Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to the album article. This afd page wasn't listed on the main log page, so I'll just cut some corners and close it now, since the result's been the same for every other rumored single from the album. - Bobet 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (Danity Kane song)

only rumor, no reliable citations psoted, not enough context for wikipedia article under terms

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Democratic Republic

Absolutely unreferenced scrap, smells badly with original research. Also user who created this is well-known for sneaky vandalism like creating articles on non-existent Dominican provinces etc. I propose deletion unless somebody proves it isn't just a piece of crap. Darwinek 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~non-notable neologism~~ and article is mainly original research.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch non-notable neologism, google search indicates some wide use (see ghits). Still may constitute OR however.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary fork of Democratic Republic (which may have similar issues). --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 11:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and confusing--Sefringle 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Democratic Republic. Mishatx *разговор* 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democratic Republic. If there were several of them, the page might be reduced to a brief definition, with a list (by way of disambiguation), but that does not seem to be warranted. Peterkingiron 18:52, 12 February 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. Dakota 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TransformersG1toylist

Redundant. List of Autobots and List of Decepticons covers the same area. Wiki-newbie 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, as the original author of the article, I too, believe it should be deleted. I did not know there was other pages dedicated to this. BUT, as a compromise, someone needs to edit the Autobot page to include the year released. The Decepticon page already includes this. Please update the references to this article too, when it is deleted. Also, this was my first page created, but I learned a lot from doing it. Sharwood - Psy1123eu 2:16, 14 February 2007 (CST)
Delete Each Autobot & Decepticon list breaks the series down from G1 to G2, so it is quite redundant. Tarc 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, and poorly formed title. Mishatx *разговор* 18:26, 12 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Behl

This article was written shortly after its subject's murder in 2005. However, being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability, and there are no other indications of notability. Also, the article is written like a crime log, and not an encyclopedia article. Core desat 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by multiple reliable sources; could use cleanup. Mfko 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep I guess I am now convinced this was enough of a national thing... I'm not convinced that yet another murder victim, even a high-profile one, deserves an entry. Certain cases become national in scope or raise deeper issues, but this one doesn't look to me like it really falls into that category. --Brianyoumans 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, it looks to me that you are looking for a threshold of "importance", where WP calls for "notable" and the guidelines clearly state that the two are not the same. Notable is defined as being noticed, and media coverage to this degree is being noticed, whether the legal issues are important or not. Dito for Otto below. It's not for WP to judge the quality of mainstream journalism (e.g., Nancy Grace) but to offer factual information as a balance to the potential sensationalism. Again what is the harm of inclusion of this and other articles? --Kevin Murray 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my arguments are based in notability, not importance. I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a qualitative difference between something being "newsworthy" and something being "notable." WP:NOTE specifically states that the two are not the same. Even assuming that this particular murder is notable, which I'm not convinced of, that does not automatically confer sufficient notability to the victim. See my Brinks and Capitol shooting article examples below.
As for judging the quality of journalism, WP:V and WP:RS do require that we evaluate the reputability of the sources used for articles.
"What is the harm," with all due respect, is perhaps the worst argument for including an article. No article (other than false or libelous ones) actually "harm" Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that every article warrants inclusion. Otto4711 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the murder was newsworthy but the topic is not notable. I think we need to visit the issue on when a crime victim becomes notable enough for inclusion, since most murders generate at least a couple of stories especially from the likes of Nancy Grace. Otto4711 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria for notability, i.e. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Rosemary Amey 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction between the person being notable and the criminal act that caused their death being notable. See for example Brinks robbery (1981) which is notable and Edward O'Grady, who was killed in the robbery but was not notable enough for a separate article. Also U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) which is notable while the separate articles for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were merged into the incident article. Otto4711 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another murder victim. Nearly every such person will recieve multiple articles written about their deaths, thus notability is not established. Resolute 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~Strong Keep Although most murder victims don't pass WP:BIO, this one clearly passes by a landslide. What possible reading of WP:BIO does this fail? Further, as clearly outlined in the opening of this article, this nationally-publicized murder is also notable as part of the Missing white woman syndrome and an Internet cause célèbre.--JayHenry 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How? There are no sources attesting to this. --Core desat 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - About two minutes on Google:

Etc., etc., etc. Seriously, take your pick. I'm not vouching for every individual story, but the overwhelming volume (A Nexis search confirms over 500 stories nationwide) and the fact that this was covered in huge news outlets all over the country. Maybe you could argue The Washington Post is local coverage, but honestly 20 times (says Nexis) in WashPost? That's not "anybody who gets murdered" coverage, that's something exceptional by itself. And as for "no sources attesting to this" the article itself already sites sources that mention this stuff. I really think this is a ~~speedy~~ obvious keep.--JayHenry 08:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just reread WP:CSK and in light of the fact that others agree it should be deleted I agree it doesn't apply at all. Replacing "speedy" with "obvious"...--JayHenry 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I'm not going to say "speedy" because I understand the delete voters arguements. However she does pass WP:BIO. James086 ^Talk 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSK does not apply anyway. Otto4711 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand both sides of this argument, however after a little investigation I discovered that Wikipedia has articles on murderers whose only notability is that they have been executed. The facts of their cases have been obscured through the years. Take for instance John W. Peoples, Jr.. In addition, this is one of the few instances where the victim gained more notoriety than the murderer, and that alone bears importance. Sectryan 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with one of the Richmond papers cited that this is just another case of a missing white girl getting disproportionate newspaper coverage that the other 99 missing people in Richmond that year did not. Her tragic death is no more encyclopedic than theirs. Her mother worked hard to publicize the case. That does not make it encyclopedic either. This is not a newspaper archive, and news is not always history. Inkpaduta 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that this article conforms to the letter of WP:BIO. However, the hype about this event has died down, and I don't think that this will be notable for long. Furthermore, the article seems to be linked to by only various user pages and lists, so I think that if the article is not being used by another real article soon it should be removed. Samael775 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the AfD nomination. This article is not about the woman; it is about the homicide which is clearly notable as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources. In a perfect world you might clarify the issue by calling it "Homocide of Taylor Behl", with a redirect from "Taylor Behl". But I don't think that is required. I'm concerned that an admin would nominate this. --Kevin Murray 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers seem to think she's notable. --Calibas 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several articles on murder victims including this one: Anna Svidersky --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has been the subject of multiple (several dozen at least), non-trivial, reliable news (national) publications, which alone qualifies her for WP:Notability. In addition, she's the subject of a book--what more could one want for notability? I agree with the nom that "being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability", but being the subject of so much attention and published coverage (news, books, TV, etc.) certainly does. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's the subject of a book written by her mother, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. Otto4711 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've heard of her and read a review of her mother's book, so she must be notable to some extent! Nick 80.225.131.144 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am aware of this person and there are good sources.SlideAndSlip 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: only because she passes the letter of WP:BIO per news articles, although these are strictly about the murder case, and not about her per se. There's not much of a bio anywhere, except for her mother's book, but that isn;t independent. However, trying not to be cold and callous but just objective, I don't see this as anything more than "just a murder", thus falling within WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I can't quite put my finger on what makes the case special from all the others, but I do despair now that any pretty white girl who disappears and gets press is now considered "Missing white woman syndrome". Could it be time to look at WP:BIO again? Ohconfucius 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remark. Are we ourselves perpetuating the Missing white woman syndrome by not deleting this? Ohconfucius 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes by BIO and V. Sarah 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information on it and enough media attention to be an article. 14:33, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReMix

A neologism (or perhaps a neocapitalisation, as a remix (note caps) is notable), as described by OverClocked ReMix#Purpose, it's apparrently been created by the creator of a (notable) website to justify a percieved discord between the website's name and it's purpose. It's basically a non-notable apart perhaps from a single sentence explanation that already exists in the main OC Remix article. FredOrAlive 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism and redirect to remix ~~either remix or OverClocked ReMix (I'll leave it up to the closing admin).~~ --Core desat 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is a redirect actually needed? A random test seems to show that the other random capitalisations of Remix (bar the all caps REMIX, which goes to an Indian drama series) are automatically redirected to Remix, although someone who knows more about MediaWiki can proably say for certain if a redirect is needed or better for server load. FredOrAlive 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism, and seems to be just self-promotion for the website. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's pretty much admitted to be a neologism in the article. --Haemo 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and redirect to OverClocked ReMix or remix. Preferably to OverClocked ReMix, but it doesn't really matter. --- RockMFR 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neologlism. Realkyhick 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John Troutman and merge, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Again

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is over 600k (very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticible effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete your argument is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not paper. That said, this article borders on fancruft. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "should", as it relates to my personal belief that this article is basically useless........we seek consensus here, right? If policy allowed, I would quote it and speedy delete this article, but it doesn't, therefore we use AfD. NetOracle 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as my comment related to my own personal belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is nothing inherently non-notable about webcomics entirely ignored outside of the internet community. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is technologically and economically possible to list every named thing in the world, there is no practical reason to do so. Most of these webcomics have had no influence on the world, short of giving a bit of amusement to a very small and homogenous readership. The articles on them only appeal to strong fans of webcomics, who are seeking to discover new strips - other than that, nobody is going to read them or take interest in what they have to say. Such a page is basically the textbook definition of "fan site". Wikipedia is not a search engine or directory, and thus, should not be used to compile a list of every actively published strip currently in possession of a web address. Please tell me how these dime-a-dozen strips or the J. Random Cartoonists who pen them are notable. NetOracle 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; I agree with you to an extent. For example, I believe this particular webcomic (Flint Again) is more fancruft than anything and doesn't really need to be featured here. However, not every webcomic is fancruft, and it would appear that you and I have very different interpretations of what sort of publicity or cultural influence characterizes a webcomic as notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with one of the other two Flint comic articles. Or both. Balancer 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into John Troutman. - Francis Tyers · 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: merge to the other Basil Flint article. DS 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Confirmed sockpuppet. That said, the editor is not (yet) past warnings and hasn't posted in this debate with any other account. --Kizor 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be merged, but the current content is not worth merging. --Krator 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Troutman.

Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the original Basil Flint article, as this comic is nothing but a relaunch with the same character. Skybright Daye 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per above merge comments. Also troubled by the edit summary which saw this nominated. [1] Hiding Talk 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and merge with Keenspot. Edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look What I Brought Home!

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is nonexistent (very, very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we avoid pretending that the piece of spyware known as Alexa is a useful source of information? Any person with even moderate technical knowledge would not use it.

Tens of millions of people use Alexa, and it is a noteworthy estimator of traffic, regardless of what your personal opinions of their business model or privacy policy might be. Ask any serious webmaster whether a high-traffic site is likely to have a significant Alexa rating or not. NetOracle 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founding member of Keenspot, long-running, notable. 66.35.99.183 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa traffic rank is particular irrelevant to determining the notability of a webcomic strip that ended over two years ago. According to the link within the article, archives are only accessible to paid subscribers, and again according to the article, it has a primarily historical claim to fame, i.e., being a founding member of Keenspot. Balancer 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed; as I recall, LWIBH's adult content led to some major policy changes at Keenspot. Keep. DS 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as others have indicated, this webcomic seems potentially of note. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To quote BradBeattie, there is an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. Alexa rankings left webcomic inclusion criteria long ago, and Balancer has a valid point. --Kizor 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keenspot presence is sufficient notability in itself. This is a very well received comic series, too. Wizardbrad 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ↑ Sockpuppet of User:Wizardbrad. —xyzzy_n 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and especially Balancer. -- Black Falcon 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Keenspot. --Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, etc. Article has no sources, let alone multiple non trivial independent sources suggesting any importance. WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and especially Balancer. Mathmo ^Talk 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Keenspot. It is an archived webcomic, and the article has little information which can easily be merged.

Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of published server logs, Alexa is basically the only way of assessing how much traffic a site is receiving. It isn't perfect, but the only sites whose Alexa rankings are of no value are sites whose primary userbase detests the very idea of software analyzing their browsing habits, or whose users tend to use systems on which Alexa will not run. Even though I would never let it near my computers, I am not going to deny that tens of millions of clueless users run Alexa and follow links based on the exposure of those links. The site in question can't seem to muster up even a numbered ranking, which tells us that either it isn't very popular at all, or it is very popular but visited almost exclusively by powerusers and Linux users. Linux.com is currently at 5629, yet its primary audience isn't typically thought of as installing invasive toolbars on Windows systems. NetOracle 08:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polydimensional industrial bio-cosmic psychology of microscopic bacterium

Legitimate sounding, but most likely total nonsense. Psychology of bacteria? Delete exolon 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. NetOracle 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. as patent nonsene. Already, one legitimate editor has wasted precious time on this article. --N Shar 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as nonsense. The title doesn't even adhere to the rules of English grammar. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - patent nonsense. --Onorem 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I too have a random word parser in my version of EMacs --Haemo 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - psychology of bacteria? What's next, emotions of minerals? I don't know if this technically meets CSD.G1, but so that no additional time is wasted on this: perhaps a speedy close per WP:SNOW? Black Falcon 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - pure B.S., plus WP:SNOW. Realkyhick 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsence. —dima/s-ko/ 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N I did a google search that combination of words gets no hits. Jeepday 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G3 pure vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Protected Excel

Completely unverified, seems to be some kind of school project. Fails WP:NOT , WP:RS, and of course, non encyclopedic in nature. Attempted a speedy and got reverted. Elar a girl^Talk|Count 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as completely unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How-to guide, something made up in school one day. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Wikipedia is not free web hosting; let's make this very clear. --N Shar 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unverified, fails more WP principles than I can count. Realkyhick 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. —dima/s-ko/ 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not only is this a cracking guide, it's non-notable, so it fails both G12 and A7. So tagged.--GCFreak2 06:22, 10 February 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. Dakota 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Ragnogov

Fails WP:BK (Non notable book), WP:RS (No reliable sources), and WP:CRYSTAL (Not yet published). Prod removed by what I assume by edit history to be the IP of the original author. --Onorem 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or how about "Something we thought of in school one day?" Out!!!! --Brianyoumans 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, first of all, this clearly doesn't meet notability requirements or verifiability. Moreover, it even appears to fall under the above. However, a book called "The War upon Conflict" is a brilliant idea. --Haemo 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely made up in one day at school. Proof here: http://www.freewebs.com/thechroniclesofragnogov/ragnogovsnapshots.htm --Haemo 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, fails WP:NFT, a slow day at school for them. Realkyhick 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chronicles of Nonsense Glendoremus 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overactive imaginations. John Reaves (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOR (based on the absence of reliable sources). -- Black Falcon 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You guys are big jerks. Why would you want to ruin someones childhood dream of being able to post something that hasn't happened yet? I would be famous for being the most knowledgable person about TCOR. You guys are jerks.— 71.13.237.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please be civil. You already have a website for TCoR. If you need another before it becomes notable, try MySpace. After the book has been published and reviewed by multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, come back and recreate the page. --Onorem 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: violates WP:NFT. "The books are in development, and are expected to arrive to stores sometime this year." Funny article!! Causesobad → (Talk) 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted, this is not yet ready for Wikipedia based on our standards of notability. However, I commend the editors of the article for their creativity, wish them well, and hope they can contribute to some other articles, perhaps on SF/fantasy topics. I also did some light spelling/punctuation cleanup of the article which you might note for your other site. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have to delete this article because although the books may have been written, they are not yet published and in the public domain, and documented by independent references ( that is, people and sources that aren't in some way directly connected to the authors ). One of our basic rules is that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball": we can't have articles about things that haven't yet happened ( like the publication of books ). If the authors happen to read this, I'd like to say: keep working at your projects, and do the best you can, and the success ( and encyclopedia entries ) will come along when you're not looking for it ( and when you've completely forgotten about this debate, probably ). Best wishes for the future. WMMartin 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the list is still unverifiable by non-trivial and independent coverage on the subject. The article reads like fan-cruft and is not substantiated with reliable sources. Perhaps it would do better to merge the substantiated content with the publisher's article, or a list of publications. Article will be recreated in userspace upon request. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose appeal seems very limited. The only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. This comic doesn't seem to have had much of an influence at all. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. as the article states, the webcomic has received some acclaim. As there is no real policy on what makes a webcomic notable, this article should be preserved. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. My problem with this webcomic-cruft is that the acclaim and praise comes from a very small segment of the population, as posted on personal sites, blogs, forums, etc, rather than from notable published sources. There seems to be an endless number of aspiring artists and adherents to the "Internet media culture" who can do little more than regurgitate memes and engage in self-promotion. Where are we going to draw the line? NetOracle 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why invalidate the feedback of blogs? The very presence of positive feedback, even if only largely present among internet communities, should account for some notability. It might not under Wikipedia policy. but such a distinction is immaterial as there presently is no policy to govern the treatment of this medium. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs in general are not a reliable or noteworthy source. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of blogs are sites for personal ramblings, and devoid of any audience not known to the author personally. We're talking about several orders of magnitude here. Basically, anything can be considered notable if personal sites are allowed to serve as a basis for notability. It is not hard at all to establish a personal site, and participate in enough community-driven forms of media to build several hundred references to that site by means of self-promotion. Thus, how can anything present in the non-notable blogs, but nowhere else, be considered notable? NetOracle 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG.COM, Worldofwarcraft.com, the Web Comic Cartoonist Chioice Awards are NOT Blogs, ramblings, or personal sites. They are HUGE websites with significant populations of content creators and visitors. Timmccloud 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Once again a small minority of wikipedians are trying to delete notable webcomics. It's notability arises from 1) it has been published somewhere OTHER than it's home page (MMORPG.COM), which is NOT a just a "blog, forum, etc", it's a huge portal of content for MMORPG gamers. 2) There are over 7 million people playing World of Warcraft across the world, and the comic has been featured notibly on the WOW home page. 3) It has been nominated for awards - and as much as a large quantity of wikipedia editors don't want to recognize it - the web comic choice awards ARE a big deal in the field of webcomics, and being nominated meets notablity guidelines. All three of these items make this comic notable, notwithstanding the critical reviews included in the article. So to nominate it for deleteion SOLEY for the fact that it's not mentioned in the "buzz" on Web 2.0 sites this makes is absurd. And to nominate it for deletion because the reviews don't meet some personal criteria of "notablity" when there are other obvious reasons for notability is also unwarranted. Finally your editing comment "(Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it.)" shows you to be extremely biased on this topic in general, and your neutrality on this issue now brought into question. Timmccloud 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for discussion purposes, anyone who is interested in this topic should also review the original discussion by following this link: [2] Timmccloud 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I find it a FASCINATING coincidence that the nomination for deletion has occured during the authors annual vaction (She won't be back until Feb 18th) so arguably the best reference for information about recent notabilty events is convienently away during the nomination for deletion. I don't suppose that the AFD might possibly be withdrawn until she returns? Timmccloud 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The sources of supposed notability that you reference suffer from many of the same pitfalls of blogs, forums, and chat rooms.

First, this "ubersite" looks to be fairly open, and thus, the words of any one poster do not carry the weight or the reputation of the site as would the words of a senior staff writer for, as an example, Forbes Magazine.

Next, we will address "MMORPG.COM". The only reference to the article's subject is the presence of one single strip, along with a link to the strip's website. There is no review or assertion of notability, and we don't know who is endorsing the comic, or why. Once again, the existence of a mention on a large or notable site does not necessarily convey any weight when determining notability. If I post an classified ad for used computer parts on Craigslist, is it proper to say that I am a "Active secondhand electronics distributor featured on an Alexa Top 100 website"?

Reply Duh. The CURRENT comic is reposted on MMORPG every time a new one comes out. This has been happening for over a year - that constitues "publication". And it's part of the main site navigation, which means that it is PART OF THE WEBSITE. It's not just "posted" by someone. Unfortunately the press release that stated the publication is no longer available on the web, so all that can be done is post the link to the current page. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you comment on an upstart technology company, it does not make them notable. If Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, or BusinessWeek makes the same comment, then it may very well make the company notable. The common theme here is that "what is said" and "where it is said" is less important than "who says it".

As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion. Awards are only notable if given by a notable organization, and this organization seems to be little more than a hastily constructed site maintained by a very small number of people who share a hobby. Every E-Mail address on the site is some form of free mail, and the site itself is poorly built. Furthermore, the site is hosted and operated by "Keenspace Entertainment", apparently for the purpose of drawing attention to the webcomics it hosts.

There are a great many notable websites which provide a constant stream of linkage. Most of this linkage is, however, not notable. Should everybody or everything which gets featured on the front page of the abomination known as "Digg" receive an article on Wikipedia?

The problem I have with the criteria being used here is that any single person, or a few devoted fans, given a few sockpuppets at user-driven sites, or just a regularly updated personal blog, can, under the criteria, elevate a personal creation to a level of notability warranting inclusion.

The majority of these webcomics have become entrenched because their main readership - namely, those who are on the Internet for recreation constantly - edits Wikipedia with a frequency far removed from the general population. Some of these webcomics, which are essentially personal hobbies of their creators, have articles which far exceed multi-season national television shows and major motion pictures, in both depth and length. Think what you will about the worth and notability of webcomics, but please do not suggest that encyclopediac integrity is served by such a horribly disproportionate representation.

Please, again, tell me why these webcomics are notable, and how they matter in the overall scheme of things.

Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the hushed accusation of my intentions as being based in bad faith, is rather inappropriate. I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday after I saw a solid case for deletion destroyed by insane levels of meatpuppetry and fanboyism. I have a strong concern that postponing this discussion until the author returns will only allow time for a similar meatpuppet army to assemble. I'm not here to attack a specific strip - I only became involved in this because I saw the professionalism of Wikipedia being compromised by a steady encroachment of fancruft, and wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UM. Where to begin... let's just focus on the things I can handle at 5am. The WCCA has been around since 2001 and also awards comics outside Keenspace (as a quick peek and ANY list of nominations would have told you), so it's hardly hastily assembled or promoting Keenspace comics. It has also been covered on TV, radio and has received half an article in the New York Times. This year's nomination will be at Megacon.

Your "meatpuppet army" will be the people who maintain the article. Sorry to tell you that, but slipping in an AfD while the comic is vacationing (and thus the editors may not feel the need to check the Wiki article since nothing changed) is going to look fairly bad.

May I ask what your "solid case for deletion" was? There have been 50+ (by now possibly 60+) such cases for webcomics alone during the past month, so it's somewhat hard to guess which one you mean. The recent wave (to which you just contributed) also explains the "meatpuppet" syndrome you oppose so much - The webcomic world is pretty much up in arms right now because of the dozens of AfDs that axed a few entries of comics that steadily updated for half a decade or so. Another entry of a published comic got axed and had to be recreated via DRV.

Oh, and somehow, your last paragraph makes it VERY hard to assume good faith. You effectively made the nominations because you saw another AfD being flooded. "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions."

Didn't you stop to think WHY the AfD got flooded? Your effort only contributes to the larger problem - the reputation of Wikipedia in the webcomic world. But considering that you "couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday", I assume that this is not one of your major concerns. --Sid 3050 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WCCA is not notable. Its website is of shoddy quality. It is hosted by an entity with a set of comics to promote, and therefore not impartial. Its awards seem to be distributed based on raw popular vote. Its coordinators have failed to establish their notability. Please provide evidence of "TV coverage". Is everything mentioned in any small capacity now suddenly notable?

reply not every non-profit orginization has the funding to hire the best webmasters, often these notable groups do with voulenteer work. Your assertion that the orginization is not notable based on 1) the quality of their website and 2) keenspot sponsering it has no merit. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the creator is on vacation, yet you assert that there is a large group of legitimate editors who wrote the article. Why should the creator's vacation have anything to do with this, unless you anticipated him rallying a group of puppets to action?

Have you considered that the trend of AfD'ing webcomics might be the result of a general backlash against fancruft accumulating within a walled garden? Not everything is a vendetta or conspiracy.

I made the AfD because I saw another AfD in which a meatpuppet army tried to save an article about a non-notable subject. The Ugly Hill AfD was flooded with meatpuppets, and possibly sockpuppets. This should not be happening, and reflects poorly on those who engaged in ballot stuffing. This is the result of external fanboyism spilling over into Wikipedia. This sort of passion for a specific and generally non-notable string of subjects and characters is best reserved for a specific Wiki hosted by a Wikia-esque service.

Have you considered that I might have made these nominations for deletion because I honestly believe in principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards? I am an outsider to the world of webcomics, and don't see how the hundreds of strips featured by Wikipedia are notable to the rest of us. You are right - webcomics are not my concern. Improving Wikipedia is. NetOracle 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA: NYT, TV, Radio (link is to the announcement, but I have no reason to doubt the validity). The website is easy to navigate, and I don't see how it is "shoddy". Subjectivity, much? And an official Wal-Mart site had been completely broken in Firefox for a good while. Would that mean that Wal-Mart is non-notable? (No, don't answer that, I just used the example to stress the point that "good website" is not a notability criterion).

I did not "anticipate" a rally, but common sense implies that article editing frequency is in some relation to event frequency. When is it more likely for most editors to visit an article? When the primary information source does not update or when it does?

I am in no position to judge why dozens of major comic entries get vaped in large waves, but the nominations I saw hint that there either is bias or that the nominations were made by people with little knowledge about webcomics at all. The fact that the webcomic awards were quietly edged out of the Web Notability rules and then got vaped from Wikipedia (surrounded by quick nominations for comics that based their notability on them) sort of makes it hard to assume good faith for the whole situation.

Yes, I feared that you meant Ugly Hill. It's an award-winning and published webcomic, so of course the webcomic community (already in a "I might be next!" mood) spread the word about this nomination. There is a world outside of Wikipedia, and you can't expect it to stay silent during these deletion waves. Right now, the reputation of Wikipedia has suffered immensely in the eyes of webcomic communities, so you should expect a strong reaction to AfDs, especially for major comics. I'm not saying that I think this is a good thing, but I am realistic enough to see that it is quite inevitable.

Before your comments, I did assume good faith. But now I only see somebody nominating articles of a genre he knows nothing about, for the sole reason of retaliation for an AfD going a way you don't like. Your actions seem noble, but your motivation is not. I simply cannot assume that you act in good faith. This is just you going all "Oh, so you didn't like that, huh? Let's see how you like THIS!". So please spare me the "My only goal is to improve Wikipedia" talk, it sounds mighty hollow. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that nobody has offered a rebuttal to my analysis of all the sources as unreliable and non-notable, with the specific exception of that awards committee.

Wikipedia has established policies and guidelines as to what sources are acceptable, and how those sources should be interpreted. Please see verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. WP:WEB does apply here, but its guidelines for sourcing material and determining notability and verifiability are still shaped by the other policies and guidelines dealing with source integrity.

When you apply policy to the majority of these articles on webcomics, the articles lose the footing on which their supporters built them. Enthusiasm can be good, and is admirable, but we, as editors, need to exercise some professional integrity in our analysis of source material.

One good rule of thumb for determining notability is the test of time. I have a concern that the majority of these webcomic-related articles will, 5-10 years from now, be unpublished and virtually unknown. Now, granted, there are many notable webcomics. Among these are ones which set milestones for revenue and exposure, shaped the evolution of the genre, and influenced humanity in a broad sense. This is why the entry on Columella is valid - does anyone here honestly believe that the majority of these comics will still be remembered in 2 decades, let alone 2 millenia?

The majority of these entries are fancruft, and are beginning to look like a walled garden.

There was meatpuppetry on the Ugly Hill AfD. Recruiting supporters offsite to bolster an AfD argument is not proper, and is against policy.

If these articles were notable on their own, you wouldn't have to rally your supporters to stop the deletion from going forward. A notable subject's article will be written by disinterested third parties, in the spirit of building Wikipedia. A non-notable subject's article will only be written by fans and other strong supporters. Your claim that this deletion was timed to coincide with the author's vacation only furthers my case against this article as fancruft. If this article is notable, then it will stand on its own, and without the evils of meatpuppetry or bloc voting.

During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Pay attention who you reply to. I was not the one who brought up the timing, I am not the one who is rallying anybody. Indeed, I think YOU are the one who instantly started pointing fingers about rallying people. Paranoia, much? And if you had paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that I haven't even voiced any Delete/Keep opinion so far, so I'm hardly the one you could accuse of meatpuppetry or fancruft or whatever.

I think it's a given that in TWO THOUSAND YEARS, not even Wikipedia will be remembered. So let's delete everything! Your entire "must influence humanity" and "must stand the test of time" makes me curious. Please point out the exact policy that lists these things as requirements. Cite sources. I'm honestly curious.

The current flood of AfDs is a nasty call for sources, so I think it's a double standard to call for sources, but protest when new people join to argue about whether certain sources count or not.

Additionally, AfDs like the one for Starslip Crisis are based on the simple fact that an admin decided to ignore given sources for an award and declared it to be non-notable. And all of a sudden, a well-sourced article becomes not sourced at all. If an Admin suddenly declared CNN or the NYT to be non-notable, how many articles would fail to stand on their own? You cling to policies, but blindly accept that the wikiality suddenly changes. If/when WCCA gets restored, will you say "Yes, of course it fulfills policy"? I surely hope so.

