Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 26 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 25 December 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Polizei

Team Polizei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete, I would like to propose a deletion of the Team Polizei page for the reason of, not notable enough as they are getting not one single pace to having a page for criminals and are the only Gumball 3000 partipicant who is mentioned I can think of who is not a proper celebrity. Willirennen originally edited on 03:00 25 December 2006 (utc), re-edited on 02:45 26 December 2006 (utc)
  • Delete. In addition to the nominator's arguments, it appears to be a vanity page. See WP:COI. 129.98.212.51 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In argeement with the above comments. Alex Roy might deserve his own article (assuming that his book will be published by a mainstream media outlet), but beside the point. BMan1113VR 05:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, borderline speedy. MER-C 07:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, press page on their site offers numerous examples of media coverage. The tone is a bit vanity, but they're covered extensively in secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an underground racing team is exactly that, thus has no real place on Wikipedia. Also references for such an association would likely be incomplete and biased. TehKewl1 08:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you look? There were several articles from mainstream sources like Vanity Fair and the New York Post. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Vanity Fair article is a piece on the Gumball Rally. Alex Roy as an individual is one of the focus of a good bit of the article, but I would say it provides support for an Alex Roy article rather than a Team Polizei article, and considering how the two appear to be inextricably linked, it probably would make sense to create an Alex Roy article with Team Polizei being a section of the article. -- Whpq 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is probably the best solution.BMan1113VR 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, since he's pretty much the key figure in the team anyway, and he's been profiled in several places. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd say merge with Alex Roy, but it appears not to exist. -- Whpq 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - underground? says it all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may be a WP:COI, doesn't appear to be notable. Hello32020 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to demonstrate adequate notability. --Jackhorkheimer 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well per the notability concerns. — Arjun 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenot notable at all. Jorcoga† 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say that Alex Roy deserves his own article than this one does. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Eun Hye

Yoon Eun Hye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no sources to prove this girl is notable. 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orlggo (talk • contribs).

  • Delete fails WP:BIO Miss purple 20:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stars in Princess Hours [1] and The Vineyard Man. Some Google hits, but I suspect there aren't more because she is from Korea. Dar-Ape 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see several references to news articles, I found a few through Google News, she's starred in a few television series and she's won an award. I think she's notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Jayden54 21:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable and widely used sources that mention the person allows her to pass WP:BIO. TSO1D 00:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, based on WP:RS, notable actress per WP:BIO. Also, the contributions of the nominator and the above delete !voter make me wary; both have suspicious AfD nominations and no Main namespace contributions. --Kinu t/c 00:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not fail WP:BIO and per others. — Arjun 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note that the only delete voter has only 5 edits. — Arjun 01:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you blind, Orlggo? This does have sources in the articles to prove this lady is notable. Also, keep per other reasons and it doesn't fail WP:BIO. — GCFreak2 02:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unreferenced is not the same as unreferencable. savid@n 01:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough. --Jackhorkheimer 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it seems to be notable. Jyothisingh 03:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cites sources and passes WP:BIO -- Selmo (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. She was part of one of K-pop's biggest girl groups. She was one of the stars in a top-10 Korean drama. There is no reason for this page to be deleted. SKS2K6 03:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy G4 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 02:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diddymonster

Diddymonster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Userfied and deleted on Dec 18. This seems to be a new and slightly expanded version, but still looks like a nonexistent company. Claims to have made movies SOMTHING OR OTHER, which is a "page in construction" about a "movie in process". (Google has almost no hits for "diddymonster animation") Aleph-4 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G4 (db-repost) and salt the article. So tagged. If the production company goes notable, take it to deletion review. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - also tagged the aforementioned movie with CSD A1. --Dennisthe2 00:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and lack of Google hits. TSO1D 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Fails WP:ENC, has lack of formal language, fails WP:NOT, been deleted before, lacks good english and grammar/punctuations, and alot more. Also, speedy SOMTHING OR OTHER too. — GCFreak2 02:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable/non-existent company; fails WP:CORP due to lack of WP:RS. Protection recommended. Also delete SOMTHING OR OTHER and THE B TEAM, speedily if possible as empty non-stubs. --Kinu t/c 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 15:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Fiske

Solveig Fiske (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The creator of this article removed the speedy tag inserted as an A7 CSD. The creator then reported the tagging Editor in AN/I for vandalism Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mindless_deletionism. In order to take the heat out of the discussion I am listing this as AFD as restoring the speedy tag will undoubtedly create more debate then is necessary. Effectively an administrative listing but I'm not entirely sure that every Bishop in the world is notable. Spartaz 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I think we have a consensus now. If someone could come along and close this we can all move on with our lives. --Spartaz 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am obviously satisfied with the general consensus, my general position is that AFDs should remain open for the standard period of time. For one thing, the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion hasn't had a chance to vote yet. --Leifern 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the case of questionable articles that could go either way, I lean on the side of "does someone care enough to write an article" side. There's no point in keeping a stub for three years that nobody is ever going to touch, but if someone is willing to write an article on it ... this person seems to be a significant individual in the national church of Norway, so keep. BigDT 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After all she is a bishop. And she passes WP:BIO; there are articles about her in important newspapers in Norway: like this one. TSO1D 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the standard in WP:BIO is "multiple non-trivial published works". A quick google throws up what are obviously multiple reports of her appointment as bishop. (The fact that I can't read Norwegian is irrelevant.) Bucketsofg 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and please, deletionists, think before you nominate. --Leifern 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's only a cabal if you want there to be one. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Leifern, I get frustrated at deletionists, especially when deletion is a first resort (vs. tagging for cleanup or sources, or even googling first). But labeling a speedy tag as vandalism just makes you look silly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cool it Leifern. Your assumption of bad faith on the part of other editors and calling the speedy tag, errantly applied or not, and this AfD as vandalism doesn't reflect well at all. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a deletionist (who always thinks and looks for references before nominating, thank you very much) and I argued againstthe speedy delete tagging. I hope User:Leifern can recognize that the accusations of vandalism and cabals are unnecessary, and that there are processes that Leifern should follow in future if faced with this kind of situation again. And please, no votestacking. Bwithh 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am happy to discuss my characterization of the speedy delete nomination as "vandalism," but I have deliberately not brought that into the discussion here, partly as conciliatory move, and partly to keep the vote clean. I will write a brief explanation at User talk:Leifern, and we can take it from there. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, but it seems that making one accusation to counter another does little to get me - or anyone else - out of the trenches. --Leifern 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Judging by searches, appears to be known only in Norway. Also, appointment as Bishop doesn't seem to me to give sufficient notability--she is the Bishop of a town of 27,000. IMO, this can be covered sufficiently in other Wikipedias. The other Wikipedia article doesn't seem to cite much in the way of references either. This page is extremely light on the "multiple, non-trivial independent published works" as well. --Jackhorkheimer 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diocese of Hamar is one of 11 dioceses of the Church of Norway and covers one of the most populous areas of the country - far more than the 27,000 who live in the seat of the diocese, namely Hamar. And by your standard of "only being known in Norway," should we delete articles about people who are only known in the United Kingdom, Canada, or the U.S.? --Leifern 03:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; episcopal-level dignitaries of a major church are notable pretty much by definition, in my opinion, in the same way that dukes and princes and senators are notable. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it seems to be notable. But it would be good if some secondary references are provided, apart from the external links. Jyothisingh 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion people holding highly-placed religious offices are automatically notable, in addition, there appear to be ample sources. The article may not be ideal, but it is acceptable under all wikipedia policy I can think of. As to the greater debate, I'm staying out of it, but I will say that I can see points on both sides. Assuming good faith is vital, but using a speedy tag when an article does not meet speedy criteria is also stepping out of process. In my opinion, this AfD should avoid that issue. Wintermut3 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and put Stub mark Notable enough, passes WP:BIO, and it's about a bishop. GCFreak2 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bishopcruft Keep. Philwelch 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient ex offico notability as a bishop of a national church. Bwithh 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Bishops are notable. And speedy-tagging an article with such a clear claim to notability (and doing it without an edit summary) may not be vandalism, but it is not correct use of the deletion instruments we have around here. up◦land 08:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, she is a bishop of a major church of Norway, there are a number of reliable sources on Google. If we have articles on little kids (not royals) on the line of succession to the British throne, this subject also has (in fact) more notability than those kids. Terence Ong 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bishopcruft. Hehe. But seriously, multiple non-trivial works. Punkmorten 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:29Z

Earth-349

Earth-349 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Promotion for a non-notable fictional universe. The article creator's name is the same as the name of the author of these works. FreplySpang 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft and per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fancruft. TSO1D 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public domain means delete! «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 02:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's non-notable. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, fails WP:TRIV WP:OR WP:NOT and per FreplySpang. GCFreak2 06:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanispamcruftisement which was made up one day. MER-C 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I only got 206 or so google hits without refining my search at all, besides that, it is completely unwikified and I think it would be waste of time bothering to make it so. Besides that, it's total fancruft. TehKewl1 09:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft, WP:VSCA. Terence Ong 09:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable fanfiction -- Whpq 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jorcoga† 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely non-notable. And I agree, the close similarity of the creator to the name in the article is highly suspicious. This could possible fall under {{db-spam}} and definitely violates WP:COI --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see: this should be deleted because it's not "notable" enough? Well, sorry I wasted your time, folks: I didn't know Wikipedia had already become so elitist. -- Dr. Psycho (the one and only)

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Fabio Moro. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:27Z

Fabio moro

Fabio moro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nice work, but writing programs (even if they rip classic computer games) seems to be entirely non-notable. The article was written by User: Fabio Moro, I suggested "userfy" a few days ago. -- Note: The article Alley Cat 2 had almost the same text, I made it into a redirect to this article. Aleph-4 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Internet privacy, article may now be rewritten, but more likely just add content to the redirect target. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:12Z

Digital trail

Digital trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A neologism referring to technological paranoia. Despite numerous references, the article still reads like a synthesis of information and speculation that runs afoul of WP:NOR. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite The concept itself is real, and this particular term does have established usage (For example, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Internet" and plenty more [4]. Still, the article itself could use a fair bit of work, so I do agree it should be rewritten. Possibly redirected if there's an already existing page that will serve the purpose better. FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. As an expression this is of passing importance. Mostly this is already covered in e.g. internet privacy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support that for a redirect then? FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. MER-C 07:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR. Terence Ong 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite - Real concept, studied parts of it in an computer ethics class. Is some original research but has some citations at the bottom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite - Real Concept...in-line citations would be nice. Tag as controversial? SERSeanCrane 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rewrite - Perhaps a valid concept. However, far too much OR here so shouldn't be allowed to stand as-is. Should at least be pared down to a stub. --Jackhorkheimer 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rewrite The concept sounds familar, but something here sounds like WP:NOR or WP:COPY. I'm not sure, though. I think that either a rewrite or a delete is in order. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Fang Aili talk 01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Lazarus

Scarlet Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete unless further information is brought forth. Some notability is asserted in the article, but Scarlet Lazarus has no IMDB.com profile, 8 Ghits (none are relevant), and there is no evidence that the film Cabbage Stew that she appeared in is notable or even exists. Furthermore (and strangely enough), the article was created by new user CabbageLettuce, whose only contribution is this article. Fabricationary 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7. --Dennisthe2 00:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem to comply with WP:V, no information found. --Kinu t/c 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 05:23Z

Gun fetish

Gun fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed; procedural nomination. The article itself is a good candidate for deletion, though; no sources and almost totally speculative. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for obvious reasons. – ClockworkSoul 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to be bordering on both nonsense and an attack article (person's name at end). However, there is also a real sexual fetish focused on guns that could exist at this name, and it should be noted that this is not actually an article on that subject to avoid accidentally misleading future article participants. --tjstrf talk 01:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the above. Borderline G10/A1? Tevildo 01:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - seems to be a gross violation of many criteria; WP:NEO, WP:ATTACK, WP:REF, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOTE. The article does not contain any references. Reading the article itself is painful and is nearly incomprehensible nonsense. --wtfunkymonkey 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, though does not seem to be a speedy candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been speedied under nonsense. DoomsDay349 02:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment; As far as I know CSD:G1 won't work here as poor writing is specifically excluded. Nonsense does not apply since there is an obvious point to the article, it's just articulated VERY poorly. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMarginal, and of little value. No references given. Atom 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree with above arguments. A2Kafir 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...well, there is such a thing as a gun fetish, but this article doesn't address it and it shouldn't remain — shoot it and put it out of its misery. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Administer the coup de grâce at once, per above. Guinnog 04:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (note, edit conflict) It rambles, and seems entirely speculative. No cites, and it just sounds like BS. I'm calling WP:BOLLOCKS and going with a Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). --Dennisthe2 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete POV and largely OR. Note: I removed the "see Michael Kerr" line from the end of the article as a personal attack against a living person, as per WP:RPA, as it was not critical to the material at question to provide yet another example and it was a pure attack, I didn't see a way to refactor it neutrally and in line with a neutral point of view. Wintermut3 04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. TSO1D 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary With some verified source, it'd be a good candidate for Wiktionary, otherwise delete per above. GCFreak2 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Jannali, New South Wales. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:16Z

Jannali East Public School

Jannali East Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

School with no assertion of notability and insufficient independent reliable sources. (I'm uncertain whether a private member statement by a legislator qualifies, but I'm willing to accept it -- it's still only one source, though.) Does not meet WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. The school survived a second AfD over a month ago, partly because it was over 50 years old (a criterion which has since been removed from WP:SCHOOLS), and partly because its nominator was determined to be a vandal -- circumstances I think warrant another discussion. Its first VfD was a year and a half before that. Article has been tagged for cleanup since the previous discussion, but no editing has been done. Proposed a merge and redirect first per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3, and WP:LOCAL, but it was declined, so am bringing it here. Shimeru 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete No asserted notability of any kind. Fails any set of school criteria. Only 115 total and 62 unique Google hits, including mirrors, and most of the sites that aren't mirrors are directory listings. -- Kicking222 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment To be fair, the age criterion has not been completely removed from WP:SCHOOLS. However, a school must be distinctive due to its age, and 50 years is in no way distinctive. -- Kicking222 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it seems to be non-notable. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Doesn't deserve deletion, does have proof that it exists. GCFreak2 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Unremarkable school. MER-C 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Terence Ong 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, or merge somewhere. WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3 state that schools that don't meet its criteria should be merged somewhere (which is fine with me), not deleted anyway, so the rationale for deletion isn't entirely valid. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned, the merge was declined, so the rationale is indeed entirely valid. Shimeru 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about a significant institution. Nathanian 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it significant? What claim of significance is made? -- Kicking222 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JROBBO 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - yet again, this is being used as a substitute for Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and there is no valid rationale for deletion. There have already been two AfDs on this article, one very recently, and I'm tired of articles being renominated just because it's to a particular user's fancy to delete a certain type of article this week, or because they can't be bothered doing some research and improving the article themselves, or because they disagree with the previous outcomes, so they just keep nominating the article until it goes their way. That's not the way to do things on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other tags to cover those sorts of situations, so why aren't they being used? As I said in the last AfD, there are some significant articles on a newspaper database that I found about the school, such as it being caught up in an education funding dispute in the early 2000s under Bob Carr's Government, but no one seems to take any notice of that - everyone uses the Google search and that's it. There are plenty of print articles - why doesn't anyone look for them? It's because people can't be bothered doing any work - it takes far longer to write an article than to delete it, but the deletionists get impatient and say that if we can't get a good enough article in three or so weeks, then it should go - too bad for anyone who's done any significant work on the article. And to be honest, although I would have liked to improve the article, I haven't had time, so I'm annoyed that yet again, rather than anyone doing some work on the article, it just gets nominated for deletion because no one understands that people need time to improve articles. And while the nominator claims that he tried a merge tag, in truth he suggested that we merge the article to the local school district, and if he had read my edit summary when I got rid of that suggestion, he would know that I got rid of the merge tag as Australia does NOT have school districts, and so it's impossible to merge the article to such a thing. I have a compromise though - I'm prepared to merge this to the local suburb article (Jannali, New South Wales) (which is a sensible and realistic merge proposal, as opposed to the last one). Let's stop this silly and ridiculous debate, and I'll put in the references needed to make the section of the Jannali East article on the school a good one. Alright? JROBBO 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Shimeru stated in the nom, many of the keep !votes in the AfD seven weeks ago were solely based on the nominator being an spa. Without those !votes, there was much more of a consensus. -- Kicking222 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag says "school district or locality," but I can see how that might be missed. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in favor of a merge/redirect (or expansion from reliable sources, if you have the time now to do that). I don't particularly care whether we do or don't have an article on the school -- only that, if we do, it's one that shows why the school is notable, with reference to multiple independent sources, like we'd expect of practically any other article. This one was first written in May 2005 -- that's a bit more than three weeks to wait for sourcing. But a merge is a good compromise until a sourced article can be written, and that approach seems to be building consensus. Shimeru 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - ok, considering I have a few sources on the school from newspapers and the like, though not enough at present to support an independent article, let's merge this to Jannali, New South Wales and keep everyone happy. JROBBO 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - DXRAW 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not make any assertion of notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Smerge per recommendation below. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The likelihood of this becoming a significant article is pretty small, considering the school has 175 students. The article in its present state makes no assertion of notability, and frankly, I can't see how it ever will. The fact that it is a school does not make it instantly notable. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a school article is not strong in the beginning, chances are good it will never improve. This article does nothing to expalin why this school should be worthy of note. Denni talk 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Repeat nomming here is getting rediculous.. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When an article is kept in part because people hoped that it might improve, that presupposes that the article can be renominated if it does not improve. When an article is kept in part because of defects in the nomination, that should be no barrier to a proper nomination. In theory, the closing admin should ignore WP:ILIKEIT keep votes, but sometimes they don't, and those decisions should not be binding. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this meets WP:SCHOOLS as proposed and is verifiable through reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion has been provided. Silensor 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete - still doesnt meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3 criterias in its current form. Also, the criterion over whether it should be kept on how old the school is or not should be debated at its related school project pages. It's had enough time to improve and to find sources since its last 2 AFDs, and as it stands at the moment, it looks very shaky. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing moderator - if User:Shimeru is not going to withdraw the nomination as he says he will, can this please be userfied to me so I can merge what's notable into the Jannali article? JROBBO 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't realize you'd merged it. Consider this withdrawn; I'll redirect the page as soon as the discussion is closed. Shimeru 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done it yet - but I don't want the page deleted and the sources of information to be not available, so as to prevent me from merging it properly. JROBBO 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect under the GFDL. bbx 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Kenosha Unified School District. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bullen Middle School

John Bullen Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school, as per WP:SCHOOL —Steven G. Johnson 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The very epitome of delete, as this is the very epitome of a directory listing. At no point in its five-week-long life has this article had any text. Considering the mere 93 total and 35 unique Google hits, and none of them assert any amount of significance. -- Kicking222 01:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Kenosha Unified School District. Empty article. Shimeru 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it seems to be non-notable. Jyothisingh 03:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Shimeru
  • Redirect per Shimeru GCFreak2 8:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no content whatsoever. So tagged. MER-C 07:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about a significant institution. Nathanian 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same question as in the above AfD- what makes this institution "significant"? -- Kicking222 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NonNotable WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:V#Sources, WP:NOTE. // I c e d K o l a 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect per Shimeru. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources, and none appear to exist. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Shimeru. Completely non-notable school - adds nothing to the encyclopaedia. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Shimeru. If there were something important to say about this school, it would have been said. Denni talk 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Kenosha, Wisconsin or applicable school district article if one exists. Silensor 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by admin Canadian-Bacon ((CSD G1) Patent Nonsense). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cronisaur

Cronisaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy Delete, please. Patent nonsense. Gets zero, zip, zilch Google hits. Note the reference to marijuana in the article. Hu 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per Hu. -- Kicking222 01:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete lol this is patent non-sense. TSO1D 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:30Z

Perfect Country Western Song

Perfect Country Western Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A neologism. Not encyclopaedic; trivia. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Akihabara 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO; if the anecdote can be referenced from WP:RS, at best it belongs in David Allan Coe or the song's article. --Kinu t/c 02:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the term is more based on several tongue-in-cheek jokes about country music, and is more an explanation of a general stereotype. Second, I guarantee that if you say this to any country-western fan, they'll become quite irate with you. Delete on the grounds that it's utter WP:BOLLOCKS. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Country music stereotype? Kinda like beer, trucks, 'n wimmen, eh? :P --Kinu t/c 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worse than a Rap Stereotype of "Rape a cop, Kill a virgin", do lots of drugs, treat women like sex objects, and kill anyone that disagrees with them. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inherent POV and article is OR. TSO1D 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Protologism, somewhat POV. —ShadowHalo 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. GCFreak2 08:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn neologism, 440 ghits. MER-C 07:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tongue-in-cheek neologism. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't even include the most important parts of a country song - the truck breaking down, the dog dying, the wife leaving, and above all the cattle being rustled. --Charlene 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NEO, WP:NOT and per Charlene.fic.--Dakota 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:17Z

RAM Raider

RAM Raider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN blog, WP:WEB, WP:V - crz crztalk 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, blog fails WP:WEB as hosted on Blogspot; individual appears non-notable per WP:BIO, as a few press quotes and winning an award you came up with don't cut it as far as WP:RS go. --Kinu t/c 02:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. Winning an award for "crappest blog" which was created by this blog itself? Bwithh 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Terence Ong 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

From the "notability" criteria:

"Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

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

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles"

The RAM Raider has PRINT articles published in the mainstream and specialist British gaming press. The RAM Raider is also extremely well known in the UK - telephone any UK games magazine and ask if they've heard of the author. The website is also referred to in this wiki entry as a "publication of note." A Google search for "RAM Raider" will also reveal how well known the site and author are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skizm (talk • contribs)

  • Delete not notable as far as I can tell. Some independent references might help. Skizm, if you find and put references that are WP:RS into the article I'll reconsider. delldot | talk 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteComment: Refer to British publication MCV issues 18/11/05, 22/09/06, 29/09/06, 06/10/06, 03/11/06. MCV is published by Intent Media and satisfies the WP:RS criteria. Other articles written by the author can't be disclosed as the blog is written under a pseudonym, but the articles written by the author with the pseudonym satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. User:Skizm
    • Duplicate. Skizm, I fail to understand while you keep blanking this article, and at the same time arguing that it should be kept ? Schutz 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Schutz 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Wildnox(talk) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:19Z

