was blocked for vanadalism, has no useful contribs. Tubezone 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not really verifiable. Unless definite sources can be found that are reliable, it will have to go. --SunStar Net 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Greensill

Not notable Randomkiwi 09:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC) This person isn't notable. She's a lecturer and an unsuccessful candidate, without any degree of national prominence.[reply]

Delete ran to become leader of a politcal party but failed. Never elected. From WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". [49] 6450 ghits is hardly significant press coverage especially since many are mirrors of wikipedia. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. SYSS Mouse 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James086. 16 unique Ghits makes a pretty convincing case. What is more, most are wiki mirrors. Ohconfucius 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this page should be re-created. WahineToa (UTC)

Greensill is running again and came very close to beating the incumbent last election and considering the polls are so close this time around and that the Maori Party may hold the balance of power in the next government it is important that this person be detailed. In addition she has been leader of several important Maori political movements and though may be consider un"notable" to Pakeha is considered very notable in Maori communities. WahineToa (UTC) (sorry about my format, just working this all out, kia ora!) - more importantly, Ms Greensill has contributed a great deal to the Maori community in terms of the environment, land rights and community development.

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 22:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Friend-Pereira

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was John@esib.org (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 37 Google hits does not equal notability either. --Folantin 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Folantin: non-notable. Moreschi 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Many other former student union (Union of Students in Ireland)personalities are featured on wikipedia. Indeed many have much less information than that provided by John C. Friend-Pereira's page for example Will Priestly or Joe Duffy. He has repersented his country interntaionally and has been qouted by the EU Observer and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affiars maoung others. It is clear the John C. Friend-Pereira is still very active in poltics and he been featured in many local papers which do not have on-line versions. Also it is commonly known that he is going to stand for the Labour party in future elections so it makes sense to start a page on him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.142.170 (talk • contribs)
- Wrong. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't start articles for things that might be, some time in the future. Please show that this person now satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While admirable, the subject's contributions have been largely at the university student group and local politics levels. Not enough to merit inclusion, however. Caknuck 16:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, and refer anon to WP:INN. --Pak21 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not deleteWhile undertsanding the concerns about the future and that most of article relates to college and local politics. This would appear to be at least at the level of other people who's bio's have been accepted namely Will Priestly and Colm Jordan. These people have made equal contributions to society and are very likely to make more if John C. Friend-Pereira is to be considered unsuitable why are these ones ok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.161.172 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: WP:INN --Pak21 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. Did I miss something here that made this person notable? I can't figure out what he's supposed to be notable for. Usually you can tell - it's someone who's claiming to be a musician, a notable podcaster, etc. Here I don't even see that, so I have to say delete.--TheOtherBob 19:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a resume, "Roninbk" gets more GHits than this guy... --RoninBK_ETC 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a place to post resumés. Sandstein 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18th Battalion Memorial Rifle Club

This has been tagged for notability since October 23, and no edits have come to it since then. This article does not emphazize the notability of the club, and thus it should be deleted Diez2 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. With 23 google hits"18 Battalion Memorial Rifle Club" , its obvious this club's article will never have an assertion of notability. Mitaphane _talk 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Alan Kazlev

An "amateur" with an "extensive website" fails WP:BIO. Leibniz 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the website may meet the standards of WP:WEB in which case I think a Move would be more appropriate. Antonrojo 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a crank, fails by any reasonable definition of notability. Pete Fenelon 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primarilly relisting because the AfD tag was apprently never added to the article. --W.marsh 16:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. scope_creep 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crackpots need to cause quite a stir in order to be notable enough for inclusion. I see no stir. Caknuck 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "looks like a crank"..."Crackpots need to cause quite a stir"...these comments amount to: 'I disagree with his ideology; therefore this article should be deleted.' — goethean ॐ 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a crank. Delete as failing WP:RS. Ohconfucius 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RFerreira 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Pete Fenelon SSS108 ^talk-email 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see anything notable about Alan Kazlev. Many people have websites and are not listed on Wikipedia as "notable." Many people are critics of others and are not considered notable simply because they are critics. And Kazlev is not a published author. Freelanceresearch 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sputniks Down

Unsourced band article. Peter O. (Talk) 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The article can be kept. Peter O. (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. (Though there are sources listed in the infobox. (Is it just me, or do band articles with links to myspace pages never, ever meet WP:MUSIC?)) —Cryptic 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert notability. scope_creep 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The label they are on released early albums by Idlewild regardless of that, I'd say delete. Missvain 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I suggest that you cite sources in order to demonstrate that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied by this band. (What the band says about itself on its web site is not acceptable, note. Remember the lesson of Jamie Kane.) That is what will change editors' minds. Uncle G 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These guys got coverage in the music press, including NME, and radio support from the usual suspects (Peel, Lamacq) they could have been the next Mogwai. Catchpole 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep, per Catchpole and Dianogah. If the article can be better sourced, make that a strong keep. --Guinnog 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the edits I have made to the article. --Guinnog 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page has now been filled with sources and much more content Dianogah 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak keep; they pass WP:MUSIC, but remember that that isn't everything. They are still barely notable. --Robdurbar 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - socking is futile.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccergirl

An article on a podcast. I believe this easily fails notability requirements (WP:WEB). P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete No indication of notability has been given. --SunStar Net 16:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest of deletes per nom --SandyDancer 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Dawn and Drew Show has an acceptable entry, as does Adam Curry. Unlike those articles, this one does not attempt to advertise or to promote any content. It is a factual article about an entertainment personality. As such it can not be fairly deleted. Notability: Soccergirl has been written about by Reuters and in The New York Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metaanni (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Two passing mentions in newspaper articles does not an "entertainment personality" make. —Cryptic 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Whether or not you agree with that definition of "entertainment personality" you can not deny that the show is a verifiable entity that people are interested in watching and listening to. That alone that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. The facts are there and that should be enough for any impartial editor to approve the entry. Soccergirl has upwards of 50,000 subscribers (see [50] What makes Dawn and Drew acceptable and not Soccergirl? Liono007 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. Please read WP:WEB. I would be interested in seeing that this meets notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should have been on the speedy list. scope_creep 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The only thing she does is make podcasts in the nude, now if she had more notability maybe I can see keeping it but she isn't that notable. Another note, just because it's in Reuters or in The New York Times doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia, for instance, if there was a man who ate 6 cans of beans in an hour and won a contest, and it was in The NYT, it would not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Darthgriz 9 8 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't speak for six cans of beans, but how about 37 hot dogs? 53 and three quarters? —Cryptic 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete 713 unique google hits out of 100,000 total. Still awaiting verification of notability by way of independent reviews.] Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google only analyzes the first thousand hits for uniqueness. See Wikipedia:Search engine test#On "unique" results. —Cryptic 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have read the arguments presented by 3 apologists below and find the unconvincing. They do not suffice to meet ~~WP:Corp~~ so right WP:WEB. That contains the definition of notability for this discussion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean WP:WEB, yes? —Cryptic 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The guidelines state the following: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
Soccergirl was referenced extensively in: Podcasting for Dummies [51] Soccergirl was included on a panel at Sundance, 2005, and was written up in the Sundance Review Guide (I don't have a link for this, but the following Yahoo interview proves that she played an important role in the festival [52]. Soccergirl was also the first podcaster to adapt her show to the stage (in New York City, June 2006) and was reviewed by the print publication, New York Theater (see the review at their website: [53] Liono007 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Darthgriz said: "The only thing she does is make podcasts in the nude, now if she had more notability maybe I can see keeping it"
Notability definition: A notable, or remarkable, person or thing; a person of note. Soccergirl has 165 shows, updated twice or three times a week since March of 2005. She has inspired many other podcasters and is considered among podcasting's pioneers. She has been nominated for a podcast award in the Mature category [54] for two years in a row (other than Dawn and Drew, the only one who was) Her name is known by anyone notable in the field. 165 episodes and worldwide recognition is a little more important than eating 6 cans of beans. Laffertyme 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't base decisions on what you personally consider to be important. The notability criteria to satisfy are WP:WEB. Uncle G 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating three accounts simply to create and then vote to keep an article doesn't generally win people over to your cause:
It is called sockpuppetry on Wikipedia - it gets you banned from editing. --SandyDancer 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all just fans of Soccergirl. I am a newly registered user on her messageboard and saw this message [55]. She recently mentioned Wikipedia on a show. I am only editing under Laffertyme and suspect the others are simply active on here because of her requests. Laffertyme 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the fact that these three users have only posted about Soccergirl doesn't say anything about the facts we've posted. Laffertyme 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I do not see any notability in her podcast. Podcasting is notable because it gives otherwise not notable people the ability to reach a group of similarly interested people. It's radio/TV for the not notable. I love podcasting for this reason.--Nick Y. 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete!!!! Soccergirl incoporated gives me something to look forward to every week, listening to her podcast had changed my life. I feel more relaxed and enjoy life so much more. I chat under the user "thenintendofreak" soccergirl is a well known podcaster among the podcasting community, with her awsome beats and stories that are just so creative in nature. Soccergirl is right up there with the greats of podcasting along with dawn and drew, geekbrief with cali lewis, not too many people can say they get paid to podcast. Yeah she shows her boobs sometimes but theres much more too soccergirl incorporated then just listeners and podcasters its friendship too, she is the worlds first bathcaster. for one she has inspired me to do my own podcast. Soccergirl doesnt judge and deserves her spot in history, listen for you self, she always keeps it interesting. I wish i could be ryan p(soccergirls boyfriend) you wont find a kinder podcaster not even dawn and drew can top that.Richw53149 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about deleting the encylopedia article, not the podcast. You will still be able to enjoy it after the article is gone. There are plenty of wonderful things in life that don't have encyclopedia articles. Regardless of the merits of the person as a person, they do not make the subject encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication given of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are hints of notability here and there, but not quite enough to rise to the level of WP:BIO in my opinion. Who knows, maybe we'll be having this discussion a month from now (Lonelygirl15, anyone?). Then again, maybe not. RFerreira 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm sorry but the article needs a darn good tidy up, but with the references in there to large scale news stories from very reputable sources, plus the fact that it's in the top 40 of iTunes podcasts I believe makes this very notable indeed. I've never heard of her before, but looking around it does seem notable. Ben W Bell talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about references in press We need to look critically at this. The mentions of Soccergirl are completely incidental to the articles they appear in - for heaven's sake, if that kind of "press coverage" qualifies one as notable for wikipedia, I will create an article for myself and several of my friends - none of us are notable, but we've all had passing references made to us and quotes attributed to us in national and even international press... --SandyDancer 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Wikify Normally I would say delete on something like this, but after checking the sources I have to say it meets notability and verifiability criteria, though barely. To Sandydance: Normally I'd agree with you, but the press coverage in this case comes from major sources, the NYT and Reuters are not small and tend to cover only more mainstream, notable things. Furthermore, the sources carry the common theme of being a sort of introduction to the concept of podcasting to the general public which is precisely the type of article in which there'd be name drops of the most notable, paradigm-type examples of the subject matter. The fact she's appeared in numerous articles of this type is further in her favor. I must admit, however, that the sockpuppets weren't a help. --The Way 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with The Way's rationale. Mainstream press coverage can be used to gauge notability, if the coverage is specifically about the topic at issue. This, by the way, is not necessarily grounds for notability, despite the apparently irresistible view here that if it finds its way into the NYT, it gets an article on WP (see Hal the Central Park Coyote, a peculiar memento mori that exists ONLY thanks to this conflation between press coverage and notability). We need to be more intellectually energetic, critical and engaged in determining whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion, rather than arrogate that responsibility to the chance decision made by a deadline-stressed reporter looking to use one or another example to illustrate a point. I know that press coverage is crawling over our guidelines for inclusion, but we need to apply common sense in using that as a criterion. As in this case, press mention does not on its own confer notability. Delete. Eusebeus 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly they are just passing mentions. The Times might write an article about investment bankers in London, and include a quote from a named banker. That wouldn't justify a Wikipedia article about him. --SandyDancer 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--staying with delete I do not see the articles themselves as nontrivial. A mere mention by reuters or NYTimes is not sufficient to meet "non-trivial." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally I'd agree with all of you, however I feel that the fact that multiple sources have all chosen to use this particular blog as an example implies notability. If it was just the NYT then I'd say delete. Yet, it seems like an awfully big coincidence that many sources choose this particular blog, when theres thousands upon thousands of blogs out there. Indeed, I doubt its coincidence and I feel its more likely that this is seen as a paradigm example in the media's coverage of blogs. However, if the consensus is to delete then that is fine; I do recognize that the notability here isn't fully clear. --The Way 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a few podcasts are notable enough for their own articles, and this one isn't among them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Anomo 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etheric projection