A webcomic with more than five years of archived material, hundreds or thousands of strips and a dedicated fanbase don't count AT ALL in the current Web Notability rules. Without a dedicated newspaper article or a lengthy TV report, such a comic will be declared as non-notable as the average Geocities page. And thanks to the eager Admins who quickly got rid of the major webcomic awards, Wikipedia has become a "Get published or get out" site. So please tell me this: Is that the greater goal of Wikipedia? Kick out everything that hasn't changed the fate of mankind?

And I honestly ask you: What hurts the reputation of Wikipedia more: A few articles about things that have a large following, or pissing off thousands of people that read about Wikipedia's mass deletions on tons of blogs and webcomic news?

Oh, and people ignoring your "analysis" does not mean that you are right by default, even if you'd like to imply it. --Sid 3050 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every word of that reply was directed toward you. There are a number of parallel discussions occuring in this deletion debate, and I chose to save time by combining my thoughts into a single reply.

I never leveled an accusation of meatpuppetry or solicitation of meatpuppetry against any specific editor. I merely pointed out that a recent AfD had been plagued by an invasion of meatpuppets hell-bent on perpetuated the fancruft within. If an article can only be saved through meatpuppetry, its subject probably isn't notable to begin with. When I stand accused of timing my nomination to coincide with the vacation of a webcomic's author, I have to question why the author's vacation should even enter in to the equation. Is the motion for postponment based strictly on a desire to see one person be able to comment on the AfD, or is it a cover for something more sinister, such as the author making a website, forum, chat, or blog entry soliciting meatpuppet activity?

It is incivil to accuse another editor of being a meatpuppet or soliciting meatpuppets without probable cause, which is why I made no such accusation. I merely used the presence of meatpuppets in a completely seperate AfD as an indicator of problems within that AfD.

I cannot speak for other editors, but I did not put forth this nomination as an underhanded and hostile way of calling for sources. We have templates which are used to request sources when an article which probably meets notability guidelines is lacking the sources which make it whole. I put forth this nomination because I have a genuine belief that this webcomic does not meet notability guidelines, and the sources it is built on fail to establish notability and importance in a manner which maintains professionalism and encyclopedic integrity. Wikipedia has policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards for good reason. I feel the letter and spirit of these policies is breached by this article and the sources used to support its alledged notability.

There IS some serious fancruft going on here. Regardless of whether the article is deemed to be notable or not, this and many other webcomic-related articles have articles in size and depth which are grossly disproportionate to their notability and importance. Why should a webcomic, produced as a hobby, and having a limited readership in the thousands of tens of thousands, contain plot summaries and character descriptions with far more clarity than is present in the articles of most major motion pictures and nationally syndicated television programs?

If other people are offended or upset because something they find amusing is deleted according to established policies of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, then that is their problem. I cannot control whether they choose to follow and believe in the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. Good-faith AfD nominations are not disparagements of the subjects or authors involved.

In proper debate, failing to make a mention, let alone a rebuttal, is a de facto admission of surrender on a specific point. NetOracle 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you de facto admit that the WCCA is notable? You didn't bring it up anymore when I cited the sources... :P (Cutting off the rest at this point since it has gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, so this will most likely be my last edit here. Well, that, and Wikipedia is seriously eating away my free time - do the established Wiki editors have a life outside the Wiki? If so, please tell me your secret! O_o) --Sid 3050 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This comic is way more notable than most of the rest. I can see where some people not familiar with the scene might delete the other ones, but this one is so notable that anything against it is just hate toward non traditional entertainment. Wizardbrad 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Wizardbrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep seems notable enough and the article is fairly well written. Variety of articles is what makes wikipedia impressive as a living encyclodpedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinboden86 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It is notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luckyherb (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I had not heard of this strip prior to perusing the AFDs in examining the contention that webcomics are being targeted. Alexa ranking (32,000) bears out what the various links within the article and the previous VFD indicate, namely, that this is a very heavily trafficked comic with great prominence in the online RPG community. That is has been published independently online as well as in print make it clearly notable by the standards of Wikipedia. I will further note that the assertion of the WCCA as non-notable is disputable. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I find NetOracle's expressed desire to "sack" this article to be a disturbing indicator of such. Balancer 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am an avid reader of the comic, as well as many people I know both personally and through the internet. We are certainly not meatpuppets and I take offense at this insinuation. Through his claims of ballot stuffing and meatpuppetry, NetOracle could explain away any kind of following or rallying in defense of this comic without any proof. Simply because he does not take interest in this webcomic or others does not mean it is not notable. Sheora 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I fail to see the validity in NetOracle's argument on notability. Among webcomic circles, The Noob is regularly very highly ranked on two of the three comic listings, and has a very active and supportive reader community. If this was a "Webcomic Wiki" there should be little doubt that all webcomics that are a) active and b) regularly updated should be represented. So why here is the judgement made that being only a webcomic individual instances that have not been presented in mainstream national media should be considered not notable?

You admit yourself that you hadn't really encountered webcomics - you are most likely a totally inappropriate person to judge the notability of an individual entity in a sphere that does not interest you. Someone may be interested in military modelling and do an article on a specific era of modelling -- totally uninteresting to me, but probably extremely useful for some die hard modelling fanatics, and good for them. Wikipedia is precisely about having in depth and accurate articles broadly across as many topics is possible for the information and reading of the general public. On the whole I only come to Wikipedia to look up things I don't already know about.

You claim that the support comes from a small section of population? So does most support for things that are not worldwide phenomena, so why would that make them less interesting as included articles as a whole? I suspect there is more current interest in The Noob than, for example, the Roman writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella, yet he manages to escape any need for deletion. Why not have every writer from every culture ever that there is some kind of written record of? Most of those will not be at all notable to vast swathes of the population, yet I suspect there will be little complaint about such historical figures.

You talk about main media resources. I doubt for a second that BBC News, Reuters, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, ZDNet or anyone else has written about Columella, so lets sack that article too. In fact, lets Google for each Wiki article we find that looks obscure, and if there appears to be no large international media story or commentary about them then sack those articles too! And so we can steadily destroy the fantastic library of genuine interest articles that Wikipedia has managed to set up.

This site builds its reputation for two reasons. Firstly, it is on the whole well researched, works hard to avoid bias and provide a balanced argument in areas of contention, and is well presented and supported both by users and moderators. Secondly, it is extremely broad with a wide reach into the most obscure of subcategories in any given subject. Webcomics are now popular enough that some writers earn their entire living from donations, and I cannot see how your personal interest in them can be used as a judging factor in whether or not they should be allowed on Wikipedia.

So having already had so many comments that it should be kept in this discussion, perhaps it is notable to enough people to keep, especially as so far your reasoning for removing it appears not to have gathered much momentum? And perhaps webcomic entries should be moderated and marked potentially as AfD by administrators and content moderators with some level of interest in webcomics as a whole? Topazg 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Topazg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Topazg happens to be an articulate editor who's familiar with the subject and puts thought and effort into his messages, while the nominator started editing yesterday, admits to having no knowledge about the field and has concerned himself with little else than deletion nominations and discussions. --Kizor 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was about a 'few or other edits' tag that appears to be no longer here. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spa tag was removed by Wizardbrad's sockpuppet. I put it back, but note that I did not originally put it there, nor necessarily agree with it.. --Krator 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we all slow down a bit here before we get carried away? On all sides? The debate has been getting pretty heated. Timmccloud, even if we had any reason to assume that NetOracle knew the comic's author was away, it wouldn't make a difference. Articles are supposed to stand on their own merits. Getting authors involved is in no way policy, required or common, nor has it been beneficial in several cases where one did get involved. --Kizor 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of these "I see no sources, so let's AfD it to encourage the editors to find them" AfDs, it's highly counter-productive to nominate comics that are on a brief hiatus. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the comment after I was distracted by shiny things and a relative closed the window (this part is written after Krator's message, mind): NetOracle... cool down. Please. Your comments (nominating as a reaction, "We're going to sack it"..) give the impression of acting out of personal indignation. The train wreck at Ugly Hill was far from usual, the worst one I've seen in this field. Your assumptions - the WCCA are for self-promotion, meatpuppetry is to be expected - are broad, severe and, well, wrong.
Sid has a point, too. It's an odd one, but not long ago I e-mailed an author and he responded with additional data, sources and proofs that turned an AfD from 2-3 to 6-0. --Kizor 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sid, Kizor, that was my point, that you for clarifying it - last time the noob was up for AFD, it was my communication with the author that allowed me to enhance the article with proper refrerences and information. This time round, the best reference to the work is unavailable. Timmccloud 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage by reliable sources as required by WP:WEB etc., only by websites of varying levels of ephemerality. The only reliable source cited, the Yahoo News story, mentions the subject only tangentially. Sandstein 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Started by a single purpose account, like most webcomic articles, it's a depository for character bios and trivia which is not even available on the site itself. Sources for some claims in the article, such as the comic being 'well-known' amongst MMORPG players, probably don't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Nydas. Inkpaduta 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Balancer and Topazg. I also agree with Kizor. --Krator 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note re [WP:WEB] notability is asserted - "Notability on Wikipedia for Web-specific content[3] is based on the following criterion"

1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. MMPORPG.COM, WorldofWarcraft.com Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. MMORPG.COM Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject. My concern is that these sources do not establish the notability of the subject, and are little more than one of many tangential mentions of sites which may fall under the category of "interesting, and worth a click" (but only to a specific subculture) but not notable. Furthermore, the mentions I saw earlier gave no indication of authorship, and thus, carried no weight associated with the entity responsible for publication. NetOracle 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject."

Answer:

On mmorpg.com, the section where The noob is mentioned, is not one where people with forum/commentary accounts can make additions to.
On WorldofWarcrat.com, The noob was featured in a news item, which is, again, a section of the site that needs more than a forum/commentary account.

--Krator 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The noob is mentioned quite a lot in sections of notable and reliable websites (Gamespot, Ign, WoW, etc) where just a forum or commentary account is needed to add content. However, I agree with you that these shouldn't be used to support any claims of notability for The noob. They do, however, support the claims that The noob is reknown throughout the MMO community.

Comment: I might also add that there was a previous AfD for this article, which resulted in a discussion not unlike the one observed here right now. Note that the article has significantly improved since then, and now includes a lot more encyclopaedic content (i.e: about the satire of MMORPG culture in the comic) in relation to the amount of 'descriptive' content. As the article has only improved, and so has the number of references and reviews included therein, I question whether this debate will reach a different conclusion than the last one. That being said, I'd like to propose WP:SNOW, because the conclusion of no consensus seems imminent. --Krator 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely notable, and liked by many. BlackMateria 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC) BlackMateria (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result BlackMateria is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As Timmccloud and others have amply demonstrated, the argument for deleting The noob is incredibly weak. Almost to where it is laughable, really. I'm incredulous that the article is here again. The vendetta against webcomics continues, it would seem. –Xoid 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This article deletion seems complete vendictful and mean. Its just shocking to me why someone would want to step on and destroy the hard works and passions of others. So what if our comics are enjoyed by a select few? We are a community. FGreen1989 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC) FGreen1989 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result FGreen1989 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because calling something "fancruft" is just a way of being hateful and disparaging something. Somebody cared enough to put work into it, therefore we should keep it. This page hurts nobody else. I don't see why we have to crush the work of some because of elitists hiding behind a shield of "profesionnalism" or "encyclopedic standards". Webcomics are about fun and entertainment, but they still are notable. Just because they aren't all run for huge corporate profit and aren't stuffy like 18th century British Literature doesn't mean that talking about them is unprofesional.CSMASTER84 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) CSMASTER84 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result CSMASTER84 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is worthy of an article even right now. Let it stay and we'll improve it. There is nothing wrong with the subject, it just isn't as complete as it should be. Thats no reason to stomp it out. Ccfr88 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged three votes above with Spa because the only edit made by these accounts is on this page. I hate to see meatpuppets here, and I didn't ask for them, even if they support my point(s). It doesn't matter though, because of WP:NOT. I encourage the nominator to take my suggestion of using WP:SNOW here into account, in order to get back to editing instead of debating. --Krator 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Confirmed to be sockpuppets, and votes deleted and tagged as such. I noticed Kizor (talk · contribs) and Xoid (talk · contribs) edited this page concerning these sockpuppets while I was doing so too, but I think keeping the text is to be preferred, because I fear that there'll be some more debate on sock and meatpuppets in this AfD. --Krator 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks be to you. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too - sockpuppets pollute the dialog. --Timmccloud 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. Eliminating sockpuppets which were supporting your side's opinion was a stand up thing to do. I did, however, notice this edit in the history: [3] Can someone with access check to see if Topazg is operating any sockpuppets, considering that a sockpuppet tried to whitewash some facts concerning his history here?

Deletet: Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Timmccloud, User:Kizor, and User:Balancer. Although I am not a fan of comics (print or online), I think the notability of the comic has been demonstrated (recongition by notable websites). Another factor to consider is the possibly inappropriate nature of the nomination, when {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} may have sufficed. Black Falcon 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a reminder to everyone to have a quick look at WP:ILIKEIT (do we need a WP:SOMEONENOTABLELIKESIT for arguments to avoid too?). Unless reliable sources have covered this, which I see no evidence of, it's not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what pray tell is "relaible" by your definition? A major MMORPG software developent company like Blizzard covers it on the flagship games website home page, and it doesn't meet your "reliable" criteria? The largest webcomic award - WCCA - nominates it for an award and that's not "reliable"? Timmccloud 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard? There's a link to mmorpg.com, which is also the source cited for that assertion, but I followed the link. Nothing on that page supports that assertion whatsoever, it's just the site's homepage. As to WCCA, no, Notability is not popularity, nor did the site even win, it just received an honorable mention. I suppose the award site is reliable as to who won an award, but certainly, that's not enough source material for a comprehensive article-the award site only mentions their name once! Coverage must also be non-trivial, certainly a name-drop is as trivial as it gets! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blizzard, World of Warcraft, worldofwarcraft.com. Your lack of knowledge in the area of MMORPG games dilutes your opinions on notablity - within the gaming communitiy this comic is very notable. And that gaming community is larger than the wikipedia community in size, so notability is herby asserted for "a noticeable effect on culture". Granted that it's not YOUR culture is obvious, but members of the gaming culture who are in this thread assert notabily, and it should be respected.Timmccloud 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens and others. Mathmo ^Talk 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying this comic is not widely recognized is ignorant. There is a huge fanbase. People like it. It is notable. Period. 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Gozerthegreat 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Gozerthegreat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Uh, I just saw a thread about this. I have to say I am really quite shocked. This is one of the biggest comic strips out there. Its everywhere. And on every important forum and weblog directory too. Deleting this would be illegal censorship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doomtrooper6 Doomtrooper6 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Doomtrooper6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. I don't see what purpose it serves to delete it. It isn't like Wikipedia is going to run out of memory. Zeruzero 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Zeruzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the fact that many other Webcomics are listed. It seems like a well-written article. Usually short stub-type nonsensical articles get tagged for deletion. If this is deleted, maybe wikibooks will accept it, if they accept comics. BuickCenturyDriver 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timmccloud said basically everything I want to say. FWIW, this seems to be just wasting time and creating tension. The Nazis in the anti-webcomic camp need to learn some tolerance. Dorikonu 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Dorikonu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Ohforf'sake. --Kizor 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
huh? BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, and I've always wanted to be an illegal censoring anti-webcomic Nazi! One Night In Hackney 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The frustrating thing about notibilty is that people will base it on whether or not the subject familiar to them or their peers as opposed to a whether or not it belongs on wikipedia and the community accepting it. BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm basing my vote on whether The noob meets WP:WEB. Has it been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? In my opinion, no. The coverage it has isn't from reliable sources, or it's trivial. Take the World of Warcraft "review", it doesn't review the site at all. The ubersite "review" is on a site where submissions seem to be open to all and sundry. The article states The Noob has been invited (article's emphasis not mine) to post on MMPORG, but that isn't verified by the reference. In my opinion it's a long way short of WP:WEB. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That teaches you a lesson about consensus. If you want to call them votes, just count the number of users. But these are comments and they are counted based on experiance. New user comments are discounted (because accounts are free on WP) but account with experiance and especially sysops and admins usually have more impact. The legitimacy usually depends on experiance and reputation. BuickCenturyDriver 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I normally use the term !vote but I neglected to include an exclamation mark on this occasion. I regard your condescending tone as inappropriate, and I suggest you return to debating the matter at hand. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is asserted - The january 2007 issue of the Norwegian Print magazine PEGASUS (ISSN 1890-0704) has started publishing the noob - on page 4 of the following link Pegasus January 2007. This meets notablity per "and are cited by established publications". I have included this reference in the article as well. Timmccloud 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is "notable", and stuff. Nothing I see that's wrong with it. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in print is in print, and that makes this "notable". This isn't some comic that some kid drew in art class one day. This is a real publication. Mikemasterful 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Mikemasterful (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Mikemasterful is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is certainly notable. Frobber6 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Frobber6 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Frobber6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Timmccloud, Kizor, and Balancer. It is clearly referenced by notable sources. JackSparrow Ninja 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The puppetry here is out of hand, and this has become the Ugly Hill AfD all over again. I'm going to get it cleaned up, and then we can proceed. NetOracle 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This comic is generally well known, it has been referanced on major sites (web comic awards, Blizzard main page, various gaming sites), and as shown above even published. My own initial exposure to it came from ingame references from other players and images from it being used as forum avatars/linked inside posts, on the World of Warcraft forums. Which says something about it having a following in the gaming community. There's probably 5-10 or so other webcomics of similar notability that i can think of, and i don't think cutting off most of the webcomic content on wikipedia helps anyone who actually has any interest in the subject. --Helixdq 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest (and removed) the {{spa}} that was given to this user. As Special:Contributions/Helixdq shows, Helixdq has made several edits outside this topic (even to articles not connected to this topic at all), and the account has been active for much longer than this AfD. To keep it civil in here, I think it is paramount that a clear distinction is made between those who create an account just to !vote here (vote stacking/meat puppets) and 'normal' !votes. I quote from WP:SPA: "Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you."

--User:Krator (t c) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not seen adequate evidence provided that this webcomic has met any of the guidelines described within WP:WEB. There are some sources, but not a substantial ammount sufficient for covering the requirement of multiple non-trivial published works. The awards and recognition have been limited to non-notable organizations and blogs. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established, and this is routinely mentioned on sites related to the MMORPG culture. Also, calling something a subculture with derisive implications (as in that makes them non-notavble) is silly. Millions of users is beyond notable. And this has been on the front page of the "main" mmorp portal, mmorpg.com, and World of warcraft.com - Denny 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all of the references meet my personal standards for reliability, but there is sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature to suggest that this comic is in fact notable. (jarbarf) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap, this is the longest deletion discussion I've ever seen. As it stands now, the article is not deletable. YechielMan 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I can see that won't happen. If Wikipedia does not want to be overwhelmed by internet ephemera it must draw a line in the sand. An official policy is definitely needed. Rkevins 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above and because of the massive amount of sockpuppetry in this AFD. SakotGrimshine 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sockpuppetry has been well identified in order to ignore it's contribution to the discussion. Deleting the article out of spite because some people make ill advised attempts to save it is NOT a reason to ignore the validity of the other commentary. It makes it more difficult to mediate, yes, and I personally wish they hadn't done so, but there are serious reasons to keep this article, and serious discussions between the meat puppetry.Timmccloud 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't agree with you on the notability of the subject, I do have to agree with your stance on the sockpuppetry. The presence of puppets alone should not sway a person to disagree with the viewpoint held by the puppets out of spite. If this deletion goes forward, it should be on the merits of the discussion held, and not the interference in the discussion by those who don't wish to play by the rules. All that can be said of the puppetry is that a large fan community exists, many of whom have no problems in introducing cruft into articles, or puppets into discussion NetOracle 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comic (and by extention the article) seems to have quite a bit of support and in any case the articles quite well written--Bisected8 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quality of the writing and existing support are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Please cite a policy or guideline to back up your position. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Qualiy of comic: irrelevant. Author on vacation: irrelevant. Lots of people like it: irrelevant. Lots of noise on blogs: irrelevant. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: relevant per policy and guideline, not yet rebutted. Please provide sources. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, three published books on it sounds notable enough for me. >Radiant< 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is it worth noting that NetOracle just made those criteria up himself, and furthermore has shown himself to be operating under his own idea of what Wikipedia should be by saying that we should restrict ourselves to those subjects that will "stand the test of time"? --Kizor 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where you say

*** During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
***

I would like to disagree. What calls the reputation of wikipedia into question is the fact that a small minority keep on calling wikipedia's objectivity into question by deleting what they have subjectively determined to be subjective content. The objectivity of wikipedia is of more value to the site's reputation than anything else. If wikipedia is not objective, then how can it be trusted at all? Just because it contains vast amounts of what could be considered trivial data (please note that the articles regarding Knuckles the Echidna and Hitmonchan are longer than the article on European History), that does not mean that this data is not a valid reference for those who seek it. Furthermore, due to the open nature of a wiki they are going to struggle for a long time to come before they are regarded as "solid and reliable". Right now, objectivity is all that wikipedia has, and it is being fast eroded by the same pomposity displayed in the passage I have quoted. TNUK 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? I agree with you that objectivity is essential, and that is why I launched this deletion process to begin with. Writing a long, in-depth article about a subject because you like it conflicts with established principles of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist. Writing a long and detailed article for a non-notable subject only gives it a false sense of notability to those not familiar with it. Wikipedia needs to be objective, and part of this involves fans of a particular entertainment medium or specific work controlling the impulse to bypass encyclopedic standards and source integrity simply because the subject in question made an impact on their life. WP:BAND frequently sacks articles profiling small, non-notable bands. The people writing these articles (generally the members themselves, or their close friends) do so in good faith, but without the objectivity of a neutral observer. There are thousands of non-notable bands, just as there are thousands of non-notable webcomics, and neither belong on Wikipedia. Inclusion in Wikipedia can give a reader a false sense of notability, and readers of Wikipedia should not be deceived as to notability because several people like it.

Conversely, holding a distaste for something is not a valid reason to delete or prune it. At this point, let us make an important semantical distinction: not liking something is not the same as disliking something. Of particular concern are some of the comments that I have received indicating that someone who does not like webcomics has no business in pruning them down or deleting them. This notion is misguided; if only people who like webcomics participate in those articles, then they will fill up with biased fancruft. How can an article be objective if only one viewpoint is considered? The only people who should not participate in webcomic-related discussions are those who have vendettas against webcomics. I don't have a vendetta against webcomics; I simply don't find them humorous, and I don't associate with the typical nerd/gamer stereotypes portrayed in them. If I were to go around nominating things which I dislike for not being entertaining at all, I would have started with Speed 2, as pretty much everyone agrees that it sucks. If I were going to troll the genre, I would have started with a notable webcomic such as Penny Arcade.

The reason this discussion seems excessively long is because a significant amount of biased editing by fans has transpired in the past, and the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion. This debate has already been had with other fancruft-prone subjects, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, and the articles in those genre have been evaluated for notability, and much of the cruft transwikied to places which exist specifically for non-objective writing. When we look at articles, we must do so from a neutral point of view. If multiple, non-trivial published sources document a subject, then it meets inclusion criteria, and should be documented in an objective way that does not falsely misrepresent the notability of the subject to multiple, disinterested third parties. I have a concern that the cruft found in many of the webcomic articles is both not useful and misrepresentative to those reading Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia. I could have just as easily gone after other instances of cruft; the massive number of articles on non-notable Idol contestants is ridiculous too, and had I encountered it before I did similarly problematic articles on webcomics, I'd be off trying to apply encyclopedic standards to it, instead of here. NetOracle 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is specious. "There's cruft in there, so we should delete the entire article". That reasoning warrants a {{cleanup}}, not an {{afd}}. As we've already established this webcomic is notable, so don't try pulling that one. –Xoid 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of cruft in an otherwise notable article is a symptom of the same ILIKEIT editing which has created non-notable articles to begin with. Thus, non-notable webcomics do far more harm than fancruft-filled articles like the Final Fantasy series. An article such as Sinfest would be much more deserving of a cruft cleanup tag than an AfD tag. Completely unencyclopedic articles are a much greater concern than articles with a bit of cruft; i.e., cruft in itself is less misrepresentative to a reader than the existence of an article which probably shouldn't be around in the first place. AfD is not a substitute for cruft cleanup, and we haven't established that this webcomic is notable, given that this AfD is still open. NetOracle 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any deletion proceeding where a claim of "cruft" is the primary motivation for deletion should not happen. Cruft forever! Rogue 9 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want to seem like I'm questioning each keep !vote, but if you could cite some policy or guideline for your reasoning, it would be appreciated. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CRUFT itself states that cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion. However, an article's cruftiness can be a determining factor when other valid reasons for deletion are met. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Justyn beat me to it. Yelling "cruft" isn't a reason to delete anything, and the reasoning behind the nomination boils down to "I think this is cruft." Given that "cruft" is an entirely subjective measure (one could argue that articles on high schools, for instance, are cruft, just to give one example), one person thinking an article constitutes cruft is not a reason for deletion. Rogue 9 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather weak keep The print references are a bit thin (the magazine listed appears to be a new one, though I have very little clue about Norwegian) an self-published books don't count. That said, they may weakly satisfy the notability. The article needs some old chainsaw love though. Perhaps AfD it again a little bit later? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The the article itself sites sources and asserts its notibility, it has more then two real reliable sources, it meets the relevent criteria for inclusion. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In response to NetOracle: You ask why do I classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? The answer is simple. Wikipedia uses set criteria to assess objectivity in articles - criteria which the article under discussion certainly meet. Deletion (and even the motion to delete the article itself) is therefore subjective, by the standards of wikipedia. This blatant display of double standards is the reason that I felt compeeled to add my two pennorth', and the reason why I am very close to giving up on ever being able to treat wikipedia as being an objective, credible source.
You may or may not be aware of my meaning in my initial response to you. I am unsure, because you say things like "The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist." as though this adds weight to your query regarding objectivity. In actual fact, you have merely repeated my setiments quite succinctly. You go on to say that you are trying to "apply encyclopedic standards to articles" such as this one. What I think you mean is that you are deleting articles entirely subjectively. Case in point: this article meets the required standards, and therefore in order to apply encyclopedic standards, one merely needs to clean up the style (not the content) of the article so that it may be brought into line. You say that "the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion", yet instead of this, you are acting in an highly subjective manner by removing content before such standards have even been established.
You refer to "cruft". If "cruft" is the problem, then why not remove "cruft" from the article and ensure that it properly conforms to the required standard, then protect it. Surely a basic article giving objective and encyclopedically delivered facts is far better than a gap in the supposedly omniscient databank that many editors seem to regard wikipedia as?
I can only hope that the madness does not spread, or next any article that mentions God (or references another which mentions God) will be deleted for not having an ojective enough worldview, and being about entirely subjective worldviews (which is of course an entirely subjective opinion as God's existance can not at this point be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either on the site would be frowned upon as "original thinking". If this happens, then who knows where it will end?
The pomposity and hypocrisy of those who would seek to control and/or limit the flow of information across the internet never ceases to astound me. Just as I think I have seen the worst example possible, another crops up that is ten times as bad (and often this is the case when one bad yet impassioned idea is raised in support of a previous and equally execrable idea).
TNUK 23:13, 14 February 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Mall (Fairview Park)

In the past few months, we have deleted tons of mall articles. This one should not be an exception. Part of the TrackerTV Watchlist Cleanup TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Malls should be evaluated on their individual characteristics. In this case, references include a newspaper article at http://www.westlifenews.com/2005/06-01/westgate.html , as well as deadmalls.com --Eastmain 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't made up my mind yet whether this is actually notable or not, however, intentional or not, the nominator's comment makes it seem like he/she believes all mall articles should be deleted. As Eastmain said, they should only be deleted if there is no claim of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete this article. I would recommend that its content include cited references, however. --DangApricot 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable because of its history, almost ancient as malls go. Realkyhick 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable history when it mentions that it was among the "first postwar suburban retail centers with department store anchors in the United States" --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable because of its history and references. In addition, most mall articles were/are not this detailed and sourced. Finally, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. It has already been noted, but I think it should be reiterated: each article should be considered on its merits; in the case of bundled nominations, criticism of one article should apply equally to all. Black Falcon 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article claims notability and has references. Mathmo ^Talk 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike Stephenville Mall, this article suggests notability backed by reliable sources. (jarbarf) 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. However, I recommend finding some reliable sources; as a closing admin, I'm neutral, but this article might not be so lucky if another AfD is made in the future and no attempt to provide exceptional source is made. — Deckill er 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notch (deejay)

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though it mentiones that this DJ worked with possibly some big artists, there is no mention for it. Also, the biography is not sourceful enough, since it seems to be linked to a webpage of the person. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you users are trying to anger me so you or another admin can block me for personal attacks, I'm afraid it won't work. You will have to find another person to maintain the El Salvador portal. If it matters to either of you, he has, in fact, placed on Canadian, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and American music charts, and his song "The Richest Man in Babylon" was the theme song for a while on the American talk show Conan O'Brien. If this is not enough (even though it meets two of the WP:Music standards and it only has to meet one), you may delete my article. BashmentBoy 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)BashmentBoy[reply]