The UC Merced Library

The UC Merced Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page for the UC Merced Library consists of material that was removed from the original UC Merced Wikipedia page. I doubt that there's really enough information or noteriety to warrant a seperate article on the University's library when sufficient information is already covered on the UC Merced page. Thus, unless there are any good reasons to keep this article as is, or any edits with sources to verify its noteriety, I propose it be deleted. TheLetterM 02:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Wow, if you hired an advertising firm to write a promotional brochure for a library, this would be it! Tocharianne 16:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SUBWAYguy 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 345 ghits when ucmerced, Wikipedia and mirrors are eliminated, and those are all directory entries. No sources cited and I doubt there are any aside from self-published. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The Library building is named for Leo and Dottie Kolligian". Any more Ghits under that search? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few, but mostly not mentioning the library, or doing so trivially. Some routine annoucements about Leo Kolligan's being appointed regent. What appears to be the record of an estate he inherited. A mention on a construction website that he has financed a lot of construction work at UC Merced. I just don't see anything that establishes notability for the library as a separate entity. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Merge all relevent information into University of California, Merced without the POV, and then delete the rest. It reads like an advertisement, and I think anything that this article has to say can be said as part of a larger article. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 04:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's to merge? There already is a section on the library. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge, as there is no content worth saving. Back in September, various anon IPs and users repeatedly tried to add this text to the main article. I think at least one claimed to represent UCM or its library, with the implication that they had the right to control the article. See Talk:University of California, Merced#Library. On a side note, I'm glad they "strongly support the idea and use of Wikipedia in the proper environment". szyslak (t, c, e) 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tocharianne DelPlaya 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per Sbrools. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Simple Truth. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:19Z

My Love for You

My Love for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This song is not notable. The only claim to fame is that it's video was the "first 3D animated music video" from India. Even this is not verified. I could find only one link[5] which says that "Anuj Nair's album Simple Truth puts forward a claim to fame. No, it's nothing to do with the music; rather, it claims to be India's first 3-D animated music video." I am from India and I don't think that this song was popular. The only claim to notability is that it was a 3D animated music video -- this doesn't make the song notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not from India, and I find the preceding arguments convincing. Out it goes. 129.98.212.51 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Simple Truth. Songs not notable enough for their own articles should be redirected to albums and the information included there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap and help searchers. JYolkowski // talk 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. The 3D thing may merit a sentence in Simple Truth. But is there really only one song entitled "My Love for You"? I'm shocked. delldot | talk 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect page and add a cited mention of this in the album article. ← ANAS Talk? 02:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as above. It could be said in one sentence in tes Simple Truth article. Then redirect it to the album. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a source can be located for the claim (I couldn't find one). That's enough to warrant its own page right there, and the claim can be expanded upon if true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not nominated the article because I am contesting the claim that it was the first 3D music video in India. I've nominated the article for deletion because the song is not notable. Jyothisingh 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I disagree on that point, too. That's obviously a notable occurrence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Fairly clear keep consensus; nomination was withdrawn by nominator as well. Closing admin encourages the interested parties to add sources where needed. --Fang Aili talk 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks

List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of the same nature:

Delete per consensus reached on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces. --Nyp 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that Nyp (talk · contribs) has very few edits to his name and should probably not be indulging in AfDs at this time. IZAK 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that Nyp (I) have been contributing since September this year. --Nyp 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain per below Delete I am probably asking for trouble by even getting involved in this AfD but these are just lists of red links. Furthermore this topic is already well-covered here. MartinDK 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So remove the red links. Most bombings do not justify articles of their own, anyway. - crz crztalk 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - this is merely implementing that consensus. (Side note: My personal belief is that these articles should be kept in some form, since they're a useful method of cataloguing information. But the most important thing on Wikipedia is consistency. If the previous consensus says that a one-sided list is inherently POV, all these lists need to go. If a new consensus is reached, saying these lists are allowed as long as they don't use terms like "massacre", then the deleted list should be revived, and edited to the exact same standards. Consistency above all else.) Quack 688 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Consistency is important which is also why there is admin discretion and AfD is not a vote. That said, we should not overinterpret it. X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regarding this specific AfD I would say that the previous AfD more than anything established that if these things are already well-covered there is no need for these lists. They (like most lists...) add nothing important to Wikipedia. Timelines in the main article are much etter suited for this kind of thing. The POV naming is easy to deal with but they are still just lists of things we already covered in other articles. The problem of lists being POV because they only contain attacks comitted by one party in the conflict could have been easily dealt with by merging the lists. So the POV argument really isn't reason for deletion, the fact that lists are a horrible way of doing this kind of thing is a valid reason for deletion, POV or not. MartinDK 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis." Agreed. We need to examine the reason why X was deleted. If it can be shown that Y doesn't have this problem, the original consensus doesn't apply. In this case, the Israeli list was deleted because it was decided that a list of only one side's attacks (whether or not the term "massacre" is used) is inherently POV. Some of these articles use the term "massacre", some don't, but at their core, they are all lists of one side's attacks. Therefore, I believe that, whether or not they're kept or deleted, all these articles need to be treated the same way. Quack 688 09:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Absolutely true. These lists are an inherently bad idea and same line of reasoning applies as on the other AfD. My only additional point is that even if the one-sided aspect is removed by merging all these lists the fact that it is a list makes it an inferior way of dealing with this since in this case a timeline in the main article would be much better and less prone to POV arguments. Sorry if my arguments got mixed together, I totally agree with you. MartinDK 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd also be happy to see all these lists turned into timelines within appropriate articles. Quack 688 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Quack 688 --khello 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Keep the rest. With the exception of Al-Aqsa which is pretty dodgy, I'm not sure that there is a parallel between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres committed by Israeli forces. That article was a pretty clear copy-and-paste from a larger list except that attacks from only one side were copied and then relabeled as massacres even when the article did not identify them as such. In this case, the inclusion criteria is easily verifiable (did the guy blow himself up?). Some of these lists are too long to be part of a timeline (Hamas for example) and they are useful on their own (for example in tracing the history of one of these organizations). I would recommend the following remedies to deal with POV problems: (1) rename all of the articles now called "xxx massacre" to "xxx suicide bombing" unless the incident is more commonly known by another name and (2) clearly identify each list as a subset of a larger list covering both sides of the conflict with a note that attacks from one side do not occur in a vacuum. GabrielF 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- GabrielF 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? For what policy reason? Are they not verifiable? - crz crztalk 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the AfD mentioned in the nomination. I am not going to repeat the arguments for deletion stated there just for you, but the consensus drawn was to delete the article in question and as these articles are of the very same kind consistency has to be maintained. We cannot delete articles listing Israeli actions but keep the articles listing the actions of their enemies. The very idea of that is inherently POV. --Nyp 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well who deleted those articles?! What do you want me to do about it now? No binding decisions. - crz crztalk 16:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? The only article in question of the AfD I referred to was deleted by User:Jaranda and I don't want you to do anything about it. I want the Wikipedia to be NPOV. Deleting one side's actions and keeping the other side's actions is not NPOV. --Nyp 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dude, I truly sympathize, but I got NBD and no policy reason to delete this! - crz crztalk 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Rationale is supposed to be "Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature." I find that not to be the case at all. Nomination is some kind of exercise in WP:POINT in order to achieve parity between two AfDs. Independent third party reliable sources could be easily adduced to justify each entry on each list. To the extent this cannot be done, the lists should be trimmed, but under no circumstances does this justify deletion. I find the entire AfD bizarre. - crz crztalk 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (Per GabrielF above), and rewrite the rest. sorry for the above stroked-out vote- I wasn't aware this AfD was for all those- I came directly to this page from the List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and thought this was just for it. I say rewrite the rest because, as GabrielF said, they need to be put in context. Also in a lot of cases the naming of the event is not consistent with the source quoted. An encyclopedia is meant to add to readers' understanding, and in my opinion just listing things like that really don't add anything as opposed to a thorough article explaining them, or at least putting them in the context of the conflict in general. --khello 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see a policy-based reason for deletion in this AfD. All lists are useful and verifiable if correctly managed by diligent Wikipedians. I would argue that the cited AfD kind of got it wrong and efforts should be made to create an acceptable list on that topic rather than purging these lists. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's all true and legit, good lists and let's avoid Historical revisionism (negationism). IZAK 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not keen on lists, but insofar as we have them, I can't see a reason to delete this particular one, although it'd be good to see each entry sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this AfD is not closed yet then, would you mind explaining the difference between your opinions here and here? --Nyp 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hard to assume good faith on this AFD, smacks of WP:POINT. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this violates WP:POINT ... where? Instead of referring to guidelines back and forth while disregarding from the presented arguments, state your arguments why the lists should be kept. A list of Israeli attacks was deleted. Articles of the very same kind that are listing attacks by the other side of the conflict are now being defended. See this by SlimVirgin in the AfD of the Israeli attacks article. Here she assumes the contrary position. I might not be a person with much temper, but such obvious unfairness is ridiculous. --Nyp 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A list of Israeli attacks was deleted" - There's the POINT. As to the other AfD, deletion was not the answer there. I think it was a crappy outcome and would have voted to keep and cleanup (save for the POV fork angle, which is not present here). - crz crztalk 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So would the correct action I should have taken been a deletion review of the other article instead? In my eyes that would have caused the NPOV of the Wikipedia to be at the whim of a few persons that I from what I have seen most likely would have endorsed the deletion. --Nyp 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't know, but certainly not to augment one crappy outcome with another - crz crztalk 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If even an admin is unsure about the proper action to take, a fairly new Wikipedia contributor cannot be expected to take the 'right' action either. Regardless of that, my point still stands. Does anyone even argue against that deleting lists of only one side's actions in a conflict is NPOV? Should this AfD fail I will take the other article to a deletion review, as I in neither way can see me being at fault. These articles are all of the same nature. Either they all should be kept, or they all should be deleted. Anything else is in conflict with the trustworthiness of the Wikipedia. --Nyp 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment yeah you should have taken it to deletion review... only the massive consensus on that AfD meant that you wouldn't have achieved anything. As I said above I don't think the problem here is POV at all... whatever POV problems there might be with these lists are easily overcomed. What should happen is that the way the information is presented should be improved, possibly by integrating the information into relevant articles. The problem now, as forseen, is that this AfD has gone from a debate that could have led to an improvement of Wikipedia without loss of valuable information to a heated debate with no apparent possibility of a comprimise. I would have abstained from AfD'ing this at all and worked on getting this integrated into the relevant articles if possible. I change my recomendation to abstain. MartinDK 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But wait: I have just gone through the deleted stuff and most all of it is already contained in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. That was a POV fork AfD. These are not POV forks of anything (if they are, let me know). These cases are not the same. - crz crztalk 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you check the history of the deleted article you will see that any additions of massacres committed by the IDF in more recent times were removed again by pro-Israeli contributors. --Nyp 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why don't you start List of Israeli Defense Forces operations and limit it to 10 casualties or higher? It would be hard work, but you would avoid the POV issues. - crz crztalk 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I am not mistaken such a suggestion was brought forth on the other AfD, but was either ignored or not good enough. I would not have a problem with attempting to create such an article, and if you can provide me with the information in the deleted article I would have a basic ground to start working with. Not meaning that I would publish the very same article again, but that I would not have to go through fifty years of Middle East history before creating the article. --Nyp 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here you go: User:Nyp/IDF. And remember, neutral sources. Preferably news articles from the likes of Reuters, AP or NYTimes. Many of those have been hyped, numbers unverifiable. - crz crztalk 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks. I'll see what I can do with it. Feel free to do whatever you are supposed to do with this AfD, this compromise would be fair enough to me. --Nyp 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems to be at odds with WP:POINT. Beit Or 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And is withdrawn, so lower your shields. --Nyp 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until there are no delete opinions left, the AfD lives, so people can and should continue to vote. - crz crztalk 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, so all that is withdrawn is my own vote for deletion? My misinterpretation then. --Nyp 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment AfD is not a vote. People can and should continue to voice their opinions on the deletion of these articles but I would like to see a closer that actually deletes an article whose nomination was withdrawn. MartinDK 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SlimVirgin and Izak. Though I was under the impression that if a nominator withdrew the AfD, it is closed as an automatic keep. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Should never have been dominated in the first place. Since this AfD has been wisely withdrawn, shouldn't this be closed out?--Mantanmoreland 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Depends on how you look at it. If people continue to point to WP:POINT then the closer can point to that and speedy keep on that account. MartinDK 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since the nominator has withdrawn the nom, can't someone other than the nominator post the template? Perhaps an admin or uninvolved user should do so.--Mantanmoreland 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a hot topic. Personally I am a Zionist Jew, so I am biased in favor of keeping anything related to terrorism against my people. On a more formal level, I think the material is fundamentally verifiable, notable, and neutral in point of view. By this last point, I mean that there are many Palestinian supporters of terrorism who should find no fault with the informative format of the articles under discussion. I hope cooler heads prevail in this debate. 129.98.212.71 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, the problem here is not that we don't have enough people saying keep. The problem is that we still have 4-5 people saying delete so it can't be speedy closed. So really I see no reason for any heated debate to resurface. MartinDK 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GabrielF smart and fair reasoning. --64.230.120.144 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, it looks like consensus is saying that as long as a list only contains verifiable incidents, it can remain on Wikipedia, even if it only lists one side's attacks. Fine, I'm happy with that, I'm changing my original comment to a keep. I look forward to seeing the deleted list brought back using the same standards.
Can we at least reach consensus to remove the word "massacre" from all of these lists, and from the individual articles they link to? In many of the listed cases, the only source that refers to an incident as a massacre is the "Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs". If the international media or other neutral sources call something a massacre, fine, we can call it that too. If not, all the articles like "Bus X massacre" should be renamed to "Bus X bombing". Quack 688 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comments on why is a waste of your and my time.--Shmaltz 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorder as a category. frummer 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category would encourage people to create an article for each and every incident - I don't think that's truly necessary. Quack 688 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and why not?!?!? frummer 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too many redlinks, need to wait untill those redlinks to turn blue in order to reorder. frummer 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Gabi S. 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that we should rename them so that the rethoric used is the same as the Israeli articles. With all due respect though a guy blowing himself up is not a complicated affair. Yes, it is horrible when he kills people and it is definately a notable event but I would find it very hard to fill an entire article about one attack, except perhaps the larger ones that have prompted serious military responses. Eventhough we keep these articles I still think there is room for consistency as stressed by Quack. I personally like timelines (that extension to the MediaWiki software is way underrated in my opinion), apparently there is no consensus for that which was partly why I abstained so that's off the table but there is still room for improvement. We just don't need to go through this AfD to do that. MartinDK 08:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--yidi 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete & merge into non-pov lists of all the atrocities committed during this war. also the inclusion of word 'palestinian' in title is unnecessary & arguably pov. would we accept 'List of Israeli civilian massacres'?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whose fault is it that PIJ call themselves Harakat al-Jihād al-Islāmi al-Filastīni? - crz crztalk 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep - No grounds for deletion. Apparently, the nominator was frustrated that a list which was a copy paste of another article and contained only falsehoods was deleted, but in contrast to that one, these are lists of factual suicide attacks that took place and are relevant and there is no reason whatsoever to delete them, nor was there any attempt to articulate such a reason. The comment above by Bsnowaball shows why those who want to delete the article lack a whole lot of knowledge on the issue and shouldn't participate in the AFD probably. Amoruso 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Take it easy Amoruso. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you, and for you to attack people for voting delete is extremely uncivil. MetsFan76 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack anyone. Sorry if it sounded like it did to you. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that people who vote delete are "lacking knowledge" and "shouldn't participate in the AfD" is an attack on people's intelligence but I accept your apology. MetsFan76 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it attack on people's intelligence ? I merely meant that a person who doesn't know what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is and thinks that I've added the word "Palestinian" there is obviously lacking knowledge on the issue. It's like saying that writing "Irish Republican Army" is POV and unnecessary. cheers, Amoruso 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is yet I voted delete. Are you saying that I "lack knowledge?" MetsFan76 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not my intent to generalise. I didn't mention your name, i mentioned Bsnowball above. Cheers, Amoruso 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Bsnowball is entitled to his opinion without someone claiming that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Would you like if someone did that you during the next AfD? MetsFan76 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a comment that proves I'm not familiar with the matter at hand, then I wouldn't mind. The comment above proved it. Amoruso 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you make a comment if you had no clue what you were talking about? My point is that it is not up to you to pick on people if they made a "mistake," it is up to the admin or whomever that decide whether to keep this article or not. All I was asking for you to do was to keep cool; I didn't ask for a debate. MetsFan76 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question was created by me, and I was offended by the allegation made by Bsnowball - I explained politely that if someone doesn't understand that basic issue about the group concerned then his vote is questionable, which was my entitled opinion. Cheers, Amoruso 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, I'm more interested in Amoruso's claim that the deleted list "contained only falsehoods". I look forward to receiving "a whole lot of knowledge on the issue", which will prove this claim to be true. Quack 688 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you claim the Kafr Qasim massacre to be 'a falsehood' you are nothing but a revisionist of the worst kind. I withdraw my withdrawal of the nomination. --Nyp 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kfar Qasim was a massacre, so yes it had 2 massacres and the rest a copy paste. The falsehoods are the ones from 1948 that weren't included in the original 1948 war list. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Certainly notable, and I can't see any of the POV that could easily be associated with such a topic. Why exactly is this up for deletion anyway? Dbratton 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know except for the WP:POINT. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Haham hanuka 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nom didn't give a good enough reason to delete; article is notable, encyclopedic as far as a list can be, and can prove useful for many purposes. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason given to delete. Zeq 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that surveys show that Palestinians are proud of these attacks and a list is the most basic way to keep track of them for supporters. On the other hand, the lists are reminders to Israelis of the 'peace' some are chasing. So, an Afd on this is merely ignorance of the conflict. --Shuki 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, articles are not sourced properly. Giving the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs website and the entire Israeli Defense Force website as a source does not cut it. Original research. For NPOV best to have an article that lists both Palestinian attacks on Israelis and Israeli attacks on Palestinians. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pepsidrinka 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brrreeeport

Brrreeeport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable internet meme. Only one reference, and while the google hits are significant (109,000), only the one source has been noted for this meme. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologistic forumcruft. No WP:RS indicating that it's notable. --Kinu t/c 03:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Only notability was a single link that was recycled twice. --Dennisthe2 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RS, non-notable, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 09:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We really need an official-sounding policy-type thing like "Wikipedia is not for something you invented in a forum one day". -/- Warren 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INCREDIBLYSTUPID. --- RockMFR 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-context. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete neologism. ← ANAS Talk? 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Robert Scoble. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:32Z
  • Strong Delete per nom. How is this discussion still open with some speedy votes? --Wizardman 06:06, 1 January 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 Speedily deleted by admin Grutness (csd a1). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon darkness rage

Pokemon darkness rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Anyone with common sense can see this page needs to be deleted. Not notable at all, poorly written, etc. (Sorry if this is a bad reason, I haven't recommended an article for deletion before). Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 03:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pure nonsense, speedy delete if possible. TJ Spyke 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for a speedy deletion assuming someone can pick out the proper criterion. No notability asserted, no context, nonsense... anything? -- Kicking222 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense, nonnotable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (He said it would be released in Jan. 2007.) 129.98.212.51 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth an A1 (no context). Appropriate tag added for speedy deletion. Tevildo 04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article does say that it's a "romhack" so technically context is provided. But it's still non-notable. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this is non-sense. TSO1D 05:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, whatever the hell it is. Herostratus 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure what it is, but I'm going with WP:CRYSTAL here, since they say it'll be released in '07 - and it isn't yet '07. --Dennisthe2 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A1 and so tagged Gzkn 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just like that (click), it's gone... Grutness...wha? 07:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Poker League

United States Poker League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable poker tournament. No reliable sources I could find, just than blog-level stuff. No verification of any of the info. Also it's not scheduled to take place until April so this is crystal balling. Otto4711 03:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your cites are a gambling website, a directory and the home page for the tournament. None of which satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. Otto4711 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:V: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material..." with a number of criteria that those meet. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quotation is selective: the material must be relevant to the notability that is established using third-party independent sources. "If an article topic has no third-party, independent sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not selective. As I said, it meets the criteria below. Technically speaking, the first two links are third-party and independent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must be looking at different articles. This one has one link: the official website of the league. It has no other sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, by all means, add the first one from above. I did look at the wrong page on the second link, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep - This league does exist, but they seem rather grassroots and may be using Wikipedia as a popularity slinghsot. I say leave it alone unless they become destructive. I'll add it to my watchlist to see how bad things get. - NickSentowski 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Zero hits for news: fails WP:CORP. I agree with NickSentowski that this is self-promotion using Wikipedia, but disagree on action: self-promotion is a strong reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not and must not be a vehicle for creating notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "may be using Wikipedia as a popularity slingshot" should disqualify them then and there. Lack of reliable sources also does the trick. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ford MF 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... It hasn't happened yet, there are few or no hits about it, and when I typed it in on google, a large number of links to it are merely mirrors of this article. We don't let groups, bands, and companies use wikipedia as an advertising mule, so I am perplexed as to why there are so many keep votes here that believe such a strategy isn't a bad for the encyclopedia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In a year or so this may be the next big thing in poker. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, and as of right now it's not notable though. --Wizardman 06:08, 1 January 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. —Centrx→talk • 08:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Poker League

Australian Poker League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete - Another non-notable poker league. No independent verifiable sourcing. Otto4711 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a perfectly good tag for asking that an article be sourced. Why not use that rather than mark everything for deletion? JROBBO 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I looked and there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic as required by WP:V. If there were, I'd have added them myself. It makes no sense to add a source tag to an article when I already know that no sources exist. The "sources" linked below are not reliable third-party sources as required by the policy. The league has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and thus it is not notable. Otto4711 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you "know" that there are no sources at all? Have you thought to look outside of online sources? There are such things as books or magazines, you know. JROBBO 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, are there? Thank you, I appreciate your letting me know of these "books" and "magazines" you speak of. Meanwhile, do you have a source, online or otherwise, that discusses this topic in a non-trivial fashion? Something other than a bar or a club that's hosting a tournament and announcing it in its calendar sectionperhaps? Anything at all? Otto4711 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The club sources I mentioned below are backups, just in case you think the Australian Poker League isn't as active in the community as it claims to be. The main sources are the poker news websites, as they should be. In the same way as computer games are considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, computer game news sources, poker subjects should be considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, poker news sources. Quack 688 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simply being "mentioned" is not sufficient to establish notability. To be notable the article's topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Otto4711 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like the other recent poker-related AfD nominations, this has been mentioned across a wide number of poker-related sources. [9]

[10] [11]

Looking up a few club websites confirms that they really are as active in the pub and club scene as they say they are: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

If it really has over 145,000 registered players in a country with a population of 20 million, it's definitely notable. I'd like to see a source for that membership number, though. (Then again, are we allowed to mention any organization's number of members? If we're not allowed to use the organization's own membership count, what figure can we use? Any news source which discusses an organization is unlikely to independently verify if that organization really has 145,000 members, for example.) Quack 688 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's enough on the article already to convince me that it's notable. It's more well-written than most articles on Wikipedia, and has a lot of potential. Definitely keep it. JROBBO 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup of Poker

World Cup of Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online tournament. Lacks independent sources, unverified. Otto4711 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn - nominated the wrong one. Sorry about that. Otto4711 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not an online tournament (though some qualifying is online), has dozens of obviously reliable verifiable sources 1 2 3 etc, and is unlike a lot of others is notable in its unique structure, and its annual nature sets it apart too. Certainly far more notable than some others with articles. 2005 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needless AFD.
Keep, per above. Rray 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:21Z

Krista Manfredi

Krista Manfredi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

High School Drama teacher who had minor roles in a couple of movies. I think this falls well short of WP:BIO's "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Delete.--Isotope23 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, attack page. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Pijan

David Pijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 68.223.201.167. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G10. Attack page. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G10. Already tagged, good call, Tevildo. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect all to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes (in lieu of deletion); they can be re-opened once they've aired. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:29Z