Unverifiable OR/WP:BOLLOCKS. References are "ebooks". Leibniz 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research and woo. Everyone knows that they have it wrong about etheric projection anyway: since Pico della Mirandola, the correct procedure has been well known, so there really is no reason to have outdated garbage here. The Crying Orc 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to astral projection. The subject is already covered there in slightly different terms.17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - what is this, the 15th century? Pseudosciencecruft, original research, and totally unverificable. Not a WP:RS for miles. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. I've never seen a page so fitting the description; next we'll be advocating the burning of witches at the stake. Great. Moreschi 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. wikipediatrix 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but in a kindly way. It may be nonsense and flapdoodle, but it is entitled to an article if the editors demonstrate multiple independent reliable sources. Pseudoscience has a place in Wikipedia if lots of people believe it and publish articles about it in the mainstream press.(see N ray, Lysenkoism). The article lists several psychic journals and ESP research establishments, but I do not see citations to particular journal articles about the subject of the article, nor do I see articles about it in newspapers or magazines of general circulation, or even TV documentaries, I expect such references are out there, but the article looks like O.R. supported only by websites devoted to the phenomenon which cannot be regarded as independent. Edison 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to the OOBE page... failing that, delete as prime wibblecruft. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Delete Many independent sources have been cited, as to the originality of the term itself. On top of that, it has been CLEARLY distinguished from astral projection in both the external literature, and from within the Astral Projection article itself.

And what makes a source "verifiable", to begin with? There MANY sources which validate the concept of etheric projection and the etheric body-- Dion Fortune being one, who's book (Psychic Self Defence) has been in print since the early half of the 20th Century. Others include the Rosicrucian Fellowship and the in some cases, the Theosophical Society, all whom distinguish the astral from the etheric states of consciousness.

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to the discussion page for the main article. There, it states the case for why this page should remain where it is. There is no reason to assume astral and etheric projection are even closely related, when there are literally hundereds of reports of at least two seperate extremes-- one being fantastical, while the other being scientifically objective.

I should also add that astral projection is in no way objective. People claiming to visit spirit guides and crazy mixed up adventures are not objective, yet these kinds of experiences are in fact lumped in with the whole OBE paradigm. How can this stand, yet something that IS objective is being up for deletion? solstice

I fail to see which is the 'fantastical' and which the 'objective' one from the articles. Can you explain? How is 'etheric' projection an objective, scientific phenomenon but astral projection not? Not that this has anything to do with the existence of a Wikipedia article on either of them, but anyway?
How are we to believe that this idea is not original research on your part, or some sort of POV fork?
Does etheric projection allow one to time travel? I ask because the author of 'Psychic self defence' was apparently born in 1891 (according to our article). This would mean that their book would have had to have been published a few decades before they were born, if it was published in the first half of the 19th century. The Crying Orc 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say early 20th Century, sorry. All the e-books are in physical print, and can be found in local libraries, or through some on-line retailer. Other than having physical books in print that have been around for decades, I am unsure as to what else someone could mean as "verifiable", because lots of other Wikipedia sources are furnashed in the same manner or less.

For one thing, an OBE has been described by people in two ways: one where the person can "float" around in the mundane world (or some reflection of it), while the other (which is associated with shamanism), depicts fantastical adventures in words that can not and do not exist-- such as visiting spirit guides, and dieties. One of these extremes is objective and has been replicated in a lab (see Tart, for example). Given that all the literature on "ether" relates to either a physical state of being (Etheric Region, to the Rosicrucians), or a close proximity, it is only a matter of opinion that the fantastical paradigm be lumped with something that can be physically validated.

In shamanism and other magickal systems, the adept uses "astral projection" to travel to the "inner planes" (or Underword), to learn about power from entities and their worlds-- none of which physically exist. Even according to Robert Monroe himself: he had to "shed" a "second body" in order to be "completely free". Monroe explained that his second body seemed to have some sort of "electro-magentic" properties, which we all know EM fields are physical, not conceptual. He refered to this second body seperatly from that which he used to travel to all those other worlds.

My other arguement is that since this term DOES exist and has been used to relate to a state seperate from the astral, according to several independent sources. The Rosicrucians have been around since at least 1916; Theosophical Society has been around since the 1800s; Dion Fortune's book has been around since the 1940s-- on top of that, "ether" is an expression used by alchemists and occultists (such as Eliphas Levi) to indicate a semi-physical state (see Transcendental Magic, and Key to the Mysteries). "Etheric Vision" to those occultists was the mean by which one can perceive the ether, and this was coined independently from "astral sight" and "astral light". So, "etheric" projection exists in relation to a mundane experience, not a conceptual one.

In conclusion, I think if nothing else, that the astral and etheric projection articles could be merged into one "OBE" article. From there, their distinctions and similarities can be made. solstice

Delete Wikipedia is not ready for such knowledge as seen by the delete votes before me. Anomo 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETEThis information is important to those who do paranormal, and metaphysical research. Threre is nothing wrong with quoting from e-books. The Bible is available as an E-book, does that make it less of a quotable source? Most of the classic books of the occult are available in PDF form and if the article was written, citing these sources then it serves its purpose. Some information in the occult is only available from journals or kept as lodge secrets, never entering the public eye. Classic occult literature is a valuable resource to those who study the occult or the occult sciences. This subject touches on metaphysical science, and much of metaphysical science is not openly verifiable in scientific terms. Metpahyiscal science is best understood when many pieces come together to form a larger picture, and this is often done by research, no matter if it came from the 15th century or if it is a modern version. The age of knowledge has nothing to do with its value, and if people have been writing about it since the 15th century and even before that then maybe there really is something to take note of there. We would like solid concrete physical proof but the occult, psychic research and also religion does not work in this way. Such is the nature of the metaphysics. This article not only should be kept but it should be treasured as a good source of information on what the "etheric" really is, for those who study metaphysical sciences, and for those who are looking for additional sources on this great topic. If anyone here who actually studies the occult and its sciences will appreciate an article like this. I agree that OBE and astral and etheric are all related but to have a better understanding of each idea they should be seperate articles as well. user Venus

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.209.82 (talk • contribs)

'Metaphysical science' is an oxymoron, just like Christian metal. If something is metaphysical, it cannot, by definition, be scientific. And something 'not openly verifiably in scientific terms' is, simply put, not scientific. By definition. If we do not use words according to their generally accepted meanings, then we fail to communicate effectively.

