Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy redirect. NB. This AfD was never included in the log. -- RHaworth 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because your mom is wiki worthy doesn't mean you are! Postcard Cathy 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merging possible as an editorial decision that wouldn't require an AFD. W.marsh 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thesis

This article does not meet WP:MUSIC standards and also has no articles linking. Idioma 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reviews under google search for The Ambassador The Thesis. Carried by amazon.com. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC does not list being sold on Amazon.com as establishing notability; they carry many items created by non notable artists and writers. I could not find any notable reviews of the album. Idioma 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now - if the artist survives afd, then they pass notability. if a band is notable, their albums are as well. the_undertow ^talk 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'll agree with undertow, if the artist passes, this album should too. But I'd also like to see some more info on this album rather than just the track listing (i.e. a little summary at the beginning, "The thesis is The Ambassador's 2nd full length album, it was produced by...") - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request This AFD should be shut down and the article linked with the band's AFD, since per WP:MUSIC if the band is notable there albumn will be--Dacium 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "the undertow". Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In principle I suppose if this person survives AfD then the albums could be listed, but there's nothing here but a track listing. In any case, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. But I agree with Dacium that this AfD will rise or fall with the artist's AFD. bikeable (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per Bikeable's comments. Also per nomination. Jmlk17 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request I concur with Dacium that this depends on the status of the artists. Section four of WP:MUSIC says Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.JodyB 11:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the_undertow. If the band is notable, so is their album. It should definitely be improved. mako (talk•contribs) 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep pending artist's evaluation. Keep if the artist stays, delete if the artist doesn't. // 3R1C 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not all records from all acts are notable, for notability means standing out from the average. Some artists make average or failed records, and some artists are only significant themselves for a single record. To try to borrow fame to such an extent and lend it to every effort is reckless. Utgard Loki 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info back to the artist's article. That's probably a better place for it at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tony Fox. As long as the article remains content-free (nothing but a track listing), there really isn't any reason for it to be separate from the artist's article. Assuming the artist is found notable (I think he is . . . mildly), then if someone later wants to add some actual content about the album itself, it could be split into its own article at that time, per the WP:MUSIC guideline cited by JodyB. Mwelch 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have elicited images of a beat-boxing jesus in my imagination, and for this I thank you. --Infrangible 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing but a track listing: arguably speedy-deletable as {{db-empty}}. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical counseling

Entirely WP:OR. Not a single reliable source is referenced in this article. It is not even established that this subject is notable enough in the field of counseling to deserve an article. In any case, we delete OR even if notability is established. Currently it is my assessment that there is nothing salvageable in the article unless a whole bunch of sources can be found. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is basically correct. I think the basics that some German philosopher founded a counseling practice may be notable, and that does have a source in the external links. By the nature of things, fringe subjects like this will be written by people who have a POV partial to that subject. That's the problem here. YechielMan 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably noteworthy, but needs an almost total rewrite - including sources that are a bit better then "A whole pile of resources". As it is now, it is an essay advertising philosophical counseling. DLX 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form, and re-create with altogether new content as an article for the Society for Philosophy in Practice. The group thinks it owns the term, but there is no support for that in the references. The article for the group, of course, would not contain any of the material of the general usefulness of philosophy which comprises the entire body of the article. The only content worth saving would be the references, all of which relate to the group, not to the concept, so there's no point is just retitling. One of these references is naively listed as "Website of Peter B. Raabe, Ph.D., author of an early version of the above article" The group thinks it owns the article, just as it thinks it owns the term. There have been a number of attempts of various schools of therapy and martial arts to choose a generic name, and try to make it their own, using WP to establish the usage, rather than the other way around. DGG 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is entirely original research. the_undertow ^talk 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little in there that isn't original research wouldn't make a decent stub. Coren 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its own sources sum it up "not yet established and known to the public as a professional service". Most references are so vague I could not even find a comment to Philosophy or found only a passing mention of it. Others have no notibility and definatly not reliable sources. Would keep if in general it was better referenced AND in some why shows why it is notable.Dacium 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Original Research doesn't belong here. Jmlk17 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research = delete. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kassierer

Non-notable and unsourced. Addhoc 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YechielMan 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.They are a very well known punk band in the German underground scene.Please note the German article [1] and the recent tribute album with many features who are notable -Lemmy- 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the existence of a completely unsourced article on the German Wikipedia isn't persuasive. If the article is unverifiable, it should be deleted. Addhoc 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources and practically no content in the article.--Kubigula (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that could even pass off as an assertion of notability, let alone a properly sourced one. Coren 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails notability plain and simple. Xtreme racer 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not provide anything to show compliance with WP:MUSIC nor notable in any othe way (per WP:N)--Dacium 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and lack of notability. Jmlk17 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was extinguish. Krimpet (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLAME (Album)

This article does not establish WP:MUSIC standards and is only linked to by the artists web page which I have also nominated for deletion. Idioma 12:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BURN this article and the other one. Not notable, not even close. YechielMan 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to even suggest notability. —Cuiviénen 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the artist's article is up for deletion as well, but seems to be on the consensus of "keep". But this article sucks, and should be deleted, unless some cleanup and good expansion could be done. Jmlk17 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notablity asserted. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nica (toponym)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, at wikt:Transwiki:Nica (toponym) (The article's history doesn't show this, as it has been deleted via Prod and remade since then). No point in making this a redirect anywhere, with the parentheses in the name and all. Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nica as described is not a toponym (i.e., a name of a place) but rather a perjorative ethnonym; if kept, it needs to be renamed. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It's been transwikied already. This is CSD fodder. Coren 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coren. YechielMan 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since transwiky. Dictionary def. --Dacium 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Shouldn't even be up here, should be speedy deleted. Jmlk17 05:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clacket Lane

Page about a music band. A speedy-delete developed into a long inconclusive discussion about its notability in Talk:Clacket Lane. Anthony Appleyard 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is still provisionally for deletion, as the concerns I shared at length with the article's creators on its talk page have yet to be addressed in any concrete way. The article still reads more like one of the local band promo-packet cover letters I used to write in college than a Wikipedia article. Specifically, the article is still a glorified résumé of no discernable value to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more information about the band. Still gathering info! IndieRobLB 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where's that non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, published secondary sources that we all seem to care about? -- Ekjon Lok 17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of secondary sources do you want quoting? 08:52, 28 April 2007 User:81.179.238.200

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Weak delete For what it's worth, their (minor) claim to fame is verifiable: They do have an EP published on iTunes. Coren 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I did not know that the bar to get on iTunes was so low. This is a Good Thing(tm) for indies because they don't need a big label, and not notability anymore then. Coren 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to self-publish music on iTunes through CD Baby, among other services. Having your music on iTunes isn't a claim of notability. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two singles on i-tunes is no where near enough for WP:MUSIC - "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" They don't even come close for the other categories of acceptance.--Dacium 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i cant find any evidence that they received the airplay the article claims. the_undertow ^talk 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Coren, and their album could bring about a rise in fame. Jmlk17 05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of my writing, the articles claims notability through retail sales, radio airplay and a music video which is receiving play. There is much work to be done however such as properly sourcing the claims and getting a photo not made on a cell phone. JodyB 11:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Attempts made at attribution insufficient. - SpLo T // 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This reads like a band promotion or an advertisement. If someone rewrites it with references and more information, I'll be happy with keeping it. As it is though, it's hard to get excited about. mako (talk•contribs) 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:NN. A directed search on Google UK (minus Wikipedia, Myspace and the band's website) turns up a desperately unexciting 45 hits. [2]. Ravenswing 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. // 3R1C 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not signed, not distributed, not on the charts, not in Wikipedia. Utgard Loki 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the record label has three bands, of which these guys are referred to as the 'big project'; with no albums out, and minimal outside references, they just don't meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - fails WP:Music. Horribly POV - doesn't mention that they are named after an M25 motorway service station; but goes into great detail on where the pubs are on their current tour! Rgds, --Trident13 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded parts of article so as not to sound POV.... 12:30, 1 May 2007 User:62.6.164.210

Perhaps the best thing is to tag the article accordingl and see what happens.Jackfirst 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mako Madness

Article is for a non notable local shark fishing tournament. Cannot find any sources that show the controversy section actually happened. None of the external links provided mention 'Mako Madness'. A google search for Mako Madness, Montauk 1 shows nothing relevant Davewild 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A shark fishing tournament?? Ha ha. YechielMan 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i cant find an article about this particular event. we have mako madness here in The OC, so it's probably a generic term. the_undertow ^talk 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be HOAX in reguards to the 1993 story. Not reliable independant sources to show event is notable (or indeed even exists)--Dacium 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above and nomination. Probable hoax or embellishment. Jmlk17 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney McKnight

Lack of notability. I know that there are those who will say that being in the Olympics is in itself sufficient for notabilty. I respectfully disagree. Something needs to be published about the person, other than the barebones Canadian Olympic Committee database bio and the one line entries in newspaper tables that report the Olympics. Sidney McKnight has no other publication existance. --Bejnar 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely something was published at the time, and we're not judging a 1976 athlete by 2007 web results? --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I searched Lexis and newspaperarchive.com (both for-pay services) and found no articles about him, just single line entries about his defeat in Olympic results tables. I did find out a fair amount about a non-notable Sidney McKnight in Greenville, Mississippi in the 1950s. --Bejnar 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO says "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." are notable. Is already marked as stub. Will be expanded eventually...--Dacium 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being in the Olympics is in itself sufficient for notability. The nominator is respectfully disagreeing with established Wikipedia policy and that's no basis on which to delete this article. Expanding an article like this, not deleting it, would be a better use of his time. Nick mallory 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with Dacium that amateur boxers in the olympics are themselves notable. Also, I agree with Nick Mallory concerning expansion, not deletion.--Thomas.macmillan 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They did box in the Olympics...pretty dang notable for some! Jmlk17 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lappe Nordic Ski Club

This is a respectable ski club, but at the end of the day, it's still a ski club. I don't think it's notable. YechielMan 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly formatted, but I think sports clubs in general have enough notability when the members include Olympic athletes and multiple members of the national teams. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not provide anything to show how it could/would pass WP:ORG / WP:CORP etc. No verifiable notibility.--Dacium 01:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares about some random ski club? Delete, as per nomination and Dacium's comments. Jmlk17 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to show notability through secondary sources and fails to even assert national or international notability. JodyB 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many famous and notable skiers in the club including olympic athletes. Most ski clubs don't belong but this one does. It should be reformatted and fixed but not deleted. mako (talk•contribs) 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Our own assertions of notability don't mean squat. It's what the sources say that counts. Ned Wilbury 14:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Assertions of notability are not the same thing as proofs of notability, and there are no sources to back up these claims. Even if claims that "notable" atheletes had trained there prove valid, I'm not sure "So-and-so trained here" is a criterion for notability, anyway. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // 3R1C 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really nothing worth making encyclopedic. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Arbustoo 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -(Blank) Not verifiable, and not likely to be verifiable in the foreseeable future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German names of English movies

WP:NOT#IINFO, exactly the same reasons that Comic book names in Finnish was unanimously deleted last week. This article was prodded a few weeks ago but the creator removed the prod. Saikokira 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also make an article for Russian names of English movies, and Spanish names of English movies, and Swahili names of English movies...or we could just delete this one. YechielMan 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sad delete - i was just drinking last night with my buddies and was like, 'what is Blades of Glory in german?' this could have been useful. sadly, it is an arbitrary list, not fit for inclusion. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a list of random translations of names.--Dacium 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dacium. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nomination, as well as uselessness of article. Besides, many movies have different names in foreign languages, and are not just direct translations. Jmlk17 05:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsc83 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. JodyB 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons. But maybe an article (not a list) about the names of English movies in foreign languages/countries could be made. Vinnivince 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. - SpLo T // 12:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure how this could go down any other way than a delete, all it is is a page of name translations. Not encyclopedic material. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete. I'm a big fan of movies, especially SF, but this is obscure. Bearian 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all other deletes. Acalamari 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have to say I laughed out loud (for real!) at Undertow's comment, but I agree with him. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, I believe, is the key for this. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, tell me this: Why is there no German translation for the name The Rocky Horror Picture Show? --Infrangible 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Power covers

A list of covers is just fancruft that isn't encyclopedic. Put this on a Nintendo Wiki of some sort, it certainly isn't suitable for Wikipedia itself. RobJ1981 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love nintendo power this isn't encylopedic and could never expand past a picture gallery. DBZROCKS 12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no picture gallery, and can't be, since that would violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. *** Crotalus *** 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not encyclopedic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, because I loved Nintendo Power, the article is certainly encyclopedic, and picture gallerys are fun and enjoyable to look at. --172.133.4.245 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no picture gallery, and can't be, since that would violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. *** Crotalus *** 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-As a note: this user has only 1 other edit (as of now) outside of this AFD. RobJ1981 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --As an added note, his reasoning was terrible. "Speedy keep because it's fun and I love it!!!" pretty much. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think there is a speedy keep.

Yes there is but this doesn't qualify. Otto4711 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Lots of the magazines here have a list of covers. This certainly needs a cleanup. It gives a good reference, a good listing and links to games, and all-around, a good article to keep. You WILL be hearing from me if this deleted. TheListUpdater 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a very good way to come off as: "If a majority of people disagree with me, I will make a big deal over it and fight them!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of things on the cover of a game magazine. Otto4711 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft. Wikipedia is not a dump for random lists. Coren 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Supports the main article with historic data enough to be valid in my opinion. To much info to fit on the main article page. I do not blieve WP:NOT holds up, and 'fancruft' is not a valid reason to delete--Dacium 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources (or any sources at all, as far as I can see); full of trivia. *** Crotalus *** 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete seriously, this is about as trivial as it gets. JuJube 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Important and famous magazine for one of the most successful and still ongoing video game companies in human history. --172.129.74.92 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous technology of Command & Conquer

WP:NOT - another collection of misc information about in-game technology with no real world impact - should be deleted as per previous discussions about the importance (not much) of fictional video game technology. Fredrick day 14:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.Dr bab 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article is not a game guide, nor is it indsicrimite. Technology plays a very vital role in the Command and Conquer series. Also noting a large ammount of AfD by Fredrick Day on this topic. He's just going on a witchunt, aliong with the typical fad of deleting anything that dioes not stand up in their eyes. --Eldarone 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this complies with WP:FICT point #2. While it is relatively minor overall, it is has an important part in the series (much like the pages on GDI and Nod technology). --Gamer007 09:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. The article is neither indiscriminate nor a game guide. Per WP:FICT articles may be created if encyclopedic treatment results in bloating parent article to unacceptable levels. Peptuck 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia doesn't need these "miscellaneous" guides. Important information should be put on a general technology page. RobJ1981 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It's arguably background material for a fictional setting. Coren 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The question is off being of major or minor significance per WP:FICT. I would say its just major enough that it needs to be mentioned and too much to fit in well on other pages so it has its own page.--Dacium 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi-ist

lol BLATANT original research and frankly not even funny. Kez 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly some horrible combination of original research, neologisms. --Haemo 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origanl research and neologism, not verifiable and not notable also.--Dacium 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have nothing else to say about it. +A.0u 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete complete nonsense. Editing Maniac 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because interesting. --172.162.65.72 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly stupid. And not even funny, like nomination said. Jmlk17 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Dacium. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No clear consensus for redirect. Krimpet (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of democratic states

Two reasons for deletion: one, it's somewhat redundant now that we have Freedom House's list of democratic states. Two, the definition of a democracy is endlessly controlversial. For instance, just looking at this list I can see the following countries that one could seriously argue are not democratic: Algeria, Armenia, Chad, DR Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Russia, Singapore, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen. Conversely, one might wonder why Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Solomon Islands and Tanzania are missing from the list. The point is, this can go back and forth forever, at least without some sort of standard for "democratic". Until that emerges, though, let's just keep the Freedom House list. Biruitorul 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Freedom House list. YechielMan 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this the wrong way around? We should have our own list.--Dacium 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps, but using what standards? Our list did use Freedom House until two days ago, so I am open to compromise on this point. Biruitorul 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freedom House list. I think having the source's name right in the title would prevent users from adding countries based on original research and perhaps national pride. The definition of "democracy" is not set in stone. --Charlene 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Jmlk17 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be nigh-on impossible to keep this list NPOV. I would oppose a redirect to the Freedom House list, as to some extent that could also be viewed as POV and an endorsement of their list as to what consititutes "democracy". --RFBailey 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such a list is akin to someone having a list of great songs. It is inherently POV. I don't think the Freedom House's list of democratic states is really any less POV. It is a judgment based on their own subjective criteria. Therefore a redirect doesn't work for me. JodyB 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "without major flaws in their elections" is a POV already. MaxSem 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I agree with YechielMan. This should redirect to Freedom House's list of democratic states. Strange that it didn't do this before. If it had, we could avoided this. mako (talk•contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that a redirect to the Freedom House list is appropriate, either, as it implies some kind of "official endorsement" of their list by the Wikipedia community. Not to mention it has 0 sources, itself. Probably just a matter of someone pulling up the link and tacking it on there somewhere, but, it just seems bad form to suggest redirects to articles in poor shape themselves. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and as unsourced WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per RFBailey. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted, maybe we should change the name to "list of multiparty nations without major election flaws". I just made the standard for a nation to be on the list to having no major flaws in their elections, which would be little or no election fraud. QZXA2 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strictly speaking, a Republic is not a true Democracy. --Infrangible 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Changing the title as suggested isn't going to help, as "major flaws" is an inherently POV term (what might be a "major flaw" to me might be "how we do business here" for at least one country a few flying hours from me which will remain nameless). Redirecting isn't a great idea either, since I'm not convinced that the list people are suggesting it be redirected to is a great idea for an article as is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.SlideAndSlip 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: changing the title as suggested by User:QZXA2 would not improve this article's case for staying; after all, what is a "major flaw"? Some might argue that what happened in Florida when George Bush was elected was a "major flaw" in that system. By all means keep the Freedom House list, as it indicates whose POV is being used. But that should be balanced by the existence of similar lists produced by other organisation (e.g. Amnesty International might have one, and there are probably lists produced by various governments). I'm also amazed this page has taken so long to reach AfD: it's been around for over two years! --RFBailey 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: if we do find other lists, then I'd say we should delete FH, move that here, and put the other lists in this article too. After all, we don't want one article for each separate list! Biruitorul 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: maybe, but until such a time, this one should go and the FH one should stay where it is, so that it does exactly what it says on the tin. --RFBailey 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect/Salt title, per nom. Dahn 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Freedom House's list, which is the standard one for this topic -- per nom, and many others. Turgidson 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: on what basis is, or should, Freedom House's list be "the standard one for this topic"? Their list is inherently POV. I'm not saying their POV is wrong necessarily wrong, but it's still a point of view nontheless. --RFBailey 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far as I know, Freedom House is the premier organization putting out such a listing, see Freedom in the World. POV or non-POV, it's the yardstick by which all other listings are measured against. Other candidates are listed at Indices of Economic Freedom; see also List of indices of freedom. We're not talking absolutes here: WP merely reflects the reality out there, and the reality is defined by the existing indices -- and we're talking about listings put out by well-established, reputable organizations, based on sound methodology. Am I missing something? Turgidson 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your reply doesn't really answer my question. On what basis are Freedom House "the premier organization putting out such a listing"? Why should their list be a "yardstick"? Prior to a couple of days ago I'd never even heard of them, but from what I've read since then, they appear to be a predominantly US-centric organisation. Please remember that Wikipedia is an international project, and lists with other perspectives are also needed. --RFBailey 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What can I say, the links I put up above are the ones I know of in WP. If you know of other organizations that put out similar lists of comparable recognition, go ahead and let us know. In the meantime, I'll go with what WP has, which looks good enough to me. Turgidson 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Before we get side-tracked abouts the merits or otherwise of Freedom House, I should reiterate what I'm arguing for. In principle, "List of X" should never redirect to "some organisation's POV list of X", especially a US-centric one (or, for that matter, a UK-centric one, a Japan-centric one, or a France-centric one, etc.). That could be construed as an endorsement by Wikipedia of that POV. --RFBailey 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, perhaps you could AfD the FH list so we can see what happens. Biruitorul 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I've stated above, I don't have a problem with keeping the FH list, as it is quite clear whose POV it has. The issue I have is that we shouldn't redirect to it from List of democratic states: the presence of the redirect is what implies the endorsement, not the fact that the FH list exists. --RFBailey 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK. Biruitorul 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming this list to "list of nations with no reported election fraud"? QZXA2