Night Light

Night Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although this is a confirmed episode of the program SpongeBob SquarePants (see this), the article is just a few headings and templates. It does not have any information about the plot or airdate. Delete and if more info becomes available, recreate the article. Squirepants101 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of my reason above:

Waiting (SpongeBob SquarePants episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fungus Among Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise And Shine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (copies summary from The Original Fry Cook) Squirepants101 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding:

Spy Buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise and Shine (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waiting (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:27Z

  • Delete all without prejudice to recreate once there's some confirmed information and/or the episodes air under these titles. Until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball... especially if the articles contain no context other than "this is an episode from the next season" and a bunch of empty templates. --Kinu t/c 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and recreate Night Light as a redirect to Nightlight. The episode should have the Spongebob episode parenthetical anyway, since the term has a non-episode title usage. --Kinu t/c 04:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -AMK152 04:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. MER-C 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found an article called Pirates of Bikini Bottom and it has no summary. There is a summary about it and airdate at a fan forum (I know that fan forums aren't good sources of information). They are provided by a person who claims to work at Nickelodeon (in Belgium) and says that the episode will star David Bowie. A better source says that David Bowie will star in an episode as well. So, should that article along with No Squirrels Allowed be deleted? Note: Here is a link to the book Pirates of Bikini Bottom at Simon Says. Squirepants101 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Night Light. Someone added some content. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For what it's worth, the "some content" appears to be about one sentence of unsourced information. --Kinu t/c (éŕ) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That summary involving SpongeBob warding off Boogeyman can be be found at Animated Bliss, but it doesn't mention which episode that summary is for. Squirepants101 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:31Z

Tumba the game

Tumba the game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability, non-encyclopedic, probable nonsense. I'd suggest it should probably be deleted MidgleyDJ 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No WP:RS indicating this game even exists; it's probably WP:NFT or a WP:HOAX. Oh, and the stuff about "world championships" is actually about Pictionary, based on that article. --Kinu t/c 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not for things made up in one school day, the entire article sounds like nonsense. TJ Spyke 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly hoax content. The only reason this isn't speedy material is that the nonsense isn't "patent". Get the image, too, when it goes. Serpent's Choice 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. For what it's worth, this was PROD'ed, but an anonymous contributor removed the PROD tag without explanation. FreplySpang 07:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Oscarthecat 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Hello32020 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete and total garbage. Danny Lilithborne 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Percy Snoodle 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:32Z

Aubrey Hornsby

Aubrey Hornsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Cribcage 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Possible copyvio, but can't find the source. MER-C 09:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look at the rewrite, sadly at least 3 of the 4 sources are not reliable. Experts.about.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Members.tripod.com is user generated. And the last is a corporate biography. My delete !vote still stands. MER-C 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re the comments on the websources: (1) you are right expert.com is a carbon copy of the Wikipedia artice on same (2) the corporate biography tend to support other information but is not a strong source; however, the fact that members.tripod.com is published by a tripod member does not invalidate the veracity of this third party work, which is copywrited and a serious source of information, which is well researched; this is a non sequitur since we can question the accuracy and motives of any printed medium as well. --Kevin Murray 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • User "Hit bull, win steak" has added three more strong references on 27 December 2006 ; two of which are government documents. (see below)--Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would otherwise need complete rewrite. — Ultor_Solis • T 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete rewrite since this comment was entered--Kevin Murray 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'd say this article is stub-worthy. Still needs improvement just to get to a stable version. — Ultor_Solis • T 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are, rather inconspicuously, revealed at the end of the article. --Ouro 14:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. When I put my vote here, the sources looked like in this diff. I don't think it's good practice to cite Wikipedia itself as a source for another article. My vote also stays, I'd say... --Ouro 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy of sourcing within Wikipedia is credible and your opinion is not grounds for deletion --Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The earlier formatting problems with the references are irrelevant to an AfD discussion --Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Since the rewritten article now satifies any legitimate concerns of the above, it should be kept and labeled as a Stub. --Kevin Murray 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kevin Murray is not the original author of this article. I became involved here as part of the AfD and saw merit, so I rewrote and researched sources--Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE The nomination does not site a specific problem other than "Fails WP:BIO". The first Delete references a Copyright Violation there is no further evidence to that effect, and the article has now been completely rewritten, which should satisfy the second deletion vote. The third vote for deletion is irrelevant as most Wikipedia sources are "revealed" at the end of the article. --Kevin Murray 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Lacks reliable sources, Wikipedia and its mirrors are not reliable. I wouldn't normally class a tripod hosted site as reliable, unless information is available regarding the reliability of Paul Freeman. One Night In Hackney 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Night In Hackney posed a valid question regading the reliablity of Paul Freeman as a source. Clearly he is an amateur web presence, but a Google search shows that he is independent and I believe credible. He has published multiple works online about airports. Is he non-trivial? At minimum his work demonstrates that Gen. Hornsby is being discussed outside of this article. --Kevin Murray 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since I believe that all military officers who rise to the rank of General in a significant army are sufficiently notable to deserve coverage. I've gone through and added a few more reliable sources (two of which are publications of the Federal Govt.). It could still use further expansion, but at least now there's real confirmation of his rank and some of his duty stations/responsibilities. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep With the new sources I'm happier with the article. Although there don't seem to be any guidelines about military personnel, Hit bull, win steak makes a good argument. One Night In Hackney 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Proposal withdrawn (Keep)

Jobber

Jobber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is a glorified dictdef pretending to be a dab page. I suggest deleting the entire contents and turning it into a redirect to Jobber (fuel), which is the one legitimate entry. I guess technically this isn't even really a AfD then, but it's a radical enough change that I figured it deserved some kind of review -- RoySmith (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. One major ommission was Stockjobber (which I've added), but I suppose that's a fairly obsolete term these days. It's probably OK to cover that with the appropriate dab-link on whatever page this is redirected to, though. Tevildo 05:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig page. A quick Google search shows many different definitions, and the first result (other than this article) is for the wrestling term of jobber (which I feel is something many who type jobber would look for). TJ Spyke 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally, although it needs a lot of work. Herostratus 06:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig page as above. But needs proper sourcing and cleanup Bwithh 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wrestling term is probably more commonly known than Jobber (fuel) nowadays, seems like a disambiguation page is reasonable. VegaDark 10:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wrestling term is something that was somewhat of a pop culture phenomenon in the late ninties due to The Rock (wrestler) constant use of it.NegroSuave 14:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:33Z

Ross copperman

Ross copperman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. One out-of-print album, one self-released album. Pure vanity text, the sole contributions to Wikipedia byRedHeadNYC (talk · contribs). PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP -- ITS only contribution to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 157

London Buses route 157 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A detailed breakdown of -- a bus route. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, directory, or collection of indiscriminate information. From the creator of the monster hits London Buses route 181, London Buses route 130, London Buses route 124, and the unforgettable Bell Green, Sainsbury's! -- Calton | Talk 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only potentially notable route - the 159 - isn't in there, after all. Tevildo 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is for this reason that I run OCTAWiki. I know damn well that those bus routes would be spontaneously obliterated if I stuck 'em here. Delete all. --Dennisthe2 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'll be AFDing the other three that Calton mentions. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but this would be an excellent model. It covers a detailed history of the route and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately WP:NOT is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as WP:NOT, does NOT fly in this case. Alansohn 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't see many bus routes for the same reason you don't see many bus routes in a hardbound encyclopedia. WP:NOT very much applies here. That said, it does set a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki, which is pretty much one of my goals to further expand from the OCTAWiki link above. Not sure when it'll hit the street (!), but it's something to bear in mind. --Dennisthe2 05:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica and I cannot find a single Pokemon article, or any Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets. Surely you don't believe that any "hardbound encyclopedia" sets anything for Wikipedia. After all, all you've done is stated "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia" without even bothering to dress it in something Wikipolicy-related. The existence of another place to put this information doesn't justify deletion either. After all, I've made specific suggestions about where all that Pokemon stuff can be inserted and no one has followed through on that idea. Alansohn 12:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not about to argue whether you've gone through all of EB, but EB seemsto ahve slightly (!) different standards. Besides, Wikipedia does not bend to you; you must bend to Wikipedia. That, and as I've said, there is a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki. Maybe the transit stuff doesn't belong here, but there need to be other places to put it. I'm searching out options. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went through both the Macropedia and Micropedia, and I still can't find Pikachu anywhere. Have you found any such articles in the print edition? I understand that people have an agenda to create a transit-based wiki, but here on Wikipedia, we use policies and standards that have been established to load traditional encyclopedia content, and thereby include many subjects that my Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover. You are one of many people who has incorrectly and misleadingly implied that there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids this article. It simply does not exists and your agenda to push this to another wiki is questionable. Alansohn 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment In response to your edit summary question: WP:N and WP:NOT are the policies in question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information sometimes applies even if the information is verifiable. WP:N makes one type of distinction-is the information mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? In all of these articles, I see use of only primary sources, so the answer seems to be "no". Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Again, the nomination makes explicit reference to WP:NOT, and you're pulling the same fast one on us all, arguing that it means anything you have decided it means. You cannot possibly read this article and tell me that it is an "indiscriminate collection of information". WP:NOT is sometimes a genuine issue, but in this case it is a poor excuse for deletion from those who seem to be utterly unable to come up with an actual explanation and rely on WP:NOT as a poor crutch. Alansohn 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please keep in mind also WP:TINC. I am done discussing this with you. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's amazing how people who can't come up with a legitimate argument have to resort to the blame game and then walk away. I'd never assume that you're part of the cabal, because the cabal has much higher admission standards. It's disappointing that we still can't get a coherent explanation of how WP:NOT is relevant. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Everyone, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Alansohn, I believe that WP:N (multiple non-trivial secondary source mentions) applies regardless of WP:NOT. All sources in the article are primary. Seraphimblade 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Everything in the infobox, for a start, is directory-style information (fares? service frequency?), and cumulative listings of all this stuff makes up -- wait for it -- a directory. And what makes the difference between one bus route and another in this pile of bus routes? Pretty indiscriminate, if you ask me. What actual encyclopedia-like content exists is, essentially, for busspotters (dunno if they exist, but this IS the country that gave the world trainspotting and planespotting, so it wouldn't surprise me.
                  • Many towns have infoboxes. The town infoboxes list population, year established, latitude, longitude, mayor. What content often exists is little more than towncruft. They're all basically the same; just directory information that changes a little bit from one to the next. Yet, for some reason we have tens of thousands of these articles -- all almost entirely the same -- around the world. I would entertain your position if it made reference to an actual flesh-and-blood Wikipedia policy that forbids this article and requires its deletion. Other than that, my analogy for retention is equally as valid as your's for deletion. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica... And when was it published? If it was published 10 or more years ago, that might hint at why current events aren't indicated in it. Betcha it doesn't mention the Indian Ocean tsunami or the 2006 US midterm elections, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The tsunami and elections aren't in my Britannica. Are the AFDs for these articles up yet? Wikipedia is not paper, and we can afford to include quality, well-written, thoroughly-researched articles such as these. The fact that some people turn up their noses is a shallow elitism that proposes that "anything I'm interested in is important; anything I don't care about should be deleted." When you have a chance, please point me to the printed encyclopedia that has articles for each and every Pokemon character, Seinfeld episode and Star Wars planet.Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment In reply to Alansohn (as stated in another AfD), WP:N does apply here. Source mentions must be nontrivial and secondary, and that's not the case here. Seraphimblade 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a transit wiki would be by far the best way to settle this, and easier to keep current (and historical!)DGG 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Get rid of this. We are not a bus schedule and this appears to be a completely arbitrary bus route. MartinDK 07:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the bus schedule (and the transit website would be better for that anyway.) No other assertion of notability-and really, how often do bus routes get mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? Seraphimblade 08:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why aren't bus routes inherently notable? Anyway, the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 where this was already dealt with at some length is of relevance. The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns. Regan123 09:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That bus routes are inherently unnotable does not mean that it is impossible for a notable bus route to exist. That, however, does not set a precedent for all bus routes - just the notable ones. --Dennisthe2 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. We've been through this with the railways and in fact they have now been excluded from WP:LOCAL according to the latest discussions. Roads get rerouted and that doesn't make them inherently unnotable. Regan123 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. Sounds like the Special Olympics approach, where everything is "special". And roads are rerouted by large construction crews, while bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere.
          • bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere. Not in London they are not - it takes considerable research, effort, agreement, funding, contracts, tendering and so on....As to the special olympics, I'm not sure what you're getting atRegan123 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way Do you know some reliable source somewhere that actually does this, or did you just pull this out of your hat? If you're suggesting that Wikipedia is or should be doing that, I have two words for you: original research. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A google search puts up results and sites if you want them. So not original research Regan123 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only the most notable and ones where a history can actually be provided. 800+ bus route articles running around would be pretty useless. RHB 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why bus routes and not train lines? Akihabara 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you understand how easy it is to alter a bus line, and how easy it is not to alter a train route. =^_^= Besides, I figure this, as theory - oftentimes a train is going to have more historical significance due to interregional connection and the inability of said train to be only slightly alterable (due to the issue with altering rails); a bus route is as flexible as the surrounding city streets for the most part, and metropolitan bus routes typically don't leave their metropolitan areas except to connect and transfer with other neighboring systems. That said, as I point out, there's a precedent for a transit wiki - but now you bring up the issue of whether trains belong there, too. Something for me to think about over my coffee. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or minimally merge the lot somewhere per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of a hundred + articles. Verifiable content. Not sensibly mergable. Nathanian 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That didn't save the hundreds of unremarkable mast stubs from deletion. MER-C 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my 11.5 ounce (326 gram) can of Hills Bros Medium Roast Decaffeinated Coffee in front of me are all verifiable, and they're not getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. If other editors want to AfD Pokemon articles, Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets that do not meet WP:Notability, I'd be all for it. - Aagtbdfoua 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources. If "[t]he bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns," let's see the scholarly articles documenting the impact of this bus route on that growth. Shimeru 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of scholarly articles is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for a request for expansion or a request for sources. JROBBO 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of sources is a reason for deletion. And if the reason I quote above is the reason given for keeping, I want to see the sources that support that statement. We can't make a claim like that and leave it unsupported, and I believe it's a spurious claim in the case of at least this particular bus route. Shimeru 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try this following a two second Google search. Morden opened in virtual countryside and the routes were for the housing estates in the area. It should also be noted that the article refers to the trolleybus replacement, part of the public transport history of South London. Regan123 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Nothing about bus schedules or timetables shown in there. GCFreak2 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the infobox:
Level: Daily (5:00 until 1:30)
Frequency: About every 12-15 minutes
Journey time : 60-70 minutes
Night: No night service
--Calton | Talk 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in an infobox, and not part of the main article, nor does it claim to be; the rest of the article is more encyclopaedic. Some people need to stop clutching at straws to try and get what they don't like deleted. JROBBO 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has a well-written history section which gives it a claim to being far more than directory-style information. And despite what some users are claiming, there is barely any directory-style information there. To delete an article based on that it should resemble a web page for a bus route. It doesn't. This is a good, well-written article on a bus route with historical information, and there's no reason why it should be deleted. JROBBO 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in the context of London and scope for expansion. I'm satisfied that the article is not a timetable. MRSC • Talk 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the history is useful (but needs citations). Some of the "cruft" like fares and stops should probably be removed though. It would be better with a main focus on the history, like Myrtle Avenue Line. There are going to be secondary sources from newspapers, and, at least for those that were once streetcars, books have been written on the subject. --NE2 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is scheduling info, but the article itself seems encyclopedic enough. And I must tip my hat to anyone who can jot off a decently readable historical ency article about a frigging bus route. Ford MF 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:
  1. London Buses route RV1
  2. London Buses route T31
  3. London Buses route 157
  4. London Buses route 181
  5. London Buses route 130
  6. London Buses route 124
  7. London Buses route T33
  8. London buses route T32
  9. London Buses route C1
  10. London Buses route A10
  11. London Buses route 410
  12. London Buses route 312
  13. London Buses route 328
  14. London Buses route 202
  15. London Buses route 197
  16. London Buses route 196
  17. London Buses route 194
  18. London Buses route 28
  19. London Buses route 185
  20. London buses route 26
  21. London Buses route 91
  22. London Buses route 75

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Anti-Saloon League. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:37Z

Prohibition leaders

Prohibition leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't feel this article is needed. First of all, for an article ostensibly focused on leaders of Prohibition, it only centers on two. The information about these two people is better suited to their individual articles. If there's anything not contained there it should be merged. Crystallina 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article reads like an essay. Merge content into either Prohibition or the respective articles, and Delete. --Dennisthe2 05:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anti-Saloon League, this is an unnecessary fork of that article. The two persons mentioned already have their own articles. Also, "Prohibition Leaders" as a title for an article on the leaders of the ASL is misleading as it leaves out plenty of other significant personages in the Temperance movement, like Carrie Nation, for example. Tubezone 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge probably to Prohibition. The term Prohibition Leaders is odd as a header for this topic perhaps "advocates". --Kevin Murray 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Prohibition or Anti-Saloon League; this list is missing main leaders in the Prohibition movements. SkierRMH 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 130

London Buses route 130 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157; not actually nom'd at that time. Same rationale, and noting that bus routes are not inherently notable.

Also nominating the following:

Dennisthe2 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment; Anyone want to take a whack at List_of_bus_routes_in_London? wtfunkymonkey 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I disagree, I lost a fight about bus routes in Toronto, therefore these should be deleted as well. Nlsanand 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. A lot of arguments appear to be based on a dislike of public transit. Highways, get articles, therefore so should bus routes (my opinion, not policy) and more especially train lines (yes, this is policy). If your only reason for voting delete is due to a lack of belief in the importance of public transit, your views are irrelevant to this debate. Nlsanand 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of this. We are not a bus schedule and this appears to be a completely arbitrary bus route. MartinDK 07:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and repeat, WP:NOT a bus schedule. Seraphimblade 08:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why aren't bus routes inherently notable? Anyway, the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 where this was already dealt with at some length is of relevance. The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns. Regan123 09:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, we don't seem to have any trouble with train lines. How is a bus route different? Akihabara 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The whole "train lines all deserve articles" is currently under challenge too. The big problem here is the same as with most of those-primary source use only, no secondary source use. Seraphimblade 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Railways have just been removed from WP:LOCAL I believe. Regan123 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Route 130 dates all the way back to 2003, apparently, but for some reason I find it hard to consider that a claim to historic notability. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets content policies, or else merge the lot somewhere per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing notable about this bus route, so delete it. Jayden54 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of 100+ articles. Verifiable content. Not sensibly mergable. More notable than much of Wikipedia's adolescent pop culture content, thereby increasing the breach of its appeal and the average age of its audience. Nathanian 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but these are excellent models that cover a detailed history of the routes and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately WP:NOT is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as WP:NOT, does NOT fly in this case. Alansohn 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about WP:N (source mentions must be nontrivial and secondary?) I don't see that with any of these, just some primary sourcing. I think that's certainly relevant. Seraphimblade 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per Seraphimblade. Does not meet WP:N. - Aagtbdfoua 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Regan123. JROBBO 09:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No secondary sources in evidence. Shimeru 09:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we deleted every article without secondary sources listed Wikipedia would be about 1/3 of its size. Regan123 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That might be an improvement. But I didn't say "no secondary sources listed," I said "no secondary sources in evidence." Different thing. Shimeru 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles do not contain any timetable information at all (why do people keep saying that they do?) These articles are really in-depth and part of London's history and infrastructure. They also survive deletion again and again. There is a reason for that. MRSC • Talk 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157. --NE2 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote but I would definitely substitute a one-sentence description for the specifics of the current routing, because 1) unmaintainable and 2) inappropriate level of detail.

Peter Grey 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:
  1. London Buses route RV1
  2. London Buses route T31
  3. London Buses route 157
  4. London Buses route 181
  5. London Buses route 130
  6. London Buses route 124
  7. London Buses route T33
  8. London buses route T32
  9. London Buses route C1
  10. London Buses route A10
  11. London Buses route 410
  12. London Buses route 312
  13. London Buses route 328
  14. London Buses route 202
  15. London Buses route 197
  16. London Buses route 196
  17. London Buses route 194
  18. London Buses route 28
  19. London Buses route 185
  20. London buses route 26
  21. London Buses route 91
  22. London Buses route 75

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Miles Tredinnick in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:39Z

Doomsday Genesis

Doomsday Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Utterly unnotable musical that had a brief run far from London more than 30 years ago. Herostratus 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable and Google provides very little information. Jayden54 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - Disagree, informative article on early work by British TV writer. So what if it didn't have a run in London? Simon Samwell 10:31, 27 December 2006
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, no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lornial Dale Wayne Randalll

Lornial Dale Wayne Randalll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article fails to assert any notability, provides no context, and appears to be entirely autobiographical. Other than that his naming was an apparent clerical error, this tells us NOTHING about him. Dennisthe2 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, lack of context, lack of assertion of notability. Crz is right to have declined this without additional eyes, but the additional eyes have agreed with deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Larsson

Veronika Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability, verifiability from reliable sources. - crz crztalk 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, by CSD:A1; no context provided, and CSD:A7; what little assertion of notability there is is not sufficient to satisfy WP:NOTE. Article has been tagged. -- wtfunkymonkey 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy agreed. Just H 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed it Basically just a sentence. Basically fails every policy on Wikipedia. Also, it was double tagged for Speedy (lol). GCFreak2 9:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's because it may meet two of the CSDs. MER-C 09:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. MER-C 09:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the edit history. I have already declined CSD once. - crz crztalk 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio (G12). It's a copyvio of the "About Case's Ladder" section in the article I linked. Good catch, Wtfunkymonkey.--Kchase T 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case's Ladder

Case's Ladder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neutral bump up from speedy; this board game site claims to have either one million, five million, ten million, or the largest online gaming league ever, depending on which source you look at. I also found this article that may actually be a reposted press release. No opinion, just yet. Kchase T 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:WEB; the article above is clearly a press release. And I would assume that a site of this magnitude should have an Alexa rank higher than 655,708. --Kinu t/c 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio, CSD:G12. Article has been tagged. wtfunkymonkey 07:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't reckon it's a copyvio, but delete because it fails WP:WEB. MER-C 09:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, and also rd to List of Starfleet officers by rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:42Z

List of Starfleet officers

List of Starfleet officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

1) Page will have a hard time being exhaustive 2) can't imagine any user ever searching for a general list of characters; more likely to look for individual characters, and infobox on major characters' pages provides easy nav between them 3) List role of this page better served by category page/cat inclusion -- and those already exist. True, doesn't include rank insignia or career highlights but, again, that info's on character pages. Generally, don't see utility of amalgamating all this info. EEMeltonIV 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, original research & does not qualify under WP:V --Cat out 08:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have an excellent List of Star Trek characters, which gives exactly what you need - a photo, name, and position. Not only is this list an unnecessary duplicate, the use of rank insignia all over the shop instead of character photos make it harder to navigate - specific career summaries belong in individual character articles. And there's no reason to start breaking up the comprehensive list I mentioned into lists like "Starfleet officers", "Federation citizens", "Cardassian officers", etc. Quack 688 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quack 688. If consensus to split List of Star Trek characters emerges, then go for it. -/- Warren 10:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially Quack. Once again this is duplicate information. Like mentioned above if a split was decided on then yes, it could stay but this seems like a fork as mentioned by Quack. Note that this is one of the few examples where lists are a good idea and I don't see the original research. MartinDK 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and add that the fair-use rationale for the insignia may be invalid in a list of this kind. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, but they are not fair use. --Cat out 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all the comments above. No point in having duplicate information. Jayden54 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for redundancy with other lists. Ford MF 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cruft. Moreschi Deletion! 11:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:43Z

T.Y.R.A.