However, this discussion has bugger all to do with whether 'etheric projection' is effective, real, interesting, etc. So the whole argument above is spurious anyway. The Crying Orc 07:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the literal definition of 'metaphysical' is "beyond the physical". This means that a metaphysical science is that which studies and observes non-physical phenomena. There are two sciences that do that in one manner or another: Quantum Physics, and Parapsychology. "Psi phenomenan", for example, has no known physical mechanism, and can not be attributed to any known physical energy; there for, this specific event is "beyond" what we know to be physical, until other evidence surfaces.

And yes I agree, this whole discussion is spurious. Hardly anyone has taken a good look at the evidence that has been presented, yet assume everything is invalid. solstice

What utter nonsense. Quantum physics is not metaphysics (only New Age-flapdoodle scribblers like Gary Zukav allege otherwise, in their second-rate, ignorant screeds). Quantum physics is empirical, and science is, by definition, an empirical endeavour. Empiricism deals with things which are physical, i.e. which can be measured, which are accessible through the senses (all five of them), etc. Therefore, if something is scientific then it is de facto not metaphysical.

Parapsychology is pseudoscience. However, even if we were to assume that some 'parapsychological' phenomena were somehow accessible to scientific enquiry, then they would be empirical and hence not metaphysical.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you make sure of the definitions of the words you use, before digging that hole any deeper. Did you follow that link to Humpty Dumpty? The Crying Orc 10:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Nice way to accuse, rather than investigate. How many scientific journals have you read on Psi Phenomena? How many scientists can you name that study it? I have personally read at least a dozen, and can name as many, including Charles Tart, Jessica Utts and Dean Radin, but you must know of them already. Unless you can answer those questions with honesty, then your arguement is subjective and there fore invalid. You basically summed up what you do not know on the subject, because you are somehow under the impression that anything metaphysical and/or paranormal can not be observed via the scientific method. This is a logical fallacy, and has no place in this discussion.

"All" FIVE senses? Are you sure? Perhaps if you looked up the meaning of that, you might want to rethink accusing strangers of being ignorant. Here you go: The senses.

This is a direct quote from Dr. Radin's website, entitled "What Parapsychology is Not":

Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience. Parapsychology is also often linked, again inappropriately, with a broad range of "psychic" entertainers, magicians, and so-called "paranormal investigators." In addition, some self-proclaimed "psychic practitioners" call themselves parapsychologists, but that is not what we do. (Source: Dean Radin's Parapstchology FAQ

Tell us, how many degrees do you have in psychology, physics, statistics or psychiatry? Because you seem to know a lot about these things, even though the evidence is contrary to what you believe. Is belief now part of empirical science, now a days?

PS, making personal remarks like that is against Wikipedia rules, and I am going to have to report it.

The result was no consensus. And the schoolyard fighting continues... ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archer School for Girls

Not notable, goes on about a movie in lead paragraph, poor quality... sounds a lot like a prospectus in some places. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have noticed non-American schools tend to get deleted, so I see no reason why this one shouldn't also for consistency. --SandyDancer 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school is very non-notable, however the building might deserve a page for it ;) Ha ha... Or if they haven't already, place that piece of information about the film Chinatown on the Chinatown page, ala Trivia. I'm a Roman Polanski fan though Missvain 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per Missvain Cannot see that this meets WP:SCHOOLS. 486 unique google hits out 04 9,500 The Polanski connection is the most notable thing about it. To preserve the edit history, we would need to merge and redirect. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per notable alumni. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting story, and much better written than most school articles, but alas, this school does not meet any of the criteria in WP:SCHOOLS3. D enni ^talk 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. wikipediatrix 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not quite enough cites in the article to establish notability, but I found and added one. The article needs a NPOV rewrite. Edison 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that this school is also a historic landmark, and I am basing my keep on that, but would not be opposed to some sort of a suitable merge. RFerreira 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rferreira. Seems like it's worth keeping around based on its historic value. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone be willing or qualified to rewrite it? Would an article on the building itself not be better? Meh. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school has two notable alumni which I've added to the article. The school also has a robotics team that has performed at a national level and a variety of other accomplishments which I've added to the article. JoshuaZ 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apathetic Keep This could use a complete rewrite, as that it's current quality is very poor. However, poor quality does not make an article non-notable. I can see this school meeting the critera in WP:SCHOOLS, barely, and not even coming close to WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WMMartin 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help if you made more substantial comments than that. JoshuaZ 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help if you made more substantial comments than that. JoshuaZ 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please the school is notable as historical landmark and with special alumni too Yuckfoo 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs to have a drastic rewrite, but there are specific claims of notability re structure and uses of school. JoshuaZ's additions convince me that the article satisfies WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 07:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like many articles concerning schools or any other topic, more work is needed to improve the quality. However, quality is not a reason for deletion. This school has references and some of the most notable alumni I've seen all day. Experienced school editors such as User:JoshuaZ have taken Archer School for Girls under their wing and I have no doubt they will whip this article into shape in due course. Let's give them the time they need to help reach my goal of comprehensive coverage at wikipedia. --JJay 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable school. To the point above: schools are either notable on their own, or else they are not. Having notable alumni is a needless canard and folks asserting they should be kept should not have to resort to such silly arguments since it is perfectly defensible (if in my view wrong) position to argue simply that schools should be kept inasmuch as that is what they are. I doubt many of us who feel otherwise will change our tune because a few notable students call a random collection of bricks their alma mater. Eusebeus 01:08, 22 November 2006 (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 wasdelete Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, Dad! I Learned it From Watching You!

You, Dad! I Learned it From Watching You! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this (alleged -- I've never seen it, at least) public service announcement really sufficiently notable? Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a product of the 80s, I don't remember this. Though the poor misspellings and article is rather funny, delete! Missvain 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete unless not paper applies. I just can't see someone looking this up 100 years from now and saying, "ah, yes." It's not as memorable as This is Your Brain on Drugs, but I remember it. It was especially poignant as I was recovering from co-dependency at the time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because I remember it (and someone else does) does not make it notable. -- Mikeblas 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember this PSA. Was it in the '80's? Really? Doesn't seem that long ago. Now you're just making me feel old. This PSA never had the staying power of This is Your Brain on Drugs-- we'll be hearing that phrase forever. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations. But Wikiquote is. How about putting it there?OfficeGirl 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ineffective propaganda from the ONDCP is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Howrealisreal 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The PSA was aired for a while and the catch phrase was mocked by school children and comedians. Relatively forgetable on its own. Might fit into some larger war on drugs or PSA article.--Nick Y. 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the correct quote is "You alright! I learned it by watching you!" Anyway, the quote appears to be referenced in a few news articles: [56] [57] [58], so I don't know, I'd say Keep. Wavy G 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge into a better-titled TV drug advertisement article. I think this was on air in the early 90's, actually. The article needs sources, of course. But I definitely remember seeing it (I'm in my 20s). Chubbles1212 20:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember a lot of non-notable things I saw on TV in the 1990's.Nothing here to satisfy WP:N. Edison 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as appropriate. This is a notable catchphrase and verifiable sources definitely exist for it. RFerreira 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Highly noted PSA, and i'm fairly certain it's been parodied in other areas, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable piece of propaganda(no negative connotation intended). It was one of dozens of anti-drug commercials, and I don't see any example of this entering main stream culture in any way. The citations shown only mention it in passing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 19 November 2006 (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 - strong consensus, and 1 keep sock. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Racey-Tabrizi

Sara Racey-Tabrizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Losing contestant on a reality television show. Prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the comment that reality television contestants are "inherently notable". This contestant hasn't done anything notable before or since the show, and didn't win on the show. She's just another struggling model. About 600 hits on Google. [59]. Mikeblas 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Even though W is not paper, I can't see an article on every struggling model who was a !reality game show contestant. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all failed contestants for game shows unless they've really established themselves elsewhere. wikipediatrix 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert ant notability. scope_creep 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wishy washy Delete. One can be initially impressed by the glossies she has apparently been in, but she scores only 165 unique Ghits, the vast majority from wiki mirrors, blogs and some from reality-show fansites, and the odd link to hotbabes.com type sites. Don't quite know how it works but no name recognition at Maximonline and iVillage (Cosmo). However, I'm wavering now that I've seen her article on King magazine Tara was right, though, she's not anorexic enough to be a top catwalk model ;-) Ohconfucius 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A google search for "Sara Racey" brings back more than 36,000 results, not "about 600" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.13.79 (talk • contribs)