I'm not convinced that that's a particularly encyclopedic topic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect per RFBailey. JPD (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest film releases

WP:NOT#DIR - loosely associated topics, the films have nothing in common other than managing to stay on general release for more than 27 weeks (which isn't even a measure of success, because number 2 on the list is a film I've never heard of, My Brother's Keeper). The fact that 27 weeks was chosen as the cut-off point seems arbitrary. Also, these aren't the longest film releases, they're the longest film releases in the US. Saikokira 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment twenty-seven weeks isn't arbitary: it equates to "over six months". Tompw (talk) (review) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, second movie isn't even a movie. FrozenPurpleCube 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The second movie had an erroneous wikilink, which I have now fixed. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Unnecessary list and odd cut-off point, but I'm sure there can be somewhere else to put this list. A box office-related Wiki page perhaps? Lemmy12 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources listed; I can't even figure out where this information came from. Granted, I'm not the most skillful researcher in the world, but as is, the article fails WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Useless article, with useless criteria. Jmlk17 05:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, WP:ATT, and even WP:CSB, since this is only a list of the longest first-run movie releases in the United States, and not a list of the longest film releases. --Charlene 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. There is only one substantive link to the article and the material could be worked into that article as a simple table. JodyB 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I find this information at least as interesting as many other lists in Wikipedia and wouldn't mind keeping it around. That said, it should definitely be renamed so its clear that the releases are US specific and expanded to included other less lengthy long releases. A list that is arbitrary cut off at just a handful of entries seems silly but I see no reason to do that. mako (talk•contribs) 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shovel the dirt over it: (1) No sources, none whatsoever. (2) No definition - what do they mean? First run? The movie is in some theater somewhere? (3) It's just plain inaccurate. Titanic was in first run release in my area at the time for over a year, and it's not reflected in a list that bottoms out at half that span. RGTraynor 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's one movie theatre that's had The Sound of Music on its daily playbill since 1965. --Charlene 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I believe it, and probably some place has had Gone With The Wind up for sixty years. Does that constitute a "release?" It's sounding more POV-ish by the moment. RGTraynor 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (a) There were cinemas in the French & Belgian Channel ports that showed A Clockwork Orange continuously for 27 years (from Kubrick's refusal to release it in the UK through to his death), shouldn't that be up there? (b) WTF is a film that grossed $1.3 million doing at #2 and (c) hopelessly indiscriminate list of inaccurate information
Strong keep. Arguments above tend to relate to editing article rather than its deletion. Revise to reflects these points. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America Libre - A novel by Raul Ramos y Sanchez

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published iUniverse book that fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOOK. Please also nominate its author page Raul Ramos y Sanchez for WP:BIO failure as only notibility is this book, which isn't notable (yet).--Dacium 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will also vote to delete Raul Ramos y Sanchez when it's nominated. JuJube 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A published novel has God knows how many readers and so definitely deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. --172.129.74.92 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And so I add my vote. An AfD nomination for Raul Ramos y Sanchez has now been created. Victoriagirl 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Blatant advertising, and a failed book equal DELETE! Jmlk17 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOOK. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and WP:BK at 2.1.2 JodyB 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Selfpublished book, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. mako (talk•contribs) 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If "God knows" how many people read this book, perhaps He can provide some sources to that effect. Lacking the same omniscient oversight - or at least reliable sources - means I have to opine to delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and my comment to discussion for AfD of Raul Ramos y Sanchez. Bearian 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above arguments --Haemo 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.SlideAndSlip 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason a self published book should be included is if there is substantial verifiable evidence of many copies sold and critical approval. While simply being a self published book is not bad, the burden is on the book to prove itself as notable, rather than the author. --Entoaggie09 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cook

Non-notable "cowboy" who's not sure when he was born (maybe as a result of being struck by lightning twice?) I'm joking, but his main claim to notability appears to be as a musician, so he fails WP:MUSIC/WP:N. Saikokira 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial assertion of notability; I'm a bit dubious of the article's claims without any reliable sources being cited. +A.0u 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Jmlk17 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look and couldn't see anything for WP:MUSIC standards--Dacium 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even his own website offers little in the way of notability.JodyB 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No assertion of notability, no sources, doesn't remotely pass WP:BIO, no nothing. (His website is about ten times as interesting as the article, and one almost wonders why the creator bothered.) RGTraynor 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (as I agree with R.G. Traynor's parenthetical comments). Bearian 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Positive It is important to note that not everything notable is something searchable on the web. Especially in the point of Cowboys and characters who are not of the Net generation. Jon Cook is responsible for writing over 250 Songs, which have been aired in colorado, wyoming, and montana. He tours the cowboy poetry circuits Such as the Desert Song Music Festival His notariaty can be verified by any of thousands of local residents of Grand County Colorado. --Loganis 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More References of notability http://www.jameshurleymusic.com/news.html search for joncook.org--Loganis 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing in WP:V requires that sourcing be done on the Web; the policy requires "reliable, independent, published sources." Have there been newspaper articles about Mr. Cook? Books? TV shows or interviews? No one disputes he exists, but when it comes to it, Wikipedia's irreducible requirement for an article is that it have such sources, and if none can be found for the subject, the article cannot remain. RGTraynor 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Worth Researching more, its a stub.--Jlcook 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES there have been several articles and reviews written on Jon Cook as a performer singer songwriter, he was recently on the front page of the A news paper in Colorado. If you would give me a few days to put some more research I can add such sources as content for this site. AS for today I have go to a wedding this weekend so it will be somewhat delayed. This is a well known cowboy poet and songwriter, and worth the article on wiki. --Loganis 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I stumbled over this article, just wanted to say he's a respectable singer/songwriter in the american western folk circles, seen him play a few times in north park. Sort of a local hero / legend character.--Jesusthathurts 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More - I am still working on the research, it is exceedingly difficult to pull articles from these coloradan news papers as they have zero online presence, I know he's been on several radio stations in different states and I am working on compiling a list including 103.9 FM KRKY, he's been played from Washington to Kansas, just need more time for the offline research.--Loganis 12:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhasta

This article is about a single hero from DotA Allstars. Not even used I guess-- @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:00, November 3, 2024 (UTC) 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't seem to be that encyclopediac.--Sefringle 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to just need a cleanup and a wikify. Jmlk17 05:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially a game guide. There is no encylopedic value - you certainly can't go into detail like this guide has listing attributes of a single character of a single map! Merge the name of the character to maps page.--Dacium 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft: if you own the game, you already know. If you don't, you won't care. Telling people what they have to already know is not the function of an encyclopedia. Utgard Loki 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ermintrude of Nard

No hits from google for "Ermintrude of Nard" and two hits on "Saint Ermintrude" questioning whether such a person exists. Almost certainly a hoax. Sopoforic 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put the original {{hoax}} tag on the article, giving a chance for the editor to source the claims. No source miraculously appeared. Coren 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and nothing to show for the tag. Jmlk17 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no place in Tunisia called Nard historically. She is not the "patron saint of feeding the hungry" - there is no such thing in the Roman Catholic Church, although the little-known St. Alvin of the Pyrenees is the patron saint of the hungry. A Tunisian in 270AD would not likely carry a blatantly Saxon name such as Ermintrude. No record of her in John Paul II's online published writings. Nothing at catholic.org's list of saints. The article says she was beatified, but not that she was canonized - canonization is what makes someone recognized as a saint. Sounds like a hoax to me. --Charlene 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a hoax to me. I particularly enjoyed "The Feast of Saint Ermintrude is on the 30th April. On this day it is traditional to prune your rose bushes.". BTLizard 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same user added it to the April 30 calendar page and someone has already removed it. It's a hoax. JodyB 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Cunning hoaxter, isn't he? BTLizard 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little too cunning. It was that which brought this to my attention; I have finals this week, so I was looking for a convenient saint to ask for help, and behold I find Saint Ermintrude of Nard. Such a pity. --Sopoforic 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly hoaxy, zero sources. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, it'all clear.Speedy Delete. This thing is wasting our time. Stammer 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above, and not an Episcopal Feast, either. Bearian 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC) --- I knew this sounded suspiciously cribbed from a real saint, i. e., Saint Zita of Lucca, Italy [3] [4] and especially[5]. Bearian 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) P.S., Nard or Spikenard was the oil that Mary, sister of Lazarus annointed Jesus Christ of Nazareth, see cited articles. Bearian 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. It's like Arsène Lupin contre Herlock Sholmès.Stammer 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax to me too. --Haemo 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic. --Infrangible 01:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax.SlideAndSlip 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York). Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arlingtonian

This appears to be a non-notable high school newspaper publication. The biggest claim to notability seems to be winning some regional awards (which I presume means countywide or within a size smaller than a state). Nothing in here makes it seem to stand out from the thousands of other high school publications that schools put out each year. Metros232 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York). There's already a section on the student newspaper there which can be expanded without obliterating the rest of the article. A high school newspaper does not deserve its own article. YechielMan 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then redirect to main school article.Madmedea 12:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email address validator

Doesn't appear like a proper encyclopedic article. All the page contains is some code with no explanation on what it does, and some links. No other articles link to this one. --FlyingPenguins 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all of this info can be found on E-mail address, and the code is certainly non-encyclopedic. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Yang. Jmlk17 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository of code snippets. -- The Anome 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. --RFBailey 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not what Wikipedia is for. BTLizard 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per all of the above reasons stated. Fluffybun 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above JodyB 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima /talk/ 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good to see my favorite fake email address: eat@myButt.com passes unscathed. --Infrangible 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki There must be a javascript programming wikibook that could use this as an example. If there isn't, there should be one. JulesH 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.SlideAndSlip 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't belong on Wikipedia in this format. --Nehrams2020 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction Press

I personally have no vested interest in whether or not this article gets deleted or not, but it appears that User:JustinMullins has unilaterally recreated this article, as opposed to User:Aaron Brenneman's speedy delete on the grounds that it was: an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject, a claim that was upheld through deletion review. The deletion of the original FictionPress article (now a redirect) was, in my opinion, poorly handled, so I'd like to give it a throw through the official Afd gauntlet. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - not enough information If it's to be deleted, you might want to also consider deleting FanFiction.Net. I don't find either website fascinating, and I don't know how to find out if hundreds of thousands of people have actually written the words on those websites. If all those people have actually posted that stuff, the websites are obviously attractive and well-known. But the websites also might be generating credibility via their Wikipedia articles' high-listing on Google search. Is there some way to find out if the articles in FanFiction.Net and and Fiction Press are truly written by individuals or somehow concocted by the website owner(s)? Technically, I believe the thing could be a big fraud. But it might not be. Can someone contact the website owner(s) and request verification of independent user submission of content? If these websites are truly serving a popular desire to publish fiction online, I'd say the websites are notable and should be listed in Wikipedia. If it's all a fraud, we still might want to keep the articles -- but say that these websites are a fraud. We're here for the readers. --SueHay 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SueHay, a thoughtful response, but the existence of other bad articles has no bearing on this nomination. While one may intuit popularity from a website's usage statistics, popularity is not notability. (Also, Wikipedia uses nofollow in external links, so we ourselves do not influence Google PageRank, although some mirrors may.) The website owners may well provide "verification", but their assurances would still fail our verifiability policy as they cannot be easily falsified. The police we stick to is attribution of claims of notability or importance from reliable, independent sources.--Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. Fiction Press is a spin-off from the FanFiction.Net website. I didn't mean to bring up an unrelated article. And I didn't mean to suggest that Wikipedia directly affects a website's hit counts in Google. But when I google a topic, if there's a Wikipedia article on that topic, it comes up on the first page or two of my Google list, usually the first page. For instance, if I google "Duryog", the Wikipedia article Duryog Nivaran comes up second on the search results, even though the article is a stub created on January 21. That stub will generate traffic to its external link http://www.duryognivaran.org/duryog/ whether Google counts it or not. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here. (Sorry to be so long-winded.) --SueHay 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suehay, regarding your request for information on whether or not the website is legit, from my personal experience, yes, it is. Mildly popular, although no where near FanFiction.Net. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk)
  - Surely, then, this argues for deleteion, since arguing from "personal experience" breaches the inviolable rule against original research. Unless sufficient objective and reliable sources can be found, information cannot appear on WIki – or so the cabal keep telling us -- Simon Cursitor 08:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These sources do not establish notability, but may establish legitimacy: [6] [7] [8]. Also, there is no reason to believe the site's supplied statistics "half a million writers/readers, and home to over 900,000 original works" are falsified: they can be calculated by summing the story counts on the front page, and these further verified by multiplying page-counts by items per page (but this is all original research, teehee). — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, this article fails WP:ATT--there are no sources given for its assertions of notability. If it remains unsourced by the end of the AfD, it must be deleted. If sources are eventually found, it could possibly be re-created at a future date. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carolfrog with no prejudice. No assertion or citation of notability, burden is on the article creators to improve that. -Markeer 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 133,000 hits for fictionpress and 4th place hit for "fiction" — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I perform the search for "fictionpress" I only get 4 pages of results, i.e. less than 40 hits. JulesH 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that it fails WP:WEB. I think we all know that "hits" can be quite deceiving. JodyB 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is fairly clear that this is independent submission of content, but that doesn't make it N. If it has 500,0000 little stories and poems, it can easily arrange the site so that it will have at least one ghit for each, read or unread--I am surprised at the modest number found. To the extent the readers talk about stories on their own blogs, it will have more (these is of course the usual internal discussion blog for each story). There is a perfectly good place for the limited material in this article, and that is in the existing section for it on FanFiction.Net. The article on that is a meaningful article: it discusses the site and its history, and it would be best to have the one. DGG 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to FanFiction.net Only 31 ghits on the site's name, which is rather poor for a web site. No evidence of notability provided via other means. Where are the reliable sources written about this site? Re. the concerns that one might also have to delete the FanFiction.net page: there are many articles in various places that have been written about that site, so by the same rule it should be kept. JulesH 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JulesH, check your google search parameters. I think "&hl=en&safe=off&start=30&sa=N" will only give you N english-language websites, starting with the 30th item found. I've had that happen to me before. Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) got the full hit count. --SueHay 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The URL I used was the one produced by google itself after going to the main page, entering "fictionpress", and clicking on the "4" link. If something in it limits the number of results returned, it was added by google. JulesH 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identical results are achieved with this simpler query. JulesH 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extra hits were filtered out by Google's "Similar Pages" feature, although I'm not sure why it doesn't kick in before you reach the fourth page. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting 132,000 hits on that simpler query, starting with hit #31. But I don't see a "4" link on the page. Maybe there was a problem with google.co.uk. It seems ok now. --SueHay 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Fanfiction.net article, unless more convincing evidence for notability comes forth. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoang Dieu Linh

No sources in this year-old article, which has a whiff of a hoax to it. Large portions are gibberish. Andrew Levine 02:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junk JuJube 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Instead of nominating it for deletion, look for sources first and if YOU can't find any, then we can discuss this, but editors should try to improve articles before quitting on them. --172.129.74.92 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a nominator looked for sources and found none prior to nominating it for deletion, what indication would there be that s/he looked for them? More to the point, what indication is there in this case that the nominator did not look for them? Please try to keep things civil. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom. could have said what he had searched and failed to find--it does strengthen an argument.