Keep. See http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/t/thieverycorporation-richest.shtml for an explanation of Notch's work as the vocalist (and lyricist, I think) on Thievery Corporation's "The Richest Man in Babylon". --Eastmain 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain. Subject has enough notability (barely), so lets keep it for now. Realkyhick 03:57, 10 February 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 convert to speedy G7. Non-admin closure due to change of process. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watara Supervision internals

Big images, self-references, and unencyclopedicity all make deletion for this article. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. clearly unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might be usable if it were made more encyclopedic, but that would take a lot of work. Realkyhick 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research. CiaranG 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR.-MsHyde 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No contest I originally wrote this page, and a similar page for the Mega Duck as an extension of my article on the Mega Duck/Cougar Boy, to show the remarkable similarities between their external appearance and internal electronics of the Watara Supervision and the Cougar Boy/Mega Duck, and to learn interested parties the inner workings of such devices. But these articles ended up more like an article for a "How things work" book than an encyclopedic article. I understand that Wikipedia is not a "how things work" book, so I have salvaged a bit from both articles, and put them on my home page. Mahjongg 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G7 both pages as above. I am changing this to G7 and adding a G7 template on the Mega Duck internals page. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 04:16, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nude Universe

I speedy deleted this as the whole content was "Miss Nude Universe is an annual beauty contest where contestants appear in the nude. Two noteworthy contestants are Nina Mercedez and Lauren Powers. [ab:both red links]" This was objected to, so I then userfied it. This was objected to, so I sent it to deletion review. There appears to be some differenace of opinion on what do do with contested deletions of content-free article on topics that might be notable, much to my suprise. This article (and I use the term loosely) makes no claim to notability, and at this stage exists only to support an external link to a commercial venture. The link to The Age is trivial in the extreme. Unless multiple non-trivial sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability and notability this should be deleted. /* This micro-micro stub should have stayed deleted and a real article written, but that's water under the bridge. */ brenneman 02:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Zero Gnews hits, and in the first tne pages of the 481 unique Ghits there were two that were from reliable sources, but both deeply trivial: very brief Sexpo mewntion from The Age that was already in the article and a listing for Playboy Magazine (February 1968) appears to have had an article about it. Note that even if this is the same contenst (as opposed to just an ŭber-genericly-named one) that's hardly "multiple non-trivial" mentions. </rant>
brenneman 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The history here does appear to be murky; the web site claims that the pageant has run since the mid 60's, but it is unclear whether the pageant winners in the 60s were in the same pageant, or just one with the same name. It would be nice to have a reliable third-party history, and we don't have one. It has clearly never had much notoriety outside the "adult" community, except briefly in the 60s when Playboy was publicizing it (if that was in fact the same title.) If more sources were found, I might change my vote. --Brianyoumans 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced - unless we can get some real sources in here, this article should be deleted. --Haemo 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, No official Miss Nude Universe title. No website for the contest. No real reference. looks like a hoax to me. --Tarawneh 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)I found the official websiste [4] i have emailed them to confirm the people i have stated have appeared in the competition as claimed thats gotta count for something.[reply]

That is not even a web site. It is just an adult search engine :) check it out. Press the I agree key. Any one can build such a search website. You just buy a domain name, place it in the hands of adults websites, and earn money. --Tarawneh 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Apparently pagent changed its name to "Miss Nude World" [5]. -- Infrogmation 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 5 years old son can do something better than a two unformatted pages. --Tarawneh 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources are found. I've heard news stories about this contest for years (on legit news programs, to boot). I'm really surprised there's no web site for this contest, especially in this age of all sort of "adult content" on the web. (Maybe I should start one, eh??) Does seem a bit odd, so dump it. Realkyhick 04:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep google nets almost 450 distinct hits, which I think is enough to prove that this thing actually exists. I can't find any real press for the contest, which is kind of arbitrary since there are no notability guidelines for beauty pageants. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The PNC applies here just as it does elsewhere, as indeed does our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you cannot find anything at all written about the pageant, how do you expect an article to be written about it? Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that there are enough reliable sources that make minor mention of the subject so that it passes WP:Verifiability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would agree if the information can be used to build a meaningful article, but mere mention of its existance 500 times, doesn't build the text. See my note below about a Miss Nude Pageants article. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So where are these reliable sources that tell us about this subject, then? Please cite some. You appear to be conflating a non-zero count of Google search results with the existence of sources. Counting Google hits is not research. It's necessary to actually read the things that Google turns up. Do so, and you'll find that there's scant information that is directly about this pageant. I've yet to find a reliable source that gives the year that the pageant started, for example. If you find one, please cite it. Uncle G 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists. It used to make weird news occasionally when I was younger. Doczilla 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One would think that given how big porn is on the net, and that this pagent has apparently been running since the 60s, there would be some reliable sources. Damned if I can find them, however. This suggests to me that while we can verify its existence, it simply is not notable. Resolute 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there appear to have been at least two, possibly separate, Miss Nude Universe pageants -- the one that Kitten Natividad is said to have won in the early 1970s, and the one owned by Rio Rivers that folded in 2005 after "15 years" in the business (pace infrogmation). --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page 124 of ISBN 0595309267 confirms that at least one Miss Nude Universe pageant exists. But that is all that it says about it, including it in a laundry list of "other special pageants". I can also find sources that state that there was a Miss Nude Universe Pageant held in Naked City (Roselawn, Indiana) in the 1960s and 1970s. But Naked City closed in 1986 when Dick Drost left, and, once again, the sources don't actually say anything about the pageant since it is Naked City that they are in fact discussing. Indeed, there are several that say that it was actually Miss Nude America, not Universe. I can also find several biographies of people that state that they were "winner of Miss Nude Universe" in some year or other.
There's tangential information all over the place about other things that mention this pageant, or some other similarly named one. There are people who are recorded as having won a title of Miss Nude Universe. There is a nudist camp that is recorded as having hosted a contest by that name. But the important 3 words are "about other things". There's scant information that is actually about the pageant directly. I am unable to find out even basic information about the pageant itself, such as a list of year-by-year winners, or even that all of these disparate snippets of information in discussions of other things are actually about the same single contest. Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's not *really* notable.. though it is sourced and does exist.. Whilding87 09:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brianyoumans' and Uncle G's comments. It appears difficult to get reliable information on the thing. Perhaps if someone later actually gets that information and actually types it in, the article could be revived.Noroton 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Uncle G. Actually, with recent controversies the real Miss Univers is in some ways more titillating than this "shocking" faux one. Inkpaduta 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Comment There might be enough here to write an article about Miss Nude Pageants: World, Universe, America, Australia etc with redirects from each and discuss the history of the various pagents. But as Uncle G says it's pretty spotty info. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a project page at: User:Kevin murray/miss nude. Feel free to drop off your research and ideas. Now it is just the text from this stub and comments by editors above. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Only because there's not much substance to go on other than some notables who've won although I have heard of this pageant before. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a stub isn't a good enough reason for deletion. I think it is a clear from this discussion that something of this sort certainly has existed and been mentioned in the media multiple times.Though future editors should also take heed of this discussion and be carefull in building up this page as clearly this subject has a confusing and murky history. Mathmo ^Talk 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the Deletion Review I objected to a disputed speedy bypassing AfD, & think it was very reasonably sent here, and now we can very reasonably review it, and of course recognize it as junk. From its external references, it seems to be slightly disguised advertising.DGG 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, Delete Eusebeus 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a very convincing nom. YechielMan 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential References The following are potential references for an article renamed "Miss Nude Pageants"

Miss Nude World Pagenet
Miss Nude Australia
Come along chaps, going solo at the Sexpo missus the point
KCCI Channel 8 Des Moines Miss Nude World, October 17, 2003
Howard TV (Stern) anouncement of broadcast June 2006
Law.com "Miss Nude (1997) Contestant Stripped of Court Victory" by Jonathan Ringel, Fulton County Daily Report March 30, 2004
Rio Rivers Miss Nude Universe 2004, ainews.com
"Visitors find Miss Nude World pageant very appealing" By Associated Press, 4/16/03 (from Boston.com)
"Miss Nude pageant heads to final rounds", Des Moines Register, by Chad Graham, Register Staff Writer, 10/23/2003
"The Odd Truth, April 16, 2003, Grin and Bare It", CBS News (online)
Atlanta Adult Entertainment Guide From Joy Johnston, About.com
HBO Coverage of Miss Nude Contest Time Warner website

--Kevin Murray 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it appears that it can reasonably be expanded. There's certainly no reason to delete it simply because it's a stub. fbb_fan 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'm going to give this a chance to add third party sources, but if they don't turn up in a few weeks, I'd say delete. by the way This is not a hoax, the pageant changed its name., see http://www.missnudeworldpageant.com/ Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nomination is convincing and presetn article states nothign that is not entirely obvious from the title. Let us know if multiple non-trivial indepednent coverage is referenced before the end of the debate - it is not now. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 14 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jhoni Marchinko

Delete - the only thing that might save the article under WP:BIO is the Emmy award, which Marchinko won as one of several producers of Will & Grace. The question is whether winning an Emmy Award (either individually or as part of a team) is sufficient? Otto4711 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that the Emmys are one of the highest awards for Television, I believe this would establish notability. Kind of odd that it isn't mentioned in this stub though. Resolute 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it while looking for other sources. I suppose I should add that, huh. Otto4711 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of people who get Emmys don't have wikipedia articles. Usedup 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a series of ommissions be a reason to extend the error? --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winning one of the most prestigious TV awards is notability eough and carries several (hundred?) non trivial mentions with it. Don't see a problem with WP:BIO Alf photoman 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the award which is confirmation of notablility. --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alf photoman and Kevin Murray--the prestigiousness of the Emmy establishes notability. -- Black Falcon 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the suggestions above, I see no problems with this article that would warrant deletion. (jarbarf) 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only if the Emmy win can be proven.SlideAndSlip 20:41, 13 February 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 all. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clements

Non-notable director who is only credited with two episodes and has done little else of note. It has already been established that merely writing or directing a few Simpsons episodes is not notable enough. The problem is that random editors create these pages and don't add any categories, meaning these pages can exist for months without anyone knowing. Scorpion 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for already stated reasons:

Delete all per nom - I don't think that direction one, or even a handful, of minor episodes from a long-running television show should qualify under notability standards. If I'm off base here, please correct me. --Haemo 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One episode of the Simpsons as a writing credit does not a notable person make. Natalie 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It seems to me that the threshold for notability will decline as the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia increases. If it has "already been established" that directing a few Simpsons episodes is insufficiently notable, perhaps we should reexamine this threshold.Cgmusselman 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. "A few" episodes is one thing; one or two episodes is quite another. If other credits can be found, it might be enough to reconsider. Realkyhick 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the writers had a couple other writers credits on IMDB, but they were for shows that didn't have wikipedia pages. -- Scorpion 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to proper recreation. Unfortunately, being in the credits of one or two episodes just doesn't seem to cut it for WP:BIO. If notability is established through additional professional activities, then keep. If not, delete. -- Black Falcon 02:19, 11 February 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, other such articles exist is not a very good reason for keeping anything. You might want to nominate the others for deletion too. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osten Taylor

Unspectacular Equity trader and eliminated contestant on Survivor: Pearl Islands. Previously survivor (sic) of what was essentially a train wreck. If recap of the goings-on of the show itself (summarised in the Survivor article) is removed from ther article, there is precious little about the individual of note. Scores 348 unique Ghits, all of which I would consider trivial: the overwhelming majority are from sites which advertise or discuss Survivor. The CBS site is probably the most reliable articles around about this individual, but is show marketing and thus not independent. Most of the others are blogs, chat or forum, and fail WP:RS. The only other hit which may be slightly relevant to AfD is a few lines given to him by the University of New Hampshire, of which he is an alumnus. Ohconfucius 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote him off the island for Ohconfucious' reasons. Also, reality-show characters and other TV characters don't deserve their own articles unless the show is a blockbuster hit. Vast numbers of people know who Ralph Cramden and Edith Bunker are, for instance, and years from now that will probably still be the case. Flush the others down the tubes. Noroton 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ugh! and Ralph doesn't even get his own home page!Noroton 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another fine product of the television industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Subject is not of notability in his own right, and should only be mentioned on a cast list of a specific notable television series. NetOracle 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor sourcesSlideAndSlip 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I personally would delete these types of articles. However, the discussion of these has already been had and without a change of policy it seems that the consensus is keep. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashlea_Evans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlea Evans (2nd nomination). Not even the most rabid Reality TV fan would remember Ashlea (the utterly unremarkable first bootee of US Big Brother 6) and she has a page, so it seems for now they must stay. SirSam972 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that each article exists or is deleted on its own merits, simply because other crap exists, doesn't mean that this crap should stay. Anyhoo, Osten Taylor is not Ashlea Evans. Ohconfucius 08:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a subjective list. There would be multiplicity of contradicting sources for this list. List has WP:NPOV concerns which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial literature

~~Delete~~ Revert. This appears to be a duplicate of Category:Controversial Literature, with all of the same overwhelming reasons for deletion: impossible to define criterion or adequately cite references for definitive inclusion, intractable subjectivity and POV problems, will include far too many works of literature to be useful. For discussion on the deletion of associated category, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_5#Category:Controversial_Literature. pbryan 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC). After insightful input from Uncle G and Pomte, I agree this article should be reverted back to the Library of Congress subdivision content rather than be deleted. pbryan 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia would be better served by focusing on listing banned books, rather than any piece of literature which somebody takes exception to. Using the criteria of a ban or restriction assesses the response of a community or powerful authority figure to a piece of literature, and therefore, is a noteworthy fact. Most truly controversial literature is going to be banned by some community somewhere, anyway. NetOracle 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom as excessively subjective for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective list. Doczilla 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate unverified overly broad POV-ridden list. Otto4711 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The title is absurdly unencyclopedic. However, organizations such as the American Library Association do keep lists of frequently "challenged" books (challenged as in books that parents formally request be removed from school curriculum and libraries). We already have a List of banned books, and I don't see a problem listing frequently challenged books as well. I think merging some of the content to a List of banned and frequently challenged books would be fine, provided that the content is sourced to a legitimate organization like the ALA. GabrielF 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it I'm wondering who is the bastard who keeps putting this artical up deletion. I have worked 3 days on this articel and I still wish work on it to make it better. The other two lists are completly useless and do not give clear information while this list dose. So I say keep ut. - Tony360X

Comment This time, I was the one who nominated this page for deletion. I appreciate the amount of work you've put into the article, Tony360X. Being bold is a major tenet of Wikipedia, and so I appreciate your initiative in creating an article. However, work must stand here on its merit, and therefore that is the subject of this debate. pbryan 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the editors decrying this for being a "subjective list": Please note that before Tony360X (talk · contribs) completely replaced this article with a list of books that xe thinks are controversial, it was actually an article about a Library of Congress form subdivision (see this, this, and this), and a far more specific class of literature documented in The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. Uncle G 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, Uncle G. With this new information, it seems more appropriate to simply revert it than delete it. The original, though a stub, was far more definitive and objective. Thoughts anyone? pbryan 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GabrielF. There's nothing subjective about it, given the definition it gives — but that definitionm eans that it merely duplicates what's done elsewhere. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Yono 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is just re-creating the category,and the rest of the information is WP:OR.--Sefringle 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Otto said: "indiscriminate unverified overly broad POV-ridden list". Plus it's a mess. Lack of references really don't help, especially when you're making some pretty novel claims. For instance, I never realised Lady Chatterly's Lover had been banned "for violation of obscurity laws". --Folantin 10:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a list of stuff that got banned in school one day, nor a list of stuff that someone, somewhere was offended by. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the current version for Tony360X. In the CfD I suggested for him to work on this article and others, though this is not what I meant. Since he is obviously enthusiastic about this subject, what he can do is work on finding references for the banning of books on this list and List of banned books. That list is encyclopedic and has merit if verified. A list of frequently challenged books, what Tony360X intended to combine into this article, may be up for more scrutiny since "frequently" is subjective, unless official organizations have set standards per GabrielF. Revert article to the revision that talks about the Library of Congress subdivision per Uncle G, adding in those sources he found. Pomte 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per Uncle G, and encourage interested users to contribute to List of banned books. I don't think it's POV to make a list of books that were considered controversial, provided clear evidence that controversy existed can be provided, so if Tony360X wants to develop an article like List of books that some people disliked enough to want to ban, but didn't actually manage to I think this might be useful. Such an article would not be indiscriminate, would not be POV ( provided contributors were careful in their work ) and could ( if it used the format currently in place ) provide additional information that a simple category does not. If Tony360X takes up this project I hope he will seek collaborators: it's not easy to do a big piece of work on your own. Finally, I'd like to commend Tony360X, Uncle G and Pomte, among others, for sparking such a thought-provoking debate. WMMartin 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It I admit its just like the banned books and most challenged book article but unlike those articles I feel that Tony360X article is more useful cause he not only includes books but also short stories, essay, and goverment reports. I was shown this article on Thursday 2/8/07 by my english teacher at Stanford and he said it was more reliable then the other two articles. So the best thing to do is delet the other two and keep this one.BigFrank100 , 11 February 2007

Shenanigans. BigFrank100: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: the same misspelling of the word "article" (artical), you registered this account today and then claimed support for this work with only one other contribution. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I need this list to see what books have caused problems. Cockmaster500

Shenanigans. Cockmaster500: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: You registered this account today and then claimed support for this work with no other contributions. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delet This artical is the most useful one I have read about book censorship on Wikipedia. I find it more useful then then Banned Books becuase its a bigger list and covers a wide verity of books and its not that confusing. - Bryson 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the above comment was not made by me, but by 24.23.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), see [6]. --Bryson 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans. 24.23.201.236: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: the continued misspelling of the word "article" (artical), you're not logged in, yet you signed this as another user User:Bryson109 all in succession with other suspected sock puppetry. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like Tony360X is staking me. I did not make the above comment, but I did Rv. vandalism by Tony360X and leave a warning on his talk page.--Bryson 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Be: I see no reason to delete this article since every person who has said "Delete" has not made a good argument except for “Its like Banned Books”. I will change my opinion if somebody has a better reason. – 153.18.19.188

Comment. Your only two-edits, [7](as of this time) are on this page, why is that?--Bryson 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a "runaway train" list, unverifiable to an encyclopedic standard. YechielMan 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Revert back - Per nom and Uncle G comments (and No I did not already vote). --Bryson 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The essential subject, "controversial literature", seems like the kind of thing we ought to have an article on. I don't know if the article should extensively list examples the way it does, but I feel we can handle the general topic in some sort of sensible, NPOV way. We could look at how various types of literature are restricted or frowned upon by societies in various times and the reasons for that, how literature can highlight polarization when different elements in societies react to it in sharply different ways, and how it can bring an issue to the forefront of debate, etc. Everyking 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just cut out the unverified junk and it is a pretty interesting page. I went to it expecting to see a lot of problems, but it overall did not seem so bad. The advantage it has over banned books is that it can link to books that simply caused verifiable and significant controversy but never faced a ban. The Behnam 21:52, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Christian School

Little assertion of notability, if any. Reads like an advertisement. Complete lack of encyclopedic information. Hús ö nd 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding an info box including other encylopedic information such as year founded, acreage, history, etc.--12.152.127.226 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep doesn't appear hugely notable, but potentially so as there is no real policy for notability regarding schools. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Sounds like any of the other thousands upon thousands of high schools in the United States. TJ Spyke 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I argue that schools are notable because they have a profound affect on their pupils (this could be several thousand people, depending on the age & size of a school). As such, this makes them notable, not only to their community but to the world at large if former pupils move away. Markb 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We already have an article about High schools, any information about how they profoundly affect their pupils can be described there. No need for thousands of useless, school website mirrors, poorly written, rampantly vandalized, unsourced and POV'd articles.--Hús ö nd 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SCHOOLS3. Inkpaduta 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment will someone please look at the articles at Category:Elementary schools in Florida? It's one thing to do high schools if they are at least factual, yet another for elementary and so on... Chris 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Niffweed. Schools are a very debated topic and no real policy exists in dealing with them. There are many high schools that have articles on wiki. Does the controversy arise from the fact that this is both an elementary school and high school? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is starting to take shape and should be allowed to develop not culled. This school is significant in its community, has notable sporting achievements and its presence does no harm to WP. Bridgeplayer 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bridgeplayer. Mathmo ^Talk 10:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor demonstrated. There is nothing about this school that distinguishes it from its peers. Inadequately documented, too. WMMartin 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school, elementary school, or a combination, there has to be something to say beyond the mere directory info. I usually say delete, but thats only because the articles usually say nothing notable about the school. The solution to the problem of what to do with school articles is to write better school articles. DGG 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the sourcing issue has been dealt with, the school does appear to be somewhat notable partially due to its sports program. (jarbarf) 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referencing back to the first comment, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Oo7565 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a nice starter article on a school. There can be redirects if there are more than one. Rkevins 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with any high school. Cloachland 03:45, 15 February 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. Dakota 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Pack Adventure

I am nominating Jet Pack Adventure for deletion as Wikipedia is not a gameguide. This page is a game guide detailing how to play and includes a level guide. Squids_and_Chips 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - AfD is not cleanup, to be ~~fair~~ anal, but there's no substance underneath to merit an independent article. --Kizor 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no sources and Wikipedia is not a game guide. James086 ^Talk 10:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American National Socialist Workers' Party

This is a brand new neo-nazi political party with no known followers and no media coverage. The founder, Bill White (neo-Nazi), is slightly notable and already has an article. Will Beback · † · 04:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete potentially notable but fails WP:ORG Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a neo-nazi doesnt make you notable. No other assertion of notability. Mystache 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Bill White (neo-Nazi), his group's online forum has 300 members. Mazel Tov! He's surpassed the Sarasota FL Jungian society[8]. GabrielF 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. --MaNeMeBasat 12:02, 10 February 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. ~ Arjun 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Jewell

Looks like somebody's life story. No indication of notability. Steve.Moulding 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of nobility. Is this a video-game character or a living person? Caknuck 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real person. Infact, that person is my grandfather. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.242.240 (talk • contribs).

Anon IP person, I doubt your grandfather meets WP's notability criteria. Specifically, WP:NOT#DIR states "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Nothing in the article speaks to being notable. Sorry. Caknuck 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. All kindness to the creator, we need a good reason to include someone in the encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, unless some assertion of notability is given. Bob talk 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drpresha

This is not a notable organisation, it is a vanity page for a group of students who did well in a class project. Luckyherb 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Despite the quality of the grammar and formatting, this is just a project group for a college class from last June. All edits (except some maintenance edits using AWB and the like) are by User:Drift180sx, who hasn't touched the page since June. Dave6 talk 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - no assertion of notability. Resolute 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not speedy as failing WP:Notability. CSD.A7 does not apply as there is a claim of notability: "The group is perhaps most famous for its class-topping design of a 10 cubic-metre horizontally orientated pressure vessel." However, perhaps WP:SNOW can be invoked after a few more comments or after another day or so. Black Falcon 02:35, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Batman

Delete this POV-laden, OR-laden article. Superheroes' personal timelines are nto generally pinned down to specific "years ago". Batman's age is not specified. The issues cited for some of those items refer in no way to specific dates or connected to now. All fiction is supposed to be written in present tense anyway. Real world calendars do not correlate with superheroes' fictional personal history, and the fictional personal history is rarely dated. It exists on a well-established sliding scale of time without exact spans of time. Even when exact spans of time are mentioned, they continually shift to fit the sliding scale of time for the fictional history. Batman and his supporting cannot naturally age. Doczilla 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and add Timeline of the DC Universe to it. Otto4711 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost exclusively original research and speculation. ~CS 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR. janejellyroll 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK. I will respond to each of the points that you have raised here.

"Superheroes' personal timelines are nto generally pinned down to specific "years ago".

This is debatable as no official stance has been provided on this. If you can provide one, please do.

"Batman's age is not specified."

True. However if you'll read the hidden comment I placed next to that section you'll find determining the character's age (approximate with a 1-2 year margin of error) is a matter of simple addition.

"The issues cited for some of those items refer in no way to specific dates or connected to now."

Character's ages, such as Tim Drake's, are often mentioned in the comics (they vary). The time differences between the points in this article are based on the differences in the given ages of the characters between stories.

"All fiction is supposed to be written in present tense anyway."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are clearly chronological gaps in the Batman stories, as shown by the changes in the characters' ages.

"Real world calendars do not correlate with superheroes' fictional personal history"

This article is a chronicling of a fictional personal history and doesn't refer to real world history.

"the fictional personal history is rarely dated."

No dates are given in the article.

"It exists on a well-established sliding scale of time without exact spans of time. Even when exact spans of time are mentioned, they continually shift to fit the sliding scale of time for the fictional history. Batman and his supporting cannot naturally age."

I realise that the timeline the DC universe uses is not parallel to that of the real world. This seems to be the misunderstanding here.