Comment counting GHits is not research per User:Uncle G. It's the quality of the links which is important. Ohconfucius 10:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Sara Racey-Tabrizi" only garners 600 for me. and "Sara Racey" 900 of which 235 are unique Sara Racey without brackets gets 36000. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known reality contestant. Meets WP:BIO easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, Jeff, please show me how and where. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part are you questioning? She was on seven episodes of a very popular reality show seen by millions, America's Next Top Model. She's certainly well known. Because of that, she meets WP:BIO, which allows for the inclusion of "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - and I know you know this - you're selectively choosing portions to deceptively suit your argument. What WP:BIO specifically says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out what constitutes "notable". She fails. Big time. Next time you quote policy, try not to leave out the part of the sentence that doesn't agree with you! wikipediatrix 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite the accusation, and I request you retract it. Why don't we spell it out, since you think I'm being sly: "Multiple features in pop-culture magazines?" No problem, what entertainment magaizne hasn't covered the people in this show. "Large fan base, cult following." Do a Google search on NTM sometime. "Independent biography." Might not meet this, although I'm sure the NTM site has one. "Name recognition." without a doubt. People know who are on reality shows. "Commercial endorsements." Borderline. It ain't L'Aureal, but she's done plenty of magazine work which could fit in here. There's no need to attack me just because you disagree, I deserve better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You left out the crucial part of the sentence that contradicted your own point. Why would you do that? I have no idea. Feel free to explain. wikipediatrix 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I didn't. Mainly because it didn't contradict anything. She easily meets the standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that just does not satisfy WP:BIO. Here today, gone tomorrow-- and that just does not make her encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp BIO - not a notable tv personality JBKramer 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the subject of this article was suffuciently notable, we would have reputable, reliable third-party sources from which to write an article. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:V. -- Satori Son 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn--MONGO 21:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently non-notable. --Tbeatty 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:55, 20 November 2006 (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Studios

Falcon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been speedied several time, with a fair amount of grief given to the speediers, including me. So, in the interest of transparency and openness, let's have a full discussion of it. I do not believe it satisfies WP:CORP, and I also do not approve of "placeholder" articles--if an article is not yet written, there's no reason for us to have a page on it. Chick Bowen 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't seem to find any writing about the studio as a business, so I agree that it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 707 Unique google hits. Don't see anything that attests to notability. Nothing but ads and info from subject. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 563 Unique google hits for amazon.com and most of those are ads. I'm sure there is a better way to determine notability. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping someone would come up with something that asserts meeting WP:CORP I'm afraid the ebar and gavyn articles do not. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:WP:CORP says that a business is notable if "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." I've listed 3 articles, which constitutes multiple, these are published works not written by Falcon or its subsidiaries, and many people use these articles for information, so I would hesitate to call them trivial. If these don't fulfill that criteria, I'm wondering what kind of published works you are looking for? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company certainly does meet condition number 1 of WP:CORP.
Here is a reprint of a newspaper article dealing with Falcon's use of Bareback model, and reviewing their upcoming "Velvet Mafia": http://ebar.com/artscolumns/artcolumn.php?sec=karrnal.

The first paragraph of this article deals with a change-up of the staff at Falcon: http://www.vidioview.com/View.html

This article deals with a business deal that Falcon has negotatiated with NakedSword: http://www.gayvn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=278251

I guarantee that there are plenty more articles dealing with Falcon Studios or their policies. These were just the first articles I could find on short notice-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have 5 days, so don't feel too rushed. Please reread WP:CORP and bring us what you can. I don't think thise two articles are enough. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 3 articles right now, what types of articles are you looking for? These certainly demonstrate that Falcon Studios is of significant notability that others would write significant articles about them. I doubt that a porn company is going to make Forbes 500 or be in a significant stock index, so that only leaves option #1; is there anything I'm missing from option #1? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:CORP. scope_creep 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:CORP criteria 1 as evidenced by the following: (some links contain adult material)
Company Profile: Falcon Studios, Brady Jansen, 2006-04-27, gayvn.com, accessed 2006-11-17
Gay Video News (GayVN) is a division of Adult Video News, a leading adult industry information company

Reviews & Eye Candy » Reviews » Falcon Studios, 2006-11-09, justusboys.com, accessed 2006-11-17
Just Us Boys is a leading online provider of gay entertainment news—see Company Profile: JustUsBoys.Com, Brady Jansen, 2006-09-28, gayvn.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon Purchased by 3Media Corp., Gretchen Gallen, 2004-08-19, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17
XBIZ is a leading source of information regarding the adult entertainment industry—see About XBIZ, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon Studios Joins ASACP (Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection) as Corporate Sponsor, 2006-02-28, asacp.org, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon to Release 65 Films in 2005, 2005-04-06, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17
Note that an article published a month earlier in Forbes regarding Vivid Entertainment stated that Vivid cranks out 60 films a year—see The Porn King, Brett Pulley, 2005-03-07, forbes.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon Prepares Media Blitz for ‘Cross Country’, Gretchen Gallen, 2005-08-30, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon Studios, Naked Sword Announce Strategic Partnership, Steve Javors, 2006-08-01, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17
NakedSword is a leading provider of online on-demand video; they have also partnered with Playgirl to provide on-demand video at PlaygirlOnDemand.com via PlaygirlTV.com—see NakedSword and Playgirl Partner on VOD Site, Gretchen Gallen, 2006-07-26, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon, NakedSword Ink Deal, Jonah P. Davies, 2006-11-07, gayvn.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Falcon, Video Secrets in Live Content Deal, Rhett Pardon, 2004-05-14, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17
Video Secrets is a leading provider of interactive video/webcam shows with live models

Falcon Pens Sex Toy Deal With Pulse, Gretchen Gallen, 2006-06-02, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Sweepstakes Trip to New Zealand Tops Falcon's Cross Country Plans, Doug Lawrence, 2005-08-30, gayvn.com, accessed 2006-11-17

DHD Media Expands its Services to Falcon, Michael Hayes, 2006-06-03, xbiz.com, accessed 2006-11-17

Chad Donovan Joins Falcon Studios, Rick Richards, 2006-11-06, gayvn.com, accessed 2006-11-17

October 2006 Gossip, Mickey Skee, 2006-10-03, gayvn.com gossip column item, accessed 2006-11-17

November 2006 Gossip, Mickey Skee, 2006-11-03, gayvn.com gossip column item, accessed 2006-11-17—(Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons wrote gossip, too)

Most likely there will never be much "mainstream" coverage of the porn industry and Forbes will probably never cover a gay porn company. Be that as it may, Falcon is a recognized leader in the genre of gay porn studios along the lines of Vivid Entertainment in the straight porn industry (see info above).

As for "placeholder articles", they're called "stubs", and it's a bit disconcerting to see that sort of comment from an administrator.—Chidom ^talk 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even a stub must have content and assertion of notability; please see the version at the time for the context of my comment. Chick Bowen 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. There was a marginal assertion of importance, but the content was obviously designed—as you said—as a placeholder. I agree that "placeholder articles" are different from true stubs, which need to be a bit more robust before they're published. I've argued the point several times in the past and probably will again. For example, there are more than 600 "stubs" in Category:Church stubs; many of which resemble the Family Christian Center article. My apologies for not doing more research before responding to your comment. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was speedy deleted for because the speedy deleters claimed that it was just a re-write of information from the company's own website, and not because it didn't meet WP:CORP. I have made numerous changes to the article since the nomination that are referenced to sources that are not the Falcon company website. This is probably the most important company in gay porn. The article was linked from dozens of other Wikipedia articles. The new article should be given some time to develop. Zeromacnoo 12:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (with additional comments Nov. 20).[reply]

Keep. This is a notable producer of pornography. Also, I've a feeling that they did the "Other Side of Aspen" series, which influenced porn ( both gay and straight ) for the next ten years. WMMartin 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. No longer a placeholder. -- Samuel Wantman 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above: notable, decently expanded. --Alynna 20:05, 20 November 2006 (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 - already merged. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Lukic, Jr.

John Lukic, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A former trainee football (soccer) player who never played a first-team professional game. Was released by Grimsby Town in the summer of this year and has not found a new one (either accrding to Soccerbase or Google News).
Note - he is not to be confused with his much more famous father, John Lukic. Qwghlm 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Lukic Kingjamie 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kingjamie ChrisTheDude 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all the relevant information (with the tenuous exception of his date of birth) is already in his dad's article.......... ChrisTheDude 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merging into a relative's article is usually a bad idea - either the guy is notable or he is not. BlueValour 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Lukic, increase the detail level slightly on what is there already. --Bedders 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly without merging, as per BlueValour --Angelo 23:02, 18 November 2006 (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 Speedily deleted as {{db-nonsense}}. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum ecosophy

Quantum ecosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is the whole article:

Quantum ecosophy is a movement to refromulate Naessian ecosophy, integral thought, religious syncretism, and naturalistic pantheism in terms of the laws of physics, specifically quantum mechanics and cosmology, along with the infulence of Derridaian deconstructionism.