But also, the anon above who is asking other people to look for sources--perhaps he should try himself and report on what he has found or failed to find. SODOIT.DGG 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Jmlk17 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unsourced, looks like something made up in school one day. NawlinWiki 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like nonsense, reeks of hoax: No News Archive or Books hits, no Google hits at all besides the article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no attribution, not notable etc. etc. etc. As to the IP SPEEDY KEEPER, the primary responsibility for sourcing is with the originator. JodyB 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It aint there. On uncyclopedia, Hoang Dieu Linh just goes to a empty edit page. --Infrangible 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD G1. Patent nonsense includes "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Serpent's Choice 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like serpent's choice said, patent nonsense. Not to mention only 217 ghits, the majority of which are either the same as this page or refer to a real person. --Entoaggie09 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowskys

Do not seem to be notable as advertisement characters or otherwise. JuJube 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination by possibly unconconstructive editor bent on deleting articles. --172.129.74.92 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's next, the Geico cavemen? Oy vey... YechielMan 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see the point of those voting for deletion, but these characters are on a national advertisement campaign. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the Dude, you're getting a DELL kid has a decent article. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deleteThe refs provided are either from the company they promote, Comcast, and thus are not independent, or are blogs, which are not reliable, thus failing WP:A and WP:N. That said they are an amusing and well known company mascot. If 2 independent and reliable sources with nontrivial coverage could be found and added I would see no problem with keeping the article. Edison 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without established non-trival sources it ought to go. JodyB 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sat in the UK and I've heard of them. Can't be that unknown - 25k ghits, and all over YouTube. The series is still running (how many adverts run for 18months+ in these modern times?), but its a useless article with few links. Rgds, --Trident13 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comcast (no merge), which includes some information about the company's ad campaigns. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Kolindigo 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Eklundh

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n bio. GTest <<166 for "Mattias Eklundh" Swedish musician>>. ProD notice noted this, & also need for evidence rather than bare removal of ProD tag; 72.9.3.70 (talk · contribs)'s 1st & only contrib was to remove tag w/o summary within 3 hours after ProD.
--Jerzy•t 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mattias IA Eklundh is about as notable as a guitar player can get. Pax:Vobiscum 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 13 900 Google hits for "Mattias Eklundh", and it seems most of them are about the person in question. 96T 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep guitarist of notable band Freak Kitchen. NawlinWiki 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six albums released with the band and 3 more solo is notable but there needs to be some suggestion that the record labels are major or major independents. Their website claims he was voted "Best New Talent" by US Guitar Players Magazine and that should suffice. JodyB 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by longevity

I notice that an equivalent article was deleted recently. The consensus apparently reached there was that articles of this type are "unencyclopedic and redundant". TheCoffee 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, silly and per precedent. There's nothing notable about a comparison of Presidents' lifespans; it's not as if lifespan has anything to do with being President. —Cuiviénen 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- tell John McCain that lifespan has nothing to do with President, because everywhere he turns there are people telling him it does. Look, this information is easily verifiable, it's NPOV, it's considered important by many, many historians and political observers. It's a discriminate list. Both age in office, age in death and age after office are widely discussed in the media, in presidential biographies, etc. This is, per any definition, notable stuff. It has very real implications for what the role of an ex-president is in U.S. society. And U.S. Presidents, less powerful than they once were, are nonetheless among the most important political figures and statesment both in the U.S. and the world. It's worthwile to have this information in a list for sake of comparison. It'd be highly tedious for someone seeking this information for any of the half-dozen reasons mentioned above, to click through all 43 articles to figure it out. This information certainly has a place in an not-paper encyclopedia. Frankly, this would be a good candidate for a featured list. If you read WP:LIST it doesn't violate anything in it. If not for the delete vote I'd say speedy. --JayHenry 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question If this AfD ends up in a keep, will you support an undeletion request for List of Philippine Presidents by longevity? --- Tito Pao 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. I don't buy that there's a precedent. They are totally different countries. I notice that many "keep per precedent" arguments were disregarded in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity. I hope that the closing admin of this debate will similarly disregard the "delete per precedent" arguments. They are different countries, their presidencies have different impacts. --JayHenry 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The John McCain argument may apply to a discussion about age at election or nomination but I see little relevence to lifespan, which is what this list is about.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, I think with the Philippine presidents. This is no different. YechielMan 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I opined that the Phillipine list should be deleted. Variable ways to rank the presidents are justifiable if the longevity has an impact on their presidential career, so things like service length, chronology, performance at elections and so on are OK. However, unless a president has been assassinated or otherwise died in office (and most US presidents have not done that), the length of time they continue to live after leaving office is outside the scope of what is relevant to the presidential coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Sjakkalle, echoing my own sense that a list of presidents by age on inauguration is one thing, but age of death quite another. It's just not relevant. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I half expect the AfD on the Philppine presidents list to show up on DRV. I !voted to keep that one mainly on the precedent that this list had survived the scruitny of a prior debate. I probably should have just gone with my gut opinion though with a delete - previous debates and consensus notwithstanding, this is just trivial information and not encyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and irrelevance to any encyclopedic info regarding presidential ability. And might I add a Delete All to all lists like this stated in the Philippines AfD nom (from Canada to what elses). Berserkerz Crit 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Good almanacical information that a reference work like Wikipedia should contain. I believe both Time magazine and Newsweek had sidebars with the information when Ford died. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per users "JayHenry" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". Extremely sexy 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per users "JayHenry" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )"; Topic gains extensive media coverage anytime a president dies. Note also that this page is the top google/yahoo return for the search "president longevity". Alternative to deletion is Redirect to List of United States Presidents by date of death. That page has a sortable column with which one can derive most of the list (one must still calculate age of living presidents). --Work permit 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - As per JayHenry. US Presidential details are an important part of historical research and having them in one place aids researchers which should be one goal of any encyclopedia. Disagree strongly with Sjakkalle and Dhartung above - it is of historic interest how long Presidents live after leaving office - they remain of interest throughout their lives. (And some of the comments above sound like sour grapes regarding the deletion of the Philippine list. Do a DRV on that one if you think it was unfairly handled - don't take it out on this one.)Tvoz |talk 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and several other lists such as List of US Presidents by date of birth/time in office/time as former president etc. to a single sortable table in a simple List of US Presidents. No need then for seperate articles. - fchd 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging ALL the lists would create a table with alot of columns, which would be very cumbersome. --Work permit 18:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a table. The information in that article can already be found at each respective President's page. Date of death is important that's why individual articles contain them. But a list comparing who is alive the longest or shortest amongst presidents does not help anyone in his or her research. It is inconsequential and unencyclopedic. Berserkerz Crit 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per JayHenry and Richard Arthur Norton. (And while I'm here, yes I would approve a DRV of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity). AndyJones 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept and the Philippine list deleted how do we reconcile the apparent WP:BIAS? Carlossuarez46 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is any bias in the community: I see eleven people making your point at the Philippine AfD: more than voted delete. The only bias I percieve is in the discounting of those comments by the closing admin. AndyJones 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is the purpose of this AfD simply to make a WP:POINT on the Philippine Presidents deletion? --Work permit 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No it's to enforce WP policies equitably throughout all articles. Berserkerz Crit 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete as long as all other lists such as this are deleted. If this is kept, the Philippines list should automatically be restored as the closing admin did not follow what's the consensus on the deletion page, which was "no censensus," which would be keep. --Howard the Duck 03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes sometimes I doubt the wisdom of closing admins... Berserkerz Crit 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment isn't going to count for anything upon closing. You can't have a "conditional delete", it doesn't work like that. I disregarded this same comment when I closed the Philippines list AfD. Of course, you're welcome to nominated all the other lists for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the guideline which forbids/frowns upon/discourages/etc. "conditional delete"? I've read a page which forbids/frowns upon/discourages/etc. votes such as "delete per nom" or a simple "delete", though. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. An important issue in numerous presidential campaigns throughout US history. Our role is to make the info accessible to students; that's what this article does. --JJay 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is this an important issue in numerous presidential campaigns? As far as I know, longevity of ex-presidents is not a campaign issue. Fitness and health are. And those information can be found at each president's respective articles. Berserkerz Crit 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. This is a WP:POINT nomination and should be viewed as such. Nominating editor said, in the AfD for Philoppine Presidents by longevity that if that closed out with a delete than he would "nominate this one out of spite." This has WP:POINT written all over it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this has bred productive discussion. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting time discussing is hardly productive. Continuing this debate is feeding the trolls. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, how could I forget that discussion is a waste of time? John Reaves (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when it's a POINT violation. If you don't like the article or want to discuss it, submit it to an RfC. Period. One would think that as an admin you would know that. Anyway, since when do we keep POINT nominations? Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the nomination, this has generated discussion over the deletion of this article. An RfC would be pointless because it isn't actionable. John Reaves (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted as a redundant waste. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...maybe in an almanac though. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may like to compare that comment with the opening sentence of the five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." 88.105.67.231 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles are not simply 9. statistics. This is just statistical information without context and of no use. It is true yes, but it is of no use to an encyclopedia. Pax:Vobiscum 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is now an ongoing deletion review for the deletion of List of Philippine Presidents by longevity. Any comments on whether the closing administrator correctly assessed consensus in that case should be directed to the deletion review page. -Fagles 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any mention of the fact that this article was nominated for deletion last year. People commenting here may wish to consider the arguments that were made in the previous deletion discussion. -Fagles 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can't think for yourself, feel free to take a comment from the old afd. John Reaves (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork of a basic list. Add the extra column there and make it, and everything else, sortable as the new formats allow. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per others. Keep at least until they can implement some ajaxian feature to allow people to easily extrapolate this information from tables. --R e m i 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve, Berserkerz, and Pax:Vobiscum. Arbustoo 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The press coverage argument would be as applicable to List of Presidents who owned cats or dogs, or cats and dogs, or neither, which I'm sure Time and Newsweek have reported on.

There is a List of United States Presidential pets --Work permit 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media may mention Ford as the longest lived ex-Pres, and if Bush dies ten years after leaving office it will probably be mentioned that he is the 19th, or whatever, but who cares? It is trivia, as are his pet preferences. The Mcain situation, also cited when Reagan ran, and from the other side, when Kennedy ran, is to age at election or party nomination, not longevity. Top Google hit? My user page is the #5 Google hit for killing sparrows. WP:POINT? The full quote included, "I'm joking. Mostly." The previous AfD? Yes, please ignore it and it's keep votes such as, 'I like it,' 'interesting,' and 'I'd be sad to see it go.' WP:LIST gives three criteria, two of which, Navigation and Development, are irrelevent here. Plenty of Pres lists to navigate from and all subjects in list are developed. The third, and the only basis for judging this list states,

"The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."

So a list may be, or not. I say not. The best 'keep' !vote I see is the Almanac ref, but I feel it is negated later in the quoted paragraph as this is trivia. Looking at the list I see no correlation with impact on nation, significant legislational initiatives, economic growth or stability, even popularity. Kennedy and Lincoln near the bottom, Roosevelt and Washington in the middle, Reagan and Jefferson near the top. What important historical research does this support? Which historians and political observers consider this important? Death in office, assasination and changes in lifespan due to a variety of factors all skew this list so as to be unusable for any serious statistical research or analysis.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep there is nothing wrong with 'trivia' as long as it is sourced/notable. The argument based on the WP:NOT#IINFO statistics point is irrelavent, if you actually read the paragraph. It never said that a list could never be based on statistics. What it does say is that statistic lists should simply not be long or sprawling and that there should be sufficient explanatory text for the reader. This article does not violate either of those clauses. --Entoaggie09 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States Presidents by date of death and use sortable columns. Longevity is already included. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as a pile of statistics. Otto4711 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be replaced with a sortable table? --NE2 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Philippine precedent. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very rarely do I disagree with Sjakkalle on anything, but the length of a president's life is very relevant to his historical role. John Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter all did (still doing, in the last case) significant work to improve their public images in their very long lives; James Polk, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, and Warren Harding, all with very short post-presidential lives, had no such good fortune. A long-lived president is given an opportunity to shape his own legacy in the public imagination, one denied to those who die early. Xoloz 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are mixing points. Yes what they did post-presidency is important and a coverage of research and encyclopedic but not their longevity. Your opinion seems to constitute WP:OR by surmising that those who live longer are given benefit of doing more work than those who live short, but that goes for any person. Live longer, do more. Live short, did less. Berserkerz Crit 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, I don't get this at all, how can anyone's opinion in a deletion discussion possibly be criticised as WP:OR? AndyJones 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, student film with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hour (2007)

Not yet released student movie. Probably close to Zero Notability (2007). -- RHaworth 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity ALTON .ıl 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student film, hasn't been released yet, 1000 dollar budget. Borderline speedy A7. YechielMan 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not for every student film ever made. Blatant WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton New University Government

This article do not satisfy WP:ORG and sounds like an advertisement (the banner especially make think of that as an ad or a work from a nug member). Esurnir 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite silly. First, 'advertisement?' if the self-righteous member above had read the article he would have seen that is ceased to exist in it's current form as of March 30th 2007. The banner was from the old website (before it was taken down). Secondly I am the one that put it up and I and others are trying to compile a database of knowledge about this organization that played a key part in the lives of students at Carleton for 39 years. I tried as hard as I could to make it unbiased and stick to the facts of what the organization did. There is no real point of extending to hyperbole since the ORGANIZATION DOES NOT EXIST and can thus easily be analyzed in it's entirely truthfully.

We would like to use Wikipedia to allow others to learn about the student organization, the history, etc allowing those who are experts in different area or time-periods to flush out those areas/periods. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia? I am very disappointed in the actions of the above 'member' and his attempts to limit the constrictive expansion of knowledge on the internet and free speech. My previous comment was completely ignored by him. As pointed out previously this article is in approximately the same style and wording as other comparable groups (Ontario Student Unions) which are NOT challenged. This is a perfect example of using Wikipedia for what it was supposed to be used for, to increase the public knowledge for public good.Smartstart1376 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may wish to read What Wikipedia Is Not. The phrase you use above, "we would like to use Wikipedia to . . ." is a red flag that perhaps you do not fully understand the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. However, I do appreciate your contributions, and hope that once you have reached a greater understanding of How Wikipedia Works, you will continue to add value to Wikipedia's database. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry for the misunderstanding I may have mis phrased one line after typing this out three times and having my comments summarily ignored. I did not mean to imply some sort of conspiracy, etc. I was attempting to get at the root of what I see as Wikipeida a form of collective action in collection of knowledge. *I* am hoping to add to the knowledge of Wikipeida by adding something I am knowledgeable about. This article does not fall under the things Wikipedia is not, it is knowledge collected from many sources, the beginning of a collaboration on group knowledge. The information provided is quite akin to that of other comparable groups which were not deleted...Smartstart1376 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails WP:ORG. I strongly urge Smartstart1376 to, rather than taking upset at editors properly gauging this article in light of Wikipedia policy, to follow Carolfrog's prudent advice and the supplied links to learn how articles should be written and what the required standards of verification and notability are. Ravenswing 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nominator is correct in that this does not comply with Wikipedia policy. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, student government organizations are not typically notable to anyone outside the school, and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. NawlinWiki 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless legitimate sources can be provided to show this had some kind of impact on the wider world, or served as the model for student bodies nationwide or something similar, this is no different to a hundred thousand other student bodies. The article also contradicts itself, with parts talking about no longer existing and parts talking about the future — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepedent external sources. Nothing to show how it is notable outside of the university in anyway. Does not meet other standards for WP:ORG etc. $1 levy? My uni had $200 levi's and it still wasn't big enough to be notable.--Dacium 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete but if the organization wishes to be in WP, it should try to do some notable things of interest to the wider community that will get media coverage from outside the school. (It might even want to do them quite apart from WP), This isn't impossible for a student organization, but it's fairly rare. DGG 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Good advice that I would pass on but organization no longer exists in current form. See article for more information on the organization.Smartstart1376 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter lack of notability and sourcing. --RaiderAspect 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northland Symphony Orchestra

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. The only source in the article is the symphony's webpage, so it doesn't appear to meet attribution policies either. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First, we provide..." Okay, stop right there. Delete YechielMan 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-spam. JuJube 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD#G11 -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteArticle with wretched conflict of interest tone. Nothing against such a community orchestra. I could not find any nontrivial press coverage in reliable sources. Edison 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, not notable.--Dacium 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - nice community orchestra, but I can't find a good source except playings listings. Rgds, --Trident13 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article at present reads in a way which was brought up by the 'delete' !voters, and yet not countered by the 'keep' !voters. Although the referencing begins to try and fix the problem, consensus still lies with 'delete'. I'll be happy to provide the references for the deleted version to anyone who asks. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen bours

Biography with a spammy tone, appropriately since this guy is a creative person in advertising. Written by user:Jeroenbours. Notable? -- RHaworth 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as transparent COI (noted by RHaworth) and general vanity tone. YechielMan 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, including Fortune magazine and the New York Times. --Eastmain 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with current references, but nonetheless beware of the WP:COI. - SpLo T // 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI, lets someone else create the page. From the sources you couldn't even establish all the claims made in this article.--Dacium 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dacium, the page can later be recreated. --Phoenix (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, made up at summer camp one day. NawlinWiki 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ball

Non-notable. Something made up at summer camp. Gorgeous Ferns 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe potential for a speedy (but I'll let it stay here since it's already been nommed for AfD). No notability, almost certainly "something made up one day". —Cuiviénen 03:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. JuJube 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last sentence is the ultimate puch line. YechielMan 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to obvious unattributability. - SpLo T // 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Vogelsang

Fails WP:N and possibly WP:COI. Its also an unsourced article and fails the search engine test. Theredhouse7 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only significant edit is by a user named Kcvogelsang which is oddly similar to the article's title. Furthermore it is his only contribution. What is his known for is a subtopic of Unreal, and that subtopic (Galaxy Sound System is a red link. Seems to be Vanity and possible COI. ALTON .ıl 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Alton, certainly seems to fail WP:N to me, doesn't look like much can be done to improve this.
Weak keep - obviously autobiographical, poorly sourced, COI, POV, but is possibly notable based on the Google Test, see Google search of today:[9]. Bearian 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at what google showed up? Almost all of them are private messages. I have more hits for MY name.--Dacium 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

An unencyclopedic article on a subject that fails WP:BIO. America Libre, his "Best known works [sic]", is a self-published book that is the subject of an AfD nomination. His documentary, Two Americas: The Legacy of our Hemisphere, has not been completed (as the article suggests) - rather it is a project under development by Sanchez's company B/R/C Productions. Victoriagirl 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Libre - A novel by Raul Ramos y Sanchez. JuJube 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete His only "notability"? A failed book. Nope. Jmlk17 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable author of nonnotable selfpublished book. NawlinWiki 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable and spam. Bearian 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable author. --Haemo 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, much of the text is a slightly reworded cut-and-paste copyright violation, and there are no references after all this time to show that this mod is notable or has any significant 3rd party coverage. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

Appears to be a copyvio from http://www.fleetops.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=25 .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is the second AfD for this article. The first AfD result was no consensus in October 2006. (added by Pakman044 21:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - the game itself warrants an article, but you may want to try {{copyvio}}. It seems to have been paraphrased, but as it gives no credit it is a CV. ALTON .ıl 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are you sure? It doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a game, but rather just a mod created by fans. I have no opinion at this second, but I would have voted Keep if this had been an actual game rather than a fan created mod. TJ Spyke 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging and shrinking with Star Trek: Armada II? The material is probably relevant to the Armada II article, but probably isn't enough to stand on its own. Someone may need to spend time on the merging and shrinking, especially severing the copyvioed material. –Pakman044 21:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to have notibility. WP:WEB failure. Include comment in Star Trek: Armada II and delete.--Dacium 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Article has been revised since AfD was opened 217.243.204.195 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems that there are no cites for relevancy. Most of the additions look like fancruft. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as {{copyvio}}. 62.104.220.74
Delete per nom. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copyvio of [10]. Krimpet (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Cooper

Non notable local politician. No significant press coverage. No hits whatsoever on Google News. Merely considering a run for Congress does not make a person notable DarkAudit 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator, as part of a series of bad faith nominations, has submitted this AfD, despite the fact that previous AfDs on thsi and related articles submitted by this same individual have resulted in decisions to keep the articles in question. On top of the clear efforts to subvert consensus, the nominator has stooped to soliciting votes, actions that are almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I strongly recommend that this AfD be withdrawn, given that the process has been thoroughly contaminated by the nominator. As to the definition of votestacking provided at WP:CANVASSING, Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. It seems undeniable that this line has been crossed. Alansohn 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to note The record will also show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of two (2) editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of WP:CANVAS shows, the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith. DarkAudit 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO for notability of politicians. For my own part, I have been recently canvassed on AfDs where I have !voted against the editor who alerted me. While nom did alert me to this AfD, and is aware I supported deletion of a similar article, I've: (1) participated in hundreds of AfDs and might well have chimed in on this one anyway, (2) feel this AfD is readily supported on the merits of the nomination, (3) have had Alansohn likewise (and for no good reason I can discern) preemptively post to my talk page regarding DarkAudit's evil intent, and (4) am not sure what makes this a "bad faith nomination" beyond DarkAudit's plain belief that these articles about county commissioners are non-notable, but the same brush would apply to Alansohn's charges of misconduct in AfDs that just happen to be on articles he plainly passionately wants to save. Ravenswing 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of [11]. TJ Spyke I have so tagged it. 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm speedy as copyvio--Dacium 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claire W. Schumacher

Not notable. The article currently cites her own web page as the only source, and a Google search doesn't show any reliable secondary sources. Unless someone can conjure some sources, it does not meet WP:N or WP:V Theredhouse7 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary person, not worthy of an encyclopedia article. YechielMan 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7. - SpLo T // 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Only source provided is subject's own website. DarkAudit 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as not notable enough yet. Bearian 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. —dima /talk/ 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G12 - copyvio pointed out below. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahndorf F.C.