T.Y.R.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no proof that Tyra Banks will be releasing an album soon. I have looked up various supposed tracks on google, with no news. I have checked the album title, with no results. As far as I can tell, this is all simply rumour. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this page is not worth keeping until it can be verified somehow. By the way, a lot of User:Treyomarlorenztiptonforever12's contributions seem to be based on rumour, so if someone more experienced can check his pages out, it would be greatly appreciated. SKS2K6 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ShadowHalo, WP:V and possible warn author to stop making rumoured articles. GCFreak2 09:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:V, WP:NOT a crystal ball based on unsourced rumors. I've added PROD tags to some other seemingly unreliable articles created by this editor, and reverted some changes, but another pair of eyes should take a look. --Kinu t/c 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp Delete. Well i know her personally and she is going to release this album. But i properbly can't be trusted, so temp delete until she release the info to public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss purple (talk • contribs)
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 or G11, take your pick really. -- Steel 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Geez

2 Geez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Promotion for somebody's YouTube video, but it contains a claim of notability ("world-renowned"), so here we are at AFD. Non-notable video by non-notable people. FreplySpang 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) This is actually very popular in certain parts of Western Washington, so I think it should stay. These two individuals have created an impressive feat with this video. I heard about it before seeing the article, so that says something. -Grant Leslie[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable web content, no WP:RS, is WP:COI and probably WP:NFT. Assertion of notability is spurrious at best, and WP:IAR seems to apply. --Kinu t/c 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Non-notable Youtube video. GCFreak2 09:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, and so tagged. Charlie 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - unremarkable webcontent. MER-C 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:43Z

Dina DeStefano

Dina DeStefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn model, fails WP:BIO, bit player that appeared briefly in pro wrestling promotion, has around 180 ghits, many retreads of this article Booshakla 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but your ghit count is off by a magnitude of 1/3. MER-C 09:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I get more ghits, without trying, for myself Alf photoman 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and Google (182 hits) provides nothing interesting and Google News nothing at all. Jayden54 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rename to Flatulist. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:45Z

===Professional farter===I'm modifying it!

Professional farter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completly juvenile. Only a few people have actually been "notable" for doing this. Only one source as well. Looks like someone was bored when they made this page. Newspaper98 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to be WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BOLLOCKS? flatulists were a bona fide profession at early medieval courts. Just because this sounds 'puerile' today doesn't make it any less notable or true. Try to at least read an article before claiming it is "complete bollocks". dab (𒁳) 11:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read the article, and my reaction was "WTF?!" The fact that there's only one source and that I can't see much on Google tends to back me up. So if you do come up with some sources, I just might be tempted to !vote keep. MER-C 11:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep. So Saint Augustine, Rabelais or Piers Plowman aren't "sources" now? Completely misguided afd. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • apparent bad faith even, nominator appears to be on an anti-flatulence campaign, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everyone Poops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gas We Pass, two articles afd'd seemingly just on grounds of being in Category:Flatulence. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but... are you serious? Charlie 11:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forget "inclusionist" and "deletionist": It looks like we now must declare ourselves to be Pro-Flatulence or Anti-Flatulence, or risk being labeled as such. Very well, I support natural processes and oppose plugging the organic flow of digestive processes. Phrrrrt, um, that's a weak keep per sources cited in article and added below. Barno 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If kept, I would support a move to Flatulist with a redirect in the opposite of the current direction. Barno 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. Sorry, I see nothing of value in this article. MartinDK 11:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, long theatrical history but strongly discouraged in Anglo-Saxon culture since at least Victorian times. Several potential sources for a referenced article such as Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart (indexed, cites sources informally) or The Art of the Fart. There's even a scholarly treatment at Broken Air. Perusing references at the articles for blue-linked farters would probably produce more. It's clear just in my lifetime that humor based on farts and other bodily functions has become almost acceptable. Simply because this is an embarrassing or silly subject does not mean it's "bollocks". --Dhartung | Talk 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, move to flatulist, which at least is a term with some historical usage. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, provided historical context, background and notable farters are described. Interesting subject. --Ouro 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly suggest doing research instead of relying on your gut feelings. I apologize if it sounds harsh. AFD is strong medicine, and Googling is so easy. It only took a few nanoseconds to find the St. Auggie quote in an e-text archive. Also, your not supposed to be deleting based on "value", thats a subjective criterion. You have to see if the information is verifiable and notable enough to be found in multiple reliable sources. I don't think keeping "Wikipedia tidy and clean" (on User:Newspaper98 userpage) by deleting articles on best selling children's, books based on their titles and subject matter is useful. You just can't flush away what you don't like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first two AFD I did were for books I didn't even know existed, so I made a mistake, but what was that, 4 months ago? "Professional Farter" only comes up with 283, without the omitted results included. Alot of the pages I found are jokes too, and alot are also clones of this entry, so this is good faith. I guess I should of stated that before though. Newspaper98 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really don't like this article but it is sourced and does not meet deletion criteria. TSO1D 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that there are several of this profession notable enough to have their own article, because of this profession, says to me that this definately deserves to be kept. J Milburn 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Flatulist (which is currently a redirect to Professional farter). Seems notable and well-verified. delldot | talk 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It says a lot about the Internet (and the people who contribute to it) that articles about professional farters are so easy to find. Keep but holding my nose doing it... --Eqdoktor 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Flatulist, per delldot. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to the more encyclopedically titled flatulist, with a redirect from professional farter. Ford MF 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to flatulist. Most of the history section seems to tell about fart entertainers, but not necessarily about professional fart entertainers. The original AfD is misguided. There has always been more than one source, even if the references were not collected at the end of the page. Furthermore, the attitude of the original writer (whether he/she was bored or not) is completely irrelevant for the discussion about deleting the article. The article is not juvenile even if the subject matter of the article is.Punainen Nörtti 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are notable petomanes. Charles Matthews 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename, flatulist would be a better name. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It was a bit close, but discussion (among the non-WP:ILIKEIT-commentators) focused on its importance on the stock market, and there remain serious doubts that this company's share price is indeed used to calculate stock market indices (see the second-to-last comment). One would assume to see some mainstream media coverage in that case. Sandstein 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited

Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

notability dubious. Reads like an advert, and no sources. Charlie 09:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - per WP:V, WP:CORP, and others, refernces must be independently sourced, so the company's homepage won't count. Charlie 09:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article shall not be deleted. The information available in this article is varifiable at

The Company is listed in BSE and NSE

It is not polite to put delete-tag on articles unknown to you, without even taking the patiance to follow the link provided in the article for reference. - Jijithnr 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look, I mean no offense to you, but I did follow the only link that was provided when I nominated the article: to the company's homepage. I noted that it was the company's homepage, and that combined with the fact that you deleted my unreferenced tag led me to open an AFD here, so that consensus may be reached. You can feel free to join the debate, which will last up to five days, and the article will not necessarily be deleted. Charlie 10:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

Sure, I am continuing my editing of this page, for this hour. May be you have found only one link sometime back. It is ok. It happens, that is the spirit of wikipedia, it is alive !!! (I recognize your role as a supervisor of recent changes. But you should allow some time for a recently made article to be tagged for anything:- unreferenced, delete or whatever. Allow the contributer his/her time, atleast, one hour of editing time, and then start your tagging. I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy on tagging a live article, while it is being edited by its contributer/ original auther. ) -Jijithnr 26 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete unless proof is produced that the company passes WP:CORP. A comment on the links:
  • [27] is a reprinted press release. Doesn't count.
  • [28] - Self-published. Doesn't count.
  • [29] This is the only reliable source provided, but it's a stock recommendation.
  • [30] Directory entry. Doesn't count.
MER-C 10:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete this article

  • Keep Apparently it's in a 30-member index on the BSE. I think that passes WP:CORP. Akihabara 13:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevertheless I suggest the article be considerably cleaned up and not read like promotional literature. Akihabara 13:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can we move the links somewhere else? Its really bothersome.Bakaman 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Company is listed in BSE and NSE

More Links

.php]

The article shall not be deleted.

2.The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications (The company is described in many IT magazines of India, it is popular in Indian IT circles, the article has value in Indian context.

3.The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. See Bombay Stock Exchange or BSE Sensex. The company is traded in Bombay Stock Exchange.

Thus it passes WP:CORP : Criteria for companies and corporations

The article may be added to WikiProject India

Don't Delete, Please go through the following links

For more information, on Geometric Software and its products and its activites, please go through the following links. I could not classify them. Before deciding to delete this article please go through these links Jijithnr 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anybody who follow the links given above will find many links to support the article. It may require clean up, but surely not a candidate for deletion. - Jijithnr 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplicate recommendation. Jijithnr already expressed his opinion above in boldface. Each person should recommend only once. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with rewrite. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as to notability, but the article needs to be seriously trimmed down to a brief summary of the company, without the bulky quasi-promotional bullet points. Peter Grey 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Note that flooding an AFD with what seem to be search engine results isn't particularly helpful either. >Radiant< 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as not fulfilling WP:CORP. Ford MF 11:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. After reading User:Jijithnr's comments, my first impression was that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). I went through all the external links provided, but none of them convinced me that the company is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jyothisingh, does not meet WP:CORP, being able to generate links doesnt really make it meet the requirements. Didn't go through all of them, 20+ is a bit much, but those I did, didnt seem to make it. --NuclearZer0 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the company is notable and listed in one of the top 200 comanies in BSE Sensex. Shyam (T/C) 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. "Geometric Software Solutions, Ltd." does appear to be a significant part of one of the BSE indexes, while "Geometric Software Solutions Private, Ltd." is not mentioned. There are two orders of magnitude difference in the number of Google hits. Do we have a small company with a confusingly similar name to a notable one? Do we have a confusion here between alternative names for the same company? Is this a common/preferred share distinction, or something similar? Should this article be moved to "Geometric Software Solutions, Ltd?" I'm not sure what to do at this point. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was listed. Included May 2003; replaced September 2004. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:51Z

Perreo Radio

Perreo Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted; fails WP:WEB Akihabara 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete; of course if Mr. Tabar continues accomplishing things he'll be well on his way into encyclopedic inclusion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:54Z

Andy Tabar

Andy Tabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable. Seems to be an effort at promotion. The only contributor to the article was a single person whose only contributions have been editing the article. I trimmed a large quantity of excess verbiage and duplicate sentences and puffery adjectives and an infobox which duplicated his web link. Much of the verbiage was like "Andy Tabar is a young entrepreneur with new visions and high expectations." I removed capitalization and linking that served just as gaudy decoration. What remains is a non-notable 20 year-old business student who has a web page company and got given a speaking engagement and a local business award. Sole proprietor web page companies are not notable. Hu 10:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I previously prodded. I can't determine what this guy's actually done to make him notable, other than clamor for notability. - CobaltBlueTony 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems completely non notable and fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Jayden54 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SUBWAYguy 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Info from credible sources. This person is accomplished with factual achievements. Thank you for your comments. Sources have been added. Am currently rereading the Wikipedia Manual of Style and criteria for bios of living persons so this can conform. Brian212 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls far short of meeting WP:BIO, style issues aside. There are millions of non-notable entrepreneurs who don't deserve articles—my home area of Silicon Valley is crawling with them—and this is just one more. Xtifr tälk 01:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:Bio states that notability has multiple forms of indication. ie: Central Criteria, Alternative Tests. Such information is used directly from third party sources. If you need to make further clarification, review the original information and trim the content as you see fit. The intention was to cover the information that is publicly available about the subject, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian212 (talk • contribs) 21:55, December 26, 2006
    • It should be noted that the above commenter is the creator of the article in question, and nearly all of the user's edits are only on the article under review here. - CobaltBlueTony 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to OS-tan, but only the verifiable parts, please. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:56Z

List of OS-tans

List of OS-tans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Well-written, nicely laid out, vaguely interesting and amusing. It also completely and utterly fails to meet Wikipedia content policies: WP:OR, WP:V and arguably WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well. The article marked with OR and unsourced tags for two and a half months, and nothing's been done about it despite continuing contributions from a group of users. AfD, sadly, is the next step. -/- Warren 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely and utterly unsourced original research. Not to mention that that there's a glaring omission... MER-C 12:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Futaba channel? Possibly notable. OS-tan? Questionable. List of individual OS-tans? No thanks. Take it to the Futaba FAQ or wiki, this is not for us. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with OS-tan. Just make little bios for each -tan on the respective article that don't have any cruft and whatnot. No sense in getting rid of all the information. Comrade Pajitnov 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tlxpq 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or merge with OS-tan. I don't really care, but we don't need a separate article for this. Jayden54 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this goes, might I suggest we do something about the Moezilla article as well? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This information does deserve to be here, and I think may warrant its own article. However, merging the good information may be the best bet, as a lot of the info is very obviously not NPOV and there is what looks to be OR in there too. Merge the basics, let anything else be added when sourced, and if the section becomes long, it can have its own article again. J Milburn 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It deserves to be on Wikipedia? Can you explain to me precisely how amateur artist work that is the production of pseudonomymous Internet forums, and as far as I can tell, doesn't pass WP:WEB, is notable enough for three articles on Wikipedia? -/- Warren 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a collection of some twenty-thirty published doujinshi of OS-tan material. Articles about the OS-tan have been published in Japanese magazines, and if you check them main article, this has been the cause of some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-tan#Movement_against_Netrunner). --212.38.230.22 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have names of some of the magazines and issue numbers that they appeared in? I had one somewhere, but I can't find it now. --Kunzite 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiability, Reliable Sources. I don't even see how the OS-tan article is notable let alone this one. Anomo 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Its no worse than a large number of web-comics and comics articles in Wikipedia. Very few of these articles ever fully meet the Wikipedia guidelines. --Eqdoktor 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those webcomics usually get deleted, too. Anomo 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with Eqdoktor that it is no worse than a large number of web-comics and comics articles in Wikipedia. I don't see why this one is being singled out. --NewYinzer 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICTION. This is quite similar to Densha Otoko (a romance story from 2chan), but less mainstream. There is a printed source for info on the OS-tan phenom [88]. I also think I saw a magazine article on them somewhere. I'll try to find it. --Kunzite 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge with the original OS-tan article and limit the list only to the notable 'tans, i.e. Windows 2000, Windows XP. Darkstar949 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Condense it down and move it over to the main article. Another Merge vote. --Theredstarswl 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I read this article about a year ago, and actually liked it a lot and found it both interesting and informative. But, as the nomination points out, the article completely fails to meet WP:OR and WP:V. It seems that a number of the characters vary wildly from artist to artist. Without a reliable source, the descriptions of such characters can only be based on generalizations and perceptions of the writer, which is both unverifiable and original research. My hope is that some of the more notable OS-tans can eventually be brought into the main article, if and when a suitable source is found. But, for now, this article should be deleted, as it doesn't seem likely at this point that this article will be fixed otherwise. Nimrand 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to people voting to merge: This is up for AfD because it is unsourced and is original research. Merging is not an option if we can't verify the information through references! -/- Warren 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I belive that there is enough readily available information on the common 'tans (i.e. Windows 2000, Windows XP) that if the article was merged that it could be properly cited. Darkstar949 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (don't merge) as what's euphemistically called "original research". -- Hoary 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources exist, but mostly in Japanese: http://futaba-info.sakura.ne.jp/cgi/dic/chara/ziten.cgi, http://kazumi386.org/~ostan2/pic_uploader/ for instance. --212.38.230.22 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Japanese sources are acceptable, although English sources are preferred if available. However, the later link just looks like a repository of fan artwork made for OS-tans, which is a primary source. However, for most of the content of this article, secondary sources are needed, because deriving generalizations from the artwork themselves is original research without secondary sources for verification. The magazine that published artwork of OS-tans could probably be used as a source (because the publication itself is notable and relevant to the topic and it is independent of Futaba), but the content that cites that source should be limited to what can be taken from that source, which probably amounts to reporting on what OS-tans were featured and showing examples of the artwork printed. Because the content that the source would likely allow is so small, it most likely does not justify a seperate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (don't merge) - Wikipedia is only for Serious Business. 74.134.114.185 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Serious business? I must have missed that policy page. Nimrand 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Lukmanier Powerline. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:59Z

Pylon in the artificial lake of Santa Maria

Pylon in the artificial lake of Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another electricity pylon from the systematic cleanup. There is certainly a claim of notability here. This unique 75m tower is located in the middle of a lake, and was constructed on a raft of concrete to stop corrosion from the lake water. I find it pretty bog standard as they come. and it's not a tall structure either. Is there anything of real merit here? Ohconfucius 10:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unremarkable pylon, just like most of the others. MER-C 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pylon! Well now I know where I'm booking my next summer vacation!! ... wait... no. Delete. -/- Warren 11:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From the article (emphasis added): "It is a part of Lukmanier Powerline and is the only pylon in Switzerland (perhaps even the only in Europe) standing in a lake." With an assertion of notability weak enough to include the word perhaps, I'm pretty sure this can be safely deleted. Charlie 11:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and smerge to article on lake if such exists. If there is no article on the lake, move this to an appropriate title for one and copyedit/expand it so that it mainly covers the lake itself. the lake is notable enough for an article (partly because of this pylon), but the pylon itself should be mentioned only on the lake's page. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see what is really special about this.-- danntm T C 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas in Hebrew

Hamas in Hebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A POV fork. Unencyclopaedic and created to illustrate a point. I can't imagine having an article called Pajero in Spanish related to Mitsubishi Pajero. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, there is enough soapboxing going on here Alf photoman 12:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - WP:POINT/WP:OR. MER-C 12:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per MER-C. Akihabara 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per above. Maybe necessary to tag it as well? Jayden54 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Original research and non-encyclopedic. TSO1D 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. ← ANAS Talk? 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete someone is trying to make a point. --Bachrach44 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caradon Hill transmitting station

Caradon Hill transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yet another unremarkable tower. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Did someone just post articles on every radio tower in existance? MartinDK 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mast fetish seems to exist beyond US borders... Akihabara 13:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no, they didn't. There are about 10,000 of these sites in the UK, and only about 100 of them have articles. Harumphy 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmitter gallery. --tgheretford (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems to have had several contributors, and is less of a stub than many shown here. I don't know what the interest is of people posting these: perhaps amateur radio fans? I think we have to be careful about WP:BIAS. Akihabara 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for reason I posted above, only. Akihabara 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bodmin Moor, which needs some expansion itself, per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts also suggests merging. JYolkowski // talk 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't see the reason why we need an article on this mast. Someone should really start a special Wiki for these masts so that we can transwiki all the non notable ones. Jayden54 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major local landmark. Nathanian 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What makes this notable from all other masts in the world? Just because it is a local mast? What makes it more notable than say the KVLY-TV_mast, which happens to be the tallest mast in the US (and until the tower in Burj Dubai is finished) and the world.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there are at least 10,000 radio and TV masts in the UK, only about 1% of these sites are the subject of WP articles. Generally they are the most important sites. Many of them have been written about in primary and secondary source material, although little of this has found its way into the WP articles so far. (Caradon Hill was the one of the two sites that first brought commercial TV to south-west England. It came on the air on the same day as Stockland Hill.) There's nothing in WP:N that suggests these articles ought to go. In particular, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia where space is limited. The articles may be arcane and of specialised interest, but that is probably true of 90% of WP's 1,500,000 articles. Harumphy 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst I agree that some of these should be deleted, this mast is notable in respect of its place in broadcasting history in the UK. As Harumphy states, it was the first station in SW England to broadcast commercial TV, was the first to broadcast on Band III VHF, the first to broadcast commercial radio in the area, and has now been on the air for over 45 years. It is also one of the 30 tallest structures in the country, with One Canada Square being the only building taller. Chillysnow 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chillysnow. Not all of these towers are notable, but this one has historic broadcasting signifficance. --Oakshade 16:53, 1 January 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:59Z

Dissensus_law

Dissensus_law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Redundant 'net folklore' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdg (talk • contribs)

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, consensus was reached among established editors. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Tomb (blog)

Lenin's Tomb (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A blog. Sources: the blog. I see no evidence this passes WP:WEB, and no evidence it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely fails WP:WEB. It doesn't even have its own domain, and uses blogspot. Jayden54 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, once again, a Blogspot blog probably does not pass WP:WEB. Lo and behold, I see no WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important meeting point for the British left, with people like Michael Rosen, Ian Birchall and others posting. The idea of 'blogs' being de facto not worth comment is insane - they are important, to those who use them, and the media in general - as seen with their breaking of stories surrounding Craig Murray and others. User:Steffaction— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
  • Delete, unless notability established through WP:RS. Technorati rank of 5,689[89].--Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, - completely fails WP:WEB. Attempts at editing for neutrality met by vandalism, threats and meatpuppeting.Lenin's Tomb (blog) is kept alive as a political act, not out of concern for encyclopaedic interest Meaders 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that user meaders is still making edits (against consensus) on the article.Felix-felix 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No "consensus". Please keep this sort of distraction for the main article discussion pages. I have reinstated the warnings you deleted on your talk pages. Thank you. Meaders 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement for unnotable political blog.--OinkOink 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been repeatedly cited in UK news sources. Private Eye magazine flagged up the coverage of Hurricane Katrine for one of its lead stories. 01:08, 27 December 2006— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
  • Keep. The blog has been cited in The Guardian, Private Eye, The Morning Star & Socialist Worker. It broke the story that Innovative Emergency Management had attempted to cover up its involvement in Katrina emergency relief - this story was subsequently covered in Private Eye. Therefore qualifies for notability: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Worth noting that the user 'Meaders', who complains of vandalism, is himself the habitual vandal of this page according to the discussion page. Socialist Worker covered the blog when it leaked documents protected by the Official Secrets Act relating to Craig Murray's allegations that the government had received information from the Uzbek government obtained through torture. Neither story is by any means trival, both sources are independent of the site itself, and both are reliable publications disseminated through UK newsagents and sellers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.50.7 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep As above-important and oft cited blog, referenced in many other wikipedia articles. User 'Meaders' is a habitual vandal of the page,with a particular axe to grind-as a quick look at his contribution history may reveal. The blog itself may be on blogspot-but a cursory glance will show how busy it is with 3-4 posts daily, often attracting comments in numbers of up to 3 figures.Felix-felix 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless those claiming that there are reliable sources about this add them to the article - I couldn't find any myself. We should improve our articles about Lenin's Tomb and Lenin's Tomb before spending any time on this. DVD+ R/W 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's any help, here are the citations on Socialist Worker: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9777; http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8055 The others are in print editions. Private Eye, 16th September 2005, Page 3. The Guardian, 5th November 2005, Page 36. Morning Star, 8th September 2006, front page.— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
Surely cleanup issues should be raised in the talk page and not be forced at gunpoint on AfD? I'll add the citations above now.Felix-felix 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All but the Morning Star ione in and references all fixed.Felix-felix 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of which is now deleted; the other looking likely to be so.Meaders 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mean because you've just nominated it!Felix-felix 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I mean because it, like Lenin's Tomb (blog) is an advert.Meaders 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why you're so keen on editing the Lenin's Tomb article then? And, I notice that you nominated both of the above articles, btw.Felix-felix 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. notability not established. `'mikka 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable blog. Mummifieddictatormausoleumcruft. --Folantin 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been cited in major media. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Also award winning and nominated, The Willesend Herard's Golden Willy(!) award twice [90] , and nominated for the guardian's backbencher award. Dunno if either of those count as notable, but if they do, then it passes 2 seperate criteria of WP:WEBFelix-felix 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I notice that Meaders acts only to push point of view and disrupt the article Lenin's Tomb (blog), also he/she lies about edits (calling most reverts of vandalism) and makes threats of banning to in attempts to silence opposition. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no RS to support notability, minimal assertion of notability, no non-trivial mentions. Moreschi Deletion! 10:39, 1 January 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. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José Vázquez

José Vázquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

If this person exists, then I believe he must be non-notable. I can find no reference to him on google. Paradoxically, I have a feeling that the page is a copyvio, but I cannot find where the writing was copied from. Something to do with the style it is written in. It is also unsourced. Didn't want to Speedy it, as if this person IS real, there might well be an argument as to their notability. J Milburn 12:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found your source for you: [91], page 14. Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 12:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:01Z

Historic sites in Orissa

Historic sites in Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy due to "copyright problems from 123orissa.com as well as the now defunct orissa-tourism.com. No significant edits beyond the copyright problem"; seems valid but the article is out of the 48 hour period and the subject may be valid if copyvio sorted. If not, it needs deleting. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this has no sources, as Sandstein says, is good enough reason to delete, even if it isn't copyvio. However, as that was only brought up two days ago and AfDs run for at least five for a reason, I feel that this discussion should be relisted given the change in focus, so editors have the chance to show verifiability if possible. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some references. I was unable to find the copyright violations. If we find that some body has copied something, then we should delete ONLY the offending portion and not the entire article.Preetikapoor0 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following Preetikapoor0's excellent work, I've added some more refs and wikified the article a bit. Each of the sites mentioned in the article have at least one reference. utcursch | talk 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References have been added. --Bondego 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Bondego.Bakaman 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now keep after references were added, but merge with the now again duplicate section in Orissa. Sandstein 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, but without prejudice to recreation once notability requirements are met. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (band)

Catharsis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn-band? couldn't find anything on allmusic, only reference for the article is a link to their label...so seems to fail WP:MUSIC-- Syrthiss 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability - there's nothing from which to construct an article. Related pages seem to be Requiem (band), Ümlaut and The Spectacle; none of which seem to have any sources either. Could they be included in this nom? Trebor 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I know from personal experience that Catharsis was a well-known band in the East Coast and North Carolina hardcore scenes around 2000. I can't find any articles online to verify it--mostly because the hardcore scene has tended to be focused around print publications/fanzines until very recently. I suppose "Scout's Honor" is insufficient?--Velvet elvis81 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately so. The burden is on the "keep" !voters to provide the sources as well; it can't be kept unless they're found. Trebor 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it was wishful thinking more than anything. I dug around to see what I could find to help out here but, admittedly, it's not much. The stuff on the homepage linked from the article has some stuff: the interviews archived here [92] indicate headlining overseas tour(s?). The fliers [93] show U.S., Canadian, and European shows. I think the fact that they could do multiple trips to Europe and Canada and that at least one flyer has them playing with the unquestionably notable Converge at least gives evidence of notability within a scene. Other than that, though, the info's limited to myspace tribute pages, random album reviews, and the occasional post on an mp3 blog. I do think it's important to keep in mind, though, that although specific music scenes certainly exist and can be notable it's difficult to document them when they are already within a niche market like hardcore punk. Perhaps some of this information could be moved to an expanded North Carolina hardcore.--Velvet elvis81 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a part of WP:MUSIC that says if they are well covered in their genre then that handles the notability (since there are several genres that don't get much coverage from mainstream media). But I agree that if we end up with a delete then the info could be used to help expand NC hardcore. Syrthiss 13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Seems well-known locally, but I can't sya it passes WP:MUSIC. --Wizardman 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradshaws

The Bradshaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced treatment of a group of characters created on a radio show. Existence, yes.. notability? not convinced. User:Booksbooksbooks who has been the sole substantive editor here recently has been unresponsive to several messages advising of good practice. Deizio talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the imformation from the Bradshaws episodes and Buzz Hawkins' live show in Salford, there are dozens of articles about fictional characters that go deeper than I did (for Example, most of the articles about the Discworld series of novels go so far in imformation that the articles have become like a fansite) I'll add some references very soon and I'll try to remove imformation that is not needed-User:Booksbooksbooks

The Bradshaws was a radio comedy, with tapes and CDs of performances as well as VHS tapes being sold commercially. A television spin-off was aired nationally, and a spin-off theatre show also toured. I fail to see how The Bradshaws is not a notable series, and would in fact argue that the article needs a request for contributions from other editors, not deletion. Lavareef 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable as others of its ilk, and no support for deletion so just close as keep rather than relisting and increasing backlog. Gene Nygaard 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet the standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Not perhaps the most notable of sitcoms, but certainly appears to be above the threshold - we don't seem to have a specific set of criteria for radio/TV series, surprisingly, but it would pass WP:BK if it were a book, I think. :) Tevildo 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a good cleanup, but I see no reason to delete. --MatthewUND(talk) 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems to have minor noteablity, I agree it could use a good rewrite. Davidpdx 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just scrapes past the notability barrier. WMMartin 18:52, 3 January 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; recommend merging these to the locality, to the backbone article, or to each other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:05Z

Brecon VHF-transmitter

Brecon VHF-transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Flint TV relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guildford Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heaton Park BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sutton Common BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swingate Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woofferton transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per AfD precedents set by Ohconfucius and listed at: User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, all the above UK mast/relay sites fail WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory, a indiscriminate collection of information or the MB21 transmitter gallery. tgheretford (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 14:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are something like 10,000 radio masts and towers in the UK, and I agree that 99% of them aren't notable. However, most of the ones featured on Wikipedia are in the notable 1%, although the articles often don't (yet) state why. Please don't expect contributors to expand all these articles at once. It will take time. Heaton Park is notable because it provided a large portion of the trunk comms capacity into Manchester and there is quite of lot of primary and secondary source written history about the architecture of these 'Chilterns' type concrete towers, which are all significant local landmarks and cultural icons. The article could possibly be merged with similar articles about the other six towers of this type, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Sutton Common is notable because of it was originally conceived as part of the 1950s 'Backbone' chain designed to provide the UK and NATO with survivable comms during nuclear war. Swingate is notable in that it is, AFAIK, the only radar tower from the Battle of Britain in WWII still in use today. Woofferton is notable because it was shared by the BBC and VOA and provided a stronger short-wave broadcast signal into the Eastern Bloc than any other western short-wave broadcast transmitter during the years of Soviet jamming. WP is not a paper encyclopaedia, there is no shortage of space and there is no need to delete an article because it it is arcane. With over 1,500,000 articles, arcaneness is inevitable. Harumphy 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton per Harumphy. I believe it is notable given the links already on its page. Akihabara 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added two book references and a 75-page PDF history to the page. Harumphy 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedence/nom. This is much better suited for Wikia than here. Some of these are better than the American ones. That said I fail to see the importance of these masts. Regarding the above statement no, being a stub is not reason by itself for deletion but in this case they are stubs for a very good reason. MartinDK 15:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikia is Jimmy Wales' private for-profit site. As such it is no substitute for a non-profit site. Harumphy 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meet content policies, or else merge each of these (except maybe Woofferton, which might be able to stand on its own) into the appropriate locality article per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts also suggests merging. JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The have verifiable information and informative images. The concrete towers are as architecturally interesting as any building. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major local landmark. Nathanian 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as User:Harumphy already explained, these masts in some way are unique. Furthermore, they tend to meet the core content policies (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV) and failing keep, can still be merged into the the articles on their local municipalities as suggested by WP:LOCAL.-- danntm T C 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton and Swingate. Woofferton is one of the handful of major HF stations, has a long history and Swingate is a VHF main station and also was part of the wartime Chain Home Radar system.Chillysnow 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton. It is not a minor 'mobile phone mast' type of site. It is a massive, historic and important transmitting station. This article links to a new web publication that is probably the most extensive history of a short wave station that is presently available. Martinte 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Saw the Pye Green tower from the train today, and came to look it up. Glad it was still here! There may be a case for merging several of these entries to the 'backbone' article however. Crosbiesmith 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point. I think we may have a classic example of a small trainwreck here since the some of the masts seems to be considerably more notable than others. MartinDK 08:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to William Henry Harvey. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:06Z

Phycologia Britannica

Phycologia Britannica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. An unencyclopaedic list. Akihabara 13:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. The book itself is reasonably important in early British phycology. That said, the current article is a list of the (primarily amateur) collectors who provided samples to William Henry Harvey so that he could, in turn, illustrate them in his book. Whew! Anyway, the book is already mentioned at its author's article, and until someone can write something substantive about the work itself, we should at least redirect there. Serpent's Choice 14:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs expanding. MakeRocketGoNow 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Online Poker

World Championship of Online Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online tournament lacking reliable verifiable sources. Otto4711 14:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is a real event, and run by one of the biggest online poker companies (PokerStars) so it's quite notable in the poker world, but I can't find any reliable sources or any other non-trivial coverage, so delete per WP:V and lack of sources to show notability. Jayden54 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable, largest online tournament of its type. Rray 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the multiple, non-trivial published works which establish notability? Otto4711 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cardplayer magazine article should be sufficient to establish notability. Arbitrary deletions serve no one. Rray 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again obviously notable with literally hundreds of non-trivial coverage. 1, 2, 3 etc etc. Obviously meets WP:V. Otto please do a little research before any more of these nuisance afds. 2005 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like one story and two press release-type notes. If consensus is that establishes notability, then so be it. But I will thank you to refrain from accusing me of some sort of wrong-doing. Otto4711 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two minutes of research would have found Sports Illustrated and CBS News articles. The nomination was not "wrong-doing", but pretty clearly frivilous. Like the other one, if you would have taken a moment to check for reliable sources, others of us would not have to take our time addressing this. 2005 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check for reliable sources. I checked dozens upon dozens of the Google results and they came up as garbage and trivial. If you had better luck on your search results, good for you. Hope you'll take the time to add them to the article so that the next person who sees it will see proper sourcing and that you'll direct some of your ire at the author who couldn't be arsed to source it to begin with. In the meantime, with of course all due respect, you should probably refrain from posting about what I did or didn't do when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Otto4711 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And actually, now that I have the opportunity to look at the SI and CBS articles, neither of them discusses the topic of the WCOP in a non-trivial fashion. The SI article is about a particular player and the WCOP is mentioned in passing in one sentence. The CBS article is about whether team play in an online tournament can be beneficial and mentions that the author played two WCOP events as part of his experiment in team tourney play. Neither of which satisfies the requirement that third-party coverage be "non-trivial." Otto4711 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond silly now. ...still the premier online poker tournament series, promising to be the largest online tournament in history, with over $8 million in guaranteed prize money, J.C. Tran Wins Poker Stars WCOOP Main Event plus dozens and dozens more in the main industry publications. Once again, anyone doing even five minutes of research would have found all these obviously non-trivial third party articles. 2005 07:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I said, The hundred or so sites that I checked off a google search all came up with trivial mentions, much like several of the trivial sources you initially posted. An article about a person who played in the tourney where the tourney itself is mentioned in a single sentence is trivial. Good for you if you finally found something with more substance. Go add them to the article. Otto4711 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References and external links have been added. The Cardplayer article and the CBS News article provide multiple non-trivial media mentions. (The CBS News article is a first-hand account of some people playing in the event, so it's hardly trivial.) Rray 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently important to be notable, and references exist to establish verifiability. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Baptist Church

New Testament Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. BTW, take a look at the church's founder. Elvis is alive! --MatthewUND(talk) 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a generic statement that does not comment on the individual article--Jorfer 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This particular article doesn't make a clear claim to notability on behalf of this particular church which can be verified by reliable sources; consequently, this church does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I added sources on the bottom which I hope you will consider sufficient--Jorfer 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you delete this you would have to delete many of the churches in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church to be fair considering many have less content. This discussion is unfair because many people who would oppose deletion are celebrating Christmas with their family. I am the primary author.--Jorfer 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These statements don't constitute reasons to keep the article. The prospect of deleting some other churches which have previously been nominated for deletion would not be problematic to some editors. Also, this nomination was issued on December 26, was active for five days, and was extended again on December 31. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: this seemed like a perfectly well-expressed basis for keeping to me, certainly no worse than "NN local church" as a basis for deletion.  :-) Although precedent is not binding on Wikipedia, we do often use it to inform our decisions, and it is at least reasonable for an editor to suggest that we do so here. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Jorfer wants me to comment on the individual article, the article is unencyclopaedic, written in utterly uncritical terms, and there is no evidence of the reliable secondary sources which could be used to fix that failure of core policy. Or indeed on which to base a verifiable article (another core policy). There is no assertion in this article that this church is in any way remarkable. Most churches are not, after all. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is a (rather spammy) directory entry. Hopefully Jorfer will accept the validity of this argument, which addresses the individual subject article in some detail. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Criticism is not yet incorporated into the article but can be found in the external links section.--Jorfer 17:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete, there do not appear to be any reliable sources on which a proper encyclopedic article can be based. Will happily reverse vote if such sources are found. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, agree with Visviva. Although the FL Sun-Times article is an independent source, it's a trivial mention. More sources are needed to establish [[WP:N|notability}} - Aagtbdfoua 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, the article doesn't seem to provide any useful information. Davidpdx 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Dino Pedrone is a proud Italian" !?! Does not appear to satisfy WP:CONG. Edison 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's one sentence. I went ahead and erased it which you could have done. The article may need cleanup, but it does not have to be deleted. Please base your decision on the notability of the church and not the quality of the article.--Jorfer 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existence on its own is not notable. WMMartin 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Who is arguing that it is?--Jorfer 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable - and large enough to operate a medium sized school. Absoultly no valid reason to delete.-Docg 01:32, 5 January 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 03:46Z

Dade Christian School

Dade Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

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, directory listing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Master's Academy

The Master's Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

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

The result was Delete and protect from recreation, NN bio. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Wee Loon

Chin Wee Loon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been speedy 4 times, so I'll bring it here to get more eyes on it. The claim of notability is that he placed 4th in a competition for United Malays National Organisation. He says that is notable because the top 3 were Malaysian and he's Chinese apparently. No clue what this competition was or anything related to it, but it's not verifiable and it doesn't seem very notable. Metros232 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I admit that I put too much irrelevant words in the previous articles. The article now is very concise and significant. Tonytypoon 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is "Echo of Independence", which is an annual event to invite young malaysians to get involved in politics. Tonytypoon 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - nn bio. 86.136.193.83 15:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you always Speedy delete, how could new users submit useful articles to wikipedia? I believe that the wikipedia does not bite new users. Tonytypoon 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A 4th place winner in an obscure competition isn't automatically notable, no matter what his nationality may be. Kafziel Talk 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speedy delete, even - failing to come first, second or third in a non-notable competition does not constitute notability. Sounds like vanity to me. CLW 16:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is unfairly judged in the competition. Tonytypoon 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable at all. Jayden54 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crz crztalk 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)`[reply]
    • Please read the external link to see that this is notable. Tonytypoon 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is unfairly awarded with 4th place in this United Malays National Organisation competition, because UMNO is known as believing some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright. Tonytypoon 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, he's better than some of the Malays, but just not all of them, so that makes him significant because...it's hard for them to admit people can be better than them? What? Metros232 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to believe that Malaysian politics are biased towards Chinese. Tonytypoon 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wikipedia is supposed to report the truth and nothing but the truth. If you guys insist on deleting the truth of the article, then by all means do it, but remember that it is not an easy achievement for a Chinese to qualify for the top 10 in an UMNO-organized competition, moreover he is the only Chinese who participated out of more than 250 Malays. Melvincwl 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia is not supposed to "report" anything at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a news desk. Third, according to the article, 8 out of the top 10 were Malays; Chin Wee Loon wasn't the only foreigner to win. In fact, that means 20% of the winners were not Malays. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 finalist is Indian, 1 finalist is Chinese. This is a "Dividing the cake" illusion to cover the fact that UMNO is hugely in favor of Malays. Tonytypoon 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have a source, at all, for any of these claims you keep throwing out? Or are these just conspiracy theories of your own device to help your buddy look a little more like a martyr or hero? Metros232 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) *****I believe wikipedia only wants to give a fair and concise information of Chin Wee Loon's significant event in Malaysian politics. Tonytypoon 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does anyone else find it interesting that the information that Melvincwl added to the article [94] has been trimmed down into a short biography of Melvincwl on Melvincwl's user page? WP:AUTO concerns? Metros232 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm even more convinced now that this is a vanity article - Tonytypoon has added images of someone called Melvin standing in front of Belfast City Hall and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland to these two articles (which, of course, have been reverted). I don't know whether "Melvin" (seen here: Image:P1010171.JPG and Chin Wee Loon (seen here: Image:AABnWL.jpg) are the same person, but if so, this looks like a case of sock puppetry, as well as vanity. CLW 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, Melvincwl's user page was blanked a short time after I posted that [95]. Metros232 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete all the photos and keep Image:AABnWL.jpg - the only useful photo. I have wanted to delete the other vanity photos but only the administrator can do that. By the way, I do NOT have problem of status quo of Malaysians, since I am from Hong Kong. This is NOT conspiracy theory because it is also written in United Malays National Organisation "being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges" Tonytypoon 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have a source that says "The top3 won because they're Malays and the 4th place Chinese guy was just awarded 4th just to 'divide the cake' as it was put" or is this just your own idea of why he was only 4th? Metros232 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, firstly, thank you for your welcome. Secondly, what I mean by reporting is presenting an article which is true. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and as such the public has every right to view certain information pertaining to certain people of interest. And by the way, it comes with a reference with a video clip on an official website which can be accessed anytime. You cannot put in a mathematical way that 20% of the winners were not Malays. Did you know that out of 250 Malays who joined the competition, there is only one Chinese who was in the competition and yet, he made it into the top 10. It is certainly not an easy task for a Chinese to get in what more to win 4th placing. I hope you will get my point. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear CLW, it is not a vanity article. I can give you more examples of vanity articles in Wikipedia if you want. There are many inaccurate facts in many articles I have read and yet, why is my article which is purely true, is scrutinized this way. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do provide me with your list of examples of Wikipedia vanity articles (at my talk page, not here, since here is not the place for this) and I'll take a look through them. Thanks, CLW 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xia Xue, Kenny Sia These articles are examples of real vanity. Tonytypoon 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not here - if you want me to look through these and give my opinion, please do so at my talk page. And the structure of this subthread very much suggests that Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are one and the same person. Please could you confirm whether or not this is the case?
Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are different people. Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are defending Chin Wee Loon's profile very hard for those out there who does not understand the significance of the importance of this profile page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
I am from Hong Kong. Tonytypoon 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - in order to clarify this, please could you clarify your relationship to Melvincwl? Thanks, CLW 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear all, I just want to put it this way that if Wikipedia does not present a true article which comes with adequate references, I do not think it is a credible encyclopedia after all. And somebody mentioned that this is a conspiracy theory. What an immature way of discrediting an article. There is no conspiracy theory at all. It is not even an article of opinion nor speculation. Who wants to waste time in making a mockery or puppetry out of somebody who is credible?