Delete Not a repository for movie or TV-show trivia Usedup 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR and WP:NOT a plot summary. The idea of an absolute timeline for a DC character is ridiculous, as adherence to such a timeline, if it exists, is never a concern for writers. Also, where are the sources for exact years? Where is the source of Jason Todd becoming robin and dying in the same year? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. The understanding of specific fictional events in the world of Batman is not useful to the understanding of the significance and notability of the Batman series. NetOracle 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it now

I see this article as no less relevant than a plot summary in a film article. It is a list of the most siginifcant events in the current version of the character. If it is clarified within the article how this timeline is irrefutable to a one year margin of error, will that satisfy everyone?A gx7 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeline of the DC Universe is not fancruft, it is an official DC comics institution, featured in their comics (usually on Annuals or Secret Files specials) and used as reference by both creators and comics fans. It therefore deserves inclusion in Wikipedia as much as the timeline of any other fictional series or universe. Complaints that it might contain inaccuracies are irrelevant, as we're trying to present the facts as DC publishes them, not getting into fan arguments. (Whether Batman deserves his own separate timeline or should be merged with the main DC Timeline is debatable- I understand an official Batman timeline was once published but have no access to it.) - Wilfredo Martinez 03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snake-jitsu

No case made for notability - not verifiable - looks like WP:OR maybe even WP:COI Peter Rehse 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be figment of someone's imagination. Cannot find any references. Glendoremus 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree. YechielMan 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. MightyAtom 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braddock Middle School

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Hús ö nd 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and will someone please look at the articles at Category:Elementary schools in Florida? It's one thing to do high schools if they are at least factual, yet another for elementary and junior high... Chris 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. And anyway, there are no satisfactory references. WMMartin 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not necessarily delete an article for a lack of notability in the case of schools and other institutions if the articles contain some substance. I believe that the assertion of notability is far more important in articles on individuals or say, commercial institutions. My delete vote here is inherently based on the fact that this article has very little useful information, has no references, and provides no external links or evidence that it could be formed into a functioning article. If one of the previous editors could provide a credible source of information, regardless of any notability, I could consider keeping the article. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:14, 12 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of appearances of C96 in popular culture

Delete - indiscriminate, largely unreferenced collection of appearances of not only a particular weapon but of things that someone decided look kind of like that particular weapon. Rife with verifiability problems and original research. Otto4711 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recommend to start a discussion or suggest a guideline about articles in Category:In popular culture instead of going after them one by one. I fully agree with your opinion about the quality but these articles have been created for a purpose and usually result in the main article being better. I view them as a typical Second Best solution. Pavel Vozenilek 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that removing this material from the main article on a topic is appropriate. That does not, however, mean that it may then be housed in a separate article, if the material is in violation of the non-negotiable policies WP:OR and WP:V. Otto4711 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd created dozen or two "... in popular culture" leaf pages by offloading the main text and my personal experience is that this works: the people who add this kind of references (and nothing else, typically) do use these leafs and stay away from the main article. I do remember lenghty discussions on Village Pump on what to do with this kind of "information", resulting in no action or decision. The idea to create leaf pages grew gradually popular for lack of alternatives. IMO this problem is impossible to fix until stable version will be implemented (freeing up some time to work here). One such page, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, has been elevated among features articles as a result of heroic effort of an editor, so there's some hope. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the difference between the JoA article and this one. First off, the subject matter is wildly different. One documents cultural representations of a saint and national hero. The other documents the appearance of guns that kind of look like the C96. The JoA article is completely referenced and sourced. The C96 article is completely unreferenced and unsourced. The intro to the JoA article provides real-world context for its subject matter. The intro to the C96 article provides no real-world context and isn't even spelled correctly. I have nothing against the "...in popular culture" concept, but I expect that such articles be held to the same standards as every other article and this one clearly falls so short of basic standards that it should be deleted. Otto4711 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, editor appears to be making a point aganst "..in popular culture" articles? Mathmo ^Talk 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, editor is seeking to remove an unreferenced, unverifiable, indiscriminate list from Wikipedia because it violates Wikipedia policies adainst original research and the requirement of reliable sources. Otto4711 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost all content here extremely trivial. This article was created as a fork of Mauser C96, to get rid of this ugly cruft from an otherwise good article. I worry a little that deleting this article would lead people to start adding this stuff to that article again, but in this case, the balance should be on the side of deleting the fork article, it's very unencyclopedic. This issue has come up before. I will write a little essay at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles to get started. Mango juice^talk 18:44, 12 February 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus 2

Last summer I had a long debate with User:Sophysduckling about whether translations which are created by wikipedia users rather than published sources should be considered original research, as well as whether pages like this one, which focused more on the text of a poem than significance and meaning, belonged on wikipedia or wikisource. You can read the debate at User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 4 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catullus. We reached a sort of truce in which most catullus articles were removed, but the fundamental debate about whether an original translation violates WP:NOR was left unsettled. This page was originally redirected by Sophysduckling, as he thought it was not notable enough for an article, but it has been remade by User:Alakazam138. I feel that an original translation should be considered original research, and that articles like this belong on wikisource, not on wikipediam as per WP:NPS. Furthermore, I believe that this and most poems of catullus are not notable enough for their own pages. Delete or Move to Wikisource Samael775 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Original research and non-encyclopedic. Glendoremus 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, seems much improved so I've changed my opinion.
Keep - please note the NOR policy: a translation does none (or should not do any) of the 7 things listed at WP:NOR (copied below). A translation replicates content exactly as is without changing its meaning, and only replacing words with their equivalents in another language. If the translation is not available in a source (i.e., it is an original translation), that should be noted and source(s) provided for the original language version, but I don't believe it constitutes original research. Black Falcon 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article is OR if and only if:
1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines new terms;
4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
It seems as though someone is looking too closely at the words of the NOR policy, as opposed to the spirit. But to humor you, a translation of a published work makes an implicit argument about what a proper translation of that particular published work should look like. Allon Fambrizzi 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- I am indeed humoured by your comment. It seems to me that looking at the "spirit" of a policy rather than its text falls under "original research". There are no assumptions about what a proper translation looks like. As long as two different languages have words for the same objects and concepts, they can be translated without any "assumptions". No assumption is needed to translate the English "flower" into the German "Blume". Cheers, Black Falcon 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although WP:NOT#BUR states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." (and I believe this to be an excellent idea), I do not feel the NOR policy includes translations (if that is the case, shouldn't we also delete any articles that were translated from a foreign-language wiki?). If a translator makes any kind of implicit or explicit "argument" or "assumption", then she has failed in her task, which is only to replace e oncombination of letters denoting a concept or object with another such combination that refers to the same concept or object (minor changes in the word ordering to conform to appropriate sentence structure does not, if done properly, affect content). -- Black Falcon 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I recently wrote this article, but I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of the situation with the poems. I'm only a newbie and I apologise. Should I write these sorts of things up at WikiSource? After all, Catullus is a great poet and there is so much meaning that can be derived from every poem. Surely a collaboration between all the Latin scholars can make each poem worthy of its own page? Obviously it is my fault, (probably for rushing in to Wikipedia too quickly), but it is slightly annoying as I did feel I was doing a service, rather than a diservice. However, as a newbie, I'm not exactly sure how I can fit all of Wikipedia's criteria for articles, nor am I to make the decisions, that is for you good people here. Sorry again for causing a bother. Alakazam138 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Oh, for crying out loud: Are there noncopyright translations that aren't bowdlerized or in stilted 19th century language? If so, the translation can be replaced. If no such a published translation exists, or isn't available, then the editor's translation is useful and should be kept. Samael1775, as to notabiity: after two millennia, I think his poems have become notable enough to warrant individual Wikipedia articles, and I see nothing wrong with every work by every major Greek and Roman author getting the same treatment. Alakazam138, even if you were wrong, and I don't think you were, there's no need to apologize -- you did just what you're supposed to do around here, jump in and be bold. Thank you, and please don't stop. Allon Fambrizzi, even with a poem, a translation can be as "objective" or "neutral" as possible, particularly in more literal translations, which seems to be in keeping with the NOR policy, both in letter and spirit. Noroton 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had another look at the article -- ORIGINAL research? It's all very straightforward, uncontroversial, obvious information of use to readers who, for instance, are unaware of the Atalanta myth. Although a citation is always nice, it can also be overkill when the facts are well established. There is no reason for a deletion here at all. Noroton 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Translations, especially translations of poetry, are based on judgements of the translator, it is impossible to precisely translate every aspect of a poem, because there are all kinds of things like idioms and connotations that can't be directly reproduced in another language. Furthermore, I see no reason why the text of a poem, let alone annotations and latin vocabulary, should be in an encyclopedia. This is an annotated, translated, original source document and as such belongs on wikisource. See WP:NPS and WP:L&P Samael775 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: I did see WP:NPS and in the second paragraph found this:
      Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.
    - Ozymandias is a 14-line poem that's actually a bit larger than Catullus 2 (one less line, slightly fewer words). Frankly, it's hard to come to a better understanding of a short poem when to refer back to it you need to jump between WikiSource and Wikipedia. As a reader, wouldn't you prefer to see short poems included in the articles about them? Samael, you make a better point concerning translations -- ANY translation done by an editor here (or done anywhere else) will necessarily involve word choices. But Wikipedia does, in fact, allow translations because sometimes their usefulness is more important than the potential harm of a bias. Anyone with a competing translation of a word or line could perhaps note it in the article with a simple "or ...".Noroton 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (slightly self-edited)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Entirely unsourced original research. Without citations from reliable sources, how can the average reader be assured that the translation is accurate? The content of this article relies entirely on the judgments of Wikipedians, not on outside sources; that's original research. Also, there is no evidence offered for considering this particular poem notable. Furthermore, the vocabulary list is outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. If the article is rewritten using reliable sources, I'll change to keep. Without that, it should go. Nick Graves 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has significantly improved. There is still some content that needs to be sourced, such as the identification of the poem's meter, but the original research content is sufficiently reduced to warrant keeping this. Kudos to the editors who took the time and care to improve and save this article. Nick Graves 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have 3 sources that support my 'loose' translation. I have now cited them at the bottom of the page. I feel that a vocabulary list is not outside encylopaedic format since a word means either one thing or another; there is no real debate. I appreciate your point about it being uncited though, yes, I should not expect people to just believe what is written there. Thanks for all your feedback, it's been a help to see how to improve my service to Wikipedia.Alakazam138 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about sourcing. Translations are creative works and there is no such thing as a "definitive" translation; you can't just use Wikipedia as a publishing service for your own translation. Facts can be verified; translations cannot. Delete. Allon Fambrizzi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  - This is in no way what I am intending. "Publishing service for my own translation?" No. I merely thought it would be good idea to put up a poem by great man, so that everyone can benefit from it. But what's the use, I can see where this will end up. It's quite disheartening really. Alakazam138 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's because you aren't expending your energies in the right place. See below. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's room for every joke in every episode of every 4th rate sitcom, there's room for a translation and commentary on ancient literature. Call me a snob if it makes you feel better. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for source texts and commentary. Articles about literay works should focus on impact, significance, and crtical opinions. Samael775 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is clear: Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material, nor are they annotated texts. This article is an annotated text. It gives the source text, an original translation thereof, and then line by line annotations. The proper place for annotated works of literature is Wikibooks, which will quite happily take all of the poems, not just selected ones, as long as they are actually properly annotated for study use and not just raw copies of the source text. See WP:FICT#Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource for how to use Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource in concert for situations like this. I've started The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus for you. Delete. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy is not nearly as clear as you make out. Here's the only place "annotated texts" appears in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:
  Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
- We don't have a textbook here. We have the beginning of an article with the necessary foundation for further information. This poem isn't nearly as important as Ozymandias and the article will hardly have as much information as that article, but if you notice the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article, you'll see something very similar to what we have here (aside from the necessary translation information). Is the article attempting to teach subject matter? I see it as presenting enough information to understand the poem in some detail, which is necessary to get enough of an understanding of the poem to make the article of any use to the reader.
  Here's another policy statement from that same policy article, under the section "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" or WP:BURO:
  A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Noroton 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is quite clear. What you are constructing is what is known as a straw man. You've just quoted the second half of the full sentence, which, in full, reads "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts.". That's quite clear that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts. You've then proceeded to argue that since the article isn't a textbook, which no-one said it was in the first place, it doesn't violate the policy. That's a straw man argument. The article is a canonical annotated text. It contains the text of the poem, a translation, and line-by-line annotations. (See b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text?.) Policy is quite clear, saying so in as many words, that that one of several things that Wikipedia articles are not.
    The latter half of your argument is largely irrelevant, and, in attempting to make the argument that policy should be ignored (which is not what that section is about at all), is merely a strong indication that the former half of your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. Uncle G 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? I was quoting Wikipedia policy, not your personal pronunciamento, and the only spot where I could find the words "annotated texts" in the Wikipedia policy article you linked to. The only clear thing in that policy page regarding annotated texts is that the idea of annotated texts was closely wedded to the idea of textbooks. I was assuming that your citation of a Wikipedia rule had some relationship to the actual text of the rule. If policy is so clear, simply give me the quote from the relevant sentence or sentences. I did. And to say that there are limits to bureaucratic rules is to cite a Wikipedian bureaucratic rule, not to deny any Wikipedian bureaucratic rules. Again: I cited, you pronounced. Here's a sincere (if a little angry) suggestion for you: Rather than searching for debating points to score, you might want to search for ways of reaching consensus, a Wikipedia goal which appears to have eluded your marshalling of rhetorical weaponry.
      Looking back on your comments, I found your reference to b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text? a useful, very constructive point which brings up some (nonrhetorical) questions:
      1. Do you really want to say that no references to the specific parts of a text are appropriate in a Wikipedia article about that text? Could they be part of an article?
      2. Could an article that starts out as annotating a text grow into a proper Wikipedia article? I've already made a (small) change to the article so that it is not, now, 100 percent text and annotation. I see no reason why that process should not continue until the article is mostly something else. But as I've said above, annotated text is an integral part of understanding a poem, particularly a translated poem.
      3. What do you think of the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article that I mentioned? Inappropriate?
      4. If this article were to be kept, if only in name and subject matter, what would it include in your opinion to be a proper Wikipedia article?
      5. How would it work in conjunction with a Wikibooks annotated text?
      6. What subject matter would be appropriate to each, in your opinion?
    - I'm open to agreeing with you. Let us (all) reason together.Noroton 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? — These are not my "pronouncements". This is the very text of the policy as written right there in front of you. "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts." are the exact words directly from the policy. You ask for the relevant quote. You've been given it twice already. It's even in boldface in the policy. To say that I've not been citing the policy but "making pronouncements" and "rhetoric" is highly disingenuous, and is another strong indicator that your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. For the third time: Policy is quite clear on this. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Response: My apologies, there must be something wrong with my computer and with my eyes. I typed your quoted sentence, even parts of it, in the page-search function of my computer and tried to find even part of that sentence on that Web page and I couldn't find it. Perhaps you could help me out by telling me what section that sentence appears in. Seriously, I can't find it. Also, I'm afraid I was a bit irritable in my previous replies to you, and I apologize for that. What we have is a serious disagreement over what Wikipedia policy actually is (I also don't think your view of it is actually workable, especially for articles on poems, given how poems work and what a reader generally needs in order to understand them). Please take another look at the Catullus 2 article, which is much changed, and tell me if you think it works better with translation and translation notes present on the page or moved to Wikibooks. My point elsewhere in this discussion is that to understand a poem the reader goes back and forth over various aspects because it is the interaction of those aspects where the power of a poem coheres. For an encyclopedia reader of an article about a poem, understanding the poem is not the only aspect, but it remains an important one, and to understand the history of the poem, having the text readily at hand is important. I'd be interested in your opinion, and also how you think the Catullus 2 article might be further improved. Noroton 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific parts of a text are appropriate when used for analysis. However, these Catullus articles seem to focus entirely on the text of the poem, and specifics about translation, which is much more the domain of wikibooks. While the potry of Catullus as a whole is certainly notable, I don't think there is much to be said about individual poems of Catullus. If you look at Ozymandias, you will notice that the text of the poem is in a small box off to the side, unintrusive. The table on Catullus 2 dominates the page and the rest of the article is little more than a collection of footnotes. According to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for annotated texts. While sourced analysis of a poem may be appropriate, an annotated text is not an encyclopedia article. While I agree that in some cases annotations could grow into a full article, I don't think Catullus 2 meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. While the poetry of Catullus is notable, there aren't many of the individual poems that have been the subject of multiple nontrivial works other than translations.
There is a differnce between annotated text and analysis. Annotations focus on explaining specific points of a text, analysis focuses on the whole.
I don't think that this article should be kept at all, as I don't think the poem is significant enough to justify an encyclopedia article.
Catullus or Poetry of Catullus would link to the wikibook, which would provide annotated texts of individual poems.
Wikibooks should contain information about specific parts of specific poems, such as what this idiom means, what this refers to, ect. Wikipedia should focus on analyzing poems or corpi of poetry as a whole, such as what techniques the poem uses, what this poem is about, how this should be interpreted, as well as inspiration and impact. Also, Analysis on wikipedia should be from the interpretation of published critics, and should be sourced. Samael775 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you for your reply. Please see the expanded version of the article, which should meet some of your objections, in addition:

As I say in my comment below, I think all aspects of a poem interact with each other and so the best way to present a poem to a reader (if space considerations allow) is to do it all on one page so the reader can easily look back and forth at different aspects (discussion, notes, text, translation). As for notability, see the comment by the academic in paragraph 2 of the article. The poem has been the subject of serious articles, but, as with most poems its size, no books solely on the poem. But I don't think that's determinative.
Again, all aspects of the poem interact with each other.
There is too much worthy information in this one article now for it to be combined easily with articles on more of the poems. I just don't think that would work now.
Covered in other comments.
Covered in other comments.
Yes, a Wikibooks article on the poem could concentrate on the meaning of specific parts of the poem, but that's all tied in with discussions of the poem's theme, so you're either divorcing two elements that would go well together, forcing readers to bounce back and forth between pages, which wouldn't help comprehension at all, or you're repeating much (all?) of the same information on two different Web pages. I agree that Wikipedia articles should do all the things you say they should do, and my additions to the article go part of the way toward doing that. Further comments below, just under Folantin's contribution. Noroton 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you feel you must, for the sake of doctrinal purity, move the text and translation to Wikisource, do so if it isn't already there; but keep the brief commentary, and the article to link to it. There needs to be a better way to integrate Wikisource content into articles beyond merely having a link. FWIW, I feel strongly that translations produced by editors for Wikimedia projects are not original research in any meaningful sense. They advocate no new theory, and are subject to emendation for greater accuracy by the ordinary collaborative process; and finally, they are more desirable than copyrighted recent translations and likely superior to old PD translations. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article subject matter itself is noteworthy, so the only real dispute seems to be over WP:NOR, which is not grounds for deleting an article. Simply add references for any unreferenced claims (including disputed translations or academic disagreements over translation, which Wikipedia should report on, not weigh in on). Moreover, I see no policy or guideline saying that it is original research to translate a text, as long as the translation agrees with general academic consensus. As for the Wikibooks issue, this seems to be a case of sacrificing useful information for bureaucracy; there is no value to our readers in forcing them to go to an external website to view a short passage that we could just as easily quote here. -Silence 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, original research can be grounds for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please read it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including the policy that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts, is also grounds for deleting articles, again per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. First, I'm not sure translation constitutes original research, especially a very literal translation like this. After all, we have a whole department of Wikipedia encouraging editors to translate foreign articles. What do we do if we find literary texts in them? Leave them untranslated? I'm not sure about the status of the detailed vocabulary guide and other features of this article which I've never seen elsewhere on WP. But I think the poem does pass notability, though maybe the article should also include Poem 3, which is on a similar theme. Both influenced a whole line of later poems about pets, from pieces by Martial and Ovid to John Skelton's Philip Sparrow and beyond. This should definitely be included in the article (yes, I can dig up most of the necessary references, though I'd appreciate any help). --Folantin 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I've made significant additions to the article:
- It is no longer primarily a text with annotations. There is significant discussion (all of it reporting, not original) of the poem and its theme, and everything is annotated. This should meet some of the objections above.
- The discussion of theme is intimately connected — interwoven — with discussion of the Latin text. I don't see how those two aspects of the poem can easily be separated. This doesn't make Catullus 2 unique, by the way — any poem, to be discussed adequately, should be discussed with a lot of interplay between various elements, often including theme, sound, form, individual words and, in the case of a translation, often alternative options for translation. I think that's all part of the business of describing a poem. That's why I think the full text of a short poem needs to be in the Wikipedia article about it, along with a translation for poems in other languages, and textual notes. They're all intimately connected. My additions are only a start and should be added to, especially with an expansion of sources, and they should be looked over by others. I'm putting a note on the discussion page to that effect. Noroton 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how much the article has been improved, I have changed my mind. Keep(not speedy keep because others argued for deletion). However, User:Alakazam138 has started working on the wikibooks page Uncle G created, where he can put things like latin vocabulary and speciic notes, so consider using that rather than wikipedia for annotative details. I am also not sure wikipedia is the place for latin text, but its not really worth arguing over. Samael775 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my page. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource are all collaborative projects, and everyone is welcome to contribute to building them all into an interwoven whole, with annotated texts on Wikibooks, the source texts and any (free, and already published) translations on Wikisource, and encyclopaedia articles about the Poetry of Catullus on Wikipedia, all linked together. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know I was just refering to the page you created. Samael775 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but the article should be about the poem, with the translation deemphasised. It shouldnt look like the article is an excuse to put in the translation. That's what the real problem is--its easy to see only that. Also, shouldnt the title be the conventional name--or first line--, not number in a standard list?DGG 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a section about the poem's influence (it could probably be expanded). I have references for the metre (plus other things) if anyone needs them. --Folantin 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki per Uncle G. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is more here than just a text (even an anotated taxt). It might be better at wikibooks, but it works here well enough, I think. Eluchil404 11:39, 15 February 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. User has been blocked for creating nonsense pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfire248

Tagged for a speedy deletion on nn bio grounds, the tag was removed by another editor. Fails WP:BIO, almost zero context. janejellyroll 05:34, 10 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30LL

Non-notable spam? -- Big Brother 1984 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, seems to be promotional. janejellyroll 05:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be promotional to me too. Delete Anonymous

I do not see the ads in this entry, definitely a keeper. METALLICAH

How is it different from other podcast entries such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget_Podcast ? Amasoussou

comment whether or not this is notable is perhaps questionable, but this is written from a neutral perspective and does not appear to be spam. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't think this can be classified as spam (it's just descriptive). However, notability may be an issue--but one I'm not commenting on except to say that it has a low Alexa rating of >6,000,000. Whether this rating is really meaningful is another issue which I won't go into. Thus, I remain neutral. -- Black Falcon 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is definitely not spam and I think we all agree on that one (as a side note, I'm Lebanese and have listened to those guys' podcasts and interviews, no spam detected anywhere). The article is appropriate for wikipedia and does not bypass any of the requirements. Not having a high Alexa rating is not an indicator of genuineness anyways. Objectively and through some common sense, this article is valid and should add value to the wealth of wikipedia and should be treated no different than some very valid entries as / My two cents . 30LL is another idiom and the article explains that with the source behind it. Gentlemen, we've got a keep. -- METALLICAH 23:35, 10 Febryar7 2007 (EST)
Neutral, doesn't appear to be spam. But only 22 results from google [9] does make me wonder about its notability. Mathmo ^Talk 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be consensus on the fact that this is not spam. In regard to notability, 30LL is the first result of about 999,000 for a Google search on "Lebanese Podcasts" [10]

Amasoussou 11:00, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the entry, it's objectively writen and the site is quite popular User:Anonymous 23:00 EST, 11 February 2007
Delete Few hits and even fewer editors. Rkevins 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems to be objectively written, and accurately describes the website and its features. There doesn't seem to be any promotional material in the article and therefore I don't think it can be considered as spam. Regarding notability, 30ll.org seems to be a respected web media outlet in the online Lebanese community. I would also note that its podcast is rather unique and that its format is somewhat of a first in the field of Lebanese and Arab media. I say keep it. -- Kartrab 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If every podcast would have it's own Wikipedia page, that would fill the site with irrelevant blogs and podcasts, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.28.232 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This popular podcast concept is pioneer and is picking up steam extremely fast. Key podcasts and blogs actually do have wikipedia entries. This is no different. METALLICAH _{16:42, 14 February 2007 (EST).}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recurring jokes in The Simpsons. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con

NN in-universe Simpsons cruft. It appeared briefly in 2 episodes and wasn't a major plot focus in either. Amazingly, this article has somehow survived more than a year and a half (most likely because it is not in any Simpsons categories). Scorpion 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the show or the episodes in which it's featured. I'm not fussy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was actually featured very heavily in both episodes it appeared in (about 1/3 of both episodes very held entirely in it). TJ Spyke 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we can't have every single setting and character which has been in the show have their own page. It has had no notability within the show and it was not a key plot point. -- Scorpion 05:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a List of Simpsons locations-type article this could be merged into? If not, I say ~~Delete~~; it may have been relatively prominent in the two episodes, but that doesn't make it as notable as, say, the Kwik-E-Mart. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Redirect to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons, per Dgies' suggestion below. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fictional places on The Simpsons, although it seems to mostly contain information on other towns. -- Scorpion 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe Simpson cruft. --Maitch 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate notability, original research. Nick Graves 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it's possible someone might be looking for what show this was in, and it would get them to the right place. SkierRMH 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to wherever is found to be the best place for it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to whatever episode this appeared in. (jarbarf) 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons as it is not a location, per-se. —Dgies^t c 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good place for the redirect; previous suggestions have been less than stellar (with it appearing in two episodes, pointing it to just one or the other isn't that great, and List of fictional places on The Simpsons is, as Scorpion pointed out, not quite appropriate). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to either the episode, or the recurring jokes thingy, or to the List of fictional places on The Simpsons. >Radiant< 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (colonial captain)

No claim of notability. No references cited. Cannot find anything that supports even the non-notable assertions of the article. Glendoremus 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this article had sources, it would still be completely nn. janejellyroll 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcesSlideAndSlip 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory for Genealogical entries Ohconfucius 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Allen

Bio of an eleven-year-old who is said to be working on his debut album. Completely unsourced (save for some stuff on youtube). Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely not notable. Glendoremus 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this non-notable but it's quite possibly a joke or an attack article. The creation edit summary of this page was "Zachary is a 11 year old homosexual, overweight performer" --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should have been speedied. An attack template was originally placed and removed by Camplifiedtour --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zach is an up-and-coming internet phenom. He has to have a page on wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rip.anna.nicole (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete: Zachary Allen is not only an outstanding performer, but a noted philanthropist in his hometown. Check out his website for updates on tours and his upcoming album! www.zacharyallen.com

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:BIO, pretty blatant marketing. Korranus 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. ElinorD 13:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately Zach has not acquired the notability to have a Wikipedia article devoted to him. --Ozgod 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge to Hughes H-4 Hercules or articles on Simpsons/Talespin/etc.—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:13Z

Spruce Moose

Fails to mention why it's that notable. It seems to just be a grouping of three completely seperate NN articles. And it is definitely not notable within the Simpsons universe. Scorpion 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cobbled-together nn collection of unrelated stuff. Otto4711 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hughes H-4 Hercules, the "Spruce Goose" that inspired the name. --UsaSatsui 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's acting as a sort of drawn out disambig page right now, with multiple (non only Simpsons) references - not only to fictional planes, but also to the UK contest. I do agree with UsaSatsui that some mention should be made in both directions to the Spruce Goose. SkierRMH 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improvements suggested by UsaSatsui would be helpful. --Eastmain 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs more improvementSlideAndSlip 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of fictional places on The Simpsons or somesuch. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's not just a name used in the Simpsons...it's a pretty common pun. --UsaSatsui 18:43, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Bomb Squad

Christian Ska band with absolutely zero claim to notabiliy. From the article: "BBS normally played at churches and youth events. Their biggest and most successful shows are always at The Outlet, a concert venue run by Foundry United Methodist Church." Speedy tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even close to making WP:MUSIC. Borderline speedy. Heimstern Läufer 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another non-notable band. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, did find this mention of them but can't be bothered looking for anything else that would make me believe it should be kept. So for now I'm neutral on it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No offense to the creators, but if "The band was only able to record one full song during their existence." is a claim to notability, shoot me (with a phaser, on a strong "stun" setting). Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of fictional places on The Simpsons, but you can decide where you want this page to redirect to by discussion and gaining consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawl-Mart

NN Simpsons cruft, written from an in-universe perspective. Sprawl Mart has never been featured significantly in an episode, although a few minor plot points occur in it. But, we can't have every Simpsons location having an article. -- Scorpion 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~The Fat and the Furriest, the Simpsons episode where this store first was mentioned~~ On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister, the best-known Simpsons episode featuring Sprawl-Mart. --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I mean redirect, not Merge. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~The Fat and the Furriest~~ On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister. --Maitch 11:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but I don't know where. Either Criticism of Wal-Mart, or On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister (that's the episode where it was most prominently featured). --UsaSatsui 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to wherever is found to be the best place for it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to some of the above, or possibly List of fictional places on The Simpsons. >Radiant< 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Isotopes

Springfield Isotopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) NN Simpsons fan cruft, written from an in-universe perspective. Yes, the team has been in a few episodes, but it's really not that notable. It's not like Duff Beer, where real Beer has been created solely because of the show. If there was an actual team based off of the Isotopes, then it would be slightly more notable. -- Scorpion 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Gran2 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the few things from the Simpsons that has real-world significance, as the source of the name of the Albuquerque Isotopes. Otto4711 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To most significant episode in which the team is important. According to above statement, a team was created becuase of show. AlphaShroom 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the real team was not created because of the fictional team. The real team was named for the fictional team per the outcome of a "name the team" contest. That still in my opinion establishes the sort of real-world significance required for the article. Otto4711 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Albequerque Isotopes took their name from the Simpsons universe Isotopes. Has a real world connection and significance. Resolute 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator's condition has been met, but I'd say keep, or at worst merge or redirect to an appropriate Simpsons article. No obvious candidate springs to mind though(no single episode is appropriate since they've been featured in several, and they're not really a character or location...) That said, the article itself needs serious improvement, such as listing the episodes they have been important in. FrozenPurpleCube 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albuquerque Isotopes, maybe? It's not significant enough on its own to have an article, but the team named after them is. --UsaSatsui 15:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't that just be mentioned in the Albequergue Isotopes page? Why do the Springfield Isotopes need an entire page just because of that? -- Scorpion 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're not that team, but a fictional one found in the Simpsons (And in several episodes to boot). If this were Mr. Burn's employee softball team, I'd say redirect to that episode, but you can't redirect to 3+ episodes. So the best thing to do is describe them, their connection to the Albuquerque team and expand further as needed. I honestly don't see any reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dancin' Homer would probably be the place to point if the redirect were going to a Simpsons episode. --UsaSatsui 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except....Hungry Hungry Homer and Marge and Homer Turn a Couple Play would be equally valid. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per significance of the Albuquerque Isotopes as outlined above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute . Mathmo ^Talk 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- uhh.. fan-cruft? mmmm... don't think so - seems perfectly note worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been featured numerous times in the Simpsons, and is actually a noteworthy article and topic. Jmlk17 10:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they have been in many Simpsons showsSlideAndSlip 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to some Springfield-related list article (e.g. "characters in The Simpsons"). >Radiant< 14:33, 14 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristín Ingólfsdóttir

Person is of no historical significance and page provides essentially no information. AlphaShroom 05:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article describes her as being the first female headmaster of what I believe is Iceland's largest university. It could use more information, but being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute. It seems quite likely that she is notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep University presidents are usually considered notable. Cardamon 07:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub, but she appears to be notable in the public health field in Iceland, so expand not delete. Notability asserted in the article - plenty of articles about Vice-Chancellors/Presidents of universities throughout the world (WP:PROF not applying because she's not "just a professor". --Canley 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - she seems to be notable and lack of content is not a deletion reason. Hut 8.5 12:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Icelandic Wikipedians' notice board notified about this VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 13:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is indeed the president of Iceland's largest university and the first woman to hold that job. --Bjarki 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWouldn't she be a non-notable "headmistress" rather than a non-notable "headmaster?"Inkpaduta 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - rector of a country's national university, gets 25,000 Ghits, and the first female to hold the post. My neighbour is more notable than that! I'm don't think this is a bad-faith nomination, but really, editors should research the subject of an article before proposing it for AfD (or {{prod}}). Pardon the sarcasm, Black Falcon 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily per Resolute as well as Canley, should pass WP:BIO easily I would hope. (jarbarf) 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. John Vandenberg 22:29, 12 February 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. Discuss merging and redirecting on the article's talk page. yandman 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS launches

Notable information should be on the Nintendo DS article (if it's not there already), with the rest to be moved to a gaming wiki. Game consoles and game handheld launches happen with every generation: it doesn't mean we need articles for all of them here. RobJ1981 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge some Put the important bits into the main DS article, but its own article is going a bit far. Whilding87 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per precedents and administrator decisions set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 360 launch (also nominated for the same reasons by the nominator), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayStation 3 launch (also nominated for the same reasons by the nominator), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii launch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii release data. Merger and transwiki requests should be discussed first on the relevant talk page. --tgheretford (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Whilding87 . Mathmo ^Talk 10:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Nintendo DS. This kind of information belongs in the main console article, not an article of its own. Vassyana 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all useful information into Nintendo DS, as per the comments above. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:17, 16 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iruthayapuram massacre