A non-notable South Australian amateur football club. While the article is well written and written in good faith, it is unsourced and does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Mattinbgn/^talk 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should add this is a contested prod - no reason for contesting was provided. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note For what it's worth, the other clubs in that Australian amateur league do not have Wikipedia articles. YechielMan 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Team does not compete in the highest level of amateur competition (ie the Olympics) per WP:BIO. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP.Ga rr ie 08:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio of http://home.iprimus.com.au/thomasst/club_01.htm which has a copyright statement incompatible with the GFDL. No notable former players, no independent sources or references. --Canley 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mary McAleese. If anyone finds some content worth merging - feel free. WjBscribe 14:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McAleese

Unattributed biography of the husband of the President of Ireland (Mary McAleese). Subject per se is non-notable. While other spouses of state leaders have articles on Wikipedia, Martin McAleese does not seem to have much involvement in the affairs of his wife. Furthermore, the role of the presidency in Ireland is largely symbolic. Previously prodded, but tag removed with reason given on article talkpage. - SpLo T // 06:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. - SpLo T // 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Mary McAleese. No independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Mary McAleese. He is possibly notable in his own right but the article shows no proof of this and therefore fails WP:N. --Vintagekits 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, local youth theatre actress, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cici Green

Was speedied db-nonsense. Anthony Appleyard 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still nonsense ("real name unknown") and most certainly non-notable. Where are the external references/citations? WWGB 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-nonsense. JuJube 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not really needed here. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep all. (non-admin) Sancho (Review me) 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Kaspers Orkester

Non-notable group, without any famous records nor recordings, and simply unnecessary Jmlk17 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they are the albums with stub articles linked to the band]:

Delete per nom - stub article with no claim to notability. YechielMan 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable bands in Sweden. There are 845,000 ghits available for you to check.[12]--Ezeu 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Ezeu 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, won a national music award and released at least one album on Sony Records. So meets WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Easily meets WP:MUSIC. Pax:Vobiscum 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, of significant local interest, as seen from their Grammis award. - SpLo T // 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, they are famous in Scandinavia. 96T 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Only 725 unique Google hits per [13]. Also needs multiole independets coverage beyond a site which says they won an award otr their own site. Have there been reviews or article in music industry press or newspapes and magazines? Edison 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is showing page 73, results 721-730 of a total of about 797,000. And, here are some reviews from the four largest Swedish language newspapers: [14],[15], [16], [17], [18] --Ezeu 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC because of Grammis Award and album on Sony. NawlinWiki 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all many many ghits when searching Swedish pages. While interest in America might not be high, other English speaking persons would be interested in this group and I think it meets notabiligy requirements.--Entoaggie09 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Boys Hostel Temerloh

This article does not cite any sources and makes no assertion of notability. Three Google results, all Wikipedia or mirrors. And poorly written. Theredhouse7 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, that about covers it. YechielMan 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments and nomination. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unattributed and possibly unattributable. Also lacks notability, imo. - SpLo T // 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete Quotes for a hostel? That seems a bit odd to me. I doubt any real sources can be found for something like this from the 60's... but someone apparently put a bit of work into the page. --Entoaggie09 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExPlorer Airways Cargo

No evidence that this is a real airline. Description does not seem believable. A Google seach doesn't reveal anything. Nick Moss 07:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I think it might be a real airline (since it's mentioned here), but a very small one without much notability. - hmwith talk 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption on that photo is bogus - if you look at the name, it is the same as one which the author of the article in question wrote an article (which is speedily deleted) about, according to his talk page. Nick Moss 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and search results. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough (if it actually exists) - Myanw 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I doubt it exists and it's unlikely to be notable enough if it does. Adambro 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming it's real, it has 1 or 2 planes: not notable. Bearian 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with some respectable proof of notability--Entoaggie09 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin close) Sancho (Review me) 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Sofía of Spain

No reason to believe this child (distinct from the parents) will be notable exactly like Suri Cruise, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tat Meng 07:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and guidelines. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a ridiculous nomination. She's third in line to the Spanish throne, not some movie star's kid. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia's guidelines hold members of major royal families as notable. She's notable from birth because of the position she holds from birth. Nick mallory 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've got to be kidding me. We already went through this with Princess Ariane of the Netherlands. Royal children, especially those in direct line for a throne, and especially those who are grandchildren of a monarch, and children of a future monarch are definitely notable. I don't see anyone calling for the deletion of Lady Louise Windsor. She hasn't done much in her short life, but because she is the granddaughter of a monarch, she is automatically notable, as is Infanta Sofía. Morhange 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that Tat Meng was the person who put the AfD tag on Princess Ariane of the Netherlands as well. As that AfD discussion clearly established the notability of babies born to royal families, one wonders at their motivation in proposing this AfD so soon afterwards. Nick mallory 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. Flapdragon 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Monarchies are governmental institutions; senior members of royal families (and the granddaughter of a king is a senior member) are always notable. I have to wonder if the nom is anti-monarchist or just doesn't realize the constitutional importance of royals in a constitutional monarchy. To equate a princess with Suri Cruise? --Charlene 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Past Toys

I can't find any evidence that this meets the WP:CORP criteria: the only mentions I can find are on specialist websites, and shop pages. This article was previously linked to by several Wikipedia articles about Nazi leaders. -- The Anome 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. Bearian 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant advertizing. Croxley 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article definitely either needs a very rapid cleanup removing the advertising statements and POV words ("groundbreaking") or should be quickly deleted. --Nehrams2020 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please help fix any errors that you may find ad-related. However, the article is fact based and I can support any evidence needed. It should not be deleted because it follows the consensus just like all the other hundred or so articles about figure companies. If words like "groundbreaking" bother you, then fix them, but this still holds no merit for deletion whatsoever. Fix, do not delete. - Brendan Filone 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMOCC

Lack of sources, similar articles and categories have already been made. kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. YechielMan 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was previously deleted (as Mmocc) though this is not an exact duplicate. Doesn't address the problems raised in that AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources and a little too much original research. --Nehrams2020 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD A1, early close per WP:SNOW. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: ???

Wild projection. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. fuzzy510 08:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. ??? YechielMan 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Dweller 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1. So tagged. Hut 8.5 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The burden of proof to verify is on the editor adding material, not those challenging it, in response to at least one misinformed comment during this AfD. Daniel Bryant 08:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenin Llwyd

Completely bogus article seemingly arising out of a misunderstanding to do with a character in a Susan Cooper book, outside which there is no such myth Flapdragon 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) To clarify, this started as an article about a Susan Cooper book called The Grey King, the Welsh name of which eponymous character is Y Brenin Llwyd, presumably her invention, probably inspired by the Scottish "Grey Man of Ben Macdhui". However, the title of the book is The Grey King not "Brenin Llwyd" and it has a separate article. Then one editor, probably through a simple misunderstanding, changed it into an article about a mythological creature(? paranormal being? cryptozoological phenomenon?) -- but there is no such concept outside that work of fantasy fiction and a request for sources posted a year ago has produced nothing. Needs zapped before the confusion spreads any further. Flapdragon 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with that mythological Arctic monster article of BJAODN fame. :) YechielMan 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but zap Bigfoot. A search of Google Books for "Brenin Llwyd" shows the legend long pre-dates The Grey King: e.g. Folk-lore and folk-stories of Wales, Marie Trevelyan, 1909 (online here). But as Flapdragon says, the error here has been the unsupported accretion of the idea that it's some kind of Yeti clone. Tearlach 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Susan Cooper article or Delete. Marie Trevelyan's book is not generally accepted as reliable. See my notes and references on the article page and the Talk Page. It does not "long pre-date" the work of fiction, although obviously a source for the author. I can only repeat here what i've noted at Brenin Llwyd: there are no early references that I'm aware of and it does not feature in the standard comprehensive academic studies of Welsh folkore. The description of the character has certain affinities with the well-known mythological figure Gwyn ap Nudd and would perhaps serve as a footnote to that article (minus the novel!). Enaidmawr 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to see some serious justification for that statement: cited source(s) that she's considered unreliable, and why he should be considered more reliable. Otherwise your opinion on Trevelyan's reliability is just original research. Tearlach 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: :I'm not saying that Trevelyan's work is worthless, simply that she was not a trained scholar and is very uncritical in her use of sources, or indeed lack of them. She flows from one thing to another with great enthusiasm but little or no discipline. Any modern scholar would be of the same opinion after reading a page or two of her work. Now, as regards her "Brenin Llwyd", I've just spent half an hour chasing up the references on Google. (Not all of them, there's about 3000). All the ones I've looked up are from here (wiki mirror sites etc), from the text of Trevelyan's book on the site you quoted, from Susan Cooper's work or related material, and two or three occult/Celtic Mysticism sites full of laughable errors and wild claims and all obviously basing their references to the desciption of the B.Ll. in Trevelyan's book and/or Cooper's novel. You'll have to take my word for it that I've checked every possible source in my library - several dozen books on Welsh folklore - without finding a SINGLE reference to the supposed Brenin. So we have a single unverifiable source for this. I'm not making this a do-or-die issue, but I feel the onus should be just as much on yourself (nothing personal!) to prove that Trevelyan's reference is valid, as none of the standard modern books on the subject refer to the Brenin Llwyd. Enaidmawr 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge - not a decent source, and a native Welsh speaker, resident in the area says on the talk page "never heard of him." Merge into either Susan Cooper or the article on the Scottish original Big grey man. Rgds, --Trident13 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR again. It's irrelevant what someone says here from personal experience. The decision has to be based on what published sources say. Provide some that say the Marie Trevelyan book is unreliable. If none exist, there is no justification for discounting it as a source. Tearlach 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's not be too dogmatic about this. It's one solitary source amid a sea of possible sources that don't mention this Brenin Llwyd thing even to dismiss it. Just because some vague, unattributed story gets into print, once, doesn't prove a whole lot. You have to bear in mind the fact that (and I think this would be fairly uncontroversial) 19th-century accounts of Welsh traditions and history, especially by amateur antiquarians, are notoriously anecdotal and unreliable. Some flavour of that can no doubt be gained from this review by Juliette Wood, University of Wales, Cardiff in 2000:

Those who have learned so much from Anne Ross's seminal work on Celtic culture will be extremely disappointed by her current book on the druids [The Druids. Stroud: Tempus, 1999] ... The work conducted by the School of Scottish Studies in the past decades is simply passed over as if it did not exist. Examples from Welsh folklore are no better, with Marie Trevelyan's description of Beltain (recently examined by Ronald Hutton) presented as accurate.

The online version of Trevelyan's text show it to be a a handful of vague anecdotes and rumours from assorted informants: "Writing in the spirit, though not in the letter of the Welsh language, I have endeavoured to give glimpses, or faithful sketches, rather than studies of life and character in Wales" as the author herself puts it. The Brenin Llwyd account reeks of literary whimsy -- "Monarch of the MIsts" indeed! Who called it that then? Flapdragon 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, though the initial mention is of "Snowdon and the ranges of it, Cader Idris, Plinlimmon", which is the focus of this article, the detailed(ish) anecdote presented by Trevelyan ("An old woman said that...") is of her home county, Glamorgan. Flapdragon 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be too dogmatic about this

Which is dogmatic? Expecting that inclusion/deletion be based on the usual Wikipedia criteria; or arguing for deletion on grounds of personal litcrit and unsourced opinion that a book is unreliable? The latter is OR as in "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".

Bear in mind that WP:NOR also requires that any sources cited must be in relation to the topic of the article (their bold): if her account of Beltain is crap, it's not evidence that the Brenin Llwyd bits are too. Tearlach 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A new wikipedia article appears: "Little green men from the planet Zog are said to inhabit caves in the hills of England, from the Sussex Downs to the Peak and Lake Districts." (reference: Author X, Book Y). It's in print, it's a source, and no other printed reference can be found to refute it: therefore it should be left in place until or unless someone can find a printed source that specifically proves otherwise by refuting that printed source, any other argument being just 'OR'. Valid argument? I've reread the relevant parts of Trevelyan's report and totally agree with what User:Flapdragon says. The whole thing comes from something one old lady in Glamorgan is supposed to have said. Then, quite typically, Trevelyan wildy and blithely expands it to make it seem that the tradition was prevalent throughout Wales, from south to north. And yet NOBODY else mentions it! For the time being i'm amending the article accordingly and am again strongly suggesting deleting the article and noting Trevelyan's story as a footnote in the article on Cooper's novel, where it belongs. If we leave articles like this in place the wikipedia will become a joke. Enaidmawr 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrepresentation. If you try a Google Books search on "Marie Trevelyan" Wales, you find that not only does her book exist; it is also widely cited. That's all we can go on. Not your personal opinion of the credibility of the work, or of other editors saying the equivalent of "I'm a Llap Goch master and and can divine the credibility of sources". Tearlach 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's being highly selective. Of course her book will be cited. As I said above, it is not entirely without value and it's a well-known work of its period. However we are talking about this "Brenin Llwyd". I asked you "to prove that Trevelyan's reference is valid as none of the standard modern books on the subject (i.e. Welsh folkore) refer to the Brenin Llwyd." You have not done so. Why didn't you try a Google Books search for "Marie Trevelyan"+"Brenin Llwyd" [19]? You will find just TWO results, one to the text of Trevelyan's book itself and a passing mention in a book about the poetry of Vernon Watkins (by an author who is not a folklorist and in a context which is irrelevant here). You even reverted my edit which made it clear that the supposed tradition comes from a sole informant in a single location. No scholar would accept Trevelyan's application of that information - whatever its worth, validity or interest - to apply to the whole of Wales. That is not 'POV' or 'OR' but academic fact. And I speak from professional experience in the academic field. I am genuinely concerned that the Wikipedia's reputation suffers because of woolly articles such as this; it is little wonder that many academics look askance at the wikipedia and don't contribute to it. Anybody with an academic interest in folklore, Welsh or otherwise, who sees this Brenin Llwyd article would probably smile to themselves and move on. And if he/she naively sought to correct the article and met with this sort of response I suspect they would give up on the wikipedia as a potentially great educational resource and confine their activities to the saner world of academia, as indeed I feel tempted to do myself. Enaidmawr 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I speak from professional experience in the academic field.

And that says it all. You're still trying to play the personal authority card instead of grasping how Wikipedia works. Because of the open editorship system here, no-one's claim of personal authority can be trusted (you may be aware of the Essjay controversy). That's why credibility of statements has to be assessed purely on the basis of the existence of published sources. If academics in folklore view Trevelyan as unreliable a) overall b) on this specific point, provide published sources saying exactly that. Tearlach 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not repeat my argument but I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. // Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim[:]

(1.) Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. // (4.) Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. // Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources."