Yikes. No sources. Leibniz 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google gave me 0 hits excluding Wikipedia. Reads like rambling WP:BOLLOCKS to me, especially without sources. MartinDK 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Until you read this, the outcome was indeterminate.)18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I move for rapid defromulation of this Derridadaist ecosophistry. --Folantin 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or made up?--Nick Y. 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. bikeable (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super speedy delete as BLATANT nonsense. Even fails WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT a place for things made up in school one day. Moreschi 21:33, 16 November 2006 (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 - Yomangani ^talk 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkner

Losing contestant on a television reality show. About 600 Google hits. [60] Hasn't done anything notable before appearing on the show. Did a bit of a press tour after the show, but that's momentum from the show. Now, just another struggling model. Mikeblas 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~like the last one~~ per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO, reality contestants are inherently notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in WP:BIO that specifically says "reality contestants are inherently notable", no matter how many times you keep repeating it. wikipediatrix 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does say that television personalities from well known shows are worthy of inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says no such thing. You already made this misstatement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Racey-Tabrizi. Why are you continuing this disruptive and deceptive tack? wikipediatrix 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you would stop considering my suggestions disruptive. I already epxlained how they meet the notability standard there, too. It's not a misstatement, it's a worthwhile and honest interpretation of the guideline. Please stop making those accusations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you stop misquoting WP:BIO, I'll stop pointing out that you are doing so. wikipediatrix 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, so I'll expect a retraction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said WP:BIO says "reality television personalities from well known shows are worthy of inclusion." It says no such thing. What WP:BIO specifically says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out what constitutes "notable". That's drastically different than your own truncated version. wikipediatrix 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's the difference between "television personalities from well known shows" and "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Because that's the same thing I was reading from, and not "drastically" and hardly "slightly" different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable tv personality JBKramer 18:24, 17 November 2006 (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 to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, where it's already mentioned. ~ trialsanderrors 08:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Case of Spring Fever

A Case of Spring Fever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been tagged for notability since October 3. There has been one edit to it since then, but only to cleanup the page. I think that this article should be deleted for non-notability. Diez2 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. It's about the right size and this may be the most notable thing about it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The merge and redirect suggestion is reasonable but since it is a film on its own and wikipedia is not print I don't know maybe a keeper?--Nick Y. 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just can not see an article about what amounts to a Chevy ad. The merge retains the info, puts it with similar or related info, but does not give it an article. If someone should look for it, the redirect will bring them to the right place. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it. It is notable both in that it is part of MST3K and that it is in the Prelinger Archives. --Fvox13 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. An ephemeral film from the 1940's? Man there are scores of thousands of ephemeral films. Hella lot of them are amusing now in a campy way. What makes this one special? Is it really funnier than "Happy Hooligan, Double-Cross Nurse" or a thousand others? Is it really a cult favorite? The article says so but I dunno if that's true. I say Delete, merging it into MSTK3 if the closing admin wants to. Herostratus 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only assertion of notability is that the film "has developed somewhat of a cult status." Not much of a claim, and even that is not verified by reliable, third-party sources. But I would not oppose a Redirect to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. -- Satori Son 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love this episode, I think we should Merge with List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. Nooooooooo keeping. *Whistle* -Ryanbomber 13:40, 22 November 2006 (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 to Garda Síochána. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garda Review

Garda Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

House magazine of the Garda, total circulation 7,500, monograph of User:Rory Deegan whose other recent edits are largely to create (and argue about deletion of) articles published by the same company. I wonder if that might be significant... Guy (Help!) 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garda Síochána I assume this refers to the Garda Síochána. If so, merge and redirect there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - Article was created for a magazine named the "Garda Review". Redirect probably not appropriate. Guliolopez 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, not clear enough in my comment. The magazine appears to be the official magazine for the Garda Síochána. Might it not get a mention there? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Represents WP:SPAM and is NN in context of WP:NN (products) and WP:NN (print). Guliolopez 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a magazine. Could be mentioned in Garda Síochána.--Nick Y. 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This needs to be merged into the main Garda Síochána article. scope_creep 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly worthy of a mention in Garda Síochána or Garda Representative Association but not its own article. Demiurge 20:39, 21 November 2006 (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.
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Story001~~

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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Imaging Systems

Freedom Imaging Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable (WP:CORP), used for advertising (SPA Special:Contributions/Jstar4 created article, and placed See Also links to it in articles about its primary services). Renesis (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability.--Nick Y. 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.
nothing at Factiva

Nothing at forbes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:36, 16 November 2006 (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 - Yomangani ^talk 10:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ville (television)

WP:Vanity (article creator's name is TheVille) & non-notable (Googling "The Ville" + "Robert Manier" returns only The Ville's own Myspage page) Psychonaut3000 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is a home-made or small production television designed to win a contest that is not over yet. I.e. it has not won and it has never aired.--Nick Y. 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. wikipediatrix 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nick Y. TheRealFennShysa 20:28, 20 November 2006 (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 redirect (already done). No need to delete the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate Democratic Whip

United States Senate Democratic Whip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

duplication of information already in Assistant party leaders of the United States Senate. Create redirect to that article after deletion. — MrDolomite | Talk 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect Deletion would destroy the editors' good faith contribs list. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am boldly reidrecting. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Redirect, It's good to be bold and just redirect from time to time like so. VegaDark 21:34, 16 November 2006 (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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief complaint

Chief complaint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:NOT by being a dictionary entry. This article cannot be expanded further - the topic is already covered in Medical history Adam Slack 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Wiktionary or redirect back to Medical history. (Beware, there is a link there to Chief complaint.) Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't see this as am encyclopedia article on its own.20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef, but not even a good DicDef, thus not worth TransWikiing. Of the three external links listed, the first doesn't work, the third goes to a completely unrelated article, and the second goes to this definition: "The primary symptom that a patient states as the reason for seeking medical care", which is a lot better and more concise than the definition given in the article.Herostratus 03:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. There is not much substance here (though there could be). The fact that the article is so small suggests that anything that needs to be said could be said in the Medical history article. I voted for delete, with the option of resubmitting later if more material is created. I left a Talk message for User:AED, the creator of this article. EdJohnston 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Neutral given the changes in the article, and the additional comments that have come in. EdJohnston 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think the definition is accurate in that the chief complaint does not always involve a "complaint" or symptom. I have forwarded this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine for further input. -AED 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially in light of today's expansion. --Arcadian 23:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, healthcare articles need to be able to link to this stub to clarify chief complaint for the reader. It needs to be expanded some, but it doesn't need to be complicated to be valuable. --Dematt 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This concept is used in medicine and is valuable to have here. It just needs expanding and to be wikilinked more. -- Fyslee 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral In light of the substanial changes, I withdraw by support for deletion. I'm not certain if the changes really belong in the article on epidemiology, however I accept that there is an arguement for having them in the chief complaint article as well Adam Slack 12:58, 22 November 2006 (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, concert by nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahpalooza

Sarahpalooza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was prod'd and de-prod'd twice. Is a non-notable, non-verifiable event. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google picks up nothing relevant other than a local fund-raising event which has nothing to do with the nominated article. Fails the requirement that contributions should be licensed under the GFDL, by stating "Copyright '06-'07, Deflate Corperations. All Rights Reserved." with no permission to use it. I also suspect it is a hoax too. Certainly non verifiable and non notable. --tgheretford (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - a band who has "never had a major show before" and doesn't even "have the necessery equipment" is going to do a benefit concert for some girl who is changing schools. Explain how this is supposed to matter to anyone else in the world? Also, check out the author's only other stellar contribution: Issac Corbin. Wavy G 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable, probable copyvio. --- RockMFR 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails to assert notability. Complete puff piece. scope_creep 20:51, 16 November 2006 (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, any claimed notability was purely an illusion. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Illusion

Doctor Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable; prod tag removed by creator -- Robocoder (t|c) 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A character from an unpublished comic? LOL. --- RockMFR 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Recreated vanity, see Talk:Doctor Illusion. Also crystal balling with "It will be popular!" Interrobamf 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete More crystal balling every day. scope_creep 20:52, 16 November 2006 (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 - Yomangani ^talk 10:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connections 2030

non notable long-range transport plan for Wisconsin; every state probably has some such bland label for their attempts to schedule future projects; does anyone care? Brianyoumans 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails to assert notability. No sources. scope_creep 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete I don't think this should be speedy deleted. I would actually be surprised if this is common among the states and its certainly an interesting enough policy to be of development to the development community. If a good source or to from a third party were found I'd support keeping it. I may check into it myself if no one else does soon. --The Way 10:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this project may become notable at some point, as of yet there is no coverage by multiple, reliable, independent published sources. -- Satori Son 22:35, 20 November 2006 (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 Transwiki ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Egg

Good Egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Ratarsed 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as deprodder. Plenty of room for expansion on this term, even the {{prod2}} commenter noted the term dates back to the 1920s. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination -- by all means move to the Wiktionary, but not an encyclopaedic term. -- Ratarsed 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-wiki to wiktionary. This is a definition. It belongs not in the encyclopedia but in Wiktionary. See. Wikipedia:dicdef. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-wiki Its a well know UK expresssion. Should be in a dictionary. scope_creep 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this obvious dicdef. From the username of the nominator I would guess that he, too, is British: this is an archaic British slang term, but really not encyclopaedia material, there ain't much that can be said over and above the definition. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of the article suggests the term is localized to "the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, namely New York, New Jersey, and the Philadelphia area". How bizarre. Of course its a Britishism Bwithh 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki (if necessary), then Delete. As the person who posted the prod-2, I'm pretty sure it dates back to at least the '20s (seen it in early Wodehouse), possibly further, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kudos to whoever removed the patent nonsense from the article, but it's still a dicdef. Xtifr _tälk 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Wikipedia not a dictionary/glossary. No room for expansion (it's just an inversion of "rotten egg" or "bad egg") unlike e.g. curate's egg which is related to a very specific cultural artifact. Bwithh 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a restaurant around here called The Good Egg. I am not sure of its notability, though. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy transwiki - there's nothing else to say, this is a clear case. Nihiltres 04:22, 21 November 2006 (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 article and {{orfud}} the images. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld logo

Seinfeld logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT for image galleries, especially ones full of fair use images. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me get this straight: a TV show's logo changed colors from season to season? And you want an article based on that? Wavy G 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~merge and redirect~~. ~~At best, create a gallery on the bottom of Seinfeld or at Commons.~~ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, did not think about fairuse images. Delete. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before a trend starts and we have an article on Elaine Benes Changing Hairstyles in Seinfeld.OfficeGirl 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give anyone ideas. -- Fan-1967 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Where is the notability. My tv picture changes colour 50 times a second. Does it need an article. scope_creep 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to the main article on Seinfeld as the information is interesting enough that I'd include it, though it could be accomplished with descriptions instead of images to get around copyright concerns.