No independent sources are cited for any of these claims. The only sources that even mention this incident are strongly allied to the LTTE, the rebel group fighting the government in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch haven't even mentioned such an incident in any of their annual reports. Unless reliable sources are provided, this article completely fails WP:V and should be deleted snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Article needs improvement, not deletion. AlphaShroom 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources, by all means go ahead and improve it. But if this incident is just a fabrication by the LTTE (which, note, is banned as a terrorist organization by 31 counties including the US, Canada, India and the EU) and websites related to it, and no neutral organization has reported about it, we shouldn't have a article about something that never happened. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed. Delete.AlphaShroom 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - I don't feel comfortable saying it never happened (as it is a fact that Sri Lankan security forces have commited a number of human rights violations), but there is a lack of reliable online sources (perhaps someone could investigate the presence of book sources?--I will try tomorrow). Unless additional (and reliable) sources are found, I would say the subject-matter fails WP:Notability. I am withholding a vote until I can further investigate. By the way, is UTHR (University Teachers for Human Rights) also pro-Tamil and non-reliable (they seem to be a national organisation)? Black Falcon 08:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Black Falcon, as a newbie into these issues, I need to bring you uptodate about these issues UTHR is a neutral organisation whose foiunder members were killed by the LTTE only the Ranjan Hoole one of the founder is still alive and his security is provided the Sri Lankan state. It was created to counter the terrorism of the state and the LTTE against the civilians. Infact extreamsit on both sides consider it to be biased to the other side. RaveenS 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually rather familiar with the Sri Lankan civil war (note my rather strong comment ("it is a fact that...") regarding the HR violations committed by the Sri Lankan state), but mostly through academic books. I was, however, unfamiliar with UTHR beyond knowing that it's Jaffna office closed soon after opening (I followed a link from the source provided in the article). Thus, as I have little doubt the incident did indeed occur (and the UTHR source adds credence to this), the only question becomes notabiliy as demonstrated through a multiplicity of coverage. I possess a few books on the Sri Lankan civil war and will look through them for references to the massacre. If I find anything, I will post it here or in the article. In any case, thanks for the clarification regarding UTHR. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any sources on this to establish notability, and am, therefore, supporting to delete. -- Black Falcon 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on this...If anyone who comes here to vote should take a look at the articles talk page..Not only the sources are dubious ,they also gives us (UTHR) the impression that there was indeed an LTTE leader among the death..And some eye witness even recall a noise of a bomb explosion!! Which means the forces were clearly attacked so even if we believe these sources(which seems impossible), I don't know why the Author of this article wanted to defame the SL forces alone ?? Ohh..about the UTHR ,they do contradict a lot..Esp when it comes to reports which they made in the early 1990's, when they were extremely pro LTTE or very much sympathetic to their course!! I have followed their paper publications even before the start of the internet era,and let me tell you , there is a clear bias towards tamils and for LTTE..They became anti LTTE after 1995 ,when LTTE started killing their leaders ,such as DR Rajini Rajasingham Thiranagama..They nearly killed Dr Raja Hoole too..And UTHR recent reports are some what neutral (except for the issues regarding SL history) .we can take it as a neutral source ONLY when we talk about incidents happened after 1995 ..BTW, since you seems to be interested in our issues , i would like to recommend you the Books written by

If I'm not mistaken, the LTTE used that as a tactic--attacking security forces in Tamil-populated villages in hopes they would retaliate (they did this especially with the IPKF). Although I'm inclined to believe that this event took place and that most of the dead were civilians, and although the Sri Lankan security forces have committed their share of human rights violations, the LTTE is certainly no saint! Due to the lack of reliable sources to establish notability, I am supporting deletion of the article. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rohan Gunaratne,as he is widely considered as an expert on this.. Thanks--Iwazaki 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is false Rajin Thiranagama was killed in 1989 year after UTHR was founded. Ranjan Hoole had to get out real quickly from Jaffan. The organisation was never pro anybody LTTE or the governmentRaveenS 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No raveen, DR hoole was the VC of Jaffna University untill recently.I am not sure what do you mean by "he got out jaffna real quickly " ?? HE was there even in the last year..Only after ,if my memory servers, LTTE tried to take his life away ,he ran away from Jaffna..And yes, they were highly sympathetic to the tamil cause hence supported LTTE initially..thats the truth.--Iwazaki 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe VC is Ratnajeevan Hoole brother of Rajan Hoole who received death threats because he is the brother of Rajan Hoole and had to abandon his job. Rajan Hoole of UTHR left Jaffna in 1989/90 soon after Rajini Thiranagama and the student Manoharan were killed64.201.162.1 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:Non of these references are neutral. There’s nothing to argue with the neutrality of this article, even the author of the article has accepted that in the discussion page. So in that case my opinion is, this article is another blatant attempt to embarrass a sovereign and recognized country and its distinctive special force unit front of the baseless accusation of a terrorist group which is trying to raise a separate state on the Sri Lanka. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The references are from biased sources which are anti government of sri lanka and are pro-ltte and LTTE frontends. Tamilnation is a well known LTTE frontend and fails NPOV completely. Here is a example[11] by the highly esteemed tamil professor Prof. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole, who exposes one of tamilnations prized contributors as academic fraud and a terrorist suspect in addition to being in association with thugs. With terrorist suspects and academic frauds contributing to it, tamilnation clearly is not a WP:RS. Tamilcanadian.com too is a pro-eelam site and a LTTE frontend, a visit to the site shows that it has a so-called "Eelam menu", with the noted terrorist prabhakaran referred to as the "Tamil Eelam National Leader", although eelam has not being recognised by any country in the world. This more than enough shows its bias and as such fails WP:RS completely.

The major problem with this article is that it does not have a independent non partial reports to support it and there is no conclusive evidence to prove the STF was behind this event either. Since the cited sources fail wikipedia's esteemed standards of WP:RS, WP:Notability and WP:NPOV, the article in question should be speedily deleted.Kerr avon 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ DELETE As the creator of this article I have come to have my doubts as to whether it should stay or not because like many have pointed out I still have not found the credible sources outside of pro- LTTE sources except UTHR hence it does fail notability to an extend. I was thinking about renaming it as Kumarapuram incident or something similr to it. I will look around. This incident did happen but unfortunately compared to ther incidents it did not grab the attention of the media or I have not fouynd it yet. We will wait and see, Wikipedia is not gong out tomorrow or me. Only time will tell. Thanks RaveenS 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt find independant attribution outside of UTHR hence fails notability also it may be knwon under a different name, need to go through HRW and AI reports for the time being fully later RaveenS 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per talk page & per WP:RS--Iwazaki 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Chung

The article is one sentence and hasn't been improved since the day it was created. Also, Jade Chung is female, not male.PepsiPlunge 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article could be described as patent nonsense, a test page or vandalism. I'm going to go with nonsense, given that it isnt even about the person named as the title. Resolute 06:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Resolute. I would like to point out that creating this article (on 1/23) was the first and so far ONLY edit by the editor. TJ Spyke 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as having no meaningful content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nothing there Alf photoman 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember a cartoon character called Jade Chung in a cartoon, but a wrestler? o well. Govvy 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She was a member of The Embassy in Ring of Honor.PepsiPlunge 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Semperf 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who?SlideAndSlip 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I suppose, nothing meaningful worth retaining. (jarbarf) 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Blank Label Comics. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB and other criteria under WikiProject: Webcomics. Alexa ranking search for "www.starslip.com" yields no traffic data whatsoever even though the site has been up for two years. Furthermore many other comics on the internet have been around for more than two years without attaining notability, let alone Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. The article also includes reference to the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which has been found non-notable by Wikipedia editors. Salby 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, the reason your Alexa search yielded no traffic data is because you searched the WRONG URL. All of the "delete" motions below that yesman this original nomination are therefore flawed. --ItsWalky! 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, has not been covered in any news media or other non-article sources. I say this with some experience in web comics as a fan of Player Arcade. Incredulous 06:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.145.117 (talk • contribs).[reply]
- Comment Motion to question Incredulous' experience in webcomics, as it's Penny Arcade. If you can't even recall the correct name of the most popular webcomic on the Internet... --ItsWalky! 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably a typo, obviously OP is familiar with Penny Arcade. That shouldn't be a reason to discount his comment. Banalzebub 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the most hilarious exchange that AfD has ever produced. Also, the above poster is under the illusion that reading PA, the only webcomic linked to by Slashdot, (indeed, the only webcomic that has its own charity organisation) denotes any degree of webcomic expertise. --210.49.99.248 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is clearly a notable webcomic as its critical accolades indicate. I could also point out that exact phrase search turns up 101,000 hits on Google - this is a strip that has been much talked about, especially for a strip only a couple years old - and also that this webcomic has published three "real" books to date. Salby has not even searched for the correct url. www.starslipcrisis.com has an Alexa rank of 88,460 if you care about Alexa ranks. Balancer 08:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if Alexa ranking is no longer an official criteria, two related web comics Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill are either up for deletion or have been deleted. The Starslip Crisis article is full of fancruft. Also the three "real" books are print-on-demand and can be produced by anyone instantly. Incredulous 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Mild keep - and I'll point out that Evil Inc. was restored, and Ugly Hill may wind up being kept. I'll also point out that a Google search for the phrase, even after excluding wikipedia, comixpedia, wikiquote, lulu, nightsidepress, and starslipcrisis, still gets +92000 hits, with +250 of those being distinct (reviews, blog recommendations, awards, interviews with Straub, etc). Article definitely needs work, though. DS 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. "We're trying to delete all these other webcomics, so it's okay to delete this one too" is a circular argument. If the deletion status of "related webcomics" is at all pertinent to this discussion, then the fact that Evil Inc. was restored and Ugly Hill is likely on its way to vindication should paint this affair in the opposite manner Incredulous suggests. --ItsWalky! 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Ugly Hill discussion is loaded of meatpuppetry after the author linked to the AfD, so I wouldn't look to vindication there. As for Evil Inc., there have been several AfDs put forth in good faith, which indicates an issue. In its defense, its author is a newspaper cartoonist and has been published, so there are non-author-generated secondary sources. LKeith30 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Ugly Hill discussion is doing quite well for the comic, both numbers-wise and argument-wise, even after discarding the meatpuppetry. The Evil Inc. article was brought back on DRV with overwhelming support after new, previously unknown sources surfaced. --Kizor 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That there have been several AfDs put for for Evil Inc. is not an indication of a problem; it's an indication of taking multiple bites at the apple until one comes up without a worm, and the article is deleted. This is in line with the general vendetta against webcomics around here. -- Jay Maynard 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable comic with significant web traffic recorded by trusted third-party source (Project Wonderful.)Egunthry 08:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per original. Banalzebub 09:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, notability is questionable but it's a poor article. Probably could be Merged under Blank Label Comics or Kristofer Straub. Hammurabbi 09:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here I would argue that Kristopher Straub is non-notable under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and this is reason enough to open an AfD. Banalzebub 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, delete is appropriate. Hammurabbi 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity/fan-written article. The comic hasn't had an impact on webcomics in general, and Straub hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions. LKeith30 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources, notability in doubt, article NPOV wrt unnecessary details, high Alexa rank StarHarbor 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources at all and comixpedia:Starslip Crisis already exists. —xyzzy_n 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the alexa rank demonstrates that this webcomic is of significant cultural significance to be preserved. as the article mentions, the webcomic also maintains notability by receiving some acclaim. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Repromancer 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources, no Alexa rank for www.starslip.com, not carried by any popular media, no cultural significance. Expewikist 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it you didn't read what I wrote about starslipcrisis.com's Alexa rank of ~88,000? Or paid any attention to where the article itself links to a secondary source? Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Retracted, but 88,000 is not a particularly low rank, nor does the article uphold WP:N. Has Starslip Crisis been the focus of any secondary-source articles? Expewikist 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search I did early dug up one article in a periodical focusing on Starslip Crisis.[12]Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: That one's focused on Blank Label, not Starslip Crisis itself, as is most not relating to winning a 2006 WCCA. Balancer 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles. What we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. -- Dragonfiend 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:N's standards for such, the E&P article is not a "trivial" mention of the comic. E&P is also clearly an independent source with non-negligible circulation. I can also find another article, this one in a periodical about webcomics circulated regionally in Canada, in about five minutes of searching.[13]. And if I can find another article not mentioned in the wiki article under question that quickly, there are probably more non-trivial mentions out there, which is one of the reasons why we rely on secondary indications of notability, e.g., "website has won an award," which Starslip Crisis has. Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability, "'Non-triviality' is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." Being mentioned once in a three sentence-long "article" is not a depth of content -- it is trivial. --Dragonfiend 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, you do know that [14] is just the beginning of a longer article, the entirety of which is only available to registered users? —xyzzy_n 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the "full article" at the library and found it is no longer than the non-subscriber brief preview on the E&P website. Or does your library somehow have a longer version? If you don't have access to a library, you may notice that E&P often runs such brief items. One way to tell a brief from a longer article from their web site is that the non-subscriber version of a brief will end with a complete sentence [15] [16] where as the preview to a longer article ends in mid-sentence or mid-word.[17] [18] [19] -- Dragonfiend 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for the article text yields this full version of the local newspaper article. [20] It's a passing mention, not a review or spotlight. Repromancer 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear, Repromancer's link is to the trivial "three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper" on this comic. xyzzy_n and Balancer were talking about the trivial mention inside a three-sentence brief on E&P's website. Local newspaper: trivial 3-sentence paragraph in a larger column. E&P: Trivial mention inside 3-sentence brief. -- Dragonfiend 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! E&P is available at one library in my town, but I would not have been able to get there before Monday. —xyzzy_n 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then the interview with Straub in a [non-local] periodical magazine [21] primarily distributed in print form in Canada. And I'm pretty sure we can find more if we look seriously. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a great reference for Blank Label Comics (so go ahead and put it in), but it only mentions Starslip Crisis twice and does not seem to discuss it at all. —xyzzy_n 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you're referring to the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" as far as the website winning an award. Those awards were found NN despite even a television appearance and NY Times mention in an article about webcomics. [22] This article falls way below that. LKeith30 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claim that the WCCA are not an indication of notability. The WCCA are the most prominent webcomic awards in existence, and thus an indication that a webcomic is notable as a webcomic. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree, but the WCCA article itself was deleted recently for failing to meet WP:N. That's the definition of non-notable (and another argument entirely!). If the article supporting a lesser article is deleted for being NN, how can the supported article use it as proof of notability? LKeith30 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons. First, the reasons offered in the AFD for the WCCA being notable (i.e., mention in a New York Times article) are applicable to saying that winning the award is a notable. Second, WP:WEB suggests not that an award be "notable" by Wikipedia standards, but simply states that the award be "independent and well-known." Even if the Oscars were not notable in and of themselves by WP:N, i.e., if no newspapers or other print sources talked about them, the fact that a film had won an Oscar would be still an indication of a film being a notable film, since the Oscars are well-known and the judges are (I like to think, at least) not too closely tied to film producers. The WCCA seem able to qualify as well-known even if this fame does not translate into more than several secondary sources analyzing the WCCA. Third, the AFD for the WCCA appears likely to be appealed in the near future; it was carried against a 7-4 vote on the basis that non-trival mention in the New York Times was not an indication of notability. If it's not put up for deletion review within the next couple days, I'll stick my neck out and do so myself, because that's a questionable AFD if I've ever seen one, and I've watched some pretty hotly argued AFDs. Balancer 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. - Floxman 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Comic! Starslip Crisis has been around for years, and lots of people like it. I will voullenteer to improve the article but we need to keep it! Wizardbrad 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Liking something doesn't indicate notability! A Rewrite would be appropriate if the article didn't already seem like a fan had written it. Merge makes a little more sense, but the author isn't notable either. Thus, Weak Delete. Hammurabbi 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it too, but that doesn’t make it a subject for an encyclopaedia. Maybe in a couple of years. —xyzzy_n 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great comic, and notable too. Just because you and you yourself haven't heard of it doesn't mean others don't know about it and it shouldn't be deleted like that. Ccfr88 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Blank Label Comics are without doubt notable enough to have its own article, but individual comics should be briefly mentioned and their content summarized on that page. --Krator 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. End the vendetta against webcomics before is causes permanent damage to Wikipedia's perceptions and credibility. -- Jay Maynard 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia's perceptions and credibility are damaged when it turns into a link dump or warehouse for fan listcruft, not when non-notable topics only of interest to a very minor (if vocal) group are purged. A webcomic wiki is in existence already. LKeith30 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge as a last resort The WCCA awards - nominated in multiple catagories, and a winner - should be enough for notability, but merge if keep is not allowed. Kristofer_Straub has longevity in the field and is well known within the webcomics community, and this comic in particular is notable for both it's amazing popularity and awards. And a personal observation on how many notable webcomics are here on the AFD page - this is a AFD pogrom because some editors feel that ANY webcomic is Fancruft, and it's both insulting to the industry in general, and it's giving wikipedia a bad name in a large internet community. Timmccloud 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Straub has longevity in the field, this should be reflected by citing secondary sources, rather than only his works or references from his fans. As I said before, a webcomic wiki exists for webcomics. LKeith30 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "As I said before, a webcomic wiki exists for webcomics." Riite... so because there also exists many math wiki we must start a campagain to delete all math articles. Mathmo ^Talk 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kristofer Straub, so long as that article is going to stick around and we can focus on the person (whom, despite stricter standards for BLP, probably has more, better, sources regarding him) as opposed to the mere works. Nifboy 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone else mentioned that the bulk of the article was taken from the comic's own wiki. [23] That looks to be true. Based on that alone, the article fails WP:OR. Repromancer 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. The comic's wiki article was created August 15, and is a near-carbon copy of the Wikipedia article as it existed on August 5. Aren't edit histories great? Nifboy 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has too many outstanding npov and nor problems in addition to orig nom. delete. TerryNova 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timmccloud. Mathmo ^Talk 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for it's great number of awards / nominations JackSparrow Ninja 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom has failed to provide a compelling reason for the article to be deleted. The URL researched wasn't even the correct one! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Dread Lord CyberSkull and others note above, the nominator used the wrong url in his reasearch. In addition Kristofer Straub is a notable webcomic author, remember Checkerboard Nightmare? Starslip Crisis was also apparently one of the launch comics of Blank Label Comics, I don't know if that counts but I thought I'd mention it. As for the WCCA's it won the scifi category in 2006 and is again a nominee in that category and others this year, [24]. It has multiple mentions on Websnark [25] A Google search for "Starslip Crisis" returned around 99,100 hits for me. In summary, It seems to me that this webcomic is worth keeping, or at very least merging with Kristofer Straub. --Aclapton 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, reduce to stub if necessary: Starslip Crisis is by far the most popular webcomic of those whose articles are nominated for deletion (see for example [26]. If popularity is any measure of notability, SC is notable enough. Necessary references should be sought and the article should be given a chance to be rewritten. --Tappel 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the previous two comments. --210.49.99.248 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tappel. I'm tired of seeing this bloody-minded campaign against webcomics. If those among you are truly interested in getting rid of as many webcomics as possible, why not just go ahead and blanket delete all of them? I'm sure it's bound to give a few people a sense of satisfaction, and might even just do wonders for credibility. Starslip Crisis is not on the top tier of comics, but reasons have been listed that warrant its continued inclusion here. I'd make further arguments along the lines of those of Aclapton, but I've serious doubts that those here most interested in deletion would see them with any merit. Go and stew yourselves, for all I care. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The strip is not notable in the webcomics world. Google search for "starslip crisis" yields 99,000 hits, but most of them are from the Crisis site itself or others maintained by Straub. Alexa ranking is far below that of PvP, Megatokto, Ctrl-Alt-Del, PA, et centera. This author is a little surprised at the number of votes to keep. Echoes of the Ugly Hill debate perhaps? Has Straub linked to this page and incited his readers against the AfD in poor faith? YothSog 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the comic changed name from StarSHIFT Crisis and that name should also be checked when researching it. Also I thought Alexa had been discredited as a measure of popularity. Nice accusation of 'Poor Faith' that hasn't even been checked on the subject site, something that would be easy to do. Plus 'incitement against AfD' can be entirely in good faith and need not even be deliberate 'The Wikipedia entry for this comic is up for deletion, I don't understand why' is pretty much a precis of the initial reaction of most artists so far. Then they progress to annoyance when they look at how many other entries are being eliminated, together with one of the principle ways quality etc. is judged within the industry (the WCCA). Not that any artist action is needed at the moment as many Webcomic readers are on the lookout for yet another AfD related to a significant comic.--BoatThing 10:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alexa ranking is far below that of PvP, Megatokto, Ctrl-Alt-Del, PA, et centera. So, do you propose that we should delete all articles about webcomics that gather an audience of less than 20,000 readers per day (Starslip crisis gets around 10,000)? This would leave probably some thirty or fewer comics, plus maybe another dozen that would be included because of their historical significance. I do agree with the guidelines stating that every fact should be sourced and referenced correctly. I do agree that the article about Starslip Crisis fails these guidelines. But I don't agree that we should delete articles based on unverifiable claims of non-notability, when there's reasonable argument for the notability. (In fact, if we base our perception of notability on the size of readership, I think the bar should be somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 daily readers, and less if there are other reasons to believe the comic is culturally significant.) Of course, if sources are requested and the article does not improve in a reasonable timeframe, then it should be deleted. --Tappel 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of readers does not determine very much. From where are you getting these numbers, anyway? —xyzzy_n 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the number of readers for SC from [27]. I believe, based on those numbers, that there are real, notable references for this comic, we haven't just looked hard enough. --Tappel 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 66.27.212.63 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This comic has numerous references and unlike many webcomic articles has enough information to not be a stub. Rwald 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenville Mall

This mall has failed all cateogries of WP:MALL, especially criterion #2 which states If an individual mall can be clearly shown to have significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area, as supported by multiple credible and reliable secondary source materials, and especially (but not exclusively) if such impact approaches a national level, the mall is considered notable Адам12901 ^Talk 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest it is significant. Despite WP:MALL not being a guideline yet, it doesn't meet it. 396 Ghits, [28], 2nd result is Wikitravel, most are shop addresses. 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing in the article to suggest it meets WP:MALL. Inkpaduta 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but not WP:MALL which is still only a proposed guideline. The article provides little or no content beyond what might be included in a directory entry. -- Black Falcon 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, only 5 dozen results from google. Was kinda expecting more than that. Looked through them all and could find nothing useful. In light of no other information I'm supporting deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. I might be persuaded to change my mind if some were cited before the close of this discussion. (jarbarf) 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gomes Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school AlphaShroom 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Resolute 06:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after rewrite. Resolute 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable - and this one makes no assertion of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge There is no separate guideline regarding school notability with any real consensus. WP:N is the applicable guideline for this article, which says, "One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject..." Furthermore, although schools may not be "inherently notable" by your personal defintion (if you mean "extraordinary," "celbrated," or "world-famous"), they are almost always notable per WP:N. Every public school in the U.S. is inevitably the subject of multiple, non-trivial, publications, including state reports on their demographics and performance and press reports on their development, construction, bond elections, school board elections, and controversies over curriculum, busing, closure, redistricting, and endless other issues of significant interest to their locality, regions and state. I suggest that if the result here is other than "Keep," that the verifiable information be merged into Fremont Unified School District rather than being deleted and that this article be turned into a redirect. I suspect that a separate article will be created again, eventually a "good article," since there is plenty of documentation about all of the Fremont schools that I've looked at.--Hjal 19:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and will someone please look at the articles at Category:Elementary schools in Florida? It's one thing to do high schools if they are at least factual, yet another for elementary and so on... Chris 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have fixed up this article and mentioned details about its notability. Hopefully this will settle the issue. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to share a part of the wikipedia policy that can be found here:

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

I believe the article conforms to all four of these premises, and thus, should be rightfully included. Additionally, I want to share one more excerpt from this article:

There is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

Hopefully you take this into consideration before making a decision upon this article. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this does not mean that they are inherently non-notable. -- Black Falcon 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has now been asserted, so I'm happy to change my vote. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability asserted in the current version thanks to User:Sukh17. -- Black Falcon 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not find any compelling assertion of notability. So far the article simply says that its a pretty good school. That's good, but it certainly isn't notable. Sorry. WMMartin 20:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that notability has been asserted. In cases where notability is not clearly established we should be redirecting these elementary school pages to a parent article rather than rehashing this debate five times a day. (jarbarf) 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm still not impressed by its achievements compared to other elementary schools. A wise man once said, "Beware of getting caught up in the rat race, because even if you win, you're still a rat." YechielMan 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article on the program, probably 4000 or more schools nationwide have received the "Blue Ribbon Award" - I don't find that convincing by itself. --Brianyoumans 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is poor logic, by that rationale we should delete all Emmy award winners, because hundreds or thousands of people probably have received them. (jarbarf) 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The accomplishments of an Emmy Award winner are often seen by millions of people. There are also regional Emmy Awards, and those are less notable because the works have had less distribution. While an excellent school is certainly a good thing, it affects only its students, unless it is used as a model by others.--Brianyoumans 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just wanted to share one more piece of information that I have found and added to the school's page. Gomes Elementary is tied for 5th in the state in terms of performance with a recently released API Growth score of 989. This is not the first time that Gomes has been included within the top 50 or even top 10 of all schools. I am still compiling research, and I will finalize this edit later on, but meanwhile you can check out the reference that I have provided for that fact. Hopefully this will clarify the status of this article, and consensus can be reached on its apparent and evidenced notability. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 3:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the notability is established (with the rewrite). --Vsion 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:47, 15 February 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 per consensus below. Almost any adminstrator will restore content to user-space upon request in order to write a proper article. - brenneman 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPextreme Inc.

Spam. Only contribution from this user. Chris 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. --MaNeMeBasat 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to be a factual article about a company that's becoming relevant in the semiconductor industry. I believe it meets the notability and reference criteria. As for only contribution - you have to start somewhere. Trent.Tpoltron 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as spam for nn-company and conflict of interest. [User:Tpoltron]] is listed in company website as Director of Marketing. [29]. Montco 04:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like spam, and no evidence to support notability under WP:CORP. CiaranG 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Based on a couple of the better additional sources supplied below, the company seems notable to me. I don't like the conflict of interest, but I don't feel that alone is a reason for deletion. The article as it stands is still unencylopedic though, and needs a rewrite by someone without the COI. CiaranG 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TpoltronYes, I'm a marketing guy at IPextreme and was trying to create an unbiased entry on our company (and admittedly it can be hard not to drink your own Coolaid). I use Wikipedia almost daily and appreciate your efforts to keep it unbiased but IPextreme engineers have published papers on technologies such as Bluetooth: http://pd.pennnet.com/display_article/279061/21/ARTCL/none/none/Bluetooth_stereo_realized/ and FlexRay: http://www.automotivedesignline.com/howto/193501262 . The company is significant because we are the exclusive worldwide source to license such notable technologies as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldfire . IPextreme seems every bit as significant as many other companies with Wikipedia entries, can someone just verify and edit the entry as appropriate? thanx, trentTpoltron

Tpoltron 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I also posted this on the AfD note by the entry page in response to a request for published references written by others. I referenced these two articles that appeared in industry publications in my original submission: http://www.edn.com/article/CA6287336.html http://www.edn.com/article/CA6393624.html?partner=eb&nid=2961&rid=1057301298[reply]

Here are some others: New Electronics Magazine covering a speech from Senior Gartner Analyst that talks about the importance of large semiconductor making their technology available, through IPextreme: http://www.ip-extreme.com/downloads/NewElectronics_090107.pdf

From the UK equivalent of IEEE: http://www.ip-extreme.com/downloads/ESSAugSep06.pdf

From EE Times in the USA: http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193600746

An article about how we are shaking up the industry from France: http://silicon.fr/fr/silicon/news/2006/12/10/ip-soc-2006-l-industrie-semi

From Japan: http://www.ip-extreme.com/downloads/nikkeiBP_Article20061023.pdf

The articles from our engineers ran in technical industry trade magazines and jounrals.