Delete as above. I checked Factiva - could not find any mention of this young gentleman in the archives of the New Straits Times or in the general press archive. It does seem like a personally or locally significant achievement for a Malaysian Chinese to place 4th in an UMNO contest, given Ketuanan Melayu, but that does not automatically make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Bwithh, even you'd agree that given Ketuanan Melayu, it is indeed a significant achievement for a non-Malay. Isn't this a crucial point for a free and open encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to allow Chin Wee Loon as a clear-cut example of how hard work and determination can make you successful anywhere you are as long as you have an objective in life. And can somebody please take down the 'this article is for deletion' and 'this article needs a clean-up'. I have already shorten the profile and include in only important things as required by a stub's criteria (which is a short article). Thank you.
    • There are no "crucial points" on Wikipedia. We're not here to teach life lessons about hard work and determination. The deletion tag can't be removed until this discussion is finished. Kafziel Talk 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Bwithh 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name Chin Wee Loon is found in http://pfs.tmspublisher.com/article.cfm?id=170 Tonytypoon 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which proves that there is someone in the world named "Chin Wee Loon." It doesn't establish any notability at all. I've had my name published in the newspaper dozens of times as part of honor roll announcements, track or cross country results, etc. Just having a name in an article doesn't establish anything really. Metros232 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) that's a school newspaper article or press release 2) it doesn't mention the competition at all Bwithh 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the person doesn't have sufficient notability. Fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Metros232, while I appreciate that you had your name published in newspapers, this is indeed an extraordinary achievement for Chin Wee Loon. It is at least not typical vanity profiles such as Xia Xue. I just do not get it why Wikipedia allows profiles such as Xia Xue when it is clearly vanity. She does not even have ample references to substantiate her facts. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Bwithh, you cannot just rely on Factiva or News Straits Times. Do you know that the New Straits Times is involved in plagiarism as well? I am surprised you still use that paper as a source of information. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the news sources in Factiva (10,000+ international sources; 120+ newswires), not just New Straits Times (I specified NST as it's the leading English language newspaper in Malaysia). Did you know that the New York Times has been involved in plagiarism? I am shocked, just shocked anyone uses that paper as a source of information. Bwithh 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, this discussion will not be done unless those scrutinizing this article understands the significance of the article. I believe there is even bias on those who are determining whether an article should be deleted or not deleted. The profile page is now edited to be as concise and precise as possible. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not teaching people about hard work and stuff like that, what that has been presented in the article is very true and comes with references. Thank you and I hope this article will be permanent in Wikipedia. Of course, if anybody feels there is any correction or error, the article is open to editing any time. Thank you very much.
    • Actually, this discussion will be done when an administrator decides it's done. Usually about a week. Kafziel Talk 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as requested above, please could either Tonytypoon or Melvincwl confirm what their relationship to one another is? Thanks, CLW 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is Melvincwl the same person as Chin Wee Loon? CLW 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in deed. Tonytypoon 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:AB. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict...) Then why does Melvincwl always refer to Chin Wee Loon in the third person? This is a clear case of WP:COI - assuming that Tonytypoon and Melvincwl are indeed two different people (I'll assume good faith here), all the edits to the Chin Wee Loon article are either vanity edits (i.e. by the subject of the article, without disclosing that the subject and the editor is one and the same person) or edits made by the classmate of the subject of the article. CLW 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melvin is his English name, whereas Chin Wee Loon is the Chinese name. I know this because I am his classmate and friend. Tonytypoon 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - apologies for my use of the term "vanity" which was not intended to cause any offence. If you check my edit list you'll see that I've recently returned from a very long wikibreak. The term "vanity" was previously an accepted term for edits made by the subject of an article to their own article, but I note that the consensus is now that this term should be avoided. I'll take care to avoid using it in future! CLW 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest with regard to the editing. Since I am doing this objectively. This is not an autobiography. Tonytypoon 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's a conflict of interest. Obviously you wouldn't think it was. And it is an autobiography if Melvincwl is the subject (which he is) and edits the article (which he has done). Kafziel Talk 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell Melvincwl in the usertalk page. Tonytypoon 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling both of you right here. The conflict of interest applies to you, and the autobiography applies to him. Further talk page notes aren't necessary, as the article will be deleted. Kafziel Talk 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:AB "This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." If you finally decide that classmate is conflict of interest, fair enough. But I need to clarify that this is not possible conflict of interest, as I am a student, I don't earn any income, any publication, and I don't have any business.Tonytypoon 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you earning money. It's about writing an article about your friend. The close relationships section of COI clarifies this. Kafziel Talk 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. Classmate is not "too close" Tonytypoon 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We're quoting guidelines now? Okay, then how about this one: "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article." Kafziel Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to edit anymore. I simply want to keep the Chin Wee Loon article like this. Tonytypoon 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now, the article can't be kept. However, you are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia within the scope of the guidlines and I hope this minor setback won't discourage you from contributing in the future. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this article. It has more than enough notable explainations and references substantiating it. Why nobody ever bothered to view the video under references? I did not see any comments on this. It is not like writing an article blindly. Besides, how sure are you that other contributors never have a COI with the subject? As Wikipedia is a free and open software, anybody can edit it without even informing the admin about any COI. For one thing, I can be editing about someone else's profile and tell that person later that I was the one editing it. Or alternatively, that someone can be told in advance that I am going to edit his profile and he agrees to it. What have the admin got to say about this issue? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
    • As noted above, this editor is the subject of the article. Kafziel Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your info Kafziel, the editor is no longer subject of the article. The article is now up to the public to edit it. I was not aware of the autobiography policy. Anyway, do leave this article for expansion and I am sure a few people will expand it with credibility. Melvincwl 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not only who is editing the article, but the fact that you are not notable enough to have an article at all. I know that can be hard to hear, and I mean no offense - I am not notable enough to have an article either. Whether you stop editing it or not, it needs to be deleted. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable bio article. Also, the language used fails WP:NPOV, suggesting that this is also a vanity article. Even after reading the diatribes above, I can't see how this qualifies as notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. =Axlq 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good article and notable relating to Malaysian politics and United Malays National Organisation. I am from Hong Kong by the way. Tonytypoon 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop making bizarre claims, such as that the "general Malaysian Chinese population" says that Chin Wee Loon is notable and suggesting the article has attained Good Article status. You're not helping to add any credibility to your arguments. CLW 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a good article, it's a biography stub trying to make a political point and therefore inappropriate. There is nothing in it asserting notability of this persion in relation to Malaysian politics. I see nothing in this article that couldn't already be mentioned in the other articles linked therein. =Axlq 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. This whole debate is nonsense and should be closed immediately. Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • United Malays National Organisation "is known as being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright." The words "is known as" is also credible information here. So this is not a bizarre claim/ conspiracy theory. This is a real phenomenon. Tonytypoon 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia already has articles on this issue - indeed the key one has been a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia. That doesn't make Chin Wee Loon encyclopedically notable with reliable sources to back this assertion up Bwithh 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the key one has been a featured article on the front page" is vague for wikipedia readers to understand. . The Malay nationalism article is not available. Therefore, having Chin Wee Loon in a seperate page is safest way to exemplify the Malay nationalism. Tonytypoon 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already specifically named the featured article twice in my discussion above. You're welcome to start an article on Malay nationalism. We already have Early Malay nationalism plus the substantial Category:Politics of Malaysia. Your assertion that Chin Wee Loon "exemplifies" the issue of Malay nationalism won't survive very long on any of these pages without supporting reliable sources Bwithh 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says in Malaysian Malaysia"Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour." The "favour" here is to let the Malays win the 1st to 3rd places, and have Chin Wee Loon settle in the 4th place. Tonytypoon 08:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- * How can you claimed that this article is not notable enough when even a citizen from Hong Kong sees its significance. There must be something important in this article, that is why he highlighted and posted it in Wikipedia. By the way, I did not in whatever way instruct him to write about me. This is purely his effort in bringing up the page. If the admin thinks this article is not fit to be in the software, so be it. I hope the admin will weigh the pros and cons before deleting this article. But this discussion has changed my perception about how Wikipedia is being handled by its patrollers. I can sense that some of the patrollers are indeed immature and not thoughtful and analytical enough in criticising an article. If you were in Malaysia or have experienced the Malaysian way of life, I can certainly guarantee you that you will know what is going on. And please do not just turn a blind eye on it just because one is not notable enough. He or she may not be notable to you but to some of the population in a country, it matters very much. This is my last post and I hope everybody will be liberal enough to see some of the points that I have raised. Thank you all.

  • I've re-tagged this as a speedy. There's no point at all keeping this AfD open, it's just a waste of time and effort which could be more usefully directed elsewhere. And it unquestionably meets speedy criteria. 86.134.24.74 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is supposed to cover significant events around the globe in English. Tonytypoon 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second the above motion to speedy, but I've been so involved in this that I'm not going to do it myself. Anyone else? CLW 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for speedying this. I was seconds away from doing it when I first nominated it, but then I noticed all the speedys in the past and figured it's time to actually show the user there is a consensus to delete this. I think there's an overwhelming consensus here for delete and would support a speedy delete (obviously I won't carry it out myself as the nominator). Metros232 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict...) P.S. The nominator's reason for bringing this here instead of speedying again was to get some extra input - I think this has been achieved now! CLW
    • I have reverted the Speedy Tagging (second time). The speedy tagging by an anon IP was out of process. The reason given - that 4 people in afd had asked for Speedy Delete and therefore the afd is a waste of time - is not sufficient. If a majority of people !voted in this afd discussion for Delete/Speedy Delete, and there is no significant opposition, than an admin may decided to invoke WP:SNOW. Repeated tagging of the article as speedy delete by an anonymous IP who dismisses this afd discussion as a "waste of time" is improper Bwithh 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:COI and all of the above. Akihabara 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just reinstated the speedy tag before seeing Bwithh's comment above, but I do feel that it should indeed be speedied. With regard to the "waste of time" comment, I don't think that Metros232's nomination in order to get more opinions was a waste of time - I think it was a very sensible move. However, in view of the opinions above, I do fear that keeping the AfD going would be a waste of time. CLW 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, that's what WP:SNOW is supposed to be used for - CSD tagging is a separate process. Bwithh 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding: Once an AfD has started it is improper to re-instate the speedy delete tag. If there are "speedy delete" votes, here, then only an admin can decide to end the discussion early and delete it. I voted to speedy delete it, so did others, that's enough. Generally when I speedy-tag something, an admin deletes the article within minutes. Notice how no admin pays attention to a speedy tag on an article that's involved in AfD. Leave it off, people. =Axlq 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, let me try to understand this. Melvincwl is in Malaysia. He and Tonytypoon are classmates. But Tonytypoon is in Hong Kong? How does that work? Delete, utterly non-notable, should have been speedied and salted. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried reinstating the speedy tag, but Bwithh has removed it again. I'm not going to reistate the tag and start warring on it, but I would urge Bwithh to reconsider... CLW 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are classmates in RCSIIreland. He is from Malaysia, and I am from Hong Kong. Tonytypoon 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Winning 4th place in this competition is not notable. If the 4th place winner was a Malay, you would agree that he is not notable. The claim to notability in this case lies with your point of view that he overcame unfair odds. That's not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It's impressive. It's heartwarming. It's not notable by Wikipedia's definition. Leebo86 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is good enough to win this with 4th place. If he is only even in the finalist, then it is not notable. Tonytypoon 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4th place is not notable, regardless of nationality. Wikipedia is not a collection of people who did "really well" in every contest ever. Leebo86 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable winner of non-notable competition. The article's existence is founded on POV, as Leebo86 points out. Resolute 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every single freaking tiny addenda to Malay pop culture or politics is no more notable than every single freaking tiny addenda to American pop culture or politics. This guy is as non-notable as the loser of the Dirt Plug, Arkansas water board commissioner election. --Charlene 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe wikipedia should contain global knowledge. Please do not judge with North American point of view. Tonytypoon 08:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete placing 4th in a single competition is not notable.-- danntm T C 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Chin Wee Loon were notable, there would be independent news sources provided explaining how he is notable. So far, no such sources have been provided at all. The only supporters of this article appear to be the subject and his classmate. How did the classmate find out about the subject coming in 4th place in the UMNO competition? Was it published in the newspapers in Hong Kong (where the classmate is from) or Ireland (where the classmate is a student now), or did the subject tell the classmate about it? This article appears to have significant problems with verifiability, reliable sources, and conflict of interest. Please note that the existence or non-existence of this article is not going to have much effect on ethnic relations in Malaysia, but if the proponents of this article are trying to convince us that the subject was relegated to 4th place in the competition (instead of winning) because of Malay nationalism and discrimination against Chinese, they will have to explain why the subject bothered to enter a contest sponsored by a Malay nationalist political party in the first place and why they gave him 4th place out of 250, placing him ahead of hundreds of Malays. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the subject wanted to practise Public speaking and Elocution as well, in the Independence Trophy Elocution 2004 competition. The only independent news sources is the video at Official WebTV of UMNO organization. The subject is in the video. Tonytypoon 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't change the status of the issue, but an official video of the competition is not an independent source. An independent source could be a video, but it would have to be made by a party with no affiliation to the competition or organizations sponsoring the competition. 206.213.251.31 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.First of all, I am Malaysian and I agree with the race barrier that do exist in a minor way in Malaysia, but then again, which country don't? Anyway, in accordance to wiki guide, winning the fourth place have no significance what so ever in my opinion. Second of all, knowing Chin Wee Loon a.k.a. melvincwl a.k.a. cwl personally, this article is strongly more of a vanity page than that of a notability article. He likes doing stuff like that with the mentality that it would give him a strong boost of sorts in the local political scene. That is a well known fact among peers. I steongly think this page should be deleted. Sorry Tony, it is the sad fact. I can verify Tonypoon is a seperate entity from Melvin but I should also point out that every defending point for the prevention of deletion of this article are all written by Melvin himself. Why would somebody defend his own autobiography? If there's significancy in the statements, many others would procceed to verify this and prevent it from deleting. Eugenekoh306
  • DELETE - I'm Malaysian Chinese; I've never heard of this guy (not that that matters), he doesn't represent me or my race, and I'm telling him to knock it off with the using of Wikipedia as a vanity page to promote his political/personal aims. Do you realize at 34 kbs and growing, this debate is at least x20 bigger than the article we're discussing? If Chin Wee Loon or his proxies are actually defending this article from deletion, its quite plainly a conflict of interest. Delete it for non-notability, 4th place is clearly not notable. To suggest notability by claiming that he was shafted by the competition, (implied racism here and in the article) is disingenous and dishonest. Was there an outcry that he was cheated out of 1st, 2nd or 3rd place? Did he return his 4th place award in protest? The answer is no. This is a self-serving vanity page. --Eqdoktor 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Britannia Airways Flight BY226A. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:15Z

Britannia flight 3142

Britannia flight 3142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article and Britannia Airways Flight BY226A both appeared around the end of November. I am the author of the latter article and was unaware at the time of the article I am now proposing for deletion. On 14 December 2006, User:Scott Wilson, presumably having been astute enough to spot the two similar articles, proposed their merger and posted notices on each. I posted messages on each discussion page, stating that I believed the Britannia flight 3142 article to be wrongly named, and subsequent web searches convince me of this as I also stated on both discussion pages on 20 December. There have been no other comments made and I have now merged some details from the 3142 page to my BY226A page. Therefore, on the grounds that a) Britannia flight 3142 is wrongly named and b) all useful material from it has been merged, I am proposing that the page should be deleted Emeraude 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A merge is definitely necessary, but how do we determine wich title is correct? Jayden54 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once merged wouldn't one be made into a redirect to the other? Why delete? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since the merge has already been done. Akradecki 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done this, now all we need is an admin to speedy close this AfD. Akradecki 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this and the re-direct. Nothing to establish that this crash was particularly notable. No fatalities, no major changes in airline procedure resulting from it, etc... - fchd 08:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1. BY226A is the correct name. 2. Not particularly notable? Airliner breaks into three but no one killed. Seems noteworthy to me. 3. Redirect may cause problems for anyone looking for details of the crash of flight 3142 in Buenos Aires (see my comments in talk page for BY226A here) which is why I suggested delete.Emeraude 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The redirect's history should certainly be kept in some form since it contains a history of content which was used and merged with another article, deleting the history is a violation of the GFDL. Indeed, a consensus to overrule that requirement would be invalid. Therefore, if you want the redirect gone, the page should be history merged first. Regarding the article itself, that should be kept since crash landings of large jetliners are definitely enormously perilous for a large number of people and of significant media and general interest, so I cannot understand a call to delete that thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, No AfD is required to redirect the article. JYolkowski // talk 15:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Force Football

Chicago Force Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article exists as Chicago Force (football). This is a duplicate article. Pinkkeith 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:17Z

Conservative Democratic Alliance

Conservative Democratic Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Sorry but I don't see anything notable whatsoever in this article. It seems, for the most part, to consist of a series of descriptions of the organisation's key personnel (none of whom seem to have held any sort of political office whatsoever), letters they have written to national newspapers and dinners that they have held over the past few years. I have looked long and hard for more information and have discovered only two actual news stories about them - both from the BBC news website in 2002 noting their split from the Monday Club - hardly headline grabbing stuff.--Edchilvers 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't seem like a notable group at all, despite the fact that the article tries to make them look very notable. No non-trivial coverage by any reliable sources and nothing to show really notability. Jayden54 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If The Independent, The Guardian and Searchlight magazine, in which there have all been non-trivial mentions linked in the article, are not reliable sources I'm not sure what are. As they are all linked in the article itself, and Ed Chilvers has previously been a collaborator with the leader of the CDA, although this has fallen sour I'm not sure why he is unaware of this fact. Surely, surely, he would not run a bad faith AfD. JASpencer 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The CDA is a prominent Conservative group which has overtaken the old Monday Club in trumpetting traditional Toryism. It is well known, a major irritant to Conservative Party "modernisers", and its Chairman often appears in media interviews. As User:JASpencer highlights, EdChilvers has been active since he arrived on Wiki in attacking the CDA's chairman and just about anyone else involved with them. Bad faith AfD? You bet. Chelsea Tory 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well show me the evidence. How is it a thorn in the side of the Tory party? How is it influential? As I have said I am always willing to be proved wrong as long as it meets the Wiki criteria which, at the moment in my opininon it doesn't--Edchilvers 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JASpencer's citation of references. Ground Zero | t 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am always willing to be proved wrong but from my POV the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion. This is a political organisation we are talking about here and yet it reads like a Euology. If it is so influential where is the critisism? it strikes me that this article has been written by supporters of the CDA itself as a means of bigging itself up. The point I am basically trying to make here is that local 'Conservative Club' organisations dont get articles on Wiki and yet they seem far more influential on Tory policy than this bunch--Edchilvers 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep - this article needs to be completely rewritten, and fast. Ed Chilvers is right when he says "the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion" and "it reads like a euology". If there is noone who comes forward and does so, I'd definitely vote delete. There are clearly interested editors here willing to get involved - why don't they take a long hard look at the article, look at articles for comparable political organisations, and get editing? --SandyDancer 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SandyDancer and Ed Chilvers are the same person. He has been attacking other articles on right-wingers and right-wing groups for some time. Needs investigating. 81.153.222.241 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::It is always somewhat laughable when people make ridiculous sock puppet claims. Even more laughable when they make such accusations using an IP sock themselves! You amuse me. --SandyDancer 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is you that needs investigating - for evading bans on anonymous editing imposed by Arbcom - see here. --SandyDancer 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair points about content, but is an AfD a suitable response to a content dispute? JASpencer 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it? Starting AFDs due to content dispute might be inappropriate, I grant you. But making comments on content in an already-initiated AFD is OK, surely? Let me clarify my viewpoint - it seems to me that an article which complies with Wikipedia's standard could be written about this organisation - but to date, hasn't been. Users who want the article to stay should make some commitment to improving it. --SandyDancer 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point on the content. Thank you for clarifying your position on keeping the article. JASpencer 09:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have become involved here in a roundabout way because I created a brief biographical entry for Mr Smith as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and his political activities which, although they are diametrically opposed to my personal views, are of general interest and frequently featured in the leading anti-fascist journal Searchlight. Mr Chilvers is actively seeking to have that biog deleted together with this linked article. In common with Mr Spencer I am concerned by the involvement of Mr Chilvers in this AfD. On his own admission he is a former friend and associate of Mr Smith who has since fallen out with him, and that raises the possibility of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we have an article on Smith and the CDA then we have to have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost. The reason we dont have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost is because it was deleted by Brad Patrick (head of Wiki legal) after Mr Lauder-Frost threatened legal action against myself and the Wikipedia foundation because he objected to certain aspects of his private life mentioned therein. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if the article stays but I do believe that an article on any political movement requires balance which at the moment this article does not have.--Edchilvers 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can see, the facts he objected to being stated in the article weren't "aspects of his private life" - they weren't private in the least, and in fact were matters of public record. --SandyDancer 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's avoid personal spats, shall we? If EdChilvers and SandyDancer think the article needs editing there's nothing to stop them from editing it. One assumes that the previous editors are more-or-less happy with the content so demanding that they make unspecified alterations isn't really on. Maybe Ed and Sandy would like to cite examples of passages to which they particularly object, stating why they object to themJames Loughton 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would love to edit this article and I have a wealth of information on the subject. The only problem is that I am worried that if I even correct a spelling error then Mr Lauder-Frost and Mr Keith-Smith will sue me. Having recieved a solitors letter I have previously been advised not to touch articles such as this--Edchilvers 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK - I am going to edit myself. --SandyDancer 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This nomination seems frivolous. -- Geo Swan 00:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I largely disagree with this organisation's politics (although I can sympathise with some of their views), but I disapprove equally of politically-motivated deletions. If it was as long and exhaustively detailed as GLF's entry became at one point I could understand, but it is a succinct and concise piece of work on a group which represents a fairly widely-held point of view (in certain circles). RobinCarmody 23:38, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, but rewrite. Remove material that lacks citation and remove the laundry lists of who went to what meeting. --Duke of Duchess Street
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 there's nothing there worth merging. Feel free to add them to the List of masts and recreate the below redlinks as redirects. Proto::► 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommerup transmitter

Tommerup transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hadsten Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hove Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jyderup Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nibe Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Røde Kro Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Videbæk Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Varde-Nordenskov Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viborg-Sparkær Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hedensted Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vordingborg Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Anonymous editor deprodded with comment "A tower, which is over 300 metres tall should not be deleted from Wikipedia!" None of the Danish towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO.}} Ohconfucius 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:19Z

Sorboni Banerjee

Sorboni Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page does not establish why the subject is worthy of a Wiki entry. Unless subject achieves notoriety in the field, the page should be deleted. Burghboy80 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and the article doesn't even really assert notability so might even be speedy deleted under CSD A7. Jayden54 16:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Harvestdancer 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:20Z

Bob Opsahl

Bob Opsahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entry does not establish proper reason for being listed on Wiki. Other than being a local news anchor, this is an unremarkable entry. Burghboy80 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and for the fact that Google News gives no results and Google provides nothing to show notability. Jayden54 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - rememnber to get the pictures too. Harvestdancer 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Guerrero

Kristina Guerrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject, as a local news personality, has not achieved sufficient notability or notoriety to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Burghboy80 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has done some noteworthy programs and shows. Examples include Acess Hollyood and Great Day San Antonio. --Scapone 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep funny I type her name into google and get all kinds of hits for TV she has done. IMDB has a listing for her as well.--Xiahou 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I made some edits to this article a while back, I realized then that she was not notable enough merit an article. In addition, information on Kristina is very scarce making it almost impossible to write a quality article on her. --Dx316dd 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Few noteworthy ghits, no indication of any real notability, very weak under WP:BIO criteria, extremely weak IMDB entry. Agent 86 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't appear to be worthy of a Wikipedia article...at least not right now. --MatthewUND(talk) 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the claims could be documented, I don't see the notability from the write-up. --Kevin Murray 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails noteability and does not appear to be worthy of mention in Wikipedia. Davidpdx 11:36, 1 January 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:21Z

Time To Kill

Time To Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Plot summary of unpublished novel by the person who created the article; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball SUBWAYguy 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete High Time to Kill is the full title of the novel and it has been released in 1999. TSO1D 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TSO1D. Nothing to merge, and a redirect is not required. -- Kicking222 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per TSO1D. Jayden54 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, and suggest participants focus their constructive energies on the Chat room article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:25Z