Please note the last sentence in particular. That is the gist of my objection and also reflects standard academic procedure, as well as common sense. Trevelyan extrapolates a single localised tradition recorded by her alone to cover the whole of Wales, from north to south, including Snowdonia, without providing a shred of evidence to support that view. I have nothing personal against her or yourself and have no vested interest in this "article", I'm simply interested in the truth and Wikipedia's reputation. I have nothing further to say on this matter. Enaidmawr 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Tearlach's various comments here. If anyone wishes to dispute the veracity of the article or its sources; let them cite contrary sources. Andy Mabbett 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. However, it would be nice for Xarr to assume good faith. MaxSem 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi5 (Website)

NN website, fails all 3 criterias from WP:WEB: no reliable third-party sources (WikiSummaries is not WP:RS, no awards, no notable medium. The article itself reads like an ad. MaxSem 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - Myanw 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Plenty of recent, relevent Gnews hits [20], current Alexa rank is 17th [21] [22]. Poor article at the moment, but could be useful with some work. Suggest bad faith nom. Xarr☎ 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 07:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Kazi

Article was given a prod tag, which was removed with no explanation. Seemingly non-notable footballer. fuzzy510 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Completely non-notable, neither his name, nor that of the team he supposedly plays for, get any Google hits whatsoever. Article creation was the first ever (and to date only) edit by a new user, suggests possible WP:COI ChrisTheDude 10:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no sign of notability either. - Myanw 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude Kurt000 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous that the prod was removed on this article, little claim to notability within article, nothing links to it, no GHits outside of Wikipedia [23] Qwghlm 11:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the team he is listed as playing for gets no hits on google, and is not listed on the Pakistan Premier League wikipedia article, doubt surely has to be cast as to the validity of the information.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Dweller 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect, see WP:MERGE. — CharlotteWebb 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hill Country

Content merged with Shire (Middle-earth) Thu 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of billionaires (2007). WjBscribe 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaires (2007) 101-946

Kept as part of the bhulk nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of billionaires (2005) as being WP:USEFUL and "not a copyvio". Which is as it might be, but the list of the not-top-100 billionaires according to a single source is not, as far as I can tell, encyclopaedic; more sort of WP:NOT#info really. Also I take issue with it being useful in any measurable way. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tricky one, and I'm prepared to be argued down, but I don't find the deletion argument persuasive enough, while the keep arguments in the last afd do ring true for me. After all, this is no paper encyclopedia... --Dweller 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wikipedia is not paper. Just like List of former members of the United States House of Representatives may be a bit large it still significant since being a former member of congress makes one notable. Likewise being a billionaire makes someone notable. Note that most of the people on the list already have article. I imagine that those that even those that don't have an article own a company (or several companies) that do. And by the way there is also a duplicate article List of billionaires (2007) 100-946 which contains a little more information that this article. It should be merged then redirected. Jon513 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio or no, it's still just a copy-paste of the Forbes information. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - not a secondary mirror of someone else's information. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite a copy-paste. It's a bunch of clickable links. But I do tend to agree with you. What would be needed would be for this list to be encyclopedic would be for it to include more information; as that information should really be in the top article (1-100!) it begs the question why this article isn't merged with that one. Hence, I alter my stance to Merge to List of billionaires 1-100. --Dweller 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful form of navigation and indexing. I would like to see more useful information in the table, such as their industry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason it's not merged with List of billionaires (2007) is it'll be too long, i think it's best kept separate. And Arkyan's rationale is used for the nomination for deletion of List of billionaires, which the result was to keep. --wil osb 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of billionaires (2007). I don't understand why a list of 900 is O.K., but a list of 1000 is too long. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single-source list based on a copyrighted source -- it's not an objectively ordered list using objective criteria, it's a list Forbes created themselves -- which by its length essentially constitutes a directory. Which makes it fail the multiple references and WP is not a directory criteria, and is essentially a copyright violation, to boot. Kill it. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has been proposed in the nomination for deletion of List of billionaires and the result of the vote was to keep.--wil osb 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list is useful, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. (and if there ever were an objective criteria, $$ is objective)But thi sis a duplicate article. I cannot image how the two articles came here; I hope nobody did the work invain, and that it was an accident of the article history. DGG 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although the title actually should start at 101, not 100 .... that's more work for somebody to fix, unless the other is merged into this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. You could just include a link to the source on the original list of billionaires. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of billionaires (2007). Previous years lists did not have a separate article for the first (top) 100, and then another for "the rest of them". Yes the list would be long, approaching 900 for 2007, while 2006 only showed 330 or so, but "breaking" the list at 100 seems arbirtary and again inconsistent with the other versions. Recombine the lists, and if necessary, find some way to "thin it down" or something. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Byrchmore

An autobiography of a musician of questioned notability. I have refused the speedy but brought it here. No vote. Sam Blacketer 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appalling article, notability claim not really there, but our well-established (though still not brilliant) article on The Nightingales seems to make it clear he's notable. Keep, but it's rubbish and must be improved! --Dweller 12:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no patience for poorly formatted COI articles. If you want, redirect to The Nightingales, and the page history will be there if someone wants to make it respectable. YechielMan 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on grounds of WP:HOLE. The bands themselves are pretty low on the notability scale, so individual band members are even less notable. Besides, the article fails to assert notability based on reliable third-party published sources. Tearlach 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of the blockbuster

No claim to notability. Video posted on google does not warrant a WP article. Madmedea 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable web content. So tagged. MER-C 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3E's Table Tennis Club

Non-notable. There is not enough treatment of this youth club in secondary sources to allow for a well-sourced encyclopedia article. nadav 11:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The club has recently applied for accreditation by the English club governing body. Translation: nobody cares. Delete. YechielMan 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Clubs of all kind are listed on Wikipedia, why not table tennis?Mam2778 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)mam2778[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable club/team. Given that the team hasn't been accredited yet, they're below the level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this passes WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not terribly persuaded by the 'keep' arguments in this case (in many other AfD's where some of the 'keep' users commented, I find their input decisive, but not in this one). Daniel Bryant 08:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel González-Gay

Disputed "proposed for deletion". Fails to demonstrate sufficient notability beyond doubtful Pubmed criterion and unsupported assertions of fame via OR ("I am studying rheumatology and I can assure that Dr. Gonzalez-Gay is well know for his important research in Rheumatology"). I also suspect WP:COI issues due to its history via a SPA, Rheuma student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tearlach 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this individual meets notability criteria at WP:BIO. Paper count isn't really valid as an assertion of respect in his field, but simply verifies that he exists and contributes to it. (Roughly, it's like saying a site meets WP:WEB for having 1 bazillion members!) Something more substantive than a blanket unqualified statement that he is "well known" for certain work needs to be presented, and I'm not finding much through my own cursory research at this point. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He has some widely cited papers ([24]).Stammer 10:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rheuma student is a single-purpose account devoted only to this person, including an incoming redirect and a now-deleted image. If he's that notable, let someone neutral write about him. It looks like vanity/COI to me. YechielMan 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable researcher. I'll take a crack at it. Bearian 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep 'There actually are that many papers. It is true that some physicians publish a multitude of small papers on individual cases in obscure journals, but this is not the situation here. Just going by Google Scholar, which with greatly underestimate his work, because the bulk of it was before 2000, the most cited papers there are from American Journal of Medicine, a very important internal medicine journal, immunology today, the major review journal in the subject, and Arthritis and Rheumatism, a major international specialty journal. The other important journals like BMJ are also well represented. Scientist are notable by the work they do, and by the accepted principles of WP:PROF, publication counts in peer-reviewed journals and number of citations to them are key factors. The peer-reviewed nature of the publications is the secondary evidence. It is not like the web where counts are relatively meaningless because anything can be published. Let's see what else Berian finds. DGG 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I indicate on the talk page, the "number" of papers seems meaningless per WP:PROFTEST... as someone disciplined in science/medicine (i.e., thanks to my father), I know that inflated paper counts can happen. Peer-reviewed journal article counts are just that: an objective measure of how often one publishes. Granted, the number is directly proportional to the credibility of the research, but at the same time, I am hesitant to say that articles by the man should be used to gauge notability per one of the six criteria at WP:PROFTEST. Rather, articles about the man should be used... i.e., third party cites indicating why he is notable in his field, what his peers think of his work, how significant they perceive it to be in the field of rheumatology, etc. Some sort of WP:RS rather than just the PubMed listing count. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm also a little troubled by the "number = importance" argument. Someone who wrote a single paper that revealed an HIV cure would be important; conversely someone could be a plodder who writes thousands of rather pedestrian papers and not be. The decision about "importance", as you say, needs basing in some third-party statement. Tearlach 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for wiki standards Bulldog123 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected to List of Half-Life 2 mods by User:3R1C. I endorse this decision. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Dawn

Notability concerns and verifiability concerns regarding its status and release date. Topic has only been discussed in game related news items twice in depth (and the depth of those discussions is dubious, considering the early stages the mod is announced to be in). Additionally, statements regarding a release date are referenced by a single, out-of-context post in the forums that does not show the remainder of the discussion (where the constantly revised release date is discussed). I believe the topic is non-notable in the game industry, due to the low amount of interest and a distinct lack of ... notability in a long line of Half-Life mods. Additionally, the status of the modification is not easily verified due to privacy and secrecy concerns of the development team. I am listing it here at AfD due to the fact that two prods were unilaterally removed by a single author. 3R1C 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their press coverage is an (3 pages long, ok) article in June 2006 CGV and a passing by comment on the Valve website. Seems like a non-notable mod to me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erienne Romaine

16 year old jazz singer with 2 self-released albums. Asserts notability from radio airplay, but no details or sources. NawlinWiki 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim of notability from 3d party sources. YechielMan 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Ned Wilbury 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing My Lobster

Local sketch comedy group. No references except brief notices and/or dead links from local papers. PROD tag added but removed with the comment "appears to be referenced and have some notability, so removing prod" -- which is partially correct in that it appears to be referenced, though it really isn't. Calton | Talk 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN comedy group. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 02:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reference doesn't have to be online to be valid, although that obviously helps. I added another reference, and I think that the references, online and offline, add up to notability. --Eastmain 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reference doesn't have to be online to be valid... Nor does it have to obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple: however, they should be, you know, non-trivial, which even the dead links appear to be. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not taking any position in this deletion discussion, but I'd like to point-out that I did quite a number on this article a couple of months ago while clearing-out a copyright violation. A glance at the old version in the history might give a better view of the troupe's notability and their article's potential. ×Meegs 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have so-so notability. Guroadrunner 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can verify that they're locally notable, anyhow, and we seem to have enough in the way of sources to write a decent article about them, which is my main criterion. For those who judge by global notability, I think a reasonable case can be made that as a notable part of one of America's notable theater scenes, they still qualify. William Pietri 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation by Metros232. Hut 8.5 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj dave dynamix

Advertisement for just some DJ. Contested speedy. Delete. Lupo 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Flapdragon 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Advert. Ned Wilbury 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio from this myspace page, which is copyrighted with all rights reserved. Hut 8.5 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Hut 8.5 JuJube 01:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kohnel Shadowstorm

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL: article about a character in an as-yet-unpublished manga ("release date still to come") written by the poster, User:Kohnel, so WP:COI issues too. Also include Arien Flowstream, Phias and Kilik Spire by the same editor. Tearlach 13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as either hoax or uh... vanity? original research?, not crystal ball. Talking about plot developments in an unpublished manga is difficult at best, and I can't find any evidence of its existence on Google. Imban 13:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor in question's page probably goes a long way towards explaining this. Should have checked up on that first, so it's probably not a hoax. Just non-notable original work that may or may not exist being written about by its own author. Imban 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION and WP:N: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --maclean 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arien Flowstream

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohnel Shadowstorm. Tearlach 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kohnel Shadowstorm Imban 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION and WP:N: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --maclean 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phias

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohnel Shadowstorm. Tearlach 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this per Kohnel Shadowstorm. Imban 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION and WP:N: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --maclean 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilik Spire

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohnel Shadowstorm. Tearlach 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this per Kohnel Shadowstorm. Imban 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION and WP:N: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --maclean 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto the Movie 3: The Animal Riot of Crescent Moon Island Original Soundtrack

Delete because it's nothing more than a reprint of the (mostly Japanese, with unsourced translations) track list of the soundtrack of a movie, with no other information. I doubt this OST would be sufficiently notable for its own page even if it was written up better, however. Imban 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook case of WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-empty. JuJube 01:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look at the title of the page, oh god. T-4 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IRC CANVASSING THX SPUI! Also Delete, Wikipedia is ~~not~~. :o — flamingspinach | (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC) oops, I somehow miraculously made the same typo as YechielMan, oh no :( — flamingspinach | (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the heck? Imban 07:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What? Okay, in a more boring and formal fashion... Delete per YechielMan. Also comment -- SPUI was canvassing for votes on this AfD in an IRC channel, for anyone who cares. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moongazy

if you do a google search, the use of this term is limited to "Moongazy Publishing" and the Stonewylde series of (fiction) books the author cites in the article. Not to mention that most of this is dubious and original research. Calliopejen1 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an encyclopedia that deals in facts. Imban 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO. No sources whatsoever, much less reliable ones. -- Satori Son 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources. Goldenrowley 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turk rock

Speedy Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:ATT, and satisfies speedy delete criteria by failing to assert notability. DarkSaber2k 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- DarkSaber2k 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Emerging genres of music do not belong in an encyclopedia until they have emerged, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jerry 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "emerging" means that this is a neologism, or crystal ballery. --Haemo 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "emerging" because it is still a small niche genre of music. This does not mean that it doesn't exist. It does, and is a part of the underground music scene here. I think it is an asset to Wikipedia that even very obscure genres of music are covered, not a negative thing. If you like, I can remove the word "emerge" from the article.

If "Stoner rock" and particularly "Swamp rock" are valid Wikipedia categories, there's no reason for turk rock to be excluded. The idea of "stoner metal" is a completely dubious and arbitrary categorization. Nobody I know, if I asked them what Blue Oyster Cult or Black Sabbath were, would say "oh, it's stoner metal." They'd say it's "metal." The stoner label is pointless. Tons of people who listen to all kinds of music are "stoners" - the grouping of a few random bands into the "stoner meal" category seems arbitrary. Same goes for "swamp rock." All the bands in that category are basically Southern rock - just because they use banjos, all of a sudden the "swamp rock" category is created? By the way, there are no citations or sources on the "swamp rock" page. The term is nebulous and vague.

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If that's the only arguement you have for inclusion (Articles x and y exist, so Z should as well) then this article is in trouble. DarkSaber2k 09:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm able to come up with some citations and proof of notability in the near future, can this article be re-submitted for inclusion?

As long as the sources are reliable, I don't think there would be any problem with re-submitting it. But that is my personal opinion, naturally. DarkSaber2k 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No verification has taken place over the course of this AfD, so there's nothing to merge. Krimpet (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barber's hours

Tiny number of google hits on this, this is not a notable enough topic for an article, even if barbers do work Tuesday through Saturday as the article says. No reliable sources on the phrase "barber's hours", and I hardly think we need an article on "tuesday through saturday". And this has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Xyzzyplugh 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything verifiable to barber and/or delete. Nowhere near enough for an article on this exact topic. Ned Wilbury 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ned Wilbury. No-one is going to write a decent article on this with current information. Hut 8.5 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Same for lawyer's hours, streetsweeper's hours and Morris dancer's hours ;-) --Dweller 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Merge. Interesting info, completely pointless article. –MDCollins (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but only if someone in the US can verify that any of this is actually true - loath as I am to doubt "Some experts have estimated" as a source — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I know my Barbers have generally worked Barber's Hours. Also, even though this article was given 2 weeks before being AfD'ed, I think after 3 or 4 days and for a few weeks it is time to tag things as unsourced. Then I think they should have about 6 months before being AfD'ed. However, since it is here I must cast a vote against as failing WP:RS. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I point out to the above editors that the closing administrator is not a verification service. You are supposed to be looking for sources yourselves during AFD discussions. I've looked for sources, and can find nothing written about the subject to support any of the content of this article at all, let alone enough to support a standalone article. There's not a single source to be found that corroborates anything that this article has to say, nor any source to be found that discusses barbers' hours as a subject in its own right. And there appear to be several barbershops advertising (or otherwise mentioned) on the World Wide Web who don't keep the hours claimed. This is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G, I also found zero sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, and it was moved to Ewigkeit (music project) Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewigkeit

Does this assert notability? I thought so, but on re-reading it, it looks more to assert excuses for lack of independent sources. The subject appears to be responsible for a fair chunk of the content [25] Guy (Help!) 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two albums on Earache Records meets WP:MUSIC, although it does need work on independent sourcing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another annoying article about a band with a name taken from something in the real world, and not identified as a band (if a "one man music project" is a band). I came here wondering why someone was deleting an article about the German word for "eternity," and found it was just about an experimental "extreme music" performer. This should be renamed Ewigkeit (band) or Ewigkeit (musician) if kept, to disambiguate from the actual word. No demonstration of notability. The article claims lots of "critical praise" but does not present sources satisfying WP:A to substantiate it. Edison 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per no notability and not meeting WP:MUSIC. Eaomatrix 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Edison's remarks make clear, it is important for nominations of articles on bands with allusive names to make clear in text that the nomination is about a band. I couldn't be sure from reading the nomination alone whether this might be about some philosophical or similar notion, which may or may not be worth keeping, but is likely worth reading. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:Music policy cited above says that 2 albums on one of the more important indie labels meets the requirement. Earache is one of the more important indie labels and he has 2 albums on it. Seems simple.Fimbulwintr 21:41, 30 April 2007 (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Summer, Goodbye Camp

Article is non-notable + has an entry at List of Camp Lazlo episodes already. It's a redundant article as a result. Could do redirect, but do not think it likely someone will look up this name. It also has been made into a redirect once or twice and reverted despite consensus on other pages that Camp Lazlo is not notable enough to have its episodes given their own pages.Lendorien 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Redirect or Merge to Camp Lazlo. Bearian 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant overkill. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lendorien and WP:EPISODE. This episode (and probably most of the other Camp Lazlo episodes) does not have enough verifiable information from secondary sources to have its own article. Squirepants101 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no secondary sources to give real-world context, the article fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Zsinj^Talk 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence M. Vance

Biographical article for author and academic of insufficient notability. Subject is a self-published author and adjunct professor at Pensacola Junior College, a small, two-year community college. There is no evidence that subject meets any of the six criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or that, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person "has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

Also, the article does not "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and, as such, does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