I can supply more, or more in certain areas. Regards, Trent Tpoltron 23:34, 12 February 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) 2007-02-16 02:17Z

Richie mansion

Non-notable podcast host. Google returns 181 hits, most of which are the subject's Myspace page and information about an actual mansion (as in, a big house) unrelated to the subject of this article. The article claims notability, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the information turns out to be incorrect, or an elaborate hoax to promote the podcast. Jhinman 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! This is legit. Richie is a classic, and a part of countless of childhoods all across the midwest. I would appreciate it if you would stop doubting the legitimacy of peoples existences, based solely on your west coast arrogance, and the lack of real web develloping interest or skill in the more rural areas of America's midwest. Please remove this deletion tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.237.151.2 (talk)

Delete unless suitably sourced to satisy WP:BIO during the course of this AfD. CiaranG 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails established notability and source integrity guidelines. NetOracle 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Mancow's Morning Madhouse. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:20Z

Freak (Wally Kozielski)

The person has no Notability ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 07:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mancow's Morning Madhouse AlphaShroom 07:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --MaNeMeBasat 12:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mancow's_Morning_Madhouse. His sole notability seems to come from being a secondary to the show. Media mentions are similarly secondary and passing mentions. Vassyana 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as is Kozielski has been on a nationally syndicated morning show and is known through the rock and roll community across the country. Unless you can merge the article with Mancow's Morning Madhouse with the article intact, than I see no justification to remove the article from the site and delete the information compiled therein. This goes not only for this article on Kozielski, but on, Renzetti, Ripoli, DeLorenzo, Blanco and all the rest of the articles from the Mancow show composed on Wikipedia. Other similar shows have the major sidekicks having their own articles so therefore Mancow's show and his sidekicks should be no different. Maddawg1967 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bosley

Hoax. Doesn't appear to be in the Guinness Book of records, nor nominated for the nobel prize. And written by himself. Chris 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 52 in a row doesn't really seem like much. Don't know if it's real though. --⁪froth^T 08:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm inclined to believe this is a hoax. This article - 1- agrees with the nominator in claiming that no such category exists as a record. Furthermore, as also noted, 52 in a row is not a great accomplishment. Professional basketball players, under the heat of competition, have routinely score 20+ in a single game. I'm also inclined to believe his Nobel Peace Prize nomination is a hoax, though it's impossible to confirm it, due to privacy concerns on the part of the Nobel foundation. --Haemo 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, nor references nor could i find any to establish any claim as fact Alf photoman 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a hoax. Based on this line, "he is 31 shots ahead of the second place holder Richard Hurts who stands at 21". Yeah rite, second place is only 21? Pull the other one. Mathmo ^Talk 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as a non notable hoax. (jarbarf) 17:29, 12 February 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 snow/speedy delete G1/A7; take your pick. - Daniel.Bryant 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scaj

Contested speedy delete. This is probably the work of a vandal, and a clear violation of WP:NEO.

Also nominating Scabby (currently tagged for speedy delete) from the same author Caknuck 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Should have been speedied anyway. --Chris 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense. Tagged as such. Speedy is not WP:PROD; the author isn't supposed to remove the tag, and you can put it back if they do. Dave6 talk 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Author tried to assert notability on the discussion page, which is why I brought it here. I figured it'd be a quick consensus. Caknuck 08:53, 10 February 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. ~ Arjun 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of poker terms

"Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide". Lists of words or dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this word list of topic-related terminology is now transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Poker terminology and is ready to be deleted.
Please see precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs, etc. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been dealt with before. The article is not a slang guide. It covers in a topical way numerous subjects that are referenced throughout the encyclopedia. If this article was deleted dozens of stubs would have to be created otherwise many dozens of articles would make no sense. Please withdraw the nomination. The prior discussion was an overwhelming keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_jargon 2005 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a misconception often repeated by those who never took the time to get to know Wiktionary. Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia; I did it above. If this article was deleted, all you would have to do is link to the exact same entry at Wiktionary. In addition, ease-of-use arguments don't argue for something being encyclopedic anyway. Wouldn't it be easier if how-tos, source material, galleries of images, and lists of quotes were articles here? Does that make them encyclopedic? Please offer a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic and not a dictionary definition list. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's self-evident. Did you even read it? It does not appear so. Some of the entries are definition sorts of things, but others are stubs explaining a practice or usage, not definitions. As for "Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia" then lets not needlessly create work for people for absolutely zero benefit. There is no rationale for messing with a very useful and sensible article, and certainly none for why dozens of stubs should be created. 2005 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This doesn't make sense; you just replied by repeating the same fallacious arguments. 1) If linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia, which it is, then what needless work are you talking about? It's easy. 2) What do you mean by saying that it's not just a list of definitions, but some explain usage? That's what dictionaries are for. Please note the first sentence of WP:WINAD: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." If it is only about the word usage, it is not encyclopedic. 3) I have no idea what dozens of articles you think would need to be created. As I noted, a link to Wiktionary would suffice. You're acting like the projects are existing at cross purposes here, when really they are intended to enhance each other. 4) Please actually provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic beyond it being self-evident, accusing me of not reading it, or saying it's useful. In fact, I think you would benefit from reading WP:USEFUL. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would like to point out the list is not only dictionary definitions, but also clarifies several smaller concepts that would not merit an article. It's not just about the word usage. I also have a question: How, exactly, are we going to have a link to Wictionary if the article is deleted? --UsaSatsui 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is already at Wiktionary. I linked it in the nomination; it's at Appendix:Poker terminology. There is absolutely no difference in difficulty in linking to the Wiktionary article. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But the article already at Wiktionary is months out of date, unindexed, and a virtual solid mass of redlinks. Also no one looking for anything from it will find it if they search here (which is the more likely scenario)--Invisifan 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said the first time you said that, what's your point? Wiktionary is a wiki too. It's "up to date" now. You could ave done that yourself instead of complaining here. I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether the article is encyclopedic or not; you're bringing up red herrings. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is that even if this list is better as an Appendix in Wiktionary than a list here moving it is not as simple as copying the article from here to there -- it would need to be completely overhauled to have the appropriate links point back here (a huge job in itself if done correctly since many should really point to Wiktionary entries which may not exist r be the exact spelling/capitalization), and worse everything in Wikipedia that "links here" needs to be fixed (a simple redirect won't work even if you could properly redirect transwiki since many of the references are to anchor which can't even work as a secondary redirect in the same wiki). So a massive amount of work needs to be done 'during the move, and you seem utterly uninterested in making that effort (personally I have no interest in poker per se, and better things to do). if/when the WT appendix is fully functional as well as up to date & all the relevant links to this article are pointing there. then I'd support deleting this article. --Invisifan 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those lists of terms that is needed. It's much like List of baseball jargon. Very complex activity that cannot be handled with just one article. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per previous comments and noting that in any event wrt wikt:Appendix:Poker terminology which is already seriously out of date & a mass of redlinks, it is certainly NOT ready to be deleted --Invisifan 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is a wiki that anyone can edit; I'm not sure what your point is. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. For the record, here's the old AFD. --UsaSatsui 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poker terminology is complex and impossible to explain inline to the main article --⁪froth^T 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:2005 and User:Invisifan -- Black Falcon 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT a dictionary. This is pretty clearly a list of word definitions. Not one person here has argued why this entry is encyclopedic and should be kept. Instead the argument seems to be "but we need to access the material." Well, you can access the material because it is already on wikitionary, and linking to this list of definitions takes all of one template, {{wiktionary}}. pschemp | talk 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Woohookitty^Woohoo! & ⁪froth^T. Mathmo ^Talk 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When in doubt, don't delete. Vidor 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep no valid reason to delete it. Poker terminology is a bit too complex for Wiktionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuyAMountain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as this a useful list, not a slang guide. This is one of the first articles that got me involved with Wikipedia, and I continue to refer back to it rather frequently. (jarbarf) 17:31, 12 February 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. To begin with, the article is unsourced, and even the linked-to articles mostly don't provide an immediate source for the dictionary definition, so WP:NOR alone mandates deletion regardless of consensus. Also, this is a textbook case of WP:WINAD, which is policy. Whether or not it's a slang or a technical dictionary is immaterial, as both are forbidden under WP:WINAD. The "keep" arguments generally amount to "but it is useful", which is a very weak argument, given that WP:NOT covers many types of content that are useful but are still not allowed on Wikipedia, and given that it can continue to be useful if links to it are replaced with links to the transwikied version. Sandstein 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms

"Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide". Lists of words or dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this word list of topic-related terminology is now transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms and is ready to be deleted.
Please see precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs, etc. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep These are not slang terms - most are technical names with precise meanings, some of which need to be disambiguated from their non-technical context. Many of the terms listed would indeed become stubs or dicdefs if separated out, but that is what makes a page such as this valuable. Many technical articles on aviation refer to multiple (up to a dozen) terms on this page, so for a reader needing to understand their meanings it is far less efficient to have to load multiple pages. What's more, it would seem that a large number of editors do not know how to link to Wikitonary (or never think of doing so) so the result would be a large number of redlinks. I would reconsider if Wikipedia had a mechanism for automatically checking if a redlink was defined in Wiktionary and altering the link if there was a match - or for using httpd-request to load short definitions of dicdef linkwords. dramatic 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- slang: "Language that is unique to a particular profession or subject; jargon." It is slang even according to your own explanation. You don't have to link to dozens of pages, just write {{wiktionary}}. Ease of use is not an argument that something is encyclopedic: storing all dictionary definitions and source material and quotations here might be easier, but that's missing the point. This discussion is to determine whether it's encyclopedic, and you haven't offered any rationales that address that point. Dmcdevit·t 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather drastic redefinition of slang, which none of my dictionaries agree with - the nearest they get is "the jargon of thieves and disreputable persons" (Chambers) which might describe some profesions :-) But seriously, isn't the explanation of pitch in this article much more relevant and simple for the user than [30]? If an encyclopedia is not easy to use, people will not use it. dramatic 11:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above; how is the explanation of pitch at List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms better than the one at Appendix:Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms? You'll note they're the exact same, which is the whole point. As for your complaint about pitch, I'm very sick of people that think Wikimedia means the English Wikipedia. Wiktionary is a wiki, sharing Wikimedia's goal for all projects of disseminating knowledge freely. It's insulting to Wiktionary editors that Wikipedians use places like this to demean their project and complain about problems (when you know very well Wikipedia is a work-in-progress too) instead of, say, taking the 20 seconds to copy and paste the definition to pitch. I know you know how to use the edit button. Still, no argument anywhere in this discussion as to why the page is encyclopedic besides saying "it's useful" (WP:USEFUL), and you're setting up a strawman by arguing against slang, when it is very clear the WP:WINAD policy states Wikpedia is not "jargon or usage guide." Dmcdevit·t 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very clearly dictionary definitions that are better suited for wiktionary. Since the information has already been copied over, there is no need for us to host it. It is simple to make this information accessible from wikipedia articles, laziness is not an excuse. WP:NOT a dictionary, period. pschemp | talk 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aviation, aerospace and aeronautical articles include highly technical jargon, not all of which can be explained in a simple dictionary definition. This article is of great use to a person learning about aviation, aerospace and aeronautical subjects. NetOracle 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean that it can't be explained in a "simple dictionary definition"? This exact article has been duplicated at Wiktionary in the Appendix namespace. You can expand it how you see fit; there is no limitation to a "simple" dictionary definition, if there is such a distinction. Please explain why this article is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful compilation of terms. Individual entries are dictionary definitions; the article is not. Fg2 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Fg2 said, the article has a whole isn't a straight dictionary definition. Mathmo ^Talk 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[* Aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms on Wiktionary. JackSparrow Ninja 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. We have a pretty extensive coverage of aviation-related topics in Wikipedia, and a number of the terms there are technical in nature. In those situations, a glossary is a very helpful supplement to the articles in order to explain jargon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you know that the exact policy wording is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." Dictionary definitions are only acceptable when explained in the context of encyclopedic prose; that's the whole point of WP:WINAD. It's useful fallacies don't actually address why it is encyclopedic (or why it is less useful on Wiktionary). Dmcdevit·t 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the reason why this is less useful in Wiktionary, I'll refer to the "What links here" link on the article, where you will find numerous redirects. People wondering what "Revenue Passenger Miles" may well look it up on Wikipedia, and as it is now, they will be redirected to a page which explains this to them. As far as I know, cross-project redirects don't work and we therefore lose some functionality by putting it in an other project. Hmm... actually I have taken a look at Wikipedia:Soft redirect and think that putting one of those useful things here will be much better than making this a redlink (which might leave our readers in the dark). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. This is just a list of dictionary definitions - it is not an encylopaedic article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:20, 16 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports carnival

Speedied once at Sports Carnival. A sports carnival is a carnival with sports. Here are some links promoting one. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, what's wrong with this page! apparently JzG is a bit rough with other contributors! don't agree! kdliss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdliss (talk • contribs)
Weak keep, or delete if not better sourced at the end of the AfD. Google News results and this link indicate this is not a carnival with sports, but actually a peculiar Australian type of event that we could justifiably have an article about. Sandstein 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Sandstein. If the article is just going to be about surfing, though, shouldn't the name be Surf Carnival? --UsaSatsui 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports carnivals can comprise both swimming and athletics. Uncle G 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should be expanded, then. The article itself (and all the sources) are about surfing. --UsaSatsui 18:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as you can see from this, a sports carnival is a specific type of event. Schools hold them, for example. What an Australian school would call a "sports carnival" a U.K. school would most likely call a "sports day". Uncle G 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I propose to everybody to expand the article rather than deleting it! This is in the sense of Wikipedia! Isn't it the way, that anybody contributes in the field of his knowledge? Kdliss 00:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Re to UsaSatsui, I would propose to have the general page Sports carnival with redirection from suf carnival, swim canival, athletics carnival or others rather than creating a page for each kind. Kdliss 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reasonable start although it might be worth merging with an article on sports days. Surf carnivals are different events with potential for an article of its own. When I was in the NSW public schools system, we had an annual sports carnival featuring athletics and a swimming competition as well called a swimming carnival. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Same here in WA. The athletics carnival was usually in winter, as well. Orderinchaos78 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, any kid who has suffered through a mandatory school sports carnival will want future generations warned. Lankiveil 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Part of every australian kids school life. This is wikipedia not usapedia DXRAW 09:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from the USA, I'm a pom. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relevant and notable article topic for Australians. --Canley 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable to those down under. Mathmo ^Talk 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just scrapes over the notability barrier. WMMartin 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real harm in it, doesn't violate any policies. On a more humorous note, and as someone who persistently came last in them despite best efforts, per Lankiveil. :) Orderinchaos78 08:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G and above, and sweep regularly for spam links. (jarbarf) 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the nominator might want to now withdraw their support for this AfD so this can be speedy closed by them? Surely it is very clear by now this article should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it needs some info on netball / football / rugby (both codes) knockout days, as well as athletics days, to really meet the title of Sports carnival. Otherwise move the content to Surf lifesaving carnival.Ga rr ie 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of weapons in video games

This is just Listcruft. I could stop tehre and that would be sufficient reason to delete but I would think it would be a good idea if we were to stop and think of every video/internet game and think of all thir weapons. How long will the article be? Longest Article on Wikipedia by far. J.J.Sagnella 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were to be completed I can't imagine how line it would have to be. If you want to find out about game weaponary check the individual articles; they can go into much better detail. Whilding87 09:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's going to be nigh impossible to compile a list of every weapon used in every game ever- do you count video games from ten years ago? Fifteen years ago? Will there be descriptions for each weapon, drawing out the potential length of this list to high heaven? Simply put, there are snowballs in hell that have a better chance of staying cold than this article has being maintainable. TheLetterM 09:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the worst kind of listcruft - it could go on forever. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list is just going to go on forever and I can't see any use for it. Hut 8.5 12:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 13:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Talk about your unmaintainable lists. --UsaSatsui 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A truly bad idea. Entirely unmaintainable. --- RockMFR 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft is the worst possible reason for deletion as it says little or nothing (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That said, delete as unmaintainable and not particularly informative in its current state (and possibly in any future state as well). -- Black Falcon 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unmaintainable listcruft at its worst. This is an indiscriminate collection of information, of little to no use at all. NetOracle 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the editor(s) merely started of this list the wrong way. Doesn't mean that conceptually the article couldn't exist. Mathmo ^Talk 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLetterM. -- Hawaiian717 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scannergate

Article was prodded on 4th Feb. I was not sure whether it should be deleted as there are some google hits from RS about the term "scannergate". An AfD debate would help decide whether the article merits a place on wikipedia and help source the article too. Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AfD is not a {{unsourced}} tag, but anyway, no sources (WP:V) and possible WP:BLP implications means it goes down the drain. Sandstein 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the last guy said. YechielMan 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the original prod, this article fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday 03:52, 15 February 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. The article and the character articles with it are inherently non-notable. Wikipedia is not the place for proposed tv series. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Cragi

This article appears to be about an unpublished and non notable fictional subject. Deranged bulbasaur 09:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Alexander Reim and ~~Twin souls~~ because they're closely related and suffer the same pathology. Deranged bulbasaur 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Twin souls is being considered separately. Is there any way to consolodate them? Deranged bulbasaur 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really confused. Seems they've *all* been speedy'd. Deranged bulbasaur 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supposed to remove the afd if this happens? Deranged bulbasaur 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just need to leave it alone and someone will speedy close the AfD, or you can close it yourself (normally, only admins can close AfDs with a few exceptions; I'm pretty sure a speedy deletion is one of those exceptions, unless I'm mistaken). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unpublished character --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already nominated Twin souls for deletion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin souls. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:05, 10 February 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 deletion before anybody even replied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeoChaosX (talk • contribs) 10:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The article was deleted by Woohookitty as nn and blanked by author. --ais523 10:36, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

Twin souls

Article about person's idea for a television show. Completely unsourced and unverifiable (WP:RS, WP:V). Also possibly in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that one character from this series, Manuel Cragi, is also up for deletion, and two others, Anne Nalli and Alexander Reim, are candidates for speedy deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:58, 10 February 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, redirect, salt If/when this becomes non-crystal ballery, ask at DRV to review it. - Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur IV

Speculative article with no real info (WP:CRYSTAL). Previously deleted following 2005 vfd, reposted because of debunked confirmation. Several gaming sites ran a rumor on June 20, 2006 that Namco confirmed the title, when, in fact, this was an unsubstantiated guess by a reporter[31]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. If that 'evidence' of another title in the series has turned out to be false, then there is nothing to say, and this counts as unsourced crystal ballism. J Milburn 11:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul series, with a mention there, and protect the redirect until this is no longer crystalballery. Sandstein 11:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, just as Sandstein. It's certainly worthy of some mention, and one or two will look for it, so leave it as a protected redir until its time comes. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a very sensible idea. Mathmo ^Talk 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (jarbarf) 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toast Nightclub

Fails WP:NOT a nightclub listing, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LOCAL. No apparent real notability and unencyclopedic tone in general. Elar a girl^Talk|Count 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also per WP:N; only one independent source is cited and its link is dead. Sandstein 11:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- little assertion of notability, reads like spamvertising. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite finding the last sentence of the article hilarious; fails WP:NOT and WP:LOCAL, until and unless reliable sources are provided to assert notability. riana_dzasta 12:33, 10 February 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. Non-notable company barely 2 weeks old. yandman 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YoYo Games

Crystal ball article about recently founded company with no accomplishments yet. Non-notable. StubCynic 10:31, 10 February 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto J. M. Smith

Tagged for speedy deletion, however there are a few assertions of (vague) notability in this article. Definitely needs to be wikified, but I'm undecided as to whether the guy's notable enough. Abstain yandman 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:PROF with over 40 years as tenured professor at major university, numerous publications, research awards, patents, textbook. Inkpaduta 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no problem with WP:PROF nor with WP:BIO, written so it conforms WP:V why was it nominated as speedy? Alf photoman 19:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy nominated by a first day user, whose other contributions were uploading about 10 questionable graphics many to do with K-12 schools. Pranks? --Kevin Murray 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although as the page creator I may be biased, see disclaimer on page discussion, I believe it meets all the criteria for a wikipedia article. If not please let me know where and if my interpretation is wrong --Ottojas 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to prank speedy nomination of a reasonable article, but could use referencing though --Kevin Murray 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - definitely passess WP:BIO with so many publications, recognitions (Senior Research Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, Leaders of the Pack, and ... 4 patents?!? As for the "speedy" part, I believe the following quote from WP:SK is applicable: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it". -- Black Falcon 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep I am quite relieved to know that it wasn't a regular user who did the speedy. I would just have removed the tag, but there's nothing wrong sending it here if it doubt. DGG 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly should not have been marked for "speedy deletion" and thankfully no administrator acted on that. (jarbarf) 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Express Yourself (N.W.A. song)

75.28.7.87 blanked the page suggesting it be deleted. I unblanked the page, but agree that the page has little context and content, and should be considered for deletion. – RossJ81 | Talk 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability for this cover, no real content, no sources. Shimeru 10:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current version, which is garbage. There is a case for notability to be made for this song title, but not for the content we have now. (jarbarf) 19:36, 14 February 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) 2007-02-16 01:15Z

Mistress Matisse

I assume being a columnist passes as an assertion of notablility, so it's not quite a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. However, WP:BIO requires that "the person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and no such sources are cited in the article. Sandstein 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm digging cites at the moment. Here's one, she cohosted a column with Dan Savage.[32] That may satisfy WP:BIO. I'll keep looking. — coelacan talk — 12:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also published in the SandMUtopian Guardian Magazine at least once.[33] — coelacan talk — 12:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep?~~ Keep Search engine test (her name, quoted, Google) yields over one hundred thousand hits, while many are simply blog links, there are some interviews in there (e.g., Rope Weekly podcast 17 Feb 2006 [34], another podcast interview at Odeo about the Folsom Street Faire [35]), and I'm inclined to believe that there must be sufficient verifiable information there on that basis alone.--Joe Decker 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts or blogs are not WP:RS. If you find any, could you add them to the article? Sandstein 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I find anything solid, I'll definitely add it myself, moreover, I know a few folks in the BDSM community in general who may or may not have a better idea of where to look for appropriate sources than I do. --Joe Decker 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually podcasts may be used for notability. See WP:WEB#_ref-6. It depends on whose podcast it is. I think the blowfish podcast, over on odeo, is notable. I'm not strong on the other. — coelacan talk — 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added reference to a chapter about her and/or her bloggings from the book "The Mammoth Book of Sex Diaries: Online Confessions and Call-Girl Adventures--The Best of the Sex Blogs" to the article in question. --Joe Decker 01:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The collaboration with Savage, the blowfish thing, and especiallly the book, are enough to demonstrate notability. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shayna hetzel

Appears to be non notable, almost certainly a vanity due to the fact it was written as the only contribution of its editor. J Milburn 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten and sourced at the end of the AfD. A terrible vanity article, with only one independent reliable source cited. Sandstein 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. She did come runner up in the pageant but there is nothing where she is the primary subject, and nothing but mentions of her on the pageant webpage. James086 ^Talk 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Montco 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YechielMan 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While her position as President of UWisc and runner-up to Miss Madison check out, the 54 unique Ghits don't give any indication of the subject passing any criteria in WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If she had won the Miss America pageant then that would be a different story. (jarbarf) 19:41, 14 February 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 Dante Alighieri; see deletion log and the closing comments at the bottom of this debate. - Daniel.Bryant 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level cosmology

Sounds like borderline nonsense, and is a non-notable alternate theory with no significant uptake. Link makes my eyes bleed. More articles to be added to this Afd shortly. Deranged bulbasaur 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added One-level universe. It seems Multi-level universe is being added elsewhere. Deranged bulbasaur 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level universe has joined our tea party. Deranged bulbasaur 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reproducing the nominator's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level universe below. Sandstein 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be original research. The only source given is a personal webpage. Also, it's basically nonsense. Mycroft7 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. WP:NOR covers this, I think. Sandstein 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, clearly original research. This was actually a declined Article for Creation, so the author should have known better. (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-02-03#Multi-Level Universe theory) Some of this is probably Scientology copyvio, compare MEST (Scientology) (not the content of that article but the subject... "MEST" is very probably a Scientology trademark or something, since they abuse copyright law so gleefully). — coelacan talk — 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I loved the theory :) , but Wikipedia is not the place for such original research. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mark Hucko is actually a linguist, not a cosmologist. If this is what he personally believes then that's for him, but there's nothing about it on google. nn. Totnesmartin 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page:

Notice to the wikipedia inquisitors: "Yes delete this article. The Earth is Flat! The Universe is Flat! Everybody knows that the universe is Flat and one-level! Burn Mark Hucko at stake!" What are you afraid of? That the universe is not flat and one-level? No it isn't. Let it stay, let anybody SCIENTIFICALLY prove that it is not correct. Give Columbus a chance!

pasted here by Totnesmartin 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the main article (something to consider?):

MODERN-DAY INQUISITION

As it was not possible for the people in the middle ages to imagine that the earth is not flat, it is just as impossible for the modern day inquisitors in the cosmology to accept the idea that [crazy]. It is just these limited minds of the inquisitors which have been suppressing the multi-level cosmological model and who have been erasing it from the search engines and from the Wikipedia. Just because the earth is flat - in their minds - it must be flat also in the minds of the rest of the world.

pasted by Mycroft7 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number of valid ideas that have been ignored by the mainstream since 1500 A.D.: 37. Number of invalid, foolish, or crackpot ideas that have been ignored by the mainstream since 1500 A.D.: 3,213,756. One would think that someone who dabbles in cosmology understands the basics of hypothesis testing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seriously now, the point is that we are deleting this article because it's not a notable theory, and not because we believe it's wrong. If this theory in the future gets a lot of media or academic attention (either by being correct or for being notably wrong), we would have an article about it. But not now. --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We request authors to place a copyright release notice on their website. In this case the author has placed the deletion request - at the bottom of this page. -- RHaworth 13:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleted as per author request and community consensus. Also deleted the other associated articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:54, 14 February 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 procedural close, same content also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology, please discuss there. AfD tag redirected. Sandstein 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level universe

This appears to be original research. The only source given is a personal webpage. Also, it's basically nonsense. Mycroft7 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B p taylor

Something rather strange is going on with this one. The article starts out and ends about B p taylor, who fails WP:BIO, but contains large chunks of info from the Hugh Jackman article. Very strange. Either way, Article creator appears to have made an honest mistake with the Hugh Jackman business, but the remaining issues still stand. B p taylor fails WP:BIO, no assertions of notability, no verifiable information provided (the "masterpiece" entitled "god and the milenium" gets no hits, nor does "god and the millenium". riana_dzasta 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and should be so tagged. This is a vandalism/hoax page about a non-existent person, using large chunks of text moved from the article on Hugh Jackman.--Anthony.bradbury 12:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - I'll wait for one more opinion though, just in case! riana_dzasta 12:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author has modified the article, and I would accept that this person exists. But is not notable. Works quoted are not verifiable--Anthony.bradbury 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. Targetted Google search finds zero results [36] (I also checked under the misspelled name of the "masterpiece" as well, which incidentally also doesn't exist)--Fuhghettaboutit 13:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete Given changes by editor, the inclusion of vast amounts of text from the Hugh Jackman may have simply been a mistake. Nevertheless, it stands that the the work the subject is claimed to have appeared in, God and the Milenium (Millenium) Crisis cannot be verified. The novel The Tower is not found through worldcat [37] and the publisher listed in the article is pretty clearly a vanity press [38]. Finally, the only Google results for Summa Cabaret, claimed to be established by the subject, are to the Wikipedia article [39] posted by this same editor [40]. Appears to be nothing here meeting WP:BIO and likely a conflict of interest exists.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Ragib. Aksi_great (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visala Gupta

Delete - Contested prod. Has been speedied before, but author still contests deletion. Article has no sources and subject does not have any claim to notability other than spending his life helping poor people. Aksi_great (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Verkhovensky 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, vanity page, nothing more. And salt it this time so it can't be brought back from the mercifully dead. Chris 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visala Gupta is a notable person in India. If you want me to improve the article, Please let me know so that I can modify accordingly. Please give your suggestions. 69.115.144.148 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Kalyan[reply]

The part that is not notable generally is his family life and personal virtues. The part that might be is his civic contributions. But to establish them for a WP article they need documentation. If he is known to royalty, then there should really be at least one or two articles about him in national newspapers or magazines. If they should happen not to be in English,it helps to provide translations of the key lines. Its the documentation that does it. But it has to document something more specific than "good relationships"--being friends to any number of people is not enough, he has to have done some notable work himself. DGG 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under criterion A7. Alphachimp deleted with deletion summary "Deleting page per CSD A7: Article about a non-notable person.". James086 ^Talk 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tramp

Non-notable person. Apparently a "suspicious fellow" who hangs around a shopping center. Speedy tag removed so I bring it here. IrishGuy ^talk 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Very notable person. I see them all the timeGypsy Eyes 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing someone doesn't make that person notable. IrishGuy ^talk 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why there would be a problem here. But anyone who has spent any time in Cambridge city centre will have seen (and certainly heard!) Radio Tramp. I've got to go to bed now, but I shall continue this discussion in the morning if you like. Gypsy Eyes 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under original research. This is not a verifiably notable person. IrishGuy ^talk 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not already SD'd - Speedy tag was back up when I looked). Clearly fails WP:BIO. Bencherlite 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. I think this page should be kept as it details a regular phenomenon and experience of Cambridge shoppers and residents, giving others insight into colloquialisms that would otherwise have them confused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.173.209 (talk • contribs).
Delete unless sourced. I can imagine that this tramp might, just possibly, have a couple of articles about him in local papers, making him notable. I want to see the sources, though. --N Shar 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable sources treating the subject in a non-trivial manner are provided. Certainly nothing can be found through Google via web [41], news [42] or books [43].--Fuhghettaboutit 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, utterly ridiculous. Natalie 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged as such. This is the very definition of a speedy for non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added _SUBWAYguy 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete per nomination.Julia 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ha ha, does he live in a Radio Shack? Sorry, very non-notable. --Canley 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being well-known does not make this person notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers from Puerto Rico

Redundant with and better handled by the containing category "Puerto Rican Rappers" Joe Decker 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Lists are not inherently redundant with categories, since it is possible to source a list. However, this list is entirely unsourced. Nick Graves 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better handled by category (per nom) given that there are only 15 or so entries on the list. Given the existence of the category, the list is not particularly informative and does not help navigation. Black Falcon 19:53, 10 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stowe middle school

A non-notable middle school. Fails WP:V. Pretty major style problems and WP:COI issues (references to "our students" that I would fix if I saw any sources to base this article on. Delete Aagtbdfoua 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, contested prod with the claim that this is better than 90-95% of other school articles. WP:INN aside, if true, I find this rather depressing. - Aagtbdfoua 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable school. The article is much of a muchness with other nn school articles actually. (It's not notable so there's only so much you can say!). In any event a well written article does not make a non notable subject notable. Jules1975 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am guessing students created this article as a school project, and was obviously written by someone assiciated with the school. Non Notable as well. --Hojimachong^talk _con 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this could be expanded into a Stowe High School or Stowe Combined School article, but delete if not, middle school articles are loathsome vanities. Chris 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the editors at WP:SCH, User:JimDunning, is taking a look at the article. As this falls under our project, I kindly request that the page not be deleted just yet. It's likely this page will need to be moved to an article on the Stowe School District or expanded as suggested. Although it may still be a long shot, please give us a chance to take a look at this. --Jh12 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I particularly commend Jules1975's last comment. WMMartin 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jh12 otherwise redirect to the Stowe School District or appropriate parent article. (jarbarf) 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and in comparison to precedents, it is far more developed. I think some templates regarding style, etc. could be added to the page based on the issues that are being addressed. Nevertheless I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy. Sorry, I'm not in the mood to write "delete" - oops, I just did. YechielMan 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demolish Er, I mean, "delete". I don't see any special reason to keep this one. --Brianyoumans 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Do not Keep. There is nothing in the article that even attempts to establish notability or meet WP:SCHOOLS. This is not a place to request time to fix articles that don't establish notability. If and when that can be done, the article can be recreated and no one will object. 01:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon, but WP:SCHOOLS has never been adopted as a Wikipedia policy. --Jh12 06:13, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morionor

Deleted once under WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources, special live show on a campus radio station seems to be about the measure of it. Article is written in heavily promotional tone. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you deem "multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources"? Is MetalReview a trivial website now? Is Lords of Metal, trivial as well? According to you no doubt, but to people who actually enjoy listening to metal they are among the most important sources for news within the genre. True the article is written in a promotional tone, I can tell you why. I put up a much smaller more-to-the-point page for this band a few days ago and it got instantly deleted before I had a chance to even notice, the reasons given were that the band did not have any "notable" features. I was given a list of "criteria for musicians and ensembles" to be deemed notable, among this was releasing two "non-trivial" albums, and playing with nationally acclaimed bands. Therefore I put these in the article. Another criteria was being a "prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city." This band is the most prominent example of technical melo-black metal in Atlanta (again I wouldn't expect you to know this, unlike myself who happens to live in Atlanta). They are published through Deathgasm Records and sold through several national independent distros (such as Red Stream Inc.) as well as at least one international distro, VVPO (Japan).