Mmocc

Mmocc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

'MMOCC' is a neologism. Also, this may have been a self-promotional article for mmoccforum.com, although an anonymous user did remove the link. Rhobite 16:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. This is not in wide use at all, and I doubt it even appears in any dictionary. Jayden54 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information is very beneficial to players and staff of MMOCCs and know about them. The term is not in the dictionary because it is a web acronym, is the correct definition for MMORPG in the dictionary? MMOCCForum was linked because it is a wonderful resource and the discussion is based on MMOCCs. It includes help information regarding MMOCCs, links to developing and major MMOCCs. The creator of this article doesn't own MMOCCForum, they just linked the forum due to it's very useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.97.213 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2006.
    • Well, since you asked... And like I said below, it's pretty odd that I get 200-and-some distinct Google hits for the term; an Internet-based term should probably show some signs of widespread use in the Internet... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information was very useful and WikiPedia is built to have information on EVERYTHING, so you can go to hell about the dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.119.128 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 December 2006.
    • Wikipedia doesn't have the mission to have information on "everything". We do have a mission to cover all kinds of information, but we pick remarkable topics that are actually known to the public at large. New terms and new thoughts have to be proven popular first. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is Lindsay Lohan in the dictionary? Nope - but she's on WikiPedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.109.136 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2006.
    • Merits of the articles are to be judged individually. Just because some other completely unrelated topic happens to be in Wikipedia rather than dictionary doesn't mean this can be. Try picking a term that could conceivably be in a dictionary for your analogy next time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --- RockMFR 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason why this page would be deleted. The information is valuable to those who dont know what an mmocc is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • If you don't see a reason why this article would be deleted, how do you respond to the nominator's claims that this is a neologism (which we tend to avoid unless they're proven widespread and well-known)? And think of it this way - you wouldn't want people to learn terms that no one uses. Internet chat is internet chat. I don't know anyone who uses the term "MMOCC". Before you say "but they should be using the term", remember that it's not Wikipedia's mission to push new terms and new concepts either; the material has to be remarkable and widely known before getting here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information was very useful to me in finding teenage chat communities across the internet. For example, Coke Music - I've never heard of it until today and discovered one of the neatest chat rooms I've ever encountered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.172.63.214 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. The concept is interesting and remarkable (yes, graphical chat rooms with avatars exist and are popular); however, I have never ever heard the term "MMOCC" used anywhere to refer to this sort of chat places. For an Internet-related term, 223 distinct Google hits is a pathetic hit count. There's nothing really remarkable in the article that could not be found in other articles on these topics. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MMOCC shoud be kept as it is very resourcefull. If you go on sites such as;WowWeb Designs, or Pixel joint, and many other online community sites, the term MMOCC' is used many a times. It is not simply trying to put the acronym 'MMOCC' out there, as it is already used, but for those people who do not knnow what an MMOCC is, the artical can be very usefull for finding that right online chat, or just research in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.163.13 (talk • contribs).
    • So basically, a few people seem to have adopted the term. We'd need a bit more concrete proof of widespread use. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this article goes, who's to say that the MMORPG article sholdn't go too? I'd never heard of the term 'MMORPG' until this year. What is your problem? This is a very informative article. I can think of loads of articles that shouldn't be on wikipedia, as they mean absolutely nothing. Why should Habbo Hotel stay on Wikipedia? It's not in the dictionary. And I'm sure the word 'Habbo' was relatively new when it was launched. I can think of plenty of people who haven't got the faintest idea what a 'Habbo' is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.237.0 (talk • contribs).
    • We're not, I repeat, not discussing the deletion of Habbo Hotel, which is demonstrably a very notable chat/MMOG site. (Go Finland! Yay! =) What we have a beef is the term MMOCC, which no one seems to have used until very very recently. All the while the term "MMORPG" is very established, has been discussed in scholarly journals of many sorts (while "MMOCC" only turns up completely unrelated hits). Note this, however: "Habbo" is a fictional term. It refers to the content of the games. "MMOCC" is a "real" term used to describe a real-world construct. That makes it inappropriate unless it's actually famous. Wikipedia has a problem with original research; it's all good and appropriate that "Habbo" is a redirect to Habbo Hotel because the game itself describes this fictional construct, and as such, we're not publishing new terms, just reporting on an established term that is used in Habbo Hotel. However, "MMOCC" label points to a real-world thing; what's the source for that term? How did it came to be? Who actually uses the term? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who actually uses the term? Go check on habbo chat clients who uses it... Which at any given time usually has over 10,000 users logged in. Is this huge in comparison to myspace? No. Is it still in large use? Actually yes it is. Anyone who actually takes the time to play the game knows it as an mmocc. check. mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I call it a graphical chat with multiplayer game elements. Habbo.com calls it a "virtual community", and the term "MMOCC" isn't (according to Google) found on the website. I don't know what the users call it, but I'd wager few call it a "MMOCC". Like the nominator says, we're not concerned with what the players think the thing itself 'is; we're more concerned with this question alone: who calls it a "MMOCC"?
      If you want an easier, completely (yes, completely, without any sarcastic undertones - but hopefully strong enough to drive point across) rhetorical example: I could declare Habbo Hotel a WasteOfTime, and write a Wikipedia article about WastesOfTime similar to Habbo. (Remember, again, this is a completely rhetorical example. As an IRCer, I know that the only thing that deserves the name of "waste of time" is IRC. =) I could use a lot of fancy words that would define how WastesOfTime operate. Now, assume you have been a Habbo user - or just an ordinary MMOG user - all through its existence, and have never heard of Habbo referred to it as such. Wouldn't you, in that case, be terribly interested of who came up with this term "WasteOfTime", and who uses it in scholarly context, and is it truly as widespread as the few loud proponents claim? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term is even on Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mmocc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk • contribs).
      • Anyone can submit content to Urban Dictionary. It's not considered a particularly trustworthy site when evaluating popularity of a particular term. Especially one that was submitted in October 2 and has whopping 7 votes since then. If you can find a source that satisfies neologism guidelines and reliable source guidelines, that's good, but I'm afraid tons of stuff gets deleted if their sole claim of fame is an Urban Dictionary entry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A helpful comment for newbies: Please sign your messages. You can do that by hitting the signature button on the toolbar while the cursor is at the end of the comment, or typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. This makes telling apart peoples' comments much easier. The bot tries to fix this, but it's not omnipotent. Thank you for your consideration. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a great resource, why would anyone be so petty as to remove this.. idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.142.89 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • A great resource about a term that few people appear to use. As it's not widely used, we hope it'd be obvious why it is being considered for deletion. Also, I kind of hoped it would be obvious that insulting people is not really helpful toward making people understand your point of view. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing more than self-aggrandizing drivel for an unremarkable website. Burghboy80 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely worthless neologism. This is adequately covered in Massively multiplayer online game and Virtual world. Google shows almost no links for this phrase. - hahnchen 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources at all. The preceding discussion cites no sources. Doing the research myself, I can find no sources. There is no evidence that a concept of a "Mass Multiplayer Online Chat Community" has actually been documented anywhere at all. The concept hasn't even been documented by its creator(s). They haven't even published their own documentation for it on web pages of their own. The article is original research, the primary source documentation of a concept that has not yet been acknowledged by anyone and become part of the corpus of human knowledge. That is forbidden here. Arguments that other things are not in dictionaries are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:26Z

National Frisbee Day

National Frisbee Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No indication that it is a "real" day. Assuming it is, no indication given of notability, especially as it has only happened once. A prod was added previously. TheParanoidOne 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Earl Mindell. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:27Z

Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible

Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An encyclopedic article can not be created about this subject. SERSeanCrane 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - redirect to Earl Mindell as I don't think the book is notable enough to have its own article, and at the moment it has very little information. Jayden54 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Earl Mindell. Although I own this book and I like it, I can't see how it would warrant its own article. =Axlq 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this adds nothing that is not already in the article Earl Mindell. Springnuts 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, AfDs aren't required to create redirects. JYolkowski // talk 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Peak Regional Preserve

Mission Peak Regional Preserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Mission Peak Regional Preserve should be a redirect to Mission Peak, a relatively complete article. Alison Chaiken 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WSAM-FM

WSAM-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Hoax; violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Mhking 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete There's more than one WP:CSD cat that could apply, but I tagged as db-spam. Tubezone 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as hoax, spam, whatever. Jayden54 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as attack article after finding this little tidbit. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion removed
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 (there is support for merging/redirecting separately from the AFD). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:31Z

Singil Station

Singil Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Per precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station, nominating all other station stops on Seoul Subway Line 5. Most are the same as Yeouinaru Station: 1 line with no other content (including pictures, while free, I also think do not provide value). Only two of these articles have anything beyond one line: Gimpo Airport Station and Omokgyo Station, of which only 1 introduces a source, but the source doesn't mention the subway station at all. I further think all these should be turned into redirects, any content included on Seoul Subway Line 5 (including images) and the table de-wikilinked. MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

--MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was tempted to speedy close this myself, as the nominator didn't want the articles to be deleted. However, I want to get a feel for what others are thinking here first. Speedy close as the nominator wants to redirect all of these and not delete. Failing that, Merge and/or redirect all of these to Seoul Subway Line 5. JYolkowski // talk 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - we don't need separate articles on each station (not even enough information available except a single sentence). Jayden54 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of equal importance to stations in London and New York. Redirection would therefore be racist. Nathanian 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I randomly found my way to 5 (New York City Subway service) which I would equate to an equal level as Seoul Subway Line 5, and looked at the station articles there. Of the random 5 I looked at, they included a link or two and most had more significant text than "This is a station on line X." There were some claims such as "will be rebuilt" and other items that should be sourced/referenced, which may be covered by the external link(s) on the articles. I don't think "racist" is a valuable label to be applied here. Regardless, I believe the most damaging argument for this is that even the Korean Wikipedia articles are small (as reported in the previous AFD mentioned above), which isn't what one would expect if these are of significant more value than an English language version. I listed them as AFDs because they are articles, someone has spent time in creating them with the templates/infoboxes, and I didn't know where else to list them, though perhaps I could have just said they should be deleted as the previous AFD I requested all related articles (ie, these mentioned above) to be included (but didn't list them, so perhaps some people didn't vote with that in mind or for due process matters, it makes sense to give each of these their own representation). --MECU≈talk 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, got to go with the eventualist position on subway stations. I read something about "reversing bad precedents" - making subway station articles open to a higher level of scrutiny is not a good idea. These particular articles contain templates and infoboxes which add decent context, particularly hangeul translations and surrounding stations (I was involved in that respect). If this is the way things are going, the battle against station articles could get bloody. Deizio talk 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to which page are we going to redirect when the station is a transfer point between multiple lines? Dongdaemun Stadium Station, for example, is a station on three lines. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have articles about every damn train station in far less notable cities than seoul. eg most of the australian capital cities (i use this example simply because i'm australian). as for 1/2 lines, 'stub' is not a reason for deleting an article.  ⇒ bsnowball  14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all useful content. Can grow. Fg2 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per Wikipeditor; why is this on AfD? -- Visviva 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep railway stations, regardless of a bad precedent that was controversial in the first place (8-4 against deletion, although acknowledge AFD is not a vote) Neier 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all redirecting to Seoul Subway Line 5 is not appropriate for all the stations because some of the stations serve other lines, some articles actually have substantive content, and Wikipedia precedent favors keeping subway stations.-- danntm T C 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all like others votes. 17.255.252.6 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nominator does not desire deletion, these should be discussed as merge proposals. Seraphimblade 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all A word is done as a former author. It doesn't know the reason to do the deletion at all. It is necessary to delete all articles on the subway station besides the deletion by any chance. (Sorry, but I'm English level is very basic level) -- JongGuk 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, Yeouinaru Station was deleted for lack of sources, not lack of notability or violation of precedent, and one deletion is not a precedent. Yeouinaru Station should have (and I suggested that it should be) been reposted with proper sources. Part of the problem here is sourcing information that's mostly in the Korean language, deleting station articles solely based on lack of English and Latin character set references in a country that doesn't speak English natively nor normally uses Latin characters in its language is a symptom of systemic bias. Also, throwing difficult to source articles up for AfD is not a proper way to influence guidelines and de facto policy on subway stations, there's forums for discussing policies and guidelines. JMHO ;-) Tubezone 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (Cartoon Network)

Monk (Cartoon Network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

hoax series; does not exist; violates WP:NFT Mhking 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete it's a hoax, I could not find any mention of the show on CN. TSO1D 18:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense / repost. Tagged now. Prolog 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per above. Jayden54 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax by sockpuppet of banned user Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and protect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:37Z

Robot Rage

Robot Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously deleted within AFD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot Rage), speedily deleted 3 other times (See here), this page was recreated. However, it contains no assertion of notability or any sources that indicate why it's necessary to have a page on this game. It reads essentially like a game-guide, as well, which is not what Wikipedia is for (If there's a GameFaqs-a-pedia, maybe this should go there). Was formerly a prod, but was removed by an account with no other edits. As nominator, I say delete. User:Logical2uTalk 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and block the page to prevent recreation, then delist from VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - non notable web game, and it's been deleted several times now, so make sure it can't be re-created. Jayden54 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Jayden54. Danny Lilithborne 21:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE SkierRMH 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete link34 no one plays the game that much anymore and its never updated. 12:38 AM, 29 december 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:39Z

Emysphilia

Emysphilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Daniel Schechner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unlikely-sounding fetish. No result for either of the published sources on Google, nor in the British Library or the Library of Congress catalogs. No results for the author "Daniel Schechner" either outside of Wikipedia mirrors and forums. If anyone can turn up sources or verify the existing ones, I'll withdraw the AfD. Demiurge 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus; suggest creating the Cherry Springs article so this can be merged there per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:43Z

Cherry Springs Dance Hall

Cherry Springs Dance Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I prodded this, but the creator indicated a desire to remove the prod tag on the article's talk, so I'm switching to AFD. The dance hall is probably not notable. I'm not sure whether to apply WP:N or WP:CORP to determine that, but I don't think the article meets either. Kchase T 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable dance hall, and the article doesn't even assert notability. Jayden54 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Cherry Springs Dance Hall is of cultural and historical significance to both the state of Texas, and to the history of country music and popular music. It has been a reknown Texas gathering spot for almost 120 years, having originated in the cattle drive years, and continuing through to the present day. It served as a 1950's incubator for the birthing of rock and roll, rockabilly, and the transitioning of country music from localized "hillbilly" interest to world-wide popularity. I do not believe my sources to be trivial, even if they are online links. Elvis Day By Day is the online version of a book meticulously researched and produced by Peter Guralnick, a well-respected music historian of the last few decades. Maile66
  • Keep - cites provided appear to demonstrate a case. An editor with more experience in local (or country) history could probably come up with even better ones. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Article is in poor shape, but it seems the hall might be noteworthy, if the Honky Tonk Texas site's claims are accurate. However, I note Elvis Day By Day only mentions the hall in passing, and the second reference provided doesn't appear to mention it at all. I'm not comfortable !voting keep based on a single source. Would like to see at least one more significant mention from a reliable independent source. Shimeru 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, the new addition satisfies my concerns. (It'd be good if we could cite the book directly rather than the web excerpt, but that's just a minor detail.) Shimeru 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Source Added - I'll admit I could use some guidance in as much as this is my first time putting up a page. But I did add a source link from a book Geronimo Trevino III’s Dance Halls and Last Calls A History of Texas Country Music Dance Halls in Texas, 1800’s – Present day. - Maile66 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pre-announcement of a Tollywood movie, supposed to be released in 2007. From the sources I can read the only thing that has been settled upon is the name of the movie. The oneindia source could contain more, but sadly I can't read it, so I'm hoping the community can offer more input. Prod was removed without comment by an IP user. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have updated the article and gave you more sources to understand that there is nothing wrong in this one. This movie is scheduled to start in summer 2007. There are many pages on movies that may or may not start. I don't know why you want to delete this official page? Please do not delete this page Mirchi- Chala Naatu guru. I did not see any reason for deletion. This gives information on the movie and they did say that the movie will start soon so there's no problem with this article.I gave sources in english also. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkobra123 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 December 2006
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to note that before anyone goes for deleting this article, it should be noted that Wikipedia is America centric and just because you A) haven't heard of it or B) can't find much info about it on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although we have articles on future film releases... All the article and the references say is that it has a name, a star and a director. No plot, coverage, budget or any other information. The only reason there's a name is that it's been registered ( I assume to prevent poaching ) and the article has NOTHING beyond the name. Delete as the film may not be released, may change it's name or star, director... in fact anything mentioned in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' It may be true that Wikipedia is American (or Western) centric, but that doesn't change the fact the film is non-noteable. The internet is world-wide and if something as small as this project was, had gotten press, there would be plenty of ways to prove noteablity. The notion that it article is being deleted because Wikipedia is American centric is not a worthy arguement. Davidpdx 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- America-centric is a valid concern. Notability, in my experience, can be far too culturally relative a yard-stick to be useful. And we should fall back to the more reliable yardsticks, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VER. The article cites telugucinema. So, is it an authoritative, verifiable source for "Tollywood" films? If so the article should be kept. -- Geo Swan 16:01, 4 January 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, unencyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous after surviving a near-fatal event

List of people who became famous after surviving a near-fatal event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Its impossible to define who should be in this category - how is "famous" defined? What counts as a "near-fatal event". Lots of POV issues here. See the related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have been involved in incidents resulting in death and the previous AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people who became famous for surviving a deadly event Gwernol 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom + unencyclopedic Bwithh 19:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, I don't see how an article like this will work, since it's pretty much a huge POV problem, unless each addition is backed up by several sources. Jayden54 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's an interesting list with context for each entry, and as the individuals on it appear notable, and their notability has come from being involved in the events, or they are notable people who nearly died, it appears a legitimate topic to create a list from. Frankly it's an interesting sphere of human experience, and therefore likely to get people clicking. I didn't really fancy it when I first came upon it, but did a bit of work on it and feel it was significantly improved. I hate listcruft and don't think this qualifies. Deizio talk 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic listcruft. TSO1D 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially amusing item in a miscellany, but not suitable for an encyclopedia as it is hard to define and will always be random. Nathanian 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Impossible to maintain, little chance of consensus over what constitutes a near fatal experience, for example does John Lydon missing PanAm 103 qualify, or is their a need for medical intervention, like with Slash who was clinically dead. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how you can verify when a person "became famous," or even whether a person is famous or not. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. What constitutes being famous? How do we determine when someone became famous? How do we determine for what reason someone became famous? What constitutes a near-fatal event? How directly must the event and fame correlate? How much time can pass between the event and the fame (that is to say, how long is "after")? Serpent's Choice 05:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (general) I honestly don't see these as insurmountable questions, and many of the answers are self-evident. Famous can be changed to notable. Lydon and Slash were presumably famous before the cited events, and Lydon was not actually involved in the event. We can determine the reason someone became notable quite easily, as it will be evident on their article, as established by whatever facts and evidence have been submitted to comply with WP:BIO. The correlation of the event and fame is not an issue, as there are different sections. After means not before, ie not famous 1 second before the near-fatal event. The definition of near fatal is also pretty evident from the pages listed - either people died in the event (9/11, Titanic etc), or it was something a human could be reasonably expected to have died from (falling 33000 feet to the ground, accidentally going over Niagara Falls). I think this page is fairly easy to maintain. Deizio talk 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Serpent's Choice.
  • Week Keep since the list provides context with citations. Hopefully that context will keep frivolous additions from being made. (Note: I changed my previous delete vote)Abecedare 20:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There can be major problems with these types of articles. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:47Z

Alphabetical List of Star Trek Characters

Alphabetical List of Star Trek Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Many folks on this unwieldy list don't meet WP:N. Worthwhile material is redundant with the existence of List of Star Trek characters. True, "List of Star Trek characters" lacks convenience of being alphabetized, but I reckon folks are more interested in seeing characters listed by series than by name. --EEMeltonIV 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. if the only purpose of this list is to have the characters in alphabetical order, then this is redundant with a category - that's what they're for. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too arbitrary and unmanageable.-- danntm T C 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary alternate arrangement of existing content. The plain List is better-focused (see EEMeltonIV's comment on not-notable minor characters) and the category allows alphabetical search. This extra list adds only a maintenance hassle, no useful content. Barno 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant information. No sense having two articles for the same content. --Targetter (Lock On) 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Guitar Hero. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:50Z

Guitar Hero III

Guitar Hero III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article lacks any first party sources and the two sources it does have indicate that Guitar Hero II will be going multiplatform and that Guitar Hero III more Harmonix games will be made eventually. The information on the article itself is pure speculation and contains no factual data regarding the potential game itself. There is quite literally no information about the game aside from a VERY vague release date as reported by a third party. While I personally believe there'll probably be a Guitar Hero III, WP:NOT demands that we not treat Wikipedia as a Crystal Ball. Lankybugger 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a reliable source citing a release date. If we delete the article now someone will just re-create it. The series is popular enough that the article name should at least be redirected if not preserved. There have been several speculative edits. I would suggest keeping the page, but protecting it until there is more public information available. - NickSentowski 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps a redirect to Guitar Hero would be sufficient until confirmed, verifiable information has been released? Currently the article is a collection of factoids and common knowledge and while Activision is PLANNING to release more Guitar Hero sequels there's been indications that future Harmonix releases might not be rock-related... I doubt they'd release a Country-themed guitar game as a core-series sequel, for example. Lankybugger 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Lets be realistic about this, and like Nick said, if we simply delete the article it will probably be remade. We really dont need this article though in my opinion, maybe just a short paragraph in the Guitar Hero II article. Cablebfg 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As this article shows, there's a vast difference between another game being made which uses the Gibson SG Controller released by Red Octane and a true sequel to Guitar Hero II. Harmonix could choose to start releasing the game with subtitles instead of numbers (like Guitar Hero: Metal or Guitar Hero: Country) as the GTA series did with Vice City and San Andreas, they could start to release the games under different "Hero" brands (like Country Hero or Metal Hero) or any other number of naming conventions. Right now there's zero indication that ANY of the proposed additions to the Harmonix lineup will actually be Guitar Hero III. It's PROBABLE that one of the games will be Guitar Hero III but it's not VERIFIABLE. Right now the only information the article contains is information that more games from Harmonix will be produced by the end of next year AND that Guitar Hero II will be going multi-platform. There is zero ACTUAL information about GHIII. I could just as easily make an article about Final Fantasy XIV with just as much information as the GHIII article has. It'll probably be made eventually and we can bet there'll be a dude named Cid in it, but that's speculation. Lankybugger 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not meet crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no info at all for this game other than Activision plans to release a new Guitar Hero game. Also, keeping an article just because it will be created again in the future is not a reason to keep (otherwise we would keep the articles about sporting events 20 years away). TJ Spyke 02:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a game, whether it's released or not. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this page. Isn't learning about things what Wikipedia is for?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoastTOcoast533 (talk • contribs)
    • There is ZERO info abou this game though, other than Activision plans to make it. Anything else is pure speculation. TJ Spyke 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how a game which is not yet in development, and has not had any press releases from the developer on it can possibly be considered a "real game". Lankybugger 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. No, this is not a "Real game", just a mention of some general promo, with no verifiable encyclopedic content. Perhaps, given the game-chat-blog rumors, this title should redirect to Guitar Hero and be protected against crystal-ball recreation until there are facts, not rumors, published in multiple non-trivial independent sources. Barno 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does need to be deleted. The information is not relevant, and it is a prime example of what Wikipedia should not become. Speculation. --Atm153 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information here is all in the Guitar Hero 2 article, and there's not enough of it at all to justify its own article. A redirect to Guitar Hero 2 should be sufficient. Lateralus1587 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless, of course, I am allowed to create articles on Grand Theft Auto V, Final Fantasy XIV, Resident Evil 6, Gyakuten Saiban 5, etc. --Guess Who 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guitar Hero II or Guitar Hero for now. Wait until more info about the song list (not speculation from fansites) and the game itself is provided. If the game is going to not be released until late 2007-Q1 2008, it's still a long ways from now. Douglasr007 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points made above have pushed me to my Delete decision. How can we create an article about a game before the official title or working title is announced? I think this would be a good guideline for deletion. - NickSentowski 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Greeves 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suoerh2 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a link to the IGN page for Guitar Hero PS3. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 00:49Z

Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)