This article was previously listed for AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence M. Vance. The result was "No consensus; keep for now but revisit later." There has not been one single edit to this article since that Dec. 12 AfD closure. Deletion is now appropriate. -- Satori Son 14:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's subject is still the topic of notable discussion, as the article notes in the "Notes" section. Please see [26], [27], and [28]. The assertion in this nom that the article has not been updated since the last AfD was closed is correct, however interested parties should note that the three sources I link above were added during the last AfD. Thus, while the nom assertion is technically true, it is not the case that this article has lain untouched since the previous nom brought up the concerns that are again raised here. Vance is not "extremely notable," but his work has been the topic of notable discussion and has been published in notable venues (not including his own press). Let's remember that notability is generally permanent. DickClarkMises 14:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Respectfully, the previous AfD discussion did not establish sufficient notability; the result was "No consensus". As such, the sufficiency of the subject's notability is still a very open question which should be carefully evaluated by each participant here. -- Satori Son 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree that notability was not established in the last AfD result and evidence should be weighed for the same. The nom seemed to indicate that because there had been no changes since the last AfD's close that somehow the "no consensus" result meant that "no changes after X amount of time = mandate to delete." DickClarkMises 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with no prejudice against re-creation if his controversial views achieve more widespread coverage. An interesting dude, who claims the Confederate side of the Civil War was a "just war" and that todays politicians using the cloak of Christianity to justify going to war are wrong, a view congruent with the National Association of Evangelicals, but contrary to most fundamentalist right-wing televangelists. He needs to get on The Daily Show with John Stewart. References from books he publishes fail WP:A. Edison 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me how non-controversial assertions derived from self-published works fail WP:ATT. According to the pertinent section of that proposed policy, here, there is nothing wrong with using such sources, especially since the assertions are not about any third parties. DickClarkMises 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I misspoke. I should have said that comments about him in books he self-publishes cannot establish that he has encyclopedic notability to satisfy WP:N. If his notability was otherwise demonstrated, as by multiple substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, than his own writings could certainly be used as article content to tell more about him. Edison 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- notability, but not much. Eaomatrix 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain but what I am certain about is that he is not notable as an academic he is adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College--not even a full-time instructor, let alone an assistant professor even. Part time instructors are the bottom strata--or the place where you find the absolute beginners. If he is notable it is either as a publisher, or an author of popular works about bible translations, or as a author with an unusual version of history. I do not think his historical work is notable, as it have been reviewed only with his narrow circle--if the wider public gets hold of it, then it might become so. The other points still need checking. DGG 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the article ought not (and doesn't) assert that Vance is notable for his accounting classes. He is a notable writer who has been the subject of reliable, independent sources. His day job is mentioned as a biographical detail. DickClarkMises 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep as a publisher (Vance Publications reprints can being obtained by libraries: [29]) and a writer/commentator. John Vandenberg 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the works reprinted by "Classic Reprints", an imprint of Vance Publications, I believe an article about the publisher is warranted. These works include notes by Laurence Vance, and are in use. John Vandenberg 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Edison entirely -- Samir 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity publisher, junior college adjunct "Instructor" not even a "Professor", and the degrees are not verifiable, with no advanced degree claims, he could have 4 B.A. degrees for all that is said. Colleges in smaller communities will take just about anybody to teach at a cheap rate and this guy really has no claim to notability except perhaps for self-promotion. Plus what he teaches, accounting, has no connection to what he is publishing (slef publishing that is).--Mikerussell 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) the books listed in the article have no ISBNs, and[reply]
- Comment No one has claimed that Vance's instructorship has anything to do with his notability. The article makes the case that he is a notable writer whose works have been discussed in independent, third party sources, which they have. Does anyone actually want to attack those sources, which are what I, as the author of the article, presented as evidence of notability? It seems to me that most of the "delete" votes are just that: votes, and nothing more. I hope that other editors will consider this entry on its merits rather than based on the fact that many of those who have voted here don't care for the idea of an accounting instructor being notable for something unrelated to his teaching. DickClarkMises 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it is a bit misleading to portray Vance's work and works about him as mostly self-published. Look at these, for example: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]. DickClarkMises 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response to Comment: You seem to be almost the sole author of this article, and that seems to add weight to a Delete vote, especially since the original article is not new, having been on wikipedia for 10 months almost. In the links you cite above, he is described as different things from a "Greek Teacher", to a "book Dealer" to a "free-lance writer" to "instructor at Pensacola Bible Institute" which reeks of non-notability to me. A stable public image is not presented, and he is clearly not qualified to be regarded as an academic on wikipedia. Also, what are his degrees, as I asked above? Where are they from? What are they in? What excatly do they have to relate to his books? All you offered is some third party blogs/websites, that strike me as a clearly low-circulation, non-scholarly (at least not peer-reviewed scholarly), privately funded organizations. I say Strong Delete after doing a little more thinking about it. If you are so certain he is notable, then in the future, he can be added, but I think there is an overt tendency here to try to use wikipedia to confer notability, or to simply include a personal favorite of a wikipedia editor, as oppsed to simply including a notworthy figure that adds substance and value to this website. --Mikerussell 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedily deleted per WP:CSD G11: obvious spam for a non-notable business, a real estate business with four buildings and a vague, grandiose, and misleading business name. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Environments of Hollywood

This page seems to be advertising a housing developer Filceolaire 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure advertising, consider using {{db-spam}}. Eaomatrix 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam. BTLizard 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. -- Satori Son 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Central Riot Squad

Nonnotable LA punk band. Tagged for speedy delete, but arguably asserts notability for having song on soundtrack of Wassup Rockers, so moving here instead. NawlinWiki 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-no notability. Eaomatrix 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sources demonstrate notability. Ned Wilbury 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for Wikipedia, unless sources are presented as raised by Ned Wilbury. --Nehrams2020 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Fogleman

Appears to be autobiographical. Notability not established. Sources not provided. "Anders Fogleman" returns < 20 ghits. Prod removed (kind of) by original author. --Onorem Dil 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability by a long shot, and WP:COI as well. Sources from Facebook and YouTube and a claim that "This person is notable to many college-aged people" don't help. Hut 8.5 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some notabilities are proven through a source. If you would like a list of people who have watched videos and know him, I'm sure you could ask around. But there is no document saying he is officially notable. Afoglema (talk · contribs) - Comment moved here from article by --Onorem Dil 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mere existence is not the same thing as notability. There are many people who have seen my neighbour's videos, but that doesn't mean a thing. Wikipedia policy requires attribution to verifiable, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. Most people (including you and I) are trivial sources. A reviewer for the New York Times or the Globe and Mail would be non-trivial. --Charlene 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any external sources, this is just another YouTube video uploader. — Scientizzle 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One out of thousands of YouTube video uploaders. No attribution to non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. --Charlene 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you please list a few examples of possible sources?

Anything that satisfies WP:RS will do. Hut 8.5 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holidays

Non-notable band, does not meet standards of WP:BAND for notability. Author removed speedy tags several times before making a weak claim of notability, then subsequently removed {{prod}}. Neil916 (Talk) 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are "sources" but nothing that appears legitimate. Ned Wilbury 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take it support is an Aussie equivalent of opened for. Fails WP:RS. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, selfpublished book, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Therapy

Advertising for a self-published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Nice try, buddy. YechielMan 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Fashion

Text is promotional, and I don't think company's notability could really be asserted based on the information given. And if they really were notable, they'd say why. Daniel Case 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. YechielMan 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 781 total Ghits and nothing resembling outside coverage that I could find in the first five or six pages of hits. Definitely spammy. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Song

Non notable non single, wasn't even included on a studio album. Article contains mostly original research and trivial information. Delete. Rehevkor 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and not just because I can't stand My Chemical Romance. Too much OR and trivia in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why is this supposed to be notable? No claim made (and an easier claim could be made for the Stanley Clarke tune on School Days. Pete.Hurd 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspiratage

non-notable artistic technique. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but the following comments in response to Akhilleus's comment on my User talk page: First of all, there's a thing called interlibrary loan. But in any case, your statement greatly disturbs me, not so much as it relates to a particular article, but how it relates to the development of Wikipedia as a whole. Is Wikipedia going to be simply developed from online sources because people claim they "don't have access" to books? If Wikipedia is developed without using books as sources, or used without using books as sources that someone "doesn't have access" to, whatever that means -- is it going to be restricted to the books on any given contributor's bookshelf? corner bookstore? local library? -- its development is going to be severely distorted and stunted. As valuable a tool as Google is, Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a Google rehash. Is anyone ever going to discuss any of this? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like self-promotion. Ned Wilbury 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned beat me to it: as I was about to add, this article seems like an attempt at self-promotion by User:Daniel C. Boyer, whom the article names as the creator of the technique. Most of the external links are to dictionaries of neologisms and slang, and some of these entries seem to have been written by none other than Daniel C. Boyer. He has also added some external links to his artwork ([37]). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Shameless self-pluggery. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, spam, neo-neologism. Bearian 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it airs in a TV special alongside extreme ironing ^_^ JuJube 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth White

Non-notable politician, contested PROD Naconkantari 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough here for a biographical article. Come back when this guy has significant coverage in reliable sources. Ned Wilbury 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO this includes clear description of politian norms.Obina 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's 2% more of the vote than I got in that election, but... YechielMan 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear enough per WP:BIO. Eusebeus 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A politician without news coverage is simply not notable--both by our standards or in the ordinary sense of the word. its the nature of the profession. DGG 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And no evidence he has had no news coverage. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable minor-party candidate. NawlinWiki 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definetely keep. I am a Canadian, and I've heard about him, and even attended one of his addresses. Let's add to wikipedia, not remove from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) 09:28, May 3, 2007 (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 Speedy Delete and Salted (Non-admin close after Speedy Delete by TexasAndroid.) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that make organic foods (Second nomination)

Strange one this, as I didn't know spam was an organic food. It was unanimously AfD'd last week, and has now been recreated by a SPA as a weird little non-neutral essay. Bringing it back to AfD instead of speedying, since the content's totally different; however it violates every guideline under the sun. It now consists of (a) a short advert, (b) a hopelessly random (unformatted) list complete with linkfarm and (c) an inaccurate dicdef of 'organic'. As per last time I nominated this, I'm sure it's proddable but I'm certain it would be contested so bringing it here. It might be worth applying the (organic) salt this time. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Recreated after being AfD-ed. Nothing about this article speaks of its being anything else. --EMS | Talk 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per nom, if it looks like spam and it smells like spam.... then I suppose it doesn't matter if it's organic or not. --136.181.195.9 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt, I just tagged for a G4. Not quite spam, as it notes multiple companies, but sounds like environmentalist ranting - close enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans and Higher Education

Although this one is sourced, I still think it's an unrescuable piece of original research. There certainly is a space on Wikipedia for a legitimate article on differential average education levels between ethnic groups in the US, but I don't feel this article is — or ever will be — it; ignoring the (easily addressed) formatting issues, it doesn't seem salvageable. Previously contested prod. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like original research. If you point out the references at the bottom, I guess I'd say that NPOV is also a problem. YechielMan 03:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay. There's a (not exceptionally) better article at Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications and possibly also achievement gap. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is encyclopedic. Reads like a college paper but has the potential to be improved. Any article on this topic is going to be difficult to keep NPOV. This article is not terribly POV. --Richard 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Zsinj^Talk 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Breakdown

Contested prod. IMO, clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, as the release date is well in the future and there is nothing apparently notable about the production — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Somehow I'm willing to allow the article as long as the "future" tag stays. It's just a gut feeling. That said, CRYSTAL technically applies. YechielMan 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there's enough general chatter about the film and the actors involved are well enough known to give it just enough leverage. Likely it'd be recreated within months anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are here to inform, not to ignore. If someone hears about the upcoming movie featuring one of their favorite actresses or something, then it would be nice if they could start off on good footing by finding out the basics here at the Wikipedia; and then making their way to IMDB or the movie's online website for more information. Thats what we do here. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to us when we have a relatively reliable source like the IMDB describing an upcoming event. We are forbidden to "crystalball" without reliable sourcing and attribution (eg: Next Christmas, J K Rowling will give in to popular demand and write an 8th book called Harry Potter and the Birth of the Triplets, which according to some sources are said to look a lot more like Malfoy than Potter). Anyway, certainly the release date could change, and the thing could even be cancelled, postponed, or sent direct-to-DVD. Even so, the information posted is sourced (hopefully carefully avoiding plagiarism), and can be more thoroughly sourced in the future, and it will be updated (and probably repeatedly vandalized) as the release date approaches. If the movie isn't cancelled. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England fundamentalism

This article is complete rubbish. Googling on the phrase produces only utterly irrelevant mentions; googling for the supposed originator produces someone, but he has nothing to do with this either. Mangoe 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, and completely original research. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator says, complete rubbish and blatant original research. Google doesn't find the phrase used anywhere except in relation to the Salem witch trials, which is completely irrelevant to the article. Unverifiable and not even sourced. Hut 8.5 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious WP:OR and considering the tone WP:SOAPBOX. The author seems to have some sort of attitude about New England and decided to write it up on wikipedia presumably as "proof" of his or her theory. -Markeer 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless gibberish. *Dan T.* 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for the noted scholar and the term he coined (typing "John Troxler" "New England fundamentalism" including the quotation marks into the search box) yielded one result, namely, this Wikipedia article. Not even noteworthy enough to get copied onto Wikipedia mirrors. Fg2 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above --Richard 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12 (copyvio). WjBscribe 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lani Aliikai

Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), information about characters belong in the main film article, not on separate articles, unless there is a lot of independent writing about the character, which doesn't seem to be the case. Speedy and prod tags removed by creator even after being directed to this guideline. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Surf's Up (film) -Drdisque 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I guess. If it were me I would just delete it, but I guess a redirect couldn't hurt. JuJube 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio and recreation of deleted material. I'm guessing nobody above actually went to the source (Official website) provided or looked at the the deletion log. --maclean 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Weber

No information or citations to support notability. Logically, should not be notable apriori: media people in USA count in dozens of thousands. Unless he received awards or was envolved in scandals of course. Futurano 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And something should be done about others possibly notable Georges Webers. E.g. I came across a U.S. Congressman with that name. --Futurano 20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a Congressman with this name, then perhaps the article should be rewritten to be regarding him. I can't see any way that, unless the gentleman in question here has won some major awards, he could pass WP:BIO. Rewrite for the congresscritter or Delete and start over, one of the two. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN media personality. BTW, George D. Weber, if that's who you meant, was just a candidate; the incumbent is Todd Akin. He might not survive AFD himself. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of energy blades

Contested prod. Contester asserts that the article represents a lot of effort, which I don't deny; but doesn't answer the problems: This article is original research, and that's not allowed; further, this article is an example farm, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I don't know if it's relevant, but the article had exceeded its prod notice period. Percy Snoodle 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - holy giant list without a single reference Batman! Unless this fellow can source those claims, I don't think this should stick around. --Haemo 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Soucred I think we should give the author a couple of weeks to add sources. It seems like this list could contain useful information. However, if not sourced, this is simply original research Rwhealey 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article was created 08:46, 13 February 2006. How much more time to find sources do you think he needs? DarkSaber2k 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The people working on this article have had less than a week, as best as I can tell, since they were notified that the article may not be up to code. While it would have been better with sources ahead of time, obviously, it's better to count time from when notice is given of someone's failings. (Too lazy to log in, so commenting from IP.) 129.21.28.22 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. DarkSaber2k 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete technically, all blades are made of energy. JuJube 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Sourced I agree with Rwheatly. Given sources, this could provide interesting/useful information.SeanKelly1986 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JuJube is right. Plus the source bit, and original research and seemingly indiscriminate information. Any significant 'energy blades' would be covered in their own universes articles. DarkSaber2k 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content of this article is purely descriptive, therefore the claims made can be referenced to primary sources, which in fact most of them already are simply by crediting the weapon to a particular work of fiction (there are some issues where a series is mentioned but the weapon in question isn't used in all episodes of that series; in these cases a specific episode should be named as an example). With a little more explanatory text the page could be useful for tracking influences between different works of fiction, which is an important and notable subject. Should be tagged as needing more real-world context (is there a standard maintenance tag for that?) JulesH 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I totally agree with JulesH. Primary sources are valid sources according to policy. I do agree that the list may be exceeding its useful length, so probably a lot of entries should be culled. But there are certainly plenty of energy blades to make up a useful list. — brighterorange (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is made of loosely related terms. Also, sources are required immediately. The list is definitely a collection of indescriminate information. Jay32183 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JulesH. May need a tidy up however Palendrom 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another superfluous list article. Yawn. Jtrainor 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. The tag you are probably looking for is {{in-universe}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is just trivia and has no real utility- it's essentialy "List of places where energy blades have appeared". I wouldn't accept this list for any other weapon or object, let alone one as poorly defined as "fictional melee weapons which use forms of coherent energy to inflict damage, similar to the lightsabers of the Star Wars series."--Wafulz 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources won't help this one. It's the subject that's the problem. An article listing works of fiction that include "energy blades" may be WP:INTERESTING but it is simply WP:NOT a good subject to write an article on. Axem Titanium 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video game collector and limited editions

A massive list of games that include "bonus discs" and so on isn't notable for Wikipedia. Imagine if there was a DVD list like this: it would be even larger and more cluttered. Listing things like this isn't very encyclopedic. Individual articles for the games list the notable special editions already. This is just a listcruft/fancruft of any game that has a second disc, came with something special and so on )(notable or not). The previous AFD can be found here: [[38]]. RobJ1981 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Potentially huge page, and really serves no purpose. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so? JuJube 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every video game with self respect comes in a limited edition these days. Pax:Vobiscum 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank goodness there is not one like this for DVDs. This list, however, could become extremely difficult to maintain, and it's more promotional then notable for mentioning on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Some of this article would be better placed into the main game articles.Atirage 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus Zsinj^Talk 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have changed their name

Delete - indiscriminate unmaintainable list. Otto4711 20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not "indiscriminate" since to be included one must first be a celebrity and second have changed his/her name. Such a list is found in common popular reference works such as the "World Almanac." It is maintainable because if a celebrity such as Roy Roger (born Leonard Slye) is not in the list, he can be added, and if someone who is not a celebrity is in the list, he can be removed, by the simple process of editing. The birth name is listed in the main article on the individual. The normal garden variety names with which celebrities began life are of encyclopedic interest to readers. Edison 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of celebrities go by a name other than their birth names. Lists of thousands of people are pretty much by definition indiscriminate and unmaintainable. There is also no objective definition of "celebrity," which sort of complicates the whole "put 'em on/take 'em off" idea.