I'll readily agree they are no where near "big" or "important" compared to whatever type of music you listen to, but in a genre that is already underground their following is considerable. Mostly why this makes me mad is that I see many articles with much less importance and notability than this band up on Wikipedia, here is an example: Sad_Legend. If you are suggesting it for deletion becuase of the content itself then I will be more than happy to correct it and take out the fluff as long as some other gun-ho Wiki-editor doesn't come along the next day and delete it becuase I failed to spell out why some people feel this band is notable. Hyperion395 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Hyperion395 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Hyperion395 is the creator of this article.

That's seven hours after it was re-created. Maybe you don't know how many articles on bands get created in an average day; it's a perennial pain keeping a lid on them. A large number get speedily deleted, a smaller number are tagged for deletion through other processes, a few are good and valid. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand what you are saying, I'm sure lots of terrible "high school" band profiles are created all the time just becuase the people in them feel that it's cool to have a Wikipedia article. If you check out this band's myspace page you'll see that they are hardly unnoticed. Hyperion395 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning toward keep -- As I see it, you've given two reasons for deletion. The second is a "promotional tone", which is (unless irredeemable spam) more appropriately handled through {{inappropriate tone}}. The first is that the band fails WP:Notability (music). However, they have released 2 albums and are mentioned in 5 cited sources (of which at least 1, the "lords of metal" site, is non-trivial). From User:Hyperion's comment above, this article and its first (deleted) version are not identical in content (at least this one didn't qualify for speedy deletion). You nominated the article for AfD just 7 hours after it was created. Why not tag it for improvement instead, notify the creator, and give the article a chance (a few days at least) to develop/improve? -- Black Falcon 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. There are no reliable sources, those provided consist of 'fan' reviews and reviews after the band submitted their work. THe sources also confirm the two albums are self-financed. Nuttah68 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the band financing their recordings a reason for deletion? Lots of bands in obscrue genres have to do this either becuase they can't find a big enough label or the label does not give them funds to pay for recording. Your claim that the sources are 'fan' reviews is completely incorrect and I fail to see the relevance. MetalReview.com is a hugely popular website that reviews thousands of metal albums, Lords of Metal is another popular website based in the Netherlands, "Da Lynx Org" is a popular Italian printed 'zine, the Metal Archives is a fan submitted review site so you were right on one case. Hyperion395 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band self financing the albums is important because one of the criteria of establishing notability per WP:MUSIC (which you should read) is 'Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).' From WP:MUSIC is also a link explaining what reliable sources are. Nuttah68 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Metal Archives entry was submitted by a user called ShadowMan, and if you click on his profile it clearly states he's a member of the band. Fails WP:BAND. One Night In Hackney 12:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that someone in the band originally creating the Metal Archives entry, over two years ago, have to do with the validity of this band at all? Honestly it seems like you guys hardly even think about what you're saying before you say it. First off, the reviews on the Metal Archives page were not submited by anyone in the band, and the band profile has been updated many times since it was submitted, again by people not in the band. The last time it was updated was the day before yesterday (by someone in Belgium no less), how does this suggest they merit deletion? Hyperion395 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows there are no reliable third party sources, meaning it fails WP:V. The band's website and Myspace aren't third party sources, the Metal Archives entry can be edited by anyone (as you pointed out) and the other external links are just album or demo reviews, not sources. One Night In Hackney 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the promotional tone and the extra fluff out of this article. If anyone is actually interested in honestly judging this band just search their name on Google and look through the 3,000 results. Rofl, I see the Sad Legend page no longer exists... that was fast.

I was reading the melodic black metal a week ago, saw a band I like (Morionor) listed as an example of the genre, clicked on the link and saw they had no page. Upon reading that I could "help Wikipedia by creating an article", I did so and consequently encurred all this drama. What gives? Maybe think about changing the default message. Hyperion395 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current (band)

Article does not assert any kind of notability, and only external link serves to promote former band member's record label which is now defunct. Going by the article and what else I could find on the internet, the band seems to be "just another band" without any notable characteristics for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Dane ^~nya 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources. Nick Graves 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-band}} - no assertion of notability per CSD A7. Walton monarchist89 16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind - the claim that they released "singles and an LP" is an assertion of notability, but there's still no evidence of external coverage per WP:BAND, nor does the article meet WP:V. Regular Delete therefore (not speedy). Walton monarchist89 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Muslims

Delete This article is a complete waste of time.

I think the first thing we have to ask ourselves is whether Wikipedia is merely an indescriminate collection of information. I have no idea how "true" this information is, especially given the dubious sources (getting to that in a bit), but frankly what purpose does this information serve? It informs us that there are latino-muslims.

And that's it.

Huzzah! They exist! Couldn't we simply say that in one line in the latino thread when discussing demographics? "there are also a growing number of latino-muslims." Why is this any more "separate-entry worthy" than say, latino-sikhs? What information is being presented to us that makes latin-muslims noteworthy? Do they have a noticeably different culture, something syncretic perhaps? Have they accomplished anything recently? Have they faced some form of persecution perhaps?

Clearly from the information in this article the answers are no, no, no and no - Which at first I thought might mean there is just a development issue with this thread. But then I looked up latino-muslims online and found only the following: articles acknowledging their existance and lots of articles by muslim missionary groups arguing "You can be a latino and a muslim too!" and that's pretty much it.

The article really is utilizing the most information available, it's simply not anything worth noting! At least in this level of detail.

But let's take a look at the details. The glorious cultural contributions of latino muslims are... LADO, a defunct islamic missionary group, and "Alianza Islámica" which actually IS worth noting because of its civil rights impact in america (or so the article claims)!

Unfortunately Alianza Islámica is completely original research with ZERO sources and furthermore it is plaguerized directly from "http://www.hispanicmuslims.com/articles/ranksincreasing.html" which is yet another islamic missionary organization directly targeting latinos.

And there's the rub, this is all religious advocacy... all of the information in here is from islamic missionary organizations, utilized to push their latino agenda forward.

This links to nothing but unsourced plageurized articles, and the latino navbar, the information could easily be reported (without advertising islamic missionary groups) simply by adding a line about a growing number of muslims to the relevant demographics section of the latino thread. Consequently this article is not worthy of a separate thread, breaks the soapbox rule, and we lose nothing by axing it. --Skyhawk4584 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub on an interesting topic. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I agree with the nom that the article mostly states the obvious, and provides too little info to merit a separate article. The Islamic missionary organisations may be notable (depending on their number of converts, coverage in external sources etc.) but no evidence is provided for this. Delete unless expanded by end of AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~. This article is linked from Template:Latinos in the United States, along with Hispanics and religion (currently a redlink), Christian Latinos, and Latino Jews. Christian Latinos and Latino Jews are currently not much better written than Latino Muslims. All of these are potentially worthy of being quality articles, but for now they would need a lot of work to get up to that standard. --Metropolitan90 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider a shame. However, see [44]. Upper estimates are 70,000-200,000 Hispanic Muslims. However, this is in the U.S. as far as I know. Middle Eastern sheikhs and clerics may have funnelled the oil money to build mosques.--Patchouli 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Metropolitan, if you will notice there are actual cultural contributions to the latino identity that are associated with the jewish latino and catholic latino articles. The most obvious example being the influence of the Catholic Church in the latino identity. What impact have muslim latinos had on the latino identity? Anything more noteworthy than sikh-latinos? Why not articles for these insignificant sub identities as well? They offer nothing to the main article describing the latino ethnicity, just like this muslim-latino article, yet they do not have their own individual pages. Also, how can one ignore the obvious influence of islamic missionary groups, they are directly quoted and even advertised in the thread. Who cares if there are "dawah organizations," that's not information worth reporting.

On what basis do you say there is potential for a quality article here? It's simply reporting the existance of a subdemongraphic that have made absolutely no impact on the latino identity. They are a part of the identity, shearly because they exist - in which case they belong as a single line descriptor in the main article.

- Patchouli, Your vote shouldn't be controlled by whether you "like" such developments or what is fueling them clearly there are latino muslims this fact is not disputed nor do I believe it should go away, but you should be asking if this worth a full page thread, whether this is merely advertising islamic proselytism (numerous citations of islamic "dawa" organizations suggests this is so), and whether the information here presented is more appropriately described in a simple line or two on the main page.--67.163.191.97 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of Latino Muslims is dependent on the term Latino. The term is often misunderstood to mean Latin American and thus exclude people from Spain. I can elaborate upon request. This article can easily be expanded to become a good article. Someone asked on this AfD: "What impact have muslim latinos had on the latino identity?" This question should be answered in the article. Latino Muslims have impacted Latino architecture in a profound way. Please see Alhambra and Mezquita. Moreover, Islam has had an impact on Latino culture. An example of this is the impact it has had on the Spanish language. For example, the word Ojalá is derived from Arabic. To quote the BBC, "The etymology is quite interesting as it comes from the Arabic law šá lláh, meaning 'If Allah wishes'." Please see [45]. It is also important to recognize the impact of Islam in Spain, after all "Islam is the second largest religion in Spain". Agha Nader 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Your answer directly contradicts the term "Latino" which as defined by the article and minority groups is: "Latino (and the form Latina for females), as used in American English, refers to a United States national of Latin American origin. [1] It is borrowed from Spanish latino, shortened from latinoamericano. [2]" That is verbatim from the article. If you don't like this term, take it up with the main article, this is not the place to introduce your reformulation of the word.

It is a US term for people from Latin America. Furthermore latino identity is not exclusive to any "home country" especially not Spain, for which the original term "hispanic" was thrown out because it was exclusive of south american countries that had no connection to Spain (ie Brazil, which was a portuguese colony).

Alhambra, the Mezquita et cetera are valuable pieces of Spanish culture, to which Islam has contributed. Naturally this extension through the colony homeland (Spain) played an impact on the latino identity; however, that is already communicated by the fact the latino article acknowledges Spanish culture has played a heavy role in the latino identity - links from the spanish culture designations describe Islamic influence.

Ergo there is no need to reiterate the obvious indirect impact, especially since it is "once removed." This thread is about "Latinos," which are a unique new-world specific syncretic culture in the Americas, incorporating Spanish, Portuguese, African, Carribean and native American culture to form this separate ethnicity. The question is, where have these muslim latinos (who as you and your articles acknowledge are new to Islam) made any contribution to the latino identity which is worth noting? We're not talking about inherited second hand influences from Old World Spain, but actual identifiable contributions of latino (per the definition)-muslims, here in the New World.

There are ZERO. This article demonstrates absolutely no reason for why this subset of people is worth identifying as a separate article when we can just as easily incorporate the useful sources (if there are any) into a one line demographic report "there are a growing number of latino muslims." Rather than creating this elaborate article dedicated to informing us of all the recent trends in Islamic missionary groups.

This is wikipedia, not wikidawah, religious groups need to backoff with the advertisement. --- Skyhawk 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am changing to a delete recommendation but not for the reasons cited by Skyhawk. The delete is based on the fact that of the four sentences of prose in this article, three are just statements of the obvious, devoid of content: "Latino Muslims are Latinos whose religion is Islam. Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims. Latino Muslims live in various cities within the United States." If the article is improved before the AfD period is up, I may change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article: "Latino Muslims are Latinos whose religion is Islam. Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." Hispanic people include Spaniards. Agha Nader 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Please look at this map

As you can see, Spaniards are, indeed, Hispanic. I can see why you would be confused. After researching the term Latino, I found out there are many misconceptions about the term. Thus, I propose adding a few sentences clarifying the term Latino. The article already states that Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims. Do you doubt that Spaniards are Hispanic? Agha Nader 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Latino is New World, Spanish is Old World, Moorish is Ancient World

Stop trying to pull Europeans into the picture, if you are European (as in Spanish), especially European 800 years before the New World was even discovered you are not latino. As the article clearly says the term "latino" is short for "latinoamericana," it is a new world designation, and an ethnicity according to the US census. If you come from Spain you are European, different ethnic designation - for good reason, as mentioned before Latino culture is unique to the New World, it is a new syncretic ethnicity, not an old world monolithic culture like Spanish culture. Hispanic and Spanish are mutually exclusive terms, to quote the wikipedia Hispanic entry "The term "Spanish" to denote a person from or of descent from a Latin American country is incorrect, as "Spanish" means a person who is from Spain."

We already have an article detailing the accomplishments of the people who build Al Hambra and the Cathedral of Cordoba, and you can see that article by typing "Moor" into the search button to your left. They existed about 1300 to 600 years ago, in Europe, and never saw the New World. The present article we are discussing is an irrelevant subset of people within the much larger and far more significant syncretic New World Latino ethnicity. The people this article discusses have accomplished nothing more than merely existing which is not worth reporting - certainly not worth reporting as a full separate article. Wikipedia is simply not a listing of everything that exists in the world.

You, everyone else and google have not produced any serious contribution to the Latino identity that latino-muslims have brought to the picture (and by serious contributions I do not mean "they set up organizations to proselytize Islam to muslims"). This article serves no other purpose than to further the agenda of "wikidawah." There is no information here, as metropolitan correctly noted out it says the same sentence four times - I suggest we just say it once, as a small insignificant rider to a demographics section "there are a growing number of latino muslims."

Nor will there be any information here, every time it is pointed out that this thread is pointless those whose pet issue this is come running along to save it from the clutches of deletion by whining about how they have mountains of information and there is great potential and they will personally see to it that the article is expanded. And each time everybody just goes along with in and one week later all we have added one more line reiterating that there are muslim latinos. I'm curious what it will be this time if the AFD fails "Muslim Latino as mentioned before are Latinos who are Muslims, however it could be said with equal accuracy that they are Muslims who are Latino." --- Skyhawk 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Khan,

Latino (and the form Latina for females), as used in American English, refers to a United States national of Latin American origin. It is borrowed from Spanish latino, shortened from latinoamericano.
The term "Latino" refers to any person having Latin American background and is often taken to be a synonym with "Hispanic". However, while official use of the term Hispanic has its origins in the Census Bureau in the 1970s, activist groups such as MEChA, Crusade for Justice, Brown Berets, Black Berets, and the Young Lords often preferred the term Latino because they felt it is more inclusive of the broad range of peoples in Latin America.
The term "Latino" is typically understood by some to mean immigrants from Hispanophone countries in North, Central and South America and their U.S.-born descendants. It refers specifically to persons of Latin American origin.
'People from Spain self-categorize as latinos in the Spanish language, but in that case it means "Latin," rather than 'Latin American or 'US citizen or resident of Latin American origin' (a 'Latin American American', in other words), as the Spanish are one of the Latin peoples of Europe.

-from the wikipedia entry Latino

Clearly for your argument to be valid the entire definition of Latino in wikipedia needs to be changed. You're arguing something that is not being discussed here, the definition of "latino" used in this article is the group of people in the latino entry - which is exclusively New World. The Moors were not latinos.

Latinos origins are in "Latin America" - a place that did not exist at the time of the Moors. Ergo it is impossible to call Moors "Latinos."

Look at this map, it's the relevant one:

Just answer the question, what cultural significance are "latino muslims," what makes them worthy of their own separate entry aside from latino sikhs, latino-scientologists or latino-over the top football fans? Nothing. Furthermore what is the relevance of noting the existence "Latino Dawah Organizations?" This is just furthering the "wikidawah project." --- Skyhawk 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedia, interesting.Baka man 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Skyhawk. Do not confuse the scope of the title of this article with that of the Islam in Spain. Baristarim 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." As you can see, Hispanics are included. And obviously Spaniards are Hispanic. There is further evidence of this. Please see [46]. This template is included in the article. The template clearly shows that Spanish Americans are Latino and are included in the template. Furthermore, Spaniards recognize themselves as Latino ("People from Spain self-categorize as Latinos in the Spanish language"). This is not to be confused with the term Latin American. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Please note: The name of the article is not Latin American Muslims, it is Latino Muslims. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

The map user Skyhawk (a new user whose only experience is this AfD), has provided is of Latin America, and is thus irrelevant to our discussion. In contrast, the Hispanic American map is the one of issue. This is because the article states "Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." In fact, the article never uses the term Latin American Muslim. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

"a new user whose only experience is this AfD" that's called an ad hom attack - it's a logical fallacy because it avoids the issue, something you've excelled at thusfar, and instead attacks the credibility of the person. The article doesn't say "latin american muslim" because it would be redundant, Latino = americans of latin american descent, not spaniards we have a fabulous word for people from spain "Spanish." You clearly have a problem with the wikipedia definition of latino, you said so in your first objection about how this is all just a small misunderstanding. Why don't you push your definition of latino in that thread? For the sake of consistency we must all accept the wikipedia definition of latino and debate the issue at hand - whether there is any point in identifying the existence of latino muslims.

Once again my question to you is what have latino muslims done of any consequence that requires a full dedicated thread?

User Bakasuprman, I agree it has an encyclopedic value - the question is this much? Is there any reason we can't include all the useful information in this thread (and advertising Muslim missionary groups is not "useful") in a one line acknowledgement that "there are a growing number of latino muslims" in a demographics section of the main latino article, describing the scope and bounds of the latino identity? As it stands the article says just that - four times. Several users have promised to upgrade the article every time its utility is challenged, and all have never followed up. There simply is nothing more to say than "they exist" and you don't need a full article for that.

I mean at least with the latinos and Christianity thread you can talk about the cultural significance of the Catholic Church in the latino identity, its impact on distinctly latin american cultural endeavors like santos in art, which synthesize native american idols and Catholic icon veneration - or any number of syncretic religions in Brazil that have popped up like condomble. That one makes obvious sense. And they are the achievements of Catholic latinos - not spanish latinos, or even more ludicrous moorish achievements, but rather the work of this distinctly new world group.

But latino muslims? What have they done that is worth noting other than forming a couple missionary orgs (LADO is defunct incidentally), and possibly formed an organization that had something to do with civil rights - except for the fact that tidbit of information is completely unsourced, the page it links to has zero sources at all and if you google it you find out it is plaguerized from the organization itself.

How many shades of shady would you say that is?

Supporters of this article have yet to show one iota of accomplishment or contribution to the latino identity, from latino-muslims and that is the crux of the issue - the difference between a one liner acknowledging they exist in the main article, or an entry with an indepth discussion on what their unique achievements are and why they are worth acknowledging. --- Skyhawk 03:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GASP I was wrong! This article does tell us something extremely valuable about the relevance of latino-muslims! They live in various cities in the United States!!

Delete - No sources. Just using advocacy sites as references isn't enough. Please find an article by a WP:RS on the community of Latino Muslims and we have an article. - Merzbow 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources in this article, and this is just some POV garbage article used for propaganda. Honestly, some people will create an article on anything no matter how un-notable a topic it is. This clearly isn't a notable topic. The majority of people don't even know of the existance of Latino muslims, and they still number less than a million.--Sefringle 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the precedent set by Christian Latinos and Latino Jews. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whats the point of such categorization? --CltFn 12:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Some good demographics and topic is good to have some information about it. --- ALM 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound redundant but nobody is suggesting the demographic information disappear - rather it will be added to the main article as a one or two line statement instead of a full entry as a separate article. There is nothing artical worthy here, it doesn't meet the wikipedia requirements for notability and the discussion on muslim missionary groups is clear advocacy. Take these things away and you are confronted with the reality there is nothing being reported here except a link to an unsourced (yet still plaguerized) article and the same sentence restated four times. As already mentioned this doesn't meet the notability requirements ergo there is nothing else that can be said in this article - it is simply a waste of space at this time.--- Skyhawk 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreia santos

Been a long time since I've done one of these... article definitely asserts notability, but I'm dubious. But it's hard to tell, because the name is apparently pretty common. What say you? DS 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by endd of this AfD Alf photoman 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, vanity. Chris 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks like vanity spam --Kevin Murray 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only part that might be notable is her business enterprises, if they are notable, but I cant tell from this article. DGG 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, although it could probably be argued that this is closer to keep per the sources given during the debate. - Daniel.Bryant 10:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student LifeNet (2nd nomination)

This article was nominated for deletion in December 2005, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." However, even as it stands 15 months later, the article does not really assert or show notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - probably notable due to being a large organisation, but external independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability - currently all external links are to their own sites. Walton monarchist89 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If only because articles regarding U.K. pro-life groups are underepresented in comparison to articles on U.S. pro-life groups (see Category:Pro-life organizations in the United States), and we want to avoid systematic bias. Needs improvement and clean-up. -Severa (!!!) 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that the article cites coverage by major British news sources, as a significant antagonist of the choice movement. NetOracle 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources are added to the article. At the moment this sounds like another non notable student organisation that happens to exist at a few university (11 according to the website, fewer than Flying Spaghetti Monster societies). Re 'avoid systematic bias', US pro life groups are far greater in their number, their vocal campaigning and their impact than UK ones, and from that are more notable. Nuttah68 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, massive long listing on this page of sources. Mathmo ^Talk 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing must be in the article, not external links. Anyway, how many of those are reliable sources about this group? Nuttah68 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These places are reliable sources in bucket loads:

Plus I'm sure there are many others, am not bothering now when it is so late at night to go through the rest of them. Anyway, the point is clear. They have been frequently interviewed for opinions to do with abortion related matters by UK papers. Mathmo ^Talk 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes the point is clear, giving interviews is not a notability criteria. They need to be the prime subject of the articles in reliable sources to establish notability WP:V, not a one line quote. Nuttah68 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what is said. Trival mentions however can be ignored, for instance their entry in a phone book is merely a trival mention. Mathmo ^Talk 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:CORP 'A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works.' Giving a comment does not qualify and as the article stands the is still no evidence of notability and itfalls down on WP:V. Nuttah68 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are emphasising the wrong parts. Because it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. The are non-trival and they are a subject of those articles. Thus it passes, with flying colours. Mathmo ^Talk 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This group was not the subject of those articles. The articles are about, the subject, abortion. For this organisation to be the subject the stories have to be about Student LifeNet. Nuttah68 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nuttah68. YechielMan 23:07, 12 February 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. - brenneman 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greymatter

No evidence of notability in the article. I've tried to find some but can't, hence offering it up for discussion here. CiaranG 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Lots of people used it about 5 years ago (it's obsolete now). But I'm pretty sure it fails WP:SOFTWARE. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page talks about a page that is not useful to the public now that it's main page is defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsox04 (talk • contribs)

Weak Delete. I am reluctant to vote delete because it is notable in a sense as one of the first widely used blogging tools. However, it is probably best deleted and addressed as a secondary mentiuon in another appropriate article. Vassyana 19:53, 15 February 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, either way. - Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich International Club

disputed speedy deletion for previously deleted page; NN-organization with no references > Please note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zurich International Club, clearly i vote speedy delete Cornell Rockey 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7 (no direct assertion of notability) and as recreation of previously deleted page. Alternatively Delete per WP:ORG due to lack of external references. Walton monarchist89 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, per User:Walton monarchist89. The creator of the article, User:Sunsetexpress, removed the 'db-bio' tag himself which is a no-no. He also recreated the article after the original AfD without going through a DRV, which is another no-no. A participant in the original AfD observed that in six months' time no references had been added. I'm not arguing for Speedy Delete because that might leave open more chances for yet another recreation. EdJohnston 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Harrison

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but no external independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by end of AfD. Walton monarchist89 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or significantly improve It's been around for 3~ weeks with no sourcing or improvement. I'd delete it till it becomes notable enough to get a good article. A google search didn't give me much information. Whilding87 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I sould see some notablility after 6 years on the air at a station that appears to be notable. But I'd want a bit more info first and not inspired to do the research for this. --Kevin Murray 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see it. Presenters on provincial radio are not notable, unless sources are available to substantiate it, and we're not talking about radio-station biographies or articles they have written. If she was at Capital Radio, that could be another matter. Ohconfucius 04:32, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ackerman

Notability definitely asserted, but not shown -- despite the article's being tagged as unreferenced eight months ago. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless sources are added to verify the article's claims. Walton monarchist89 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided. Also, the article has a disconcerting air of copyvio about its tone. Nuttah68 08:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DXtre3d

Reads like a spamvertisement and is non-notable Nardman1 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why this is to be deleted, I am showing the world about this topic, You have a topic for the "Official Tomb Raider Level Editor" then why not one for the "Unnoficial Level Editor"? If my Topic gets deleted, I will not be very happymizuno_suisei 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nn spam. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm not even going to bother googling this, as I have absolutely no doubt that it's never been published in "multiple reliable sources". And mizuno_suisei, please see WP:N. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I just reverted a Screenshot for Ponpoko that this user had replaced with a Tomb Raider screenshot a few days ago. I feel that he is merely a Wiki-vandal, and should in fact be banned by the admin. CBeilby (talk contribs) 06:40, 14 February 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 Redirected to TPC of Myrtle Beach, seems fine. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:23Z

Prince Creek

disputed speedy for unreferenced, non-notable 600-home private development. per WP:LOCAL merge, or delete Cornell Rockey 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Myrtle Beach. Walton monarchist89 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge Chris 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Myrtle Beach article does not need details of each and every commercial development either. Nuttah68 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could work as a redirect to Myrtle Beach, but the info itself doesn't need to be in the Myrtle Beach article. adavidw 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling Monkeys

Hoax. No references, and no Google hits. Has this not been deleted before? Also the Juggling monkeys redirect. Chris 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Nardman1 16:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Nuttah68 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete as it is a work in progress and is completely factual and does not have citations or "google hits" because it is a relatively new discovery. DrTempest 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable hoax if reliable citations cannot be provided in the next couple days. (jarbarf) 18:15, 12 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delorentos

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:BAND; only external links are to their own site and MySpace. No external reviews or coverage. Walton monarchist89 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two self-released EPs, no apparent third-party coverage. Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced 'the track reached number 14 in the charts.' along with touring claims are more than enough to meet WP:MUSIC if confirmed before the end of the debate. Nuttah68 09:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The creater of the article was User:Delorentos, so there's clearly a WP:COI issue. That being said, there does appear to be some independant coverage[47] [48]. If someone not associated with the band wanted to clean it up and source it, I could support keeping it.--Kubigula (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo G