Delete this garbage, although it's appropriately "about nothing". wikipediatrix 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with the main article. And by merge I mean add one sentence to the main article. There is nothing notable about the Seinfeld logo and its apparent variations to justify any more attention than that. Lose the images completely unless one is used already on the article page. 23skidoo 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Useless. TheRealFennShysa 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Richmeister_talk 04:24, 20 November 2006 (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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real American Taste

Real American Taste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is what we mean by non-notable! Chubbles1212 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedily, I think. Have not released an album. No awards. No significant tours. Nothing at allmusic. 59 Unique Google Hits, including root beer. The article reads like myspace. Wikipedia is not a personal web hosting service. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:33, 16 November 2006 (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rated-RKO

Rated-RKO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This team isn't notable enough yet Killswitch Engage 20:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning the tag titles and having the team name consistantly mentioned by the announcers is notable enough for me. However, if we're going to look at deleting short-lived tag team articles, we should also look at Shazarian. 131.230.135.105 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while they may be farily new as a team they are tag team champions and not every tag team has done that. Also the members of this team are well established wrestlers who have both held word titles in the past. Its not as if two unknowns just formed the team. --70.48.172.195 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they will be around for a little while, as they are feuding with DX. They will become notable, if they haven't already. Also, they are the current tag team champions. -- T H L^CCD 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has articles on such teams as The Two-Man Power Trip and Rock 'n' Sock Connection. Rated RKO clearly has as much information as the aforementioned articles. I'd agree to a precedent stating that WWE Championship holders are inherently notable. --RoninBK_ETC 11:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are the World Tag Team Champs. They should have there own page. - RYANonWIKIPEDIA

Keep' As per all of the above. They are the World Tag champs. Notable enough. Plus they are mentioned as the Team captains for one of the Survivor Series teams as 'Rated RKO' PhatePunk 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons stated above. ABricker 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons state above, but possibly move, as they've added more members, and may be forming more of a faction than a Tag team. BoBoCTiberius 02:09, 21 November 2006 (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 Inca Empire. ~ trialsanderrors 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Inca

History of the Inca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We already have Inca Empire, which is all history since the empire no longer exists. This article doesn't add anything that isn't there or in History of Peru. Descendall 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inca Empire. From what I can see, the two articles do have slightly different content. --- RockMFR 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. copyvio A few words have been changed here and there, but it would need to be thoroughly rewritten and we already have this ground covered. Even the images are from the other site. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cart before the horse. As is pointed out below, edit conflict. The wikipedia article was the source, not vice versa. Just merge, please while I go soak my head. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/ states that arikah's encyclopedia articles are taken from Wikipedia under the GFDL. It's not an infringement. Voretus ^talk 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Inca Empire, seems to have slightly different and worthwhile information. Voretus ^talk 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Inca Empire. This is a lot of good content in this article, who wrote it, did they not know how to search. Time for dedupe. scope_creep 21:16, 16 November 2006 (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 ~ trialsanderrors 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUMANWINE

HUMANWINE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion for non-notability and copyvio. The copyvio section was removed, and the band meets WP:MUSIC by containing "at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (Dresden Dolls' Brian Viglione). I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sole notable member is an "occasional" rotating member. And not everything that a notable person does is in and of itself notable. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:MUSIC scope_creep 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:MUSIC is not a criteria for speedy deletion, please see WP:CSD for more information. hateless 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we speedy delete under db-band? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the afore mentioned claim to notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral Their website mentions they've won the "Best New Local Act" at the Annual Boston Music Awards. The Boston Globe has reported on this. It has also given a review. The Dallas Morning News has also given a review. Multiple third-party non-trivial mentions in reliable sources = keep. ColourBurst 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops, the two sources I mentioned are the exact same article. Switching to neutral until more sources are found. ColourBurst 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Kansas City Pitch and Boston's Weekly Dig have also written about them. That's the multiple third-party sources needed. ColourBurst 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being mentioned in the papers does not satisfy WP:MUSIC Don't know if anyone can see the Factiva hits without logging in. I got ten, but they are not "non-trivial." A blurb about someone's clothing or a mention the band is going to perform does not suffice. What I need is proof of more than a local contest award. A major chart position or a national tour would be good. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're not just "being mentioned", they're the subject of the article. I think we're interpreting "trivial" differently. I tend to interpret "trivial" as "the article's on another person or event and the subject of the article only gets two lines worth of mentions". Notwithstanding the first Boston Globe article (which is something like 1000 words or so), one review is around 100 words maybe and the other around 300 words or so. So my feeling is that there's enough verifiable content there to write an article. ColourBurst 19:48, 17 November 2006 (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' to formal system. Salvageable material can be retrieved from the edit history and added to the formal system article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logic system

Logic system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible neologism, as the only reference claimed using that term (with or without a hyphen) is "Herrmann, Robert A.", who is probably also User:Raherrmann. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be that this article basically duplicates material in the article Proof theory, in which case it should be merged and redirected. Note though that it does look like the article has cited published references, so assuming those references are from accepted mathematical publishers it wouldn't be considered "original research". It simply might be duplicated research under a slightly different terminology. (I can't vote delete or keep here, though, since I haven't read the articles in great detail.) Dugwiki 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failing that, redirect to formal system. What is described here does not appear to differ in any notable way from the latter concept. Being published in respectable journals does not in and of itself make a term encyclopaedically notable. Henning Makholm 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to formal system. I did a quick google and came up with List of Logic systems which enumerate a large number of different modal logic systems, this seems more like the content I would expect here. --Salix alba (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still think the term is a neologism, even though it occurs in published papers. However, formal system seems a better target than proof theory, so I'll withdraw that merge tag unless there's some favorable comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merging into formal system is fine with me. I'll point out that in other cases (notably uniform polytope) the standards for inclusion have been very low. CMummert 16:55, 17 November 2006 (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, probably the least ambiguous A7 I've seen today. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Crew

Da Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been speedy-deleted twice [61], recommended for speedy again (tag was deleted), and prodded (tag was deleted). Moving to formal AfD to settle the matter. Recommend speedy-deletion, and page protection. --Elonka 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No brainer. Obvious Speedy Delete A7. Protect if necessary. Fan-1967 20:42, 16 November 2006 (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 ~ trialsanderrors 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searchguy

Searchguy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A crap article but the subject may be notable so, much as I was tempted to nuke it on the basis of the secont para, I brought it here instead. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company. See WP:CORP. Internet companies are like other companies, we look for non trivial published sources, not inclusion on lists.Obina 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORP requires that 'The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.' A Google search for the founder, Larry Rachitsky gets 991 hits. However in the first 3 pages of results there are no reliable sources included. Googling for 'Searchguy' gets more hits but I did not see any reliable sources. Searchguy has an Alexa rank of about 258,000 over the last 3 months, not too impressive. See more commentary in a blog posting at [62]. EdJohnston 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, not notable, pretty obviously spam. Xtifr _tälk 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Reads like an advert. Badly written, no sources. scope_creep 23:05, 16 November 2006 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of championships and accomplishments won by Ric Flair

List of championships and accomplishments won by Ric Flair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From what I've seen there is no other pages for wrestlers championships and accomplishments. Ric Flair shouldn't be the exception. The most important titles should just be on the Ric Flair page, a seperate article doesn't need to list all of them. RobJ1981 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing here worthy of merging to the Ric Flair article that isn't there already. wikipediatrix 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, acceptable article fork, and advise Ric Flair to reduce its Awards section considerably. I don't understand this need to keep everything into one large unwieldy article. As for why Flair gets special treatment, there's no one wrestler living today as highly decorated as Flair is. hateless 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is an necessary fork. Although the Ric Flair page is in desperate need of a trimming, (37 kilobytes,) I'd rather see that the prose be trimmed to something more terse, than to create a spin-out that would not be appropriate for other wrestlers. --RoninBK_ETC 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Since the formats for listing titles have changed as of late and the title histories take up far less space. It's now included on the main Flair page anyway, so now it's just a redundant page. Cornerbock 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant information. Whisp e ring 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability. scope_creep 23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and additional comments, plus, the article title makes my inner grammarian weep. How does one win an "accomplishment"? Otto4711 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borders on vanity. Very unwieldy title too. Anything worthwhile in this article thats not in the Ric Flair article should be merged into there. --The Way 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 04:42, 19 November 2006 (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 ~ trialsanderrors 07:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aardskarf Records

Aardskarf Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Record label, no apparent notability. NawlinWiki 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, tagged as such. Micro-record-label with no notabilty to speak of. Ohconfucius 04:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 - no real notability Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:20, 18 November 2006 (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 Speedily deleted as it was a redirect to a User page. Why it came here, I don't understand. (aeropagitica) 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manav

Manav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This guy is talking about himself. seXie^(t0lk) 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. This doesn't need AFD. Obvious speedy. Looks like it was userfied and the author Moved it back. The article Talk page is clearly the User Talk page. There's no remote assertion of notability. Fan-1967 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move, and it is now back on his User Page. Fan-1967 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree with Fan-1967. Should have went to speedy delete. scope_creep 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. wikipediatrix 21:52, 16 November 2006 (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'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:PROF. Blog stuff is no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Leibniz 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. scope_creep 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough; blog is notable; ref'd by wiki Ross McKitrick William M. Connolley 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per William M. Connolley. JROBBO 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Keep Sounds notable but it really needs to be expanded, maybe giving examples of some of his work.Firelement85 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- politics may be involved in the nomination, but the article should be expanded to outline Lambert's arguments and findings (and criticisms of them, if any), rather than just being an access point to a blog. There also should be some biog deatails, if this ia a biography--Grahamec 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Delete In current form--Grahamec 12:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politics may have been involved in the article's creation. Andjam 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not troubled Google or Google Scholar. Nor can we justify based on Ross_McKitrick#Criticism_of_a_McKitrick_paper? Finding a bug in somebody's paper earns you a line in their page. It doesn't earn you a page of your own. If the article is expanded to outline some notable contribution, then keep as per everybody above. But if the article is not thusly expanded by the time this AFD closes, then it should be deleted. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently refraining from !voting, but the article lacks any reliable non-self-published sources. Andjam 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lecturer with a Blog is not as notable as a well published professor. nothing in the article or websearches I've done satisfies biographical requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have published anything. Hasn't really done anything notable, as far as I can see. Lankiveil 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not recognised as an authority or published by any mainstream media. No research accomplishments that distinguish him from thousands of other junior academics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goanna drinking (talk • contribs) .