Weak Keep useful, but I believe it needs a cleanup and a wikify to be truly encyclopedic. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the early days of Hollywood, almost everybody changed their name, a practice that has not completely fallen out of disfavor. This list is not only indiscrimate, it's pretty much irrelevant. JuJube 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is clearly limited to notable people, since they all have wikipedia entries. They are defined by a distinguishing feature, so the list is discriminate. It is easily maintainable, assuming wikipedians care to do so (and given edit history this seems to be the case) --Work permit 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is largely a duplication of a similar list in Stage name. That one has more context and information and doesn't have the subjective "celebrities" title. There is no reason for two of these lists. (There isn't much reason for one of these lists). Croxley 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and do it right. Celebrities is not the same as stage performers. There is no need for 2 identical lists, but there would be a point in assembling either a more comprehensive list, or a list of those not in the stage names group. Of course the same effect could be done be deleting this and starting over. DGG 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning given by Edison. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info is already in the articles. If I want to look up Gerald Fords original name I'll just look in his article. "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" Pax:Vobiscum 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly states what it is including, but it definitely could use some sources if possible. --Nehrams2020 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pax:Vobiscum The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pax Bulldog123 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-maintained list on a topic of obvious concern in the area of celebrities, a topic that gets massive coverage here. A list is the obvious way of bringing this information together. --JJay 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of last-minute changes on Saturday Night Live

Delete - Things change in live television all the time. A list of every time a guest or a host drops out, even if it is at the last minute, is not notable and not encyclopedic. Live shows, and even pre-taped "live" shows, expect guests to drop out; they have lists of people they can call to fill in (why do you think Tony Randall was on Letterman so often?). Add to that the inherent POV problems in deciding if something is "last-minute" (Day of show? Day before show? What's the cut-off and why?) and the complete and utter lack of sourcing and the article needs to go. Otto4711 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An entertaining list, but doesn't really serve a purpose. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless. JuJube 01:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into remark column on List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests--Work permit 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsouced information should not be merged. Otto4711 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, should only merged if information is sourced. If no sources, this is WP:OR, and should go.--Work permit 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of this is...?SeanKelly1986 07:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting list, but not encyclopedic. Kolindigo 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus Zsinj^Talk 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous fictional military brats

This article is simply unacceptable original research — not to mention the bad kind that is indiscriminate (When I think about Homer Simpson, Joey Gladstone, or Dr. House, I do not think about their parents' involvement in the military). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep - ~~most of these are wrong, too.~~

A military brat (also known as a "brat", "base brat", "army brat", "navy brat/junior", "marine brat/junior", or "air force brat") is an American colloquial term for a person whose parent or parents served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood.

~~I can see several of these which simply don't meet these.~~ --Haemo 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've conceded Homer Simpson and Hank Hill... and I have questions about the characters from Supernatural... but if most are wrong, please point them out?Balloonman 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your examples are Hank Hill and Homer Simpson's dads were both in the military and the "history" of said characters does change quite frequently---particularly Homer's. Dr House has talked several times about his father being a Marine Fighter Pilot.Balloonman 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the WP:NOR concerns. Naconkantari 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR: "to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that Dr House is a military brat is out there, it is part of his character's official history. The fact that Homer/Hank's paraents were in the military is fact and published. The fact that Sean Boswell is a military brat is part of the story. The fact that Jill Taylor is a military brat is a published fact and part of her history. The fact that Lee Adama's father is Colonel Adama is part of his history. These are established published facts---not speculation/fabrication.Balloonman 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable independent sources for this? Naconkantari 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are obtainable. Plus, the one's above are fairly obvious if you are familiar with the shows in question. Sean Boswell went to Japan to join his air force father and they talk about how he has gotten in trouble every place they lived. Lee Adama is Colonel Adama's son. Homer's dad is often portrayed in WWII and at least once (with his hippy wife and Homer) in military uniform. Hank's dad is portrayed in the military (I don't watch the series so I don't know if his military service predated Hank or not, but on a ficational list I'd use a lower standard for a cartoon character whose history is subject to change.) For Gregory House, take a look at the article---people who maintain that article have done a good job at citing references to his father's military career. As for Jill Taylor, Home Improvement it was often a point of discussion from the series---the Wikipedia article talks about her families strong military background. I cannot support OR, but I will agree that it probably needs to be cited better.Balloonman 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see what's wrong with that? A military brat is not someone whose father was in the military. It's someone whose father (or mother) was in the military for a substantial portion of their childhood. Hank Hill and Homer Simpson were both born well after WWII, when their fathers served. The obvious disagreement here shows just how bad this list is - because you have no reliable sources to back up any of the facts here, this is what happens. This just shows why this list should be deleted. --Haemo 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Hill and Homer are two that I will readily concede may OR MAY NOT fit the category. But they are cartoon characters, whose histories are constantly being revised/changed. So remove them, I've personally questioned their inclusion here, but haven't worried about it because it is a fictional series AND their histories constantly change. But the others are straight from the series. Home Improvements (See the episode "The Colonel") is as reliable as you get. House same story (Daddy's boy). Margaret Houlihan---same story (virtually every episode.) Wesley Crusher---ditto (virtually every episode). Lee Adama---ditto (virtually every episode). Sean Bosley---Ditto (the movie). So the criticism is citations, not OR. That is solved with an {{unreferenced}} tag. Lois Lane---Ditto (general Same Lane.) Doug Masters---Ditto pivital part of plot. Brian Moreland ---pivital part of plot. Betty Ross---General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross. Jack Reacher --- series is built around his being a brat. The others that I know are all so blatant that it's not even funny. Each one of them their parents being in the military is a concrete aspect of their character. Again, it is anything but OR.Balloonman 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point here - that was merely an example about the problem with the article. A lack of reliable sources means that items should be deleted - there should be no "may or may not" judgment calls required of the editors of an encyclopedia when it comes to inclusion on a list. --Haemo 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have no problem with deleting Homer/Hank---they may or may not be brats. The others (that I know) are. What is more reliable for Jill Taylor than the TV series itself? One either is or isn't a military brat---one either grew up in a military household or didn't.Balloonman 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some can be linked from their own page - but you can't just say "Watch the series". That's not even remotely a reliable source, and is probably original research. --Haemo 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we make it a criteria that a specific episode has to be mentioned... on the ones like MASH that shouldn't be a problem. Easy enough.Balloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I went through the list and provided references for each.Balloonman 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm not happy with most of the references, but it's no longer deletable. I'll argue for Weak Keep now. I'm sure someone else can improve these now. --Haemo 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'm not all that happy with the references either. In a perfect world, I'd like to cite the first occurance of their being identified as a child of a military person. But somebody would have to watch every episode. Thus, I ended up finding episodes that centered around the military parent (Eg "Daddy's Boy" or the MASH episode when Houlihan's father visits) or the character when something significant happened related to the military (Eg AC Slater's "Aloha Slater" and his father is reassigned to Hawaii.)Balloonman 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Naconkantari is taking a wikibreak and per his talk page doesn't wish to be bothered. But based on his comment above, where he asks if we can provide citations, I'd like to think he'd accept my statement about it being unreferenced rather than OR.Balloonman 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not seeing the inherent original research here. Either the character's parents can be established as being in the military or they can't. If they can't, they can be removed from the list. Whether or not you think of it is your own business, but I do know that the episode of Full House which had Joey's father appear did focus on his being in the military. That said, I'm not sure this belongs on its own, or that the title is appropriate. However, I don't see the nomination reasons as valid. At most, they'd be a reason to remove some entries. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you really want a source [39] might be the place to start. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never mind whether this is WP:NOR or not - this list violates WP:NOT loosely associated topics. Grouping fictional characters together on the basis of something that one of their fictional parents did is a loose association. Croxley 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant problem with your response. This is not a loosely associated topic nor is it based on something that one of their fictional parents did. It is based upon an identified studied segment of our population. We are not talking about a category such as "People whose parents climbed Mount Kilamanjaro" or even "People whose parents worked for the Big Four Accounting Firms." Subjects where the actions of the parents have no meaningful impact on the character. We are talking about people who grew up in a specific culture/community. A culture/community that does play a significant role in that characters development. In fiction the negative attributes of growing up in the military are typically highlighted. Gregory House has issues with his father that stem from his father's military persona. The Meecham children likewise are shaped and defined by their Marine Fighter Pilot father. Sean Bosley's character is given the back story of being a military brat thus the justification for his behavior problems and to his being shipped off to Japan. AC Slater is the new student nobody likes at first because he just moved to the neighborhood and doesn't fit in. Margaret Hoolihan is overly patriotic. I can go on, but these characters are written with their experiences of growing up in the military community--and those experiences are used as plot development tools. These effects are more pronounced and studied than say List of left-handed people. Because of the sociological nature and impact they are more meaningful than say List of guest stars on Friends.Balloonman 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research, as well as indiscriminate information. >Radiant< 11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if you explained the original research you're seeing in this article, as opposed to it simply lacking sources at this time? FrozenPurpleCube 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see any original research. There is a clearly delineated body of evidence that can be referenced—namely, the original TV show/novel/play/etc.—and so I see no opportunity for original research. Just because certain examples don't belong, or just because many examples are unreferenced, doesn't mean that the list can't become well-referenced and accurate. Tesseran 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the current inclusion criteria the article would grow into a monumental lists that would serve no purpose. OR or not, it would still be a collection of information without encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So monumental lists would be criteria for deleting? Then what about List of contemporary artists, List of Major League Baseball players, List of actors, List of books by title,Lists of writers and all of the various permutations of the above---many of those lists are so large that they are broken into other lists. So monumental list can't be justification for deleting. Then there is the aspect of "encyclopedic use." List of fictional universes, List of people by name, List of left-handed people, and plenty more. I don't see the value in those lists---others do. The point is, just because you don't see the value of said list doesn't mean that others don't. I've already pointed out how this list is not a subjective list that can be easily documented based upon a rational definition. It is a population that has been studied for over 20 years by sociologist as a unique identifiable communityBalloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reason given was two-fold, first it would be too large to handle and secondly it would be of no encyclopedic use. Please give an example of a time when anyone would have a use for a list like this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Although I am aware that the policy doesn't specifically mention this type of article the basic idea still applies, "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Several of the articles you have linked to should also be deleted. Pax:Vobiscum 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several scenarios that I can come up with that somebody would be interested in this. But rather than point out reasonable scenarios where one would be interested, take a look at the link Mister Manticore provided. This study reports a systematic content analysis of forty-six films between 1935 and 2002 that spotlight children, adolescents, teenagers, and adults from military-service-related families [...] The results highlight a struggle in the negotiation between self-conceptions and self-images of children from military families where a reinforced stereotype of "military brat" is constructed in American cinema. Military Brat: Film representations of children from military families by Morton Ender. Thus, the subject has already been used by a Sociologist as a topic of research... whose to say that somebody else isn't interested in doing additional research into the depictions of military brats in popular culture? Also, note the key words that are used "film • military children • teenagers • military family • self-concept." People interested in those subjects might be interested in this subject as well.Balloonman 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone through and researched all of the fictional brats listed here... a few I couldn't confirm so I hid them. Two I deleted because they were fictionalizations of real people. And a few were deleted as they read "The children from the movie "The B.R.A.T. Pack" or something equally vague. But everyone that is currently showing now has a verifiable source.Balloonman 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is original research. Specifically, it is an original synthesis of published information in the form (Fictional character + parent in the military = military brat). Unless the term 'military brat' is specifically mentioned in the series or in interviews with the creators, we have no business declaring that, say, AC Slater is a military brat.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is flawed. By definition a person whose parent is in the military is a military brat. The series does not have to use the term "Military brat" to make it a fact. It would be like saying, "You can't have a list of African American characters unless the character is specifically identified as African American." One either is or isn't a military brat by definition so there is no original research in this.Balloonman 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that fictional characters can be declared 'by definition' to be military brats is an idiosyncratic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people. I sincerely doubt that there are multiple, reliable sources for such a view.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your statement is Original Research. You are contending that people who define Military Brat to be the child of a military person is "an idiosyncatic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people." Please cite your sources. I could go through and cite scores of politicians, journalist, sociologist, dictionary entry's, military brat registry's (Militarybrat.com has over 77,000 registered brats!), etc that use that definition (as I did with the main article [Military brat (U.S. subculture)] but nobody has shown a single source (credible or even non-credible) where children of military personel object to the term brat or more importantly say that it is not used to describe children of military personel. Second, it doesn't matter if the person is fictional or real, the definition applies arbitrarily. One either is or isn't a military brat. Check out various dictionaries (both print and online) and you'll see that definition (you may have to look up just Brat though.)Balloonman 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own article calls it a subculture - not a universal truth about which there can be no dispute. I don't need to cite sources, since I'm not the one making strong claims about the classification of fictional characters. If these characters were created with military brat-ness in mind, (and if the term is so popular) then it should be a trivial matter to find proper sources which use the term. And of course it matters whether the person is real or fictional. Real people are born, they live, they die, they think, they have their own opinions about themselves. Fictional people aren't born, don't age, don't die, get rewrites done to their backstory, get updated for a new generation and so on. What happens if a fictional character gets a rewrite which changes their parent's job from military to civilian?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character's histories are constantly being re-written---particularly in the comic book industry. In that case, you have different incarnations of a character. Betty Ross for example has been both an Army Brat and an Air Force Brat depending on which series you read. Bruce Wayne is now a billionaire. Sandman has been a petting villian to one of the Endless. A re-written history doesn't negate the previous history's existence. As for Military Brat being a military brat is an a priori truth---if your parents are in the military then you are a military brat. You grow up in that culture whether you choose it or not---your parents chose it for you. Sociologist who study the subject don't differentiate between some non-existant line that you are trying to create. If a parent is in the service, then they are included as part of the population... period. Again, in the main article I've cited Admirals, Generals, Senators, Sociologist, Dictionaries, etc that point out that a military brat is the child of military person. Meriam Webster defines brat as "2 : the child of a career military person <army brats>; also : the child of a person whose career is in a specified and typically unusual field <Hollywood brats> "[40]. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Army Brat as "NOUN: The child of a member, typically a career office or enlisted person, of the U.S. Army."[41], the free dictionary "2. A child of a career military person." [42]. So again, I am going to ask you to cite something other than your opinion on this subject.Balloonman 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still shoehorning real-life concepts onto fictional characters and settings. It doesn't matter what has been said about real-life military brats, 'growing up in a military culture' etc doesn't apply to fictional characters. None of them 'grew up', period. They were invented one day by an author or scriptwriter who may or may not have had military bratness in mind when they made the character.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, and more often than not they are going to simply be charactures of various stereotypes (ala Margaret Houlihan and Sean Bosley). Believability and credibleness is not the criteria. In fact wikipedia guidelines state that when using primary sources (the movie/tv series) to make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. The criteria isn't how closely does this character fit to expectations, but rather "Does this fictional character have a back story that they are military brat?" If so, how are they portrayed? What are the stereotypes that are being propegated about brats? How does this portrayal affect the brats self identity? These are not relavant for the list, but may be something people are interested in. (See quote from Morton Ender above.) List of fictitious Jews, List of Catholic comic book characters, List of fictional Republicans, List of fictional Democrats, List of fictional priests---each one of these fits your concern they aren't really Republicans/Catholic/Jewish/prists/Democrats, they are fictional characters. Some will be very shallow and unbelievable others will be overly stereotyped. How Republican is the fictional Republican? Is the fictional priest a child molestor? Is the Democrat really closet Republican, but written for political purposes? What agenda might the author/writer had in giving the character the backstory? Did the author even think about it? It doesn't matter.Balloonman 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:INTERESTING. These questions are no doubt fascinating to you, but that is no reason for a Wikipedia article. Some of those articles should certainly be deleted. And I still think that your belief that fictional characters can be objectively categorised as military brats based on their backstory is the idiosyncratic opinion of a very few people. Who has verifiably said that 'all fictional characters with parent in the military = military brats'? No-one. Should we have a list of historical military brats, with Ghengis Khan and Leonidas I on it?--Nydas^(Talk) 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(or merge into Military_brat_(U.S._subculture) though I prefer articles 1-2 screens long)) [Newbie here; please excuse any faux pas.] The concept of a list of military brats (persons, historical and/or fictional, during whose childhoods their parents served in the military) seems to meet the criterion of "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources [which] is, of course, strongly encouraged." Perhaps not all incarnations of a character meet the criterion for inclusion (e.g. some of the Sarah Crewe/Little Princess movies), but that can be noted with appropriate citations. Requiring the use of the term "military brat" retroactively makes as much sense as saying that Mark Twain's character of Jim in Huckleberry Finn wasn't African American, because the term wasn't used in the book. BTW shouldn't the article title format be just "Fictional Military Brats?" "Notability" being a criterion for inclusion and all that.KVWS 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I so hate the other-crap-exists argument Bulldog123 13:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a wintry keep; strong consensus that the nominator's allegations of this being an attack page are unfounded. Regarding the delete/merge arguments that this information belongs in Werner Erhard rather than its own separate page: you are welcome to discuss these arguments in the relevant talk pages instead as outlined at WP:MERGE. Krimpet (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and Werner Erhard

This article is being proposed for deletion because it appears to have been created as an attack page intended to disparage Werner Erhard. It contains a large volume of information that was removed by concensus from other Werner Erhard Related Articles due to non-notability. Barnham 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep. You have to be kidding. This is one of Wikipedia's most anally-referenced articles, with 38 different sources and a reference tag at the end of almost every sentence in the article! I don't see any effort by you to address these issues on the article's talk page before going to this drastic measure, which smells like bad faith to me. wikipediatrix 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User Smee the creator of this page has a long history of POV editing on Werner Erhard related articles. This article was created to circumvent the discussing the issues on the Werner Erhard, Est and Werner Erhard and Associates articles. If you look at the references provided in the article, with a few exceptions they do not support the point that is being made in the sentence. The article goes into depth on topics that are not related to the subject of the article. While it would take a little time to look at the history and talk pages of these articles, it would be easy to see that this article was created as an attack page.Barnham 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see it. I think this is one of Smee's best articles. Tell ya what, pick some of the best examples of these references that don't support the points (you know, we DO have a tag for that very purpose) and make your case on the talk page of the article. Not here - the talk page of the article. But it's still a moot point: an AfD isn't for arguing the quality of the article, it's for arguing whether the article's fundamental premise is encyclopedic and notable. wikipediatrix 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I know nothing at all about Scientology, but this is one of the best written & best referenced articles I've ever seen — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete This article has been created to attack. The article was created over night with material that a majority of editors on other pages agreed was not noteworthy in the article about the subject. Many of the references used are not directly related to the statements they are supposed to support. Ebay3 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reason is unsubstantiated, and none of the other reasons are valid criteria for deletion in an AfD. wikipediatrix 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hard keep - i see no evidence of an attack, especially in light of the fantastic sourcing. the_undertow ^talk 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I fail to see how this is an attack against either Mr. Erhard or Scientology, let alone their relationship with each other. Article is very objective in its approach and does not disparage either Mr. Erhard or the CoS. If somebody can explain to me how this attacks either party, please explain thusly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an outsider to the this subject having read the article and look at several references, I did not come away with the feeling of any POV, who are you claiming is attacked (edit: you seem to claim Erhard and I didn't even notice this)? It looks like facts have been presented. Some minor issues of if or not information is notable enough for inclusion but no reason to delete.--Dacium 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per wikipediatrix. Even some of our science articles aren't this well cited! Reads like a factual account and essentially all statements are referenced. WP:NPOV doesn't mean a balanced point-counterpoint nor does it require that an overwhelming amount of factual material that happens to point in one direction be excluded. DMacks 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE Although this article is well-referenced, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. There are articles on these two separate entities already, so why would there be a article on the combination of the two? There do not appear to be any articles about Scientology and other notable people who have taken Scientology courses. FreedomByDesign 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing appears to be thorough at a glance (I did not go through each footnote) and based on the 60 Minutes report and several books written on the subject, the interaction of these two appears to be an issue of at least some notability. The commenter above mentions that since there are articles on both of the factors, there is no need for this one, but this is a specious article if the interaction of the two is notable in itself (either as an event or influence). An example of an "interaction" article would be The Rumble in the Jungle. I don't think many would argue that the fight does not deserve it's own article just because both Foreman and Ali have articles of their own. If there are POV issues, address them in editing, not in AfD, especially since Wikipedia as always cares what can be cited as true more than what anyone thinks is true. -Markeer 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is very well sourced and the objections to it seem to be based in embarrasment at the information revealed rather than any breach of established wikipedia policy. If something can't be sourced then it should be edited, there's no justification for removing the article though. Nick mallory 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the allegations about this article are without foundation.--Fahrenheit451 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABLE?? Wikipedia lists "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as a reason for deletion (WP:Deletion). This article definitely has sources but regardless of POV or NPOV, I don't think this article comes close to Wikipedia's threshold of notability (WP:NOTABILITY).