Michael Keith Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Malformed nomination, I completed this for User:Edchilvers, who will hopefully add a nomination statement. I have no opinion other than that I checked and this article is not identical to the one deleted in June, so speedy criterion WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He has been the subject of non-trivial articles by reputable sources including the Guaridan, so I say it passes WP:BIO. TSO1D 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three claims to notability in the article backed by more than one non-trivial mention in mainstream news sources. Clearly meets WP:BIO. JASpencer 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial articles by reputable sources. Is this nomination politically motivated vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
    • The article has been deleted prior, so there is no reason to assume this. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JASpence, also should not have been deleted prior, no excuse to do it again. --Xiahou 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Linked nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance JASpencer 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance. The man isn't notable himself - he is only important in the context of the CDA. There isn't much interesting or relevant to say about him that can't be covered there (that article needs improvement, of course). This looks like a re-run of Gregory Lauder-Frost, IMHO. Keep per JA Spencer --SandyDancer 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Above user voted delete "in current form" for CDA article. So merge and redirect would be to nowhere. JASpencer 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I didn't, actually. I said it needs to be rewritten and should be deleted if it isn't. My assumption was someone will rewrite it because it is a hopeless article. --SandyDancer 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Strangelv 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this entry as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and Mr Smith's political activities which, although they are diametrically opposed to my personal views, are of general interest and frequently featured in the leading anti-fascist journal Searchlight. In common with Mr Spencer I am concerned by the involvement of Mr Chilvers in this AfD. On his own admission he is a former friend and associate of Mr Smith who has since fallen out with him, and that raises a possible suspicion of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unfortunate that User:Edchilvers hasn't stepped forward to offer an explanation for why the article should be deleted. Keep. -- Geo Swan 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a person of some note in conservative circles and Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which, according to reports, has over 1000 members. Chelsea Tory 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If being in charge of an organisation with 1000 members makes a person notable in your opinion, then I think you set the bar far, far too low. Half the schoolmasters in the world would qualify for articles! --SandyDancer 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Could someone put up the no voting template please?A discussion has started on Tracey Williams' forum (of Keith-Smith v Williams) No votes have been asked for, but it may start. (The CDA forum, which has called for votes in past AfDs doesn't seem to have noticed these two are up yet). JASpencer 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (NB. {{afdnewbies}} now up}. JASpencer 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whatever one thinks of his politics, which tend to strongly polarise opinion (understatement), he is significant in the light of what might well be seen in years to come as a landmark libel case. RobinCarmody 23:42, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
Comment In all honesty I don't feel terribly strongly about this. However, for the purposes of having a proper debate - could someone who has voted "keep" explain to me why the man himself needs an article, distinct from the article about (1) CDA of which he is chair and (2) the important libel case which he was party to? Yes, the CDA is notable, yes, the case is notable - but is he?
There are plenty of clubs, pressure groups etc. more prominent than the CDA, the leaders of which don't have articles (and rightly so). There are much more important landmark legal cases where the plaintiff and the defendant don't have their own article (and rightly so).
Setting aside whether or not the nominator may or may not have a personal issue with the subject of this article (I gather he does), I think these questions need to be addressed. --SandyDancer 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzzy Math! Nine Keeps and No Deletes is not forming a consensus? --Kevin Murray 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Sandy Dancer I think that we need to look at this in three parts. Firstly there are more assertions of notability than the two mentioned. There's the leadership of the Monday Club's "ultra" wing in their last days, then there's the attempt to expel Smith personally for from the Conservative Party that forced the Tories to back down after attracting a number of unhelpful media articles and finally there was the candidacy in Portsmouth North for UKIP which was credited by Smith, the Tory candidate and the analyst Richard North for stopping a Conservative win in that seat. These are all backed up by quite a lot of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Now these are all related to his political activities but the political activities are not all within the realms of the CDA.
The second point is that even with the two assertions of notability - they are seperate enough to warrant a bridging article. When you count in the other political activities (particularly the UKIP candidacy in Portsmouth) this point is more crucial. While the argument that if he only attracted attention as the leader of the CDA, or only the UKIP candidate or only the plaintiff in Keith-Smith v Williams then he would have no independent notability might have some merit, as someone who attracts attention from all three fronts then he merits an article as a bridge between these.
Lastly there's a more general point. Politics is never simply about the people who hold official office it's about the sea in which these fish swim. It is important for a student of politics to get an idea of the people who are in the background influencing the political climate. People such as Mike Smith, Tim Montgomerie and Mark MacGregor may not be well known to the public - sometimes by their own choice - but their influence means that they should be known - at least by those who wish to find out. Des Wilson in the Liberal Democrats or Neal Lawson in Labour would fill similar positions. While I have little sympathy with vanity articles or articles for every councillor on a particular council, influential non-office holders should be included - whether or not one agrees with their politics.
JASpencer 09:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JASpencer. I see your point - thanks for summing things up like that. Vote changed to keep. --SandyDancer 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep got enough influence to be noted -- therefore notable Alf photoman 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would WP:SNOW apply now? As Sandy Dancer's comments have been answered and Ed Chilvers has not come on to explain why it should be deleted, can we now close this discussion as keep? JASpencer 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per obvious notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close The consensus- and notability- are both rather obvious. -- Kicking222 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, better sourced than most articles, very little support for removing... Not sure why this is still open. --Falcorian (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:55Z

List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35

List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Trivial list; one of hundreds which can possibly be derived from boxofficemojo.com. Nonetheless, this is no more notable than a List of top-grossing films shot with Arri cameras or List of top-grossing films shot with Cooke lenses. Super 35 is not a significant correlative factor to box office gross. While it is interesting that more recent films are using the format, it ultimately is a foregone conclusion of the fact that it is a newer technique, it can allow for cost-savings compared to anamorphic format, it uses smaller, faster, and higher quality lenses, and the development of digital intermediate as a method to avoid the compromises of an optical intermediate step. While one can form box office lists based on numerous variables, it ultimately comes down to trivia in all but a few more general cases (top opening weekends, top of all time, top by nation or time period). Wikipedia is not boxofficemojo.com - ie a film earnings database. (I must also confess that I find all this slobbering over box office numbers rather silly to begin with. If I'm not seeing any of that money, why should I care? ;) Probably a symptom of the fact that we're more interested in how the films are made now than what they are about. But that's another debate...) Girolamo Savonarola 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that answers my question. I can support a delete then. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for lack of encyclopedic value (a.k.a. listcruftiness). -- Kicking222 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MER-C 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Julliard

Bruno Julliard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable french student. Page has been tagged for notability additions since September. The articles creators contributions to the English Wiki are restricted to two edits on this article. Bob 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article needs serious expansion and some sources, but through Google I found a Telegraph news article, a BBC article and more through NewsExplorer, so he seems notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Jayden54 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his position of chairman of the UNEF gives him notability. I wonder why the article was tagged for AfD - it is clearly written there in the very first sentence.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, adding sources such as those mentioned by Jayden54. The head of a student organization is not generally considered notable unless he's gotten WP:V and WP:RS coverage, not just campus newspapers; but this person has. The AfD nomination was reasonable based on the contents of the article, since all it said was that Julliard headed this student union when it opposed a proposed law. Barno 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jayden54 has shown that he is notable enough. Koweja 07:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a minor rewrite for NPOV and added one of Jayden's sources to the reference section. I think that we have an interesting article on a notable subject. Clearly a bit more information would be welcome. --Kevin Murray 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs to be rewritten due to WP:NPOV, but it should be kept. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Jyothisingh 09:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:57Z

Asia Football squads

Asia Football squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Created by Garmsar boy (talk · contribs) a month ago. I'm not sure what the page was intended to be but currently it is a list of players on two national football teams. It provides no context whatsoever, it bares little relation to the article's title and it's redundant with the content of other pages. I'm not disputing that "Asia Football squads" might be a valuable encyclopedic topic but I'd rather have no article than an article that does not come remotely close to being on topic. Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to duplicate Iran national football team and Iraq national football team. No need for a redirect from this title. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I call that "Asia Football squads" might not be a valuable encyclopedic topic. Punkmorten 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Squad lists of notable tournaments are encyclopedic, but this article is not one of those. Besides being POV (best teams in Asia), it is difficult to maintain due to the shifting nature of national squads from one friendly or qualifier to another. Neier 11:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no reliable sources showing notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-islam.org

Al-islam.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page does not qualify as notable in that there are no independent sources for it. It had a previous nomination over a year ago, which ended in no consensus (here) but the main reason to keep was popularity, which does not qualify under WP:WEB. This is a very similar case to the (currently ongoing) AfD for Rafed.net - a reasonably popular website which lacks any non-trivial independent sources from which to construct an article. Trebor 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (negative) To quote WP:WEB:

Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

To me, that indicates that this article should be a redirect to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which is the parent organization, and their only claim to notability, through a 2003 essay from George Mason University. As currently written, this article is just an advertisement for the website, with multiple images uploaded from the website and multiple links to the same pages on the website. The repeated references to Yahoo! popularity have nothing to do with providing a reliable source of their notability as defined by the WP:WEB criteria ... the same arguments have been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net and apply here for the same reasons, so please read that discussion first ... also review the edit history and talk:Al-islam.org to review attempts by the author to hinder bringing it into line with Wikipedia guidelines. 72.75.72.174 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stong keep i dont care what the guidline says, but if it states that the number one Shi'a Islamic site according to Yahoo and google does not fulfill its criteria, then theres something wrong with the guideline or your interpretation of it. --Striver - talk 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yahoo and Google's ratings should count for nothing, I've already stated that on the discussion page for this article and explained why. Yahoo's so-called "popularity" rankings are useless, since we don't know how exactly they rate them and it isn't necessarily even based on popularity: "Sites that are most popular with users or the most relevant to the category appear at the top of the site listings" (emphasis added) http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/dir/basics/basics-21.html See also http://www.google.com/technology/index.html Шизомби 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that a more appropriate link for Google Directory (as opposed to Google Search) would be http://www.google.com/dirhelp.html ... they're really two different things, but still, Directory does not satisfy WP:V. --72.75.72.174 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Google link I gave above is for information about their PageRank, which determines "importance" in the Directory. Шизомби 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because when we debate on reliable ref. such page can help us a lot. --Sa.vakilian 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this site is a reliable source for Shi'a Islam material, Google even raised its page ranking to 8 out of 10. --Striver - talk 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per IP user above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB: no convincing independant, third-party, non-trivial coverage has been provided for this website. if such coverage can be found i may reconsider my decision. if such coverage only exists in another language then it should be provided, although it is more appropriate for the article to be present on that language wiki. Google/Yahoo/Alexa rankings/overviews by themselves are not sufficient, and using this as a measure simply opens the floodgates to masses of other similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites which are listed on those websites. some valid arguments presented by 72.75. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me an example of those articles risking to flood wikipedia, ie, a popular site that is non-notable? --Striver - talk 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's start with one for Harley Quinn, a comic book character with lots of fan websites, any one of which is a "popular site that is non-notable", i.e., does not satisfy WP:WEB:
It is listed in the Top Three on all of the following web directories in the same category, i.e., "Harley Quinn":
  1. "Top > Arts > Comics > Titles > B > Batman > Harley Quinn". Alexa. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. "Directory > Entertainment > Comics and Animation > Comic Books > Titles > DC > Harley Quinn". Yahoo! Directory. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. "Arts > Comics > Titles > B > Batman > Harley Quinn". Google Directory. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Or you can pick any of these websites:
All of them are listed in at least two (if not all three) of the above cited directories, and they are all in the Top Five for each directory in which they are listed, with "Gotham Girls" even coming in first on two of them ... that's four examples of websites on the same subject with the same web directory category, which by your logic and arguments are each sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article based solely on their ranking ... now, do you want me to find any more examples? --72.75.72.174 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a fair comparison.A minor figure is not analog to a religious denomination, maybe DC comics would be analogous to Shi'a Islam. Does any of the Harley_Quinn sites have a Google page rank of 8? A google page rank of 8 says a lot, consider that wikipedia itself has that page rank - so please give a equivalent comparison, a character top-ten list and a world-religion denomination top-ten list are not comparable. The smaller the subject the fewer sites and the more non-notable the site will be, obviously, hence the injustice in the comparison. --Striver - talk 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't think Google's page ranks are significant, and they don't speak to the reliability of the page. Aren't there any signifiant publications you can cite that write about this website? Шизомби 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The example is exactly the kind of "similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites" to which User:Itaqallah was alluding ... the argument is,

harley-quinn.com satisfies WP:WEB because it is one of the most popular Harley Quinn websites according to the rankings on Alexa, Yahoo! Directory, and Google Directory.

That is the crux of your argument about Al-islam.org. And I agree with User:Schizombie that PageRank does not satisfy WP:V or WP:RS for claims of "importance", "popularity", or whatever you want to call it. But allowing it for one means allowing it for all, and what one editor called a "floodgate", I would have called a "slippery slope", which my example demonstrates.
And the example is a perfectly fair one, because "(a) the notability of the subject of the website (i.e., Harley Quinn) has already been established by the fact of having a Wikipedia article, (b) it is "notable" enough that all three web directories have a category for the same "minor character", (c) it is either the highest ranked or is among the top three highest ranked on all three of the most respected web directories, ergo, WP:WEB guidelines should be ignored." ... that is exactly the same as your argument, just substitute "Al-islam.org" and "Shi'a" for "harley-quinn.com" and "Harley Quinn". --72.75.72.174 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources. Find some and you can keep the article. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, why do you not regard an Google page rank of 8 as a proof of notability? --Striver - talk 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? And here is a swedish short coverage of the site. Another one... and another --Striver - talk 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, I did not mention notability. If this site has not been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources then we can't verify its neutrality. Doesn't matter how popular it is. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, wich one of [96], [97], [98], [99] and [100] is not a "non-trivial coverage"? Remember that the quote from WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Note that the independent sources does not need to be notable. even when the search is closed to only ".edu" sites, it produces almost 1000 hits: [101]. 28 hits on google books [102]. --Striver - talk 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw, what do you mean by "we can't verify its neutrality"? --Striver - talk 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duke, help me out, because i don't get it. Why are the above sources not enough to establish notability? --Striver - talk 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rachel Marsden

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
  • Attack page; often violates BLP; not notable Stompin' Tom
  • It is not now an attack page, merely a short stub saying that she exists and not much more. Google showed 57,200 finds that do not also contain the word "Wikipedia". Anthony Appleyard 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 per consensus, but recommend merge to Pye Green per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:07Z

Pye Green BT Tower

Pye Green BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. As per AfD precedents set by Ohconfucius and listed at: User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, this article fails to assert notability as per WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory, a indiscriminate collection of information or the MB21 transmitter gallery. tgheretford (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just another mast and nothing special about it. Jayden54 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major landmark. Nathanian 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know of no specific WP:POLICY governing how big, or how old or how visible a landmark must be to be notable. But this mast, or tower if you prefer, must surely qualify.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally, as an encyclopedia I would have thought that Wikipedia could accomodate an article on every TVG mast/tower in the world, if asked. That is what an encyclopedia does.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it is a prominent local landmark, we need to see some reliable sources to indicate this. Wikipedia is not a directory of every structure in existence. Demiurge 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it needs a 'citation needed' tag, not a delete one. Harumphy 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Nathanian Akihabara 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article asserts notability - reinforced concrete tower. Eludium-q36 11:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article fully meets requirements of WP:N. Notability does not mean importance. It means that the thing has been noted. I've added one primary and three secondary source references to prove same. Please stop slapping these tags everywhere, it's a huge waste of everyone's time. Harumphy 12:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for WP:N, those sources must be non-trivial. I couldn't check the offline ones, but [103] contains only trivial mentions of this tower. Demiurge 12:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable landmark. As are many, many, other towers and masts, many of which are locally famous, with some being world-famous. Although presumably it's only a matter of time before the Eiffel Tower gets put up for AfD, on the basis that it's "only a tower"? -- The Anome 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followup comment: a moment's Googling finds that Pye Green was one of the nodes in the British Cold War "Backbone" national defense network [104]. The concrete tower design may well have been to resist overpressure damage from near-miss nuclear explosions. -- The Anome 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets content policies as its editors have demonstrated. JYolkowski // talk 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:09Z

Messed Up

Messed Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable webcomic created six months ago. No signs of meeting WP:WEB. COI problems as well, as page created by comic's creator. This promotional piece has gone far enough and should be deleted Aagtbdfoua 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely non notable, and fails WP:WEB. Jayden54 20:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Non-notable webcomic, article written by the comic's creator, and fails any sort of Notability claim possible on Wikipedia. I've had my own webcomic on the 'net for five months... It's honestly not that big an achievement until you've got lots of readers and media attentions. Lankybugger 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josif has lots of readers on his webcomic and i can get them to vouch for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacman (talk • contribs)

  • I think you're misinterpreting Lankybugger's comment. There is no need to bring readers here to vouch. If you believe this subject is notable enough to merit an article, you should provide sources to demonstrate it meets WP:Notability or WP:WEB. - Aagtbdfoua 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am the creator of Messed Up and I did not make this article I simply edited it. Me and the author of this article have spoken on msn and we don’t understand this whole Notability thing can you be a bit more specific please?? and we will fix the article as soon as we understand. Oh and just because my comic hasn't been going very long doesn't mean you should delete it. Does it?
P.s. This article isn't finished yet there is still alot to do so don’t assume its crap and try to delete it. In future if I make another article I will finish it before I post it so it doesn't get deleted for not having the right stuff. Josifman 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably the best thing to do is first, read WP:WEB and WP:Notability to review the actual notability guidelines. Also, I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics and you could also read and ask for advice on the project talk page. I think there is a list of the webcomics in the encyclopedia. I do not suggest picking a random webcomic article and using that as a model, since several of the other articles I looked at didn't seem to be well-sourced, but maybe look at the articles that survived deletion, I think there are links to the previous deletion discussions there, and see how they demonstrated notability. I also didn't know until I read the page that there is another wiki project called Comixpedia, so maybe this article would be acceptable there. - Aagtbdfoua 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:11Z

Sorce theory

Sorce theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable pseudoscientific theory. There are only around 500 hits for "Sorce theory" on Google, and hardly any are actual sites, most being posts in forums and such. There are no Appropriate Sources per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision to treat this as a scientific theory, and there aren't enough sources to consider it as an internet phenomenon like Time Cube. Philosophus T 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete item that lacks decent sources as even being a theory. Doczilla 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for lacking any reliable sources. A article like this needs to have some good sources to back all the information up. Jayden54 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonnotable pseudoscience P4k 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. All that I can add is that this is blatantly OR. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed opinion to Stong Delete after seeing Gseletko's reposnse below. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- This does not rise to notability. --ScienceApologist 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also possible copyvio from http://www.crank.net/aether.html. --Wtshymanski 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps there is a copyvio here, but the text comes directly from http://www.anpheon.org/. Do note however that I have a hard time believing that the owner of anphenon.org minds their message being put up here in Wikipedia. EMS | Talk 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From past experience, if the creator of the article chooses to fight, the text will be licensed in an appropriate way as soon as they hear about the copyvio claim, if it isn't already. With a pseudotheory this small, if it isn't the creator making the article, then the person is nearly always a friend of the creator. --08:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophus (talk • contribs) 03:43, December 29, 2006
      • For the record (not that it has any relevance), the author of the wiki article is not a friend, collegue or acquaintance of the creator of the theory. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See talk:sorce theory. The article's creator has responded and claims permission to use material on the web site. As there is not good reason to doubt that, I consider the copyvio issue to be closed. Note that this does not change my opinion that this article should be deleted. --EMS | Talk 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per above William M. Connolley 11:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess per current criteria. I believe that under the proposed WP:SCIENCE guideline it could fly as being of historical interest. TSO1D 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't appear to me that there is any historical notability to the topic, which seems to be a modern aether pseudotheory. Could you explain the reasoning behind your assertion? --Philosophus T 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think you are right. When I first read the article I had the impression that it was a theory popular in the 60's that now has been rejected by most of the scientific establishment. However, now I see that it is just a neo-ehter theory that has virtually remained unchanged (in theory and popularity) in recent decades. As such, it probably has no notability whatsoever. TSO1D 15:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Publication in 1965 which cites and references various notable works of that time seems like ample historical notability to me. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue is one of who cites the theory, not who the theory cites. Any fool can hang onto another's coattails. Notable theories have (or have had) prominent researchers paying attention to them, not the other way around. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been revised to suit the wiki guidelines more accurately. The notability of the theory is provided within the references in the form of two separate works on the subject by experts in the field. As these do not seem to be enough, I will be attempting to acquire further sources from the experts on the subject. Gseletko 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The "references" are e-books and websites, not independent sources. HEL 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • E-books are just another form of publication. If you are suggesting these are invalid notable sources because of their form I will happily provide you with a list of varous wiki articles on similar subjects which refer to ebooks/edocuments as their references. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following is the current criteria for fields of science as described at WP:SCIENCE. I've answered each point as it applies to the article for Sorce Theory.
In general, an item in the field of science is probably notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge.
(No)
2. It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator.
(Yes) - At the very least the authors of the publications which are provided in the references. These are all separate individuals. Further members of the scientific community that consider this as a possible explanation can be found at the various forums where this topic is discussed.
3. It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field. (Yes) - The creator of the theory is at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field.
4. It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher
(Yes) - Again, the publications that can be found in the reference section of the Sorce Theory article, are peer-reviewed papers and as such, they can collectively be seen as evidence of the work of 'several' researchers.
5. It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
(Not sure)
6. It is previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
(Yes) - I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly find it interesting and am of the opinion that it is valuable information to have on the Wikipedia, as such I don't see why other people would not also find it interesting. As for historical interest: It is a valid scientific theory first published in 1965... I don't know what more need be said.
7. It is advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
(No)
8. It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
(No)
9. It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
(No)
10. It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
(Yes) - The theory recieves constant criticism whenever it is brought up in the scientific community. This can be witnessed from following the various forums that the topic is discussed in where the individuals discussing the matter are also members of the scientific community. Here is just ONE example.
Theories are causal models that try to explain how the world works. For a scientific theory to be considered notable, it should fulfill at least one of the following criteria:
1. It has been included in general or specialized textbooks.
(Yes) - Definition of a Textbook: "a book used in teaching, giving the main facts about a subject". All three publications in the reference section meet this definition, and each of those is full of notable citations and references.
2. It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded. Inclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, especially in a respected journal with a reputation for rigorous inclusion standards and high impact, is an additional factor to be considered but not by itself a necessary or sufficient criterion.
(Yes) - It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area.
3. The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major.
(Not sure)
4. The scientific merit of the theory is disputed in, or rejected by, the scientific community, but it has received significant attention in political circles and ongoing coverage in the popular media. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
5. The theory or model historically met any of the above criteria but has since been superseded by an alternative theory, or it has been used as an example in a notable account on the history of science. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
6. The theory has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants.
(Not sure) - But I'm working on this one.
From the points above it seems clear to me that Sorce Theory more then meets the minimum requirements for notability of a wiki article and as such should not be deleted.
The article has also been revised to fit with the "Neutral point of view" policy and as such should not be deleted.
I believe that the revised article has also resolved the implication of not following the "No original research" policy and as such should not be deleted.
Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reposnse to Gseletko: With regards to WP:SCIENCE:
    1. This is a proposed policy/quideline. As such, it it less than authoritative.
    2. This proposal is curently undergoing masive change. At the time of this writing, the 10 standards for inclusion have been reduced to 7, and the wording in the ones not removed tightenned up so as to make inclusion of theories like this one harder to achieve. (It would not surprise me to find that Gseletko's posting above is in fact responsible for these edits.)
It also seems to me that Gseletko is treating sorce theory as its own "relevant field". For exmaple: It has never been considered to be likely true by the overall scientific community at any time since its inception, and yet Gseletko is claiming that is passes muster in regard to this standard (which admitedly as written did not include the "overall scientific community" clause, but that is obviously what is meant). Another example is treating its creator as being prominent in the "relevant field". IMO, the relevant fields are theoretical physics, particle physics, and relativity (or spacetime physics). Sorce theory lack prominence in all of these fields. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:12Z

Kick It Up

Kick It Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No reliable sources given or found. --SPUI (T - C) 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kick it up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(added by closing admin)


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26&oldid=96603986"