Comment - first edit by Goanna drinking. User registered in 27 August, so appears to be a sleeper account. Andjam 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable enough. --Roisterer 06:43, 20 November 2006 (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter music

Harry Potter music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-encyclopedic, original research, fan and musical cruft. The article goes lengths to describe the music and its usage in the several Harry Potter films. Hedwig's Theme may be notable on itself, but there's hardly much that can be said about it. I loved the soundtracks but I can't really see any reason why we should keep this article. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the scores were Oscar nominees, making them notable. The movies themselves are acceptable sources for describing when a given theme appears. Topic itself seems encyclopedic. Some cleanup does need to be done, and sources are needed for some statements, but I don't see anything that merits deletion. Shimeru 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This article is rather crufty, it is true, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. One reason wikipedia is great is that sometimes you will find articles like this one that go into bizarre depth about a topic that on its face does not appear to merit such in-depth treatment. Allon Fambrizzi 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Keep Obviously the music in Harry Potter is an encyclopedic topic, as Harry Potter itself is. At the most, you'd move the information to the individual pages on the movie, or even an article on the album itself. So I don't see any benefit to deletion. If you have any specific problems with the content, tag the article, bring it up on the talk page, or fix it yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. If it was nominated and/or awarded an Oscar, it's something that can be considered encyclopedic. However, I do think that this article needs a lot of rewrite to avoid making it read like fancruft (at least, to me). It would also help if there are additional references/citations about any published studies/articles on the music score (say, from the film or music industry). Better still would be more details about the composition, orchestration, recording and editing of the score, replete with sources. --- Tito Pao 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge relevant information into Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (soundtrack) et al. Turn this page into a disambiguation page for the soundtracks. --RoninBK_ETC 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and major clean-up. As established above, it's notable, but the article certainly doesn't make it seem so. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge into respective film soundtrack articles. Although we could use Star Wars music as a guide for restructuring]].John Reaves 06:49, 20 November 2006 (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.

Rationale: If we were headcounting, it's 7 keeps, 6 deletes, 1 merge.

Of the 7 keeps, the 1st (and hence the 3rd), the 4th and 5th 'keep's are based on it winning an award that fails WP:V, and WP:RS. The 2nd 'keep' vote (from Vsion) makes no sense and I've discounted it. The 6th keep (Audiobooks) gives no reason to keep based on policy, just states the school is notable and that's it. 7th (Catbag) is another 'per above).

The school is not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources that show notability, which is the reason given to keep by 5 of the 7 keep voters. The argument to keep is not based on policy. The argument to keep is, therefore, weak.

The argument to delete is based on the fact that the school is not the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. This is based on a policy of Wikipedia. This is, therefore, a strong argument to delete.

The argument to delete is stronger than that to keep. Therefore, delete. Proto::type 12:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Non notable school, suggest deletion under WP:SCHOOL SkierRMH 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Meanwhile, I just reduced it to a stub because the entire thing was a cut and pasted copyright violation from http://www.fairmontschools.com/highschool.asp. wikipediatrix 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFacts are not subject to copyright. Perhaps someone who wants this article could 1) take the facts suitable for a Wikipedia article and write them up to inform about the school without a copyvio; and 2) find some newspaper references (academic awards, sports championships, whatever) to provide the "multiple independent sources" we require. Edison 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of, as the title states, being non notable. Aetherfukz 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a section at Anaheim, California and redirect. Nothing substantial here to warrant an individual article. RFerreira 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an International Baccalaureate school, part of the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and for being the largest and oldest non-sectarian private school in the area. Silensor 02:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over 50 years. --Vsion 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Assuming that indepedent sourcing can be found. Being a Blue Ribbon school is a claim of notability. JoshuaZ 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Delete per Pan Dan and Wikipediatrix's comments below. JoshuaZ 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of schools have been awarded by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and the schools nominate themselves. Therefore, it's not exactly a highly distinctive award of recognition. Various government agencies hand out blue ribbons like sticks of gum, to various entities for various reasons. I don't think it automatically imparts notability. wikipediatrix 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wikipediatrix. But we don't even have to argue the point in the abstract of whether being a Blue Ribbon school confers notability. We can just check to see whether multiple non-trivial sources independent of this school have taken note of its being a Blue Ribbon school. The answer is no (also checked Lexis-Nexis). So at least in this school's case, being a Blue Ribbon school doesn't help its case for notability. Pan Dan 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like most schools, this one does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. Oddly enough, zero results in a Lexis-Nexis search even of local papers. The attributes listed by Silensor can be argued to be claims to notability only if, at a minimum, they are noted by sources independent of the school. But as far as I can tell, they aren't. Pan Dan 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per silensor. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbons School Program, the highest award granted by the United States Department of Education. It may not be the Medal of Honor, but I'd rank it a notch below. For all those deletionist extremists who would like to claim that this award is no more valuable than a "stick of gum" or that the fact that "schools nominate themselves" diminishes its value in any way, here's the official description of the process: How Are Schools Chosen? The Department convenes the National Review Panel to evaluate the nominations. The panel consists of approximately 100 outstanding public and private school educators from the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. Based on the quality of the application, the most promising schools are recommended for site visits. The purpose of a visit is to verify the accuracy of the information the school has provided in its nomination form and to gather any additional information the panel has requested. Experienced educators, including principals of previously recognized schools, visit and observe the schools for two days and submit written site visit reports. The National Review Panel considers the reports in its final review of applicants and makes to the U.S. Secretary of Education, who then announces the names of the schools selected for recognition. Deletionism depends on ignorance and denial, and we see it here in action. Given the rigorous selection criteria for the program, I think it's clear that any school that has been awarded a Blue Ribbon has the strongest possible claim of notability. Alansohn 02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its hard to see something as a claim of notability when the school hasn't recieved in the least press coverage over it. Also, the claim that it is the "strongest possible claim of notability" seems to be hyperbole at best. Hopkins School, Eton, Stuyvesant and others have far stronger claims of notabilty. JoshuaZ 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reword for the benefit of those in denial of the explicit claim of notability: Recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program grants the recipient a claim that is among the strongest possible claims of notability for a school. Do you deny that the United States Department of Education thoroughly researches and verifies all applications and that the winners have demonstrated a clear level of achievement? In the continuum, is a school that has been so recognized no more notable than a stick of gum? Your claim re press coverage is entirely worthless. Do you believe that every 15-year-old newspaper article is available online, and that your fruitless efforts to find such an article prove anything? Is a source from the United States Department of Education not reliable and verifiable? This is deletionism at its worst. Alansohn 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not claiming that the statement is false but simply that we cannot find any sources. And if a source did exist it would likely turn up on Lexis-Nexis even if it were 15 years old. The bottom line is that we have no evidence whatsoever that this school's Blue Ribbon is all that notable, and if not a single news source saw fit to even mention it, it is difficult to see it as a claim of notability. JoshuaZ 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't trust the government for a lot of things, but do you think that the United States Department of Education is not a valid and reliable source for this information in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V. I think the selection criteria listed above and the fact that it is the nation's highest award for a school makes it one of the strongest possible claims of notability that an American school can possibly make? Besides, as the late, great Carl Sagan has been quoted, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Alansohn 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply re: do you think that the United States Department of Education is not a valid and reliable source for this information in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V: You misunderstand the issue here. The problem with the Blue Ribbon thing is notability, not just whether it's true. There has to be non-trivial coverage, independent of both the giver of the award and the recipient of the award, before you can begin to argue that the receiving of the award is notable. Of course, the giver and the recipient will both issue press releases, but that's not independent coverage, obviously. Also, the recipient may be included on lists of recipients of the award, or in wire service blurbs, but those aren't non-trivial. Now, re: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Please. We need evidence of appropriate sources to establish notability. We don't assume notability by default. Pan Dan 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another well-referenced, award winning school article. Looks like an obvious keeper to me based on our non-existent past and present guidelines on the subject. --JJay 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not established. If the award were truly distinguishing, the school's receiving of the award would garner non-trivial attention from independent sources. But here, apparently, even the local press ignored it. Pan Dan 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable school that won award!!! Audiobooks 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable award, non notable organization (IBO), and non notable claim to fame (the largest? It's hard to tell from the link, but it looks like it may be one of the smallest as well, when you narrow your category that far). No WP:V coverage that indicates anything beyond existing. (And please, don't close this kind of discussion as a clear keep when it is rather obvious that that is not the case). Fram 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; IBO is certainly a notable organization, by the way. Citing WP:SCHOOL is ridiculous as WP:SCHOOL is simply a proposal. Catbag 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I expressed myself incorrectly: I meant that receiving that award (Blue Ribbon) and being a member of the organization (IBO) not mean that you are notable (both events have not received much media coverage, it appears), but I erroneously said that the award and the organization in itself are not notable, which is of course something completely different and not true. 07:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.S.