According to the guideline, "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." From what I have read in the sources and other articles, Erhard's links to Scientology are always brought up in the context of influences on Erhard and discussions about his exhile. Therefore, I think this is a topic best addressed in the Werner Erhard article in the "Influences" section (in fact, Scientology is mentioned in the Werner Erhard article). I worry about the precedent allowing articles like this that link two separate entries with the word "and" will set. Are we also going to see "Pat Robertson and the Religious Right", "Al Gore and Apple, Inc.", and "Ralph Nader and GM" as their own entries?

RESPONSE TO 'RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE' One editor pointed out that sometimes two different entries come together in noteworthy ways (Ali and Frazier in the Rumble in the Jungle, John, Paul, Ringo, and George forming the Beatles), but I would submit that such noteworthy interactions are nearly always given their own names instead of being referred to as "This and That" (Islam and Christianity meeting in the Middle Ages is called the Crusades) and usually relate two similar types (nouns, ideologies, or geographies). That is to say, you will see a person and a person (Lewis and Clark, Rogers and Hammerstein) but you won't see a person and a philosophy/religion (e.g., the article on Muhammad Ali mentions the Nation of Islam, but there is no article named Muhammad Ali and the Nation of Islam, nor is there an article named Jane Goodall and Apes. Such relationships are best related within the article about the person, not as their own; they are not "the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject." (WP:Notability) Scientology should be mentioned in the Werner Erhard article, but I do not think there should be a separate "Scientology and Werner Erhard" article.

DELETE Roccoconon 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - what's in a name? French and Indian War would not survive this afd if one were to delete based on this criteria. the_undertow ^talk 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then definitely recommend we AfD Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. ClaudeReigns 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since if both topics are noteworthy in themselves the connections between the two certainly are. Having a separate article also might establish a stalemate between Scientologists on the one hand, and est/Landmark people like the nominator on the other, allowing the maintenance of some balance and retention of critical information by others. If the article were merged, most of the information would slowly vanish.ER ^Talk 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this subject is just not notable enough to warrent it's own article. The material was and is still included in several articles where it is being discussed and worked on by many editors. While this article appears to be well sourced, when you follow the references and read them, they don't support what is claimed. Creating an entire new article because one editor doesn't want to address the discussion where it belongs is not apporpriate for wikipedia. It still is a biography of a living person and should be treated that way. See WP:BLP where it says:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies.
We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
Remove poorly sourced contentious material.
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.--Saladdays 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious questions, again: 1. Can you give us any examples of these references that don't support the text? 2. Can you spell out for us specifically what sentences in the article violate WP:BLP in your opinion? 3. Why have you made no attempt to edit the article? 4. Why have you made no comments about your concerns on the article's talk page? 5. Did you know that complaints about an article's content are not valid criteria for deletion in an AfD? You say you think the article contains poorly sourced information. Okay, so fix it. It's interesting to me that none of the "strong delete" voters have made any effort to edit an article they insist so vehemently is filled with mistakes. Makes it appear that they don't want to improve the article, they simply wish it would go away for their own reasons. wikipediatrix 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article documents a significant connection between the subjects and backs that up with strong sourcing. Many of the complaints must inevitably cast doubt upon the motives of the complainer, I'm afraid, such as complaints that "The material was and is still included in several articles where it is being discussed and worked on by many editors" coming from the editor who made unliateral deletions of that material from those articles, or the simultaneous claim that it is "material that a majority of editors on other pages agreed was not noteworthy in the article about the subject" (by which logic it seems we could argue for any article's deletion by saying "the material is not noteworthy in article X", where X is some article other than the one under discussion.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong "Delete" or "Merge". It is clear that this article is well-sourced. The article DOES seem to cover a controversial topic about a living individual as the article itself states that Erhardt believed his life was threatened by members of Scientology, so it should be given a high level of scrutiny. It fairly deftly states points of view as the matter of opinion of it's source. What concerns me is somewhat on the lines of Rococonon above. I think it is an issue of redundancy, and balance. Should we not now call for an article on "Zen and Werner Erhardt", as Zen has been cited as a major influence on est and Landmark Education in order to have Wikipedia exhibit a balanced view of Erhardt's philosophy? Or must we reject that because the Zen Buddhists did not purportedly threaten Erhardt's life? Does controversy fulfill the criteria for notability? Then perhaps one of us better get working on an article about Lady Di and the Paparazzi. I find the criteria for notability confusing and it doesn't help that it is under dispute. Further, I'm not sure it's got the breadth I'd like for something like Wikipedia. I think there's something to be addressed about the definition of "encyclopedic topics". Ftord1960 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then Merge With Prejudice The article is well-written, well-sourced and definitely notable. The problems including this critical information at Werner Erhard seem to stem directly from the WikiProject-wide edit war. The necessary steps seem to be: block the appropriate users, clean up Werner Erhard, merge the article, protect the article. Wikipedia should also immediately institute an equal and opposite policy to Fair Game to protect projects where a group advocates suppression of speech by any means necessary. If means already exist and are sufficient to address such a thing, then they should be liberally employed, beginning with the deletion of single purpose cult apologist accounts. Obviously the article by name sticks out like a sore thumb. This is a reflection of the pathology of that ongoing edit war which siphons much needed editing resources from other related topics and from the project in general. In general it seems the problem lies in editing that is weak in sourcing and strong on nuisance. Bad for the project. Fix this at the Project level and above. ClaudeReigns 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- User Wikapedatrix asked that the asertion regarding the citations be supported. Here are three examples:

In the section of the article titled “Compared by Academic, Secondary Sources.” The first sentence says:

The press, media and academics have compared and contrasted the techniques utilized by The Forum and the Church of Scientology:

This is supposed to be supported by the next paragraph with three citations. The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."[33] Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34]

Here are the misrepresentations in these three citations:

1) Sentence: The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] Citation: ^ Soul Strip Tease, Stern, Germany, April 2, 1998. They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Misrepresentation: In the cited article, Scientology is actually compared to something called “Block Training”.

2) Sentence: The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church." Citation: ^ Green Party detects a scandal in hall rental, Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber. Misprepresentation: This is an article about the rental of a hall in which begins sentence says: “Liederbach. They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church”. The rest of the article is commotion about the Green Party renting a hall to Landmark Education – There is no comparing or contrasting of techniques in the article. The sentence is a generalization that is not attributed to a specific person as a quote.

3) Sentence Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34] Citation ^ Lalor, Peter. "Why you will find yourself at the Forum", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), February 2, 2002. Misrepresentation: The article cited here is very hard to find and the link provided in the citation goes to another Wiki article on the Daily Telegraph paper in the UK. The actual article that is used as a citation here has one sentence that says, "Cynics describe it as Amway Meets Scientology because of its new age philosophy and recruiting fervor.” Again this is a throw away comment that is not attributed to another person and hardly amounts to comparing and contrasting. No comparing or contrasting takes place in this article.

Lastly the above three references are about Landmark Education , not Werner Erhard or Werner Erhard and Associates. Ebay3 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, take that up on the talk page. Just because you see three cites you don't like is not grounds to delete the article, it's grounds to discuss whether they need to be included in the article. This echoes what was already talked about in this AfD: if you don't like some of the content, discuss and edit, don't delete! Putting up an AfD for an article with stuff you don't like is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per comments by Antaeus Feldspar. Ibanix 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per kind comments by User:Wikipediatrix: "This is one of Wikipedia's most anally-referenced articles, with 38 different sources and a reference tag at the end of almost every sentence in the article!". Thank you. I worked hard to source virtually every single sentence in the article to multiple citations from reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

COMMENT: -- It should be noted for the closing Admin, that Users: Barnham (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Ebay3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), FreedomByDesign (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Roccoconon (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Saladdays (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), have made few or no other edits outside this topic. It is probable that other single purpose accounts related to this topic may jump on the bandwagon on this AFD as well, and this should be noted. Smee 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author blanked the page. NawlinWiki 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Teal

An autobiography with wild claims and zero references. GregorB 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not one hit on Yahoo or Google returned any info on this guy. Blueboy96 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Google "Eric Teal" + "Fermat's Last Theorem" = 1 hit, Wikipedia... Pete.Hurd 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Andrew Wiles solved it in 1993 AFAIK... even if he did some work on it it seems to be totally no-notable and a non correct solution because everyone mentioned in working with it is mentioned here Fermat's_Last_Theorem.--Dacium 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on "Eric Teal" via google that has any info.SeanKelly1986 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, out and out hoax, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability whatsoever, unsourced as well. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:A to establish WP:BIO ... Fermat's Last Theorem#Proof says that Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor (mathematician) deserve the credit. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the author has attempted to blank the page ... that looks like a CSD G7 cause for closing this debate ... If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. —72.75.73.158 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (db-bio). -- JLaTondre 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!spencer!

To quote from the original prod attempt by User:Nadav1: Looks like a hoax. Doesn't link to a source about !spencer!. Couldn't find anything online. Article about new album doesnt mention him: [43] GregorB 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB had seconded the proposed deletion, and the page author deleted the prod template. I of course still support Deletion. nadav 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Entirely non-notable, no sources to go on, no cites, and under the assumption that this is for real, it's still crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like this is either WP:COI or a WP:HOAX, based on the edit history. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inasio Anzures

Allegedly a formerly world ranked kickboxer, there are no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:BIO. Google has [44] to say about him. Delete barring any sort of sourcing and evidence of notability. (Note: this was a contested PROD; the notice was removed with no comment other than removing the "world ranked" bit from teh article. That isn't the crux of the deletion rationale, obviously.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. TheRingess (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i cant find any evidence he was world ranked. the award is nice, but does not establish notability. the_undertow ^talk 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Solane

Contested prod. Article authored by a single purpose account and listed by a bot on WP:COIN. May be notable in France; please let the folks there know, and some references would sure help. YechielMan 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as it stands the article admits it is based on original research. the_undertow ^talk 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no evidence of notability provided. Even if refs/notability were established, article would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect --Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Bluff-Luton Primary School

Generic primary school. No claim of notability. WP:NOT a directory of schools, especially primary schools. Even if they do employ bus drivers. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many of these have we seen? YechielMan 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. All school districts are notable. Most high schools are notable. Some middle schools are notable. Very few elementary schools are notable. As a school that only covers PreK through second grade, it was unlikely that any supporting material was found, and a search on Google and Google News / Archive found no glimmers of notability. As the school district article exists, a target for a merge/redirect is available and a trimmed down version of this article should be copied over to the district article. Alansohn 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to say why allschool districts must be notable. Some small ones--like this-- might be parts of the article for the city or county or other region. Just a comment to keep in mind. DGG 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all related articles (primary, elementary, middle, high) to the district article. *Cremepuff 222* 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the District as per Alansohn. We don't need a list of who the officials are within a particular school especially as at least some of the information in the article was wrong before an e-mail to the unblock list led to a correction and I suspect to this AfD nomination. If there was verifiable information from reliable sources for this article, there might be a case for a standalone article but there isn't. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I am opposed to merging the information here per WP:V, particularly in light of the accuracy concerns raised by Capitalistroadster. I would support merging any facts backed by reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Eusebeus 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notableJewishprincess 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete, Merge/Redirect per AlansJohn. Noroton 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HomeLAN

Non-notable gaming site. Generally, when an article has to include a list of players and admins, it's not a notable place. Corvus cornix 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - my search comes up empty for verifiable sources about the subject. the_undertow ^talk 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:WEB, and it's a threat to HomeLAN Security! YechielMan 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable. WikiFishy 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Warner

The article fails WP:BIO. The tone of the article is autobiographical and provides little independant references to verify claims. Subject does not appear to be the subject of an independant biography nor have multiple features in credible news media. A quick google search turns up lots of Josh Warners, but this article seems to be the only one about this particular artist. So it is not likely that the subject has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. There is also little or no mention of significant awards. The article is very promotional in tone with little real verifiable content about the subject. Since the article also discusses the subject's business, the article should meet WP:CORP. Given the lack of references, it seems safe to assume that the company has not been the subject of secondary sources. The article appears very promotional in tone. Delete TheRingess (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no references this is entirely original research, so it's gotta go. the_undertow ^talk 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created by single-purpose account Shaunco (talk · contribs), so high WP:COI spidey-sense here. vanispamcruftisement at its best. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete on the present information. it seems odd that a producer of custom jewelry for the market described would not have some articles of reviews in standard media, and not prejudice against re-insertion if they ever appear. DGG 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sadler

This article appears to be legitimate, but a search for a few days turns up no reliable, independent significant sources about the man and his trip to North Korea. I have vaguely heard of a man that fits this description, however, as searching yields nothing, not even a confirmation of an urban rumor, I don't know if this article is for real. The topic is sufficiently current and of the stuff web blogs are made, that I think something should show up on the Internet with simply searches, as there is nothing, I don't know if this article is for real or not. I suspect not. If it is, he's not currently notable enough to keep this particular article about him. KP Botany 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed your AFD for you. --Quuxplusone 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator now claims to be Paul Sadler, thus delete per WP:COI violation. Makes numerous unbelieable claims, is totally unsourced and not verifiable.--Dacium 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:RS. COI isn't enough on its own to delete an article, and it isn't even needed as a deadweight for this one. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Sounds a lot like a WP:HOAX --RaiderAspect 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried finding sources and information for this article. I found people called Paul Sadler, but none were even close to what this article is about. I suspect it's a hoax. Acalamari 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgot to post my delete. Quuxplusone, thanks for the fix. I swear I thought I did everything. KP Botany 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:V Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of inclusion. WikiFishy 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as apparent hoax, and redirect to Killiney. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Killiney

non existant place Vintagekits 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD might be a bit premature for this. The article is in the past tense, referring to a place that used to exist. In fact the Killiney article states In the first half of the twentieth century, the Electoral Division of North Killiney still consisted of a small village at its center and a number of suburban roads lined with large houses. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no mention of any historical context in the article - its purely OR and also I never heard of the place and I am the Oracle--Vintagekits 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment North Killiney was a distinct working-class area of South Dublin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. your right sorry, what I probably meant was that text describes it as a mordern place.--Vintagekits 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The area described was open fields before it was Sallynoggin, Avondale Close etcetera - and Sallynoggin was built (and know as Sallynoggin) in the 1940s - so this "working class area" certainly wasn't in the locations described. (Sarah777 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It would help if the original author gave some reference, any reference - that's what we asked for originally! If "North Killiney" is some historical area (that nobody living in or near it seems to have heard of) surely there must be some written record of that fact? (Sarah777 00:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, searching Google Books and Google News Archive turns up 0 ghits (though plenty for Killiney and Killiney Hill). Fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I lived in Dublin for years and never heard of North Killiney as a area.--padraig3uk 13:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well im Irish born and raised and I live in Glenageary which is beside "North Killiney" I have heard my son refer to the place north-western of killiney hill as "North Killiney" and have heard the phrase used quite regulary by locals. It used to be a bit of a run-down area as far as I can remember and Glenageary the place where I live is right in between " North Killiney " and Sallynoggin, and we do get a bit of stick from both ends. My point is that the place this writer is refering to does exist and im quite convinced that what he says is the truth as far as I know it. Maybe some pictures or links would be usefull but I think the page should be kept for a bit of fame for the misfourtuned kip! Pelserherbst

-my freind lives in north killzone lol! it used to be a kip now its grand because they have cleaned up all the graffitti and renovated houses. I still wouldnt walk around it at night tho! im from sallynoggin myself which is close enough, so all these yokes^ dont have a clue, im glad to see something on the internet for once on north kiliney. xx

Comment - the posts above are hoaxes. (Sarah777 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, well not exactly hoaxes but they are the first and only edits each of the accounts have made which screams of socks.--Vintagekits 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, some messer(s) - if I may be so uncivil - is trying to see if they can insert an article into Wiki about a made-up name. (Sarah777 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

http://northkillineyinfo.wetpaint.com/ for fuck sake it does exist, its not a town or an district just a nickname for an area, get over it. (anonymous comment)

It really is time to delete this garbage. Or can we all invent an area and have Wiki ponder the issue forever? (Sarah777 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

why are you so upset about this.? get a fucking life. delete it if you wish fuckface

Tut Tut! Language! Yes, I'd go with a merge; if the semi-literates who wrote it had put it in "Killiney" in the first instance we'd have saved a lot of bother! (Sarah777 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge with Killiney where (as One Night In Hackney points out above) it is already discussed: "In the first half of the twentieth century, the Electoral Division of North Killiney still consisted of a small village at its center and a number of suburban roads lined with large houses. A few modest cottages were occupied by working class locals and bohemian residents such as George Bernard Shaw, whose house, Torca Cottage, is close to the boundary with Dalkey." SilkTork 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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