Violation of WP:SPAM as nn business, advertisment SkierRMH 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ruijscx 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. One of the largest tour agencies in Japan, listed on TYO. Neier 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — for the same reason Neier just mentioned.--Endroit 17:53, 18 November 2006 (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KranX Productions

WP:SPAM advert, please see discussion on this page, the author states that he is working on it, however, the business ultimately is NN and no amount of work will bring it to notariety SkierRMH 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete read like an ad. Fails to assert notability, no sources. scope_creep 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Google search turns up over 22,000 hits, but only 185 are unique, most in Russian. The few in English back up the existence of the company, but nothing seems particularly notable about them. TheRealFennShysa 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was deleted under CSD G7 by User:Pgk.[63] -- Satori Son 21:40, 18 November 2006 (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. Punkmorten 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band Posers

Band Posers (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

NN "independent film". 40 G hits for "Band Posers" movie.-- Fang Aili ^talk 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up in school on day. "Band Posers took two months to edit, using Windows Movie Maker." hardly fills me with confidence. The claims about DVD sales revenues are unverified (as is everything else) and, going by the nom's ghits, it seem unlikely that they can be. A probable hoax. Also, shouldn't it be "Band Poseurs"?. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim

Delete as a high school amateur iMovies effort; non-notable and with no associated notable cast, crew or distributors. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 16 November 2006 (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 all. Proto::type 12:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EIFSA

EIFSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity. Issue came up after creation and same spam on NL-wiki. The so-called "organisation" and its website seem very amateuristic. User:Hsf-toshiba came up with the problem on NL-wiki, as he's into artistic roller skating , but doesn't know this "inline scating" "fedaration" however. Creator of the article has been advertising in the Artistic roller skating article too [64], too. Seems really non-professional project and vanity article about someones hobby and hobby site. LimoWreck 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

related nominations
Holiday On Inlines - advertising as well

Doubts on Inline Figure Skating - not nominated, but created by same user (or sockpuppet), and linkspam reverted by different users.

Samantha Bennis - vanity article of author, cross-posted on NL-wiki

Hi,
I don't understand what the problem is. We are a team promoting inline figure skating: that is our Mission Statement.
EIFSA and Holiday On Inlines use the same computer at offices in Rotterdam where Samantha, Stephanie and Gavin are located.
We are part of the administration of EIFSA and the Holiday On Inlines team:
EIFSA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EIFSA/
http://www.geocities.com/eifsa_web/
HOLIDAY ON INLINES: http://geocities.com/HolidayOnInlines
http://skatehead.xs4all.nl/cpg/index.php
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HolidayOnInlines/
Inline Figure Skating has been approved by FIRS and CIPA. All the relevant info is online:
http://www.geocities.com/eifsa_infos/
http://www.geocities.com/eifsa_infos/TECHNICAL_INFO.html
Inline Figure Skating is an off-ice training option for ice skaters and an extra competition discipline for quad artistic roller skaters.
There seems to be some strange resentment towards the growing popularity of Inline Figure Skating, which is understandable but some are behaving genuinely hateful about it. Discriminating against it is nothing to be proud of, it is downright tragic!
skatingly,
Samantha Bennis
Stephiesk8 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say and prove it yourself. An official national federation is fine on Wikipedia. A hobby team (using geocities and yahoo as website) is not notable however. Wikipedia is not the place for each local club or association to advertise their occupation. --LimoWreck 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I think they made the case against themselves just fine: lots of geocities and yahoo links. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination or anything else, Samantha/Steph. This has to do with standards of quality on the encyclopedia. This is not verified by any reliable source. - Che Nuevara 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organization has no official standing and no particular claim to notability. Any article people write to promote their own organizations is automatically suspect as vanity, too. Dr.frog 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish claim to notability-- No large number of googlehits, no non-trivial news reports. Basically, the problem is a lack of sufficient notability to have an encyclopedia article.
"European Inline Figure Skating Association" garners 35 unique/51 total google hits

Faciva search no hits.

122 unique out of 399 google hits for EIFSA -wikipedia.

no hits on Factiva for EIFSA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other links to related information:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/EIFSA/
http://www.frogsonice.com/skateweb/others.shtml
Artistic roller skating
USA Roller Sports -- the US governing body for roller skating.
Federation Internationale de Roller Sports
Roller Skating FAQs
European Inline Figure Skating Association
Inline skating FAQs
Speed skating info
Olympics
International Olympic Committee home page
US Olympic Committee
Dansescape.com -- competitive ballroom dancing and dance sport
Gymn-Forum.com -- gymnastics FAQs and info
http://www.frogsonice.com/skateweb/others.shtml

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. Proto::type 12:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Films

The Films (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Band with no claim of passing WP:BAND. Tagged speedy and de-tagged with edit comment "rm tag, signed to major label; expand". WP:BAND says the guideline is two albums on a major label, not signed to work on one album. Weregerbil 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. On whose authority do we have it that they have signed to Warner (as it says in the infobox and nowhere else)? No sources. A search on Google for "the films" and "warner" proves quite fruitful, but then - think about it, it would wouldn't it?! When they release something on the label, maybe they can come back. Bubba hot ep 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete, while WP:BAND also mentions notable indie labels, the band's old label is not notable enough (I checked), and even if it were, they only have one album on that label. Xtifr _tälk 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tour info provided by Jeff puts them a lot closer, but not quite, IMO. Anyway, this whole discussion is several times larger than the entire article. It won't hurt anyone to delete this tiny stub for now and recreate it once better evidence of notability is found. Xtifr _tälk 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would make us lose a notable, verifiable article. So yes, it will hurt the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One click onto their Myspace page shows that they're in the midst of an international tour. They meet WP:MUSIC, so keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the band's myspace page hardly counts as a reliable source, now, does it? As I said, I did some checking already, and found no verifiable evidence of notability. If you can do better, please feel free. Xtifr _tälk 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can, actually. WP:V notes that "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be confirmed by checking the venue sites (linked from their website). Not sure if they count as verifiable sources, or if WP:MUSIC asks for media sources, so I'm relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself meets WP:V, which is the point. WP:MUSIC requires a national tour, and we have verification. Done deal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you should probably add it to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC does want tour information "reported in notable and verifiable sources". Which makes sense to me, as otherwise it's just too easy to lie about. I could claim to be in the middle of an international tour on my own MySpace page (if I had one). For that matter, I've driven around the country. If I'd taken my guitar and played in parking lots, would I deserve a Wikipedia article? Xtifr _tälk 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I look to WP:V for what constitutes a verifiable source. Meanwhile, if you toured the country, yes, you would. Meanwhile, I have to add this touring info to the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:MUSIC scope_creep 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC is not a speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 20:30, 20 November 2006 (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Chiariglione

WP:BIO, although there is one 'claim to fame', it doesn't appear that there is much substantiation of this, as well as questioning notariety, brought to attention for discussion SkierRMH 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He's all over the web like a rash. Needs source, but as the inventor of MPEG 1 Layer 3 make him very notable. This was the codec standard, that led to MPEG 3, i.e MP3. A real scientist. Check this out. http://www.drmwatch.com/standards/article.php/3094961 scope_creep 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Inventor of MP3 is a HUGE amount of notability. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Need a source? How about ranked number 19 in Time Magazine's "Digital 50" [65], the magazine's listing of what they consider the 50 most important people in the history of modern technology. --Oakshade 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the person ultimately behind one of the biggest software inventions of the last 20 years he's definitely notable, there's barely a person in the western world who hasn't heard of MP3 and his work was important on that. Ben W Bell talk 08:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He's the inventor of the MP3. Come on now. Also, I'd say being recognized in this manner by TIME. --The Way 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is not really the inventor of MP3 but he led all the works related to MPEG; he created the MPEG (moving picture experts group) and chaired it from the beginnig i.e. for over 20 years. If not the inventor, at least he is at the origin of MPEG standards for video (used on DVDs) for Audio (mp3 being one instance of MPEG audio standards) and obtained a Grammy award for this work. However, this bio has tio be completely rewriten to stick to his exact titles of fame, who are numerous enough. Liagushka 21:28, 18 November 2006 (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.
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kiruba shankar~~

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 Speedied per request. Tawker 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaris

Lazaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Exactly. Utter utter utter <put expletive here>. scope_creep 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... vanity? OR? Unverifiable? I'm not sure which policy exactly to call on, but I'm going to go with most of them. Delete. - Che Nuevara 22:38, 16 November 2006 (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 ~ trialsanderrors 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perry V. Wade

Perry V. Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-noteable artist. A Google search for "'Perry Wade' artist" yields 94 results, including several instances like "Art & Artists in the Smithsonian Libraries' Collections · other resources ... Perry, Wade, AAPG, Details. Perry, Walter Scott, 1855-1934, AAPG," where Perry and Wade are adjacent through coincidence in a list of other people. Consequentially 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Failing to assert any notability whatsover scope_creep 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by reputable, reliable, third-party sources. See WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 06:04, 22 November 2006 (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 157: / Line 157: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Films}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Chiariglione}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kiruba}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kiruba shankar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazaris}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry V. Wade}}

Revision as of 22:15, 16 November 2006

Substubs about Unitarian Universalist Association Districts