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Monni 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of how this meets WP:MUSIC at all. Nuttah68 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Naomi Lynch. Only one single that doesn't appear to be notable. ShadowHalo 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one single, so evidence it has been a hit anywhere. Search for Buffalo G scores a blank in IRMA website. No evidence of passing WP:BIO or WP:MUS. Ohconfucius 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surely fails WP:MUSIC as the only source or external link supporting this article is a fan site. (jarbarf) 19:35, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Lynch

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; a link to her MySpace does not constitute adequate sourcing. No demonstration of coverage by external independent sources. Walton monarchist89 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what the last guy said. Nardman1 17:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credibles sources. Monni 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Strong merge redirect to Buffalo G Under the premise that it does no harm to keep. She is 1/2 of a marginally notable duo. The Buffalo G article is weakly sourced, but gets 19,000 g-hits so it appears that they were noticed. I think that there would be little confusion with the redirect, as the article is short and she is prominently mentioned. --Kevin Murray 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well.... I would support merging, but verifiability is still an issue. If people can come up with credible sources and add them, then it's OK for me. Monni 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC on all counts and beyond that the only other claim is other members of the family are famous. Nuttah68 09:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of hits anywhere. Search for Buffalo G scores a blank in IRMA website. No evidence of passing WP:BIO or WP:MUS. No sources. Ohconfucius 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And no redirecting :) - Daniel.Bryant 10:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Nazi

Saftey Nazi is an attack page. It is about who is, or is perceived to be, a "Safety Nazi"; and so is a forum for the denigration of said "Nazis" disguised as information about the epithet. At best, the subject merits an entry in wiktionary, for it is merely a definition with examples; the scope of the subject does not extend beyond this. All valid information would come under the scope of other articles, like Automobile safety. Rintrah 17:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rintrah 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you're pitching it as a personal attack speedy it, don't afd. But I think it's just a general dictionary-ish term that doesn't deserve its own article --⁪froth^T 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism combining two terms (see Soup Nazi for a notable one). Does not seem to qualify as an attack page, just a highly POV dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible redirect to paternalism ;-) ? Ohconfucius 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And bring it down to Safety Nazi level? Maybe not. Rintrah 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to University of Notre Dame. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parietals

It is an article about a rule only followed at the University of Notre Dame, thus it is not in the scope of notability for an encyclopedia. Phydend 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Notre Dame. AlphaShroom 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about creating an article on rules similar to Parietals? i.e. College visiting hours or some such. Parietals is an idiosyncratic word for a common policy, and perhaps it has a role in a larger article on a such a topic (which at the moment doesn't exist). Starvingpoet 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a great many of them, and this word was indeed often used--Radcliffe for example I know used it, and an article would be nice, but I dont know about sources without needing to do the OR. Give it a try. If this article stays, start with it, If it gets deleted, try "Parietal rules" DGG 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Notre Dame. This is not notable beyond the university community. Nuttah68 09:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details to University of Notre Dame, concept to a new page. The extremely Notre-Dame-specific details should be summarized and merged into the page for the university, but I think there should also be an article on the concept of college visiting hours, with a mention of Notre Dame as a large university with a strict policy. Though many schools have relaxed or eliminated such rules, they're still fairly common, especially in schools with religious affiliations -- Carson-Newman College, for example, in addition to having limited visitation hours, requires that opposite-sex visitors register at the front desk and that the door of any room they're in be left open. Pinball22 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge specifics, refocus on generics per Pinball22. A generation or two ago, these types of rules (even by the name "parietals") were quite common at many universities. DMacks 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would like to create the new article? Our main issue is sources. . . Starvingpoet 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working with the real scattered and mostly pre-web sources is OR. What is needed is previous articles or books discussing this, and I think the way to find them is to stubbify the general part and have WPdians edit it in the usual way. We don't really sign up for articles, but they get written. Discussion of sources can go on the talk page, just as usual. I am beginning to think about the part on Parietals as seen in various media... DGG 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge controversy to NDU, subject to sources, as the citations are from student publications; Redirect to Parietal, to disambiguate. Ohconfucius 05:15, 14 February 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 by Pilotguy with edit summary, ""Repost of previously deleted material" using NPWatcher". Agent 86 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Speedy delete. This is the THIRD TIME the article is up. It has been deleted TWICE prior. (here and here) The ONLY reason that this article should be restarted if there is definite proof of a third film being made...but this has already shown to be the OPPOSITE as it has been declared that the franchise for now is over. CyberGhostface 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too early for this article. Warn the creator. And anything else necessary. This is just taking the piss. Totnesmartin 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. NetOracle 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Alf photoman 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above, and spatter a bit of salt in the wake (3rd time's a charm). SkierRMH 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt recreation of deleted material that just won't seem to go away. ShadowHalo 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, and protect redirect. There was a Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 which was a theatrically released film, even though its name doesn't match the exact title of this article. The redirect can be unprotected later if a movie of this title is actually produced. --Metropolitan90 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hurst

Failed congressional candidate notable only for having run (unsuccessfully) for Congress Lincolnite 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep Nominator should have informed primary editors of AfD. Would like to see better references. --Kevin Murray 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I'll go with DGG on this,trusting with good faith that there are precedents. At over 400 seats contested very two years, this is a lot of people, but of course they need to qualify with bona fide sources. --Kevin Murray 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidate with no other claim to notability made. Nuttah68 09:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failed major national party candidates for congress have always been judged notable. Thee are only 400 a year or so, and being one of the top 500 politicians in the US (counting governors etc) is certainly notable. DGG 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: in what way do failed congressional candidates like Andrew Hurst qualify as "one of the top 500 politicians in the US" - he's never even been elected to a school board! Lincolnite 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. These articles get set up prior to elections then basically gather dust afterwards. I suggest that we should have a better way of dealing with them. For example, unless the loser runs in at least two races, his basic information should get merged into an article about the race itself (if one exists), or, in a case like this, into the section on the election in the Virginia's 11th congressional district article .--Kubigula (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew Hurst is active in the DC and national legal community, in the 2008 presidential election, and in state and local politics. It is these important contributions that made his campaign as successful as it was. In other words, it is not the campaign that made him notable, it was his notability that made his campaign. Acham 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But being the Young Lawyer Section representative to the Bar Association of the District of Columbia does not make one notable enough to have one's own page on Wikipedia. Neither does being awarded the BADC's 2005 Young Lawyer of the Year award... Lincolnite 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- You seem to be caught up in cherry picking single accomplishments. First, the Young Lawyer award is unique: it's a hotly competitive award in a town where 1 in 12 people is a lawyer (PDF), where lawyers come from around the world to study and practice, and where most of the lawyers have national ambitions. It's like being Paris's best young fashion designer or New York's best young financial planner. If you Google DC Young Lawyer for past winners you get partners in the world's biggest firms and executive directors of major charities and corporations, and the current mayor, the youngest in DC history. Moving on to Hurst's entire body of legal work, it includes cases of international interest, significant pro bono work, and novel legal theory. He has led statewide aspects of national political campaigns. He is active in his community and sought to run again. He exhausted the incumbent’s $3 million war chest that Davis was saving for a Senate bid in 2008, and Hurst received more votes than any challenger in the State in 2006. This is no long shot Green Party candidate.Acham 22:01, 13 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple World

non notable. Not even enough context to begin to classify article, and no sources cited Nardman1 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and move content to bad jokes & other etc. Cornell Rockey 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context, nonsense. --- RockMFR 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and redefine. From what I can tell, this might have to do with MapleStory, which is very notable (even after one (1) AfD). TRKtv (daaaaah!) 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that? All this appears to be is just somebody's idea for a ninja series. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable (WP:V). No reliable sources about... whatever this is. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Move to BJAODN - Might be a joke. If it has to do with Maplestory, an element of the game is not notable anyway. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I See U

Song was just released, doesn't even have chart figures yet. Non-notable. It only merits a mention in the album article. Nardman1 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has also been no confirmation that this is even going to be the second single. The cover has been on the internet for a long time now. Reijikido99 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non notable song as of right now Whilding87 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has not yet been announced as the second single, nor is the album artwork verifyable Blanche1234 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Lodge

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not particularly notable at present.ALR 22:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is by no means the oldest lodge in the state, nor is it the only Union Lodge. It may be one of the few F&AM (instead of AF&AM) lodges in the state, but that is an administrative matter of where its charter came from. Article does not assert notability. MSJapan 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOLE. YechielMan 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afcwandsworth

Company is non notable and the article reads like an ad. Nardman1 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CORP. HornetMike 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mattythewhite 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Scottmsg 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nom. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local youth club, doesn't come anywhere near meeting notability guidelines, and why is the article name written in that bizarre manner with no spaces between the words or capital letters....? ChrisTheDude 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - should have been speedied. Qwghlm 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, youth teams do not go in Wikipedia. --Stevefarrell 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Willshire

Hoax, no such player exists. See the Watford official site pages for professional and academy players.

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 17:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mattythewhite 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The player isn't listed on any Watford site and the pre-season friendly against Oxford United that the article claims the player made his debut in never happened, see the 06-07 Watford fixture list. Scottmsg 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he exists, which doesn't seem to be the case, he isn't a recognised first team squad member and therefore fails WP:BIO anyway ChrisTheDude 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax and would not pass WP:BIO even if he did exist. Qwghlm 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as non-notable hoax. (jarbarf) 18:17, 12 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode)

No source for this episode. Tv.com and IMDB both dont have this listed as an episode. Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages[reply]

Delete. Aritcles completely lack sources. QuasyBoy 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this ep has been confirmed. - Peregrine Fisher 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batman love interests

Delete -- Redundant with Batman_supporting_characters#Love_interests, and Category:Batman supporting characters. Inclined toward fan-speculation. Versions of this page keep manifesting themselves as categories or as lists, and are deleted and re-created each time: [49] [50] ~CS 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant trivia.-MsHyde 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though obviously incredibly important and of great encyclopedic value there's already a list. --Calibas 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate of Batman_supporting_characters#Love_interests per nom. Black Falcon 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above duplicate information that is better prepared. --Nehrams2020 03:52, 15 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mittelos Bioscience

A once-mentioned organization in Lost, this article cites a fansite as its primary source of information. It is pure cruft and WP:OR and fails WP:NOR. -- Wikipedical 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable.-MsHyde 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hanso Foundation. --thedemonhog 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Subject is not of notability or interest to anyone but the most devoted fans of the series. NetOracle 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in universe fiction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reliability of this, and much more information about Mitteloss Bioscience is questionable as it seems to have come from a fan-created hoax website - www.mittelosbioscience.org. This website has been confirmed as fake by Gregg Nations. ( all info can be found on the article about the hoax Website)KevGGrif 14:19, 11 February 2007
Merge into Hanso Foundation. As the Hanso foundation is fictional as well... Also it is a part of the Hanso foundation, wich is why it should be merged with that section --User:bymastudent 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hanso Foundation. fraggle 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly non-notable. Suggestion of merging into Hanso Foundation is presently only based on speculation MarkSutton 23:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The organisation has not yet been given prominence in the storyline. If it does, this page can always be recreated. The website mittelosbioscience.org is not an official ABC site, it can't be used as a source. Lostpedia's page says "For the non-canon hoax website, see Mittelosbioscience.org. Do not include information from that site on this article." 81.178.238.47 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not recommend merging, as there are not yet any verifiable facts about Mittelos's relationship to Hanso and DHARMA. Those Lost writers are very clever and evasive, and have not said anything for certain about it yet. 81.178.238.47 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Characters of Lost. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alpert (Lost)

A once-mentioned character in Lost, this article cites a fansite as its primary source of information. It is pure cruft and WP:OR and fails WP:NOR. The consensus among Lost editors is to create a character page if the actor is credited in the opening credits or if the character has had a flashback episode, and this character fails both of those criteria. -- Wikipedical 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of Lost. Doesn't merit separate article under WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Not in Portland. --thedemonhog 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Not in Portland" or Mittelos Bioscience. Clearly not a subject for a separate article.--Kubigula (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Characters of Lost. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elija Allen

A once-mentioned character in Lost, this article cites a fansite as its primary source of information. It is pure cruft and WP:OR and fails WP:NOR. The consensus among Lost editors is to create a character page if the actor is credited in the opening credits or if the character has had a flashback episode, and this character fails both of those criteria. -- Wikipedical 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of Lost. Doesn't merit a separate article per WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.-MsHyde 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Hanso Foundation. --thedemonhog 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Characters of Lost. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Mittelos

A once-mentioned character in Lost, this article cites a fansite as its primary source of information. It is pure cruft and WP:OR and fails WP:NOR. The consensus among Lost editors is to create a character page if the actor is credited in the opening credits or if the character has had a flashback episode, and this character fails both of those criteria. -- Wikipedical 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.-MsHyde 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Hanso Foundation. --thedemonhog 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Shyam Bihari with edit summary, "[[WP:CSD#A7|A7 Not notable person". Agent 86 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Smith

This article was speedied, but removed by an unknown contributor without explanation which is why I have listed here, rather than a prod. Cheerleaders, whether they eat or buy ice cream won't be generally notable. Delete--Richhoncho 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 no assertion of notability. So tagged. Walton monarchist89 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only assertion of ntability is captain of cheerleaders for a college, I don't think that is sufficient notability. RJFJR 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:BIO.-MsHyde 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

already dead by speedy... someone please end the discussion here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:00, 10 February 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 Tour of the Bahamas; merge 2007 Tour of the Bahamas to Tour of the Bahamas. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-15 22:59Z

Tour of the Bahamas

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Delete Non-notable event with non-notable champions from what I can tell. I watch the Tour de France results closely every year and have never heard of any of these guys even thought it is reported in www.cyclingnews.com TonyTheTiger 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe non-notability of all leading finishers is what I am basing my nomination on. I just found 2007 Tour of the Bahamas to add to this argument. TonyTheTiger 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the notability of an event is not the same as the notability of the winners of it. (though there may well be a correlation) Mathmo ^Talk 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tour of the Bahamas. An internationally recognised event is more than worthy of an article. Merge 2007 Tour of the Bahamas to the main article. Neither the event nor the main article is large enough to need seperate results pages. Nuttah68 09:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge the two article together. Is a development level race, but that does not mean it isn't notable. Mathmo ^Talk 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that you don't know the event nor the riders participating in it does not mean the event is not notable. Merging would be possible, but wouldn't make sense in my opinion according to the winners who are already mentioned in the main article, while more details can be found in the year by year reports, just like it's done in most other articles on Wikipedia. SportsAddicted | discuss 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles are short, so they could be merged it would seem to me. Certainly would be no problem to split them out again if the main article gets bigger. Either way, I don't mind if it is merged or not so long as the overall result is keep. Mathmo ^Talk 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with that, SportsAddicted | discuss 02:06, 15 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bongbong

No information found at IMDB or google, therefore it is either not verifiable or not notable. Suggest deletion unless someone can add citations. RJFJR 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of notability, unverified. Delete unless citations are added by end of AfD. Walton monarchist89 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevant Google News Archive hits either. Most hits on the term are for Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. or other filipinos given that nickname. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howler Dragonwolf

Article's author admits the topic is neither notable nor popular; there are no reliable sources online, and no "occult religions" make mention of this entity. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context for this "daughter of Satan". Total of 5 ghits, so non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context, no notability, and bordering on patent nonsense. NetOracle 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G1 (patent nonsense) and possibly A1 (lacking context). Walton monarchist89 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, non-notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:05, 10 February 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) 2007-02-15 22:58Z

Logology

Contested prod. Original reason for prod (by me): This is an article about a word, not what the word denotes, and as such, it is a dictionary definition. The prod notice was removed by Openartist who left the following comment on the talk page: As the article contains references, historical information, and also uses of the word in other contexts such as a book of fiction. This transcends the typical content stored in a dictionary as is. And as one could argue that Logology, while a more or less unknown field of study, is a field of study none-the-less. And as a field of study deserves a place in an encylopedia as do other "-ologies." I still say delete. What say you? - ∅ (∅), 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. Logology is a notable neologism judging by Google Books & Google Scholar results and a near-half-century of academic use, although it has an informal usage and two formal, separate uses (the works of Borgmann and of Kenneth Burke). I don't think treating it as a "field of study" is accurate except in the hobbyist sense; it is more about a domain of knowledge. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as this is not a dicdef; there is plenty of relevant information here that could be included. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needs to be improved, not deleted --Calibas 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What say I? I say please read the policy that you linked to, especially Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Fixing bad stubs. The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy is inapplicable here, since this is not a dictionary article. What you should be applying are the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy policies, and looking for sources to see whether there is enough to write about the subject of logology that the article can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status. Uncle G 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with a link to Greg Bear "Logology the name of a fictional new religion in Greg Bear's novel, Heads." (as Heads does not have an article) and link to Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities "The first book solely devoted to logology". I will work on the merge to support Disambiguation. Jeepday 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge to Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities complete. Also tagged book article as unreferenced, ghits are high for the subject, but might take a while to dig out good references. Jeepday 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment why would you make that edit without a consensus? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response why would I not make an edit?

One - I edited Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities
Two - Even if I had edited Logology there is nothing wrong with improving an article during AfD.
Three - What exactly do you think I did that was inappropriate? Jeepday 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand given the commentary above. (jarbarf) 19:38, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L'Ordre Sith

Delete Non-notable unreleased fanfilm. English Google search on "L'Ordre Sith" brings back 13 unique on 19 total. Full web search on ("L'Ordre Sith" film) returns 105 unique on 137 total - nearly all blogs, message boards, and Wiki mirrors. No major independent sources found. MikeWazowski 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as encroachment by fancruft. NetOracle 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no external coverage by independent sources. May become notable after it's released, but not at the moment. Walton monarchist89 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Was covered by a 52 minutes documentary on Canal+. Of course this is only a national TV channel in France, a small country not worthy of the interest of the English-speaking wikipedians. French Google search shows more than 10,000 hits. But who cares about French google ? Hektor 19:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-It might be more helpful to mention that in the article, rather than make sarcastic comments on an AfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? this article will be deleted, I have absolutely no doubt about it. Hektor 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is true that "L'Ordre Sith" does get a lot of hits on its own - however, that's why I added the word "film" to the seaarch term, as "The Sith Order" (the translated phrase) seems rather generic, and not all the references were to the film, which is the important point. MikeWazowski 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Nardman1 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am absolutely not a Star Wars fan. I have a proof, there is not one single Star Wars related edit in my contributions. I discovered this film through the 52-minutes Canal+ documentary. Hektor 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not calling the article fancruft, I'm calling the /movie/ fancruft. I bet you haven't even seen it. Nardman1 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have seen the movie making-of, interviews of director and actors, trailer and large abstracts in a documentary on French national television. Can you say that about Star Wars: Revelations which seems to be legitimate ? Has it been seen on HBO ? Hektor 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That movie is notable because /it's actually been released/ and it has a large fan-base. The same cannot be said of your French film, which of course we aren't discriminating against, as you claim. Who would dislike the French? Also your argument fails WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Nardman1 19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Revelations has been released and is available to the public, and has many, *many* legitimate independent third-party references available to its validity and notability. L'Ordre Sith does not, yet. That may change in the future, of course, but *right now*, it does not. MikeWazowski 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Large abstracts of the movie have been shown on French television, therefore it has been seen by millions of French people, which are not all Star Wars fans. This is comparable for me to a distribution to a limited fan base via the net. Canal + has 5 million subscribers; If one third of them has seen the documentary, which was broadcast as an introduction to the network premiere of Revenge of the Sith on January 1st 2007, that means that 1.5 million people in France know about the movie. Hektor 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, you don't know the ratings, so you're making up numbers now to shore up your argument. Revelations had been downloaded more than three million times within three months of its release, and that was close to two years ago. That's actual numbers of people who *watched* the film, not just people *aware* of it. I haven't seen any current download figures, but regardless, it shows that there's no comparison between the two - especially when, and this is the important point, L'Ordre Sith has not been released. Some people may have heard about it on TV - but there's apparently been very little other press, and no one's seen a completed film. MikeWazowski 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There has been other press please see the Press book. Hektor 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the Press book which shows coverage in French media. Hektor 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more references provided, one is not the multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. required by WP:N Jeepday 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Projects

Not notable. Speedy deletion was contested. Mishatx *разговор* 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like spam. Nardman1 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An artclce without external sources about a game maker without finished games. Tikiwont 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No other articles link to it, and it does not in itself possess any noteworthy content about any noteworthy person, place, thing, or idea. The Pixel Projects' website seems to be as much a work in progress as their Wikipedia entry is; perhaps once they have become noted for developing games, they will be worthy of an article. Until then, delete. --Rick Beckman 03:42, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street closing sequence

total fancruft about a closing sequence/credits of a show. This is not encyclopedic. Booshakla 19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worthy of its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samael775 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep this article. 66.153.66.42 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please make up your mind as you just substituted the article with a redirect, but do not overwrite the AfD tag. Tikiwont 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep; an extensive and thorough article on a valid subject. needs a lot of cleanup, but no reason to delete. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article itself isn't of the proper tone, but the subject itself isn't a problem. The opening and closing credits of a major television show can be significant (besides Sesame Street, I'd include the Simpsons, Tiny Toons, Pinky and the Brain in the list of shows where the credits matter.), and in this case, there's enough information that it probably can't be adequately covered in the main article on Sesame Street. Still, I wouldn't object to a merge. I do however, object to a AfD that is made with the complaint of fancruft. I find that offensive and uncivil. Please try to make your nominations in more neutral language. FrozenPurpleCube 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the simpsons credits are probably notable, but why would Seasame Street's? It's just total fancruft that is of interest to basically no one, it should be deleted, no questions asked. Booshakla 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sesame Street is as much of a cultural phenomena as the Simpson's, so I accept that a description of the credits is appropriate.
How can I, as a random Wikipedia reader, check that this article's description of, say, the closing credits in 1970–1971, or of episode #131, is accurate? This question is brought to you by the letters V and NOR. Uncle G 01:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimately, only by watching the episode in question. However, I think [51] this source might be more of what you're asking for. It's also possible there's more to be found at the Smithsonian exhibit. So as far as it goes, I'm not concerned that it can be sourced. However, that is a question that needs to be referred to the editors. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Sesame Street. Totally unencyclopedic.-MsHyde 03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MsHyde. JuJube 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually torn on this, since there's a lot more to the article than I expected. But I'm going to say delete, because the closing credits of individual shows should really not have their own articles. --Stevefarrell 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Delete, move that page to Muppet Wika. I vote for keep. BlairsvilleHighSchool 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "The opening and closing credits of a major television show can be significant". Mathmo ^Talk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it needs cleanup and sourcing. And yes, verifying in some way other than watching all the episodes is difficult, but that's the case for a lot of articles we have about TV shows. When a show has had over 4000 episodes, an article about the history of the closing credits seems quite reasonable, especially since they've changed a lot over the years. Pinball22 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General assertions about about the worthyness or significance of closing credits (whether in favour or not) do not help here. With respect to sources for the closing sequences in question, the number of the day is 0 (zero). If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This is together with not publishing here for the first time whatever topic one would like to see covered (WP:NOR) are core policies of wikipedia, no matter how often they are ignored.Tikiwont 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 66.153.65.75 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a minor subject that's not even important enough to mention in the main Sesame Street article; unreferenced OR. —tregoweth (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, move that page to muppet wika, but i say KEEP.66.153.35.102 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP66.153.35.214 13:28, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Questions for Thaksin Shinawatra

It's not notable, it's orphaned, and it's not even finished. Porterjoh 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beyond bizarre. I'm so perplexed by this article that I don't even know where to start. --Selket ^Talk
Delete. While the journalist is notable, and the prime minister is notable, the set of 40 questions is not notable. They are not properly referenced to any document we can access. In fact, there is no mention of the journalist in WP's article on Thai Rak Thai. I would suggest Speedy Deletion if the article were not so confusing. I guess if notability is the criterion then AfD is necessary. In any case, Thaksin's government was overthrown by a military coup in September, 2006 according to the Thai Rak Thai article, so this article is unlikely to have continued significance, assuming that it had any originally. EdJohnston 04:45, 15 February 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, should have been speedied. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wubly

Non-notable game: made using a do-it-at-home-on-your-computer program. Article contains no assertion of notabilty, and a Google search yields primarily results from the Game Maker Games forum. Seems to provide enough information to be a stub, so it doesn't look speedyable to me. Heimstern Läufer 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability, only trivial references.-MsHyde 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Phoenix

Contested prod, removed without improvements or comments. Final Phoenix plus (author) Staton Allen gets only four Google hits[52], which are the homepage and Wikipedia. No external coverage at all, no notability, no WP:RS sources, fails WP:NOTE completely. Fram 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. NOTE indeed. This article appears to be written by SPAs with some COI issues, for a comic not yet made! Would it be controversial to suggest the speedy?—MURGH ^disc. 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete as non-notable Jhinman 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Balancer 03:42, 12 February 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, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Joes

disputed speedy for NN-pizza franchise operation. delete Cornell Rockey 20:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.-MsHyde 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assertion of 47 stores is sufficient for notability. JamesMLane t c 22:33, 14 February 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 .Article has shown improvement. No delete vote Pea ceNT 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carole E. Handler

Active lawyer, but by no means notable enough. She may have written papers (which lawyer does not?), but she has not been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Btw, partial copyright violation from [53]. Edcolins 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The references are a bit weak. She appears to be noticed, but I think there should be better references available if she is as notable as the article claims. --Kevin Murray 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms. Handler is notable, and perhaps would be if she were a self promoter. Her legal work as mentioned in the book, COMIC WARS, allowed Perlmutter and Arad to win the prized rights to X-Men and Spiderman after Carl Icahn, a brilliant financier, and Ron Perelman a tough fighter, both took a stab at cutting up Marvel as they have done with countless others. The fact that neither were successful as a result of a flaw in both of their legal team's work, and that this IP attorney uncovered it, sounds like something worthwhile. The fact that she never went public with her own info and sought a story should not exclude her. The role was written up the the New York Law Journal, but to access the article requires access I just don't have. Additionally, and unfortunately, the Spiderman court records were sealed at the time of the litigation and were only unsealed in 2003, many years after the victory, leaving only references as you see them to be made, and not a full fledged story (Business Wire; Apr 21, 2003)Juda S. Engelmayer 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Since you have created the article (partially from [54] - see Wikipedia:Copyright violation, the article should at least be rewritten, excluding copyrighted text.), I should point out that IMHO the article is not based on reliable published sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.". I am afraid I am not convinced at all by your opinion. --Edcolins 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by self published as far as this piece goes, there are many articles offered as references and none are self published, shy of the Comic Wars book website, but that book too is, in-fact, referenced in a trade journal called Managing Intellectual Property, which is present in the citations as well. I am afraid that I am not convinced at all by your argument that Handler has not done what the article suggests and the accompanying references cite. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it appears that you have served as the American Jewish Congress’ Chief Communications Officer, [55] while Carole E. Handler was the president of the Commission for Women's Empowerment of the American Jewish Congress, so that it turns out that you have a ~~serious~~ conflict of interest (Wikipedia's Guidelines). I don't say that you should not participate to the delete discussion, but you should exercise great caution. And I suggest others to take into account the close relationship between the main editor of the article and the topic of the article. --Edcolins 15:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "serious" for now. The article is improving and I am thinking about withdrawing my deletion nomination after all. --Edcolins 21:08, 13 February 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) 2007-02-15 22:57Z

Aeluros Inc

Non notable company. An admin deemed that it did not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion due to the author's comment on the talk page, but reccomended I brought it here. Delete. J Milburn 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator. Btw, I was that admin who recommended the nominator to bring it here. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would welcome the opinion of authors of articles in Ethernet, 10GE, optics and semiconductors on the notability of the company's contribution to the field. The esoteric nature of a subject does not immediately qualify it for non-notability. IMHO an encyclopedia is a reference not a popularity yearbook. E2550 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please provide proof that this company meets WP:CORP. I do not see how having inclusion guidelines makes something a 'popularity yearbook'. J Milburn 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article offers no claims to notability per WP:CORP let alone sources. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a hard time understanding J Milburn's and Nuttah68's interpretation of WP:CORP. According to the WP:CORP guidelines, the notability of a service or product has to be the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. Well, in the subject of semiconductors for communications it does not get more non trivial than to be published at ISSCC (organized by the IEEE). The two inline refererences in the article are pdf links to these peer reviewed articles on semiconductor technology and not simply self promoting press releases. Finally, regarding the relevance of the technology in question (10GE, transceivers) to ordinary people, it would suffice to say that with very high probability the bits that comprise what you are reading right now have been brought to you through a 10GE transceiver somewhere along their path in the network core or the SAN's that hosts wikipedia. Incidentally, the fastest networks today and hopefully the ones that will be accesible to end users in a few years use that technology (see http://ultralight.caltech.edu/lsr_06252004/ or http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3403161 for example). E2550 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those links were added after the article was nominated and link to pages on the Aeluros wegsite so are not independent. If you can link to them on the ISSCC site that would change. However, you still have the problem that Aeluros is not the subject of those papers but the technology. Nuttah68 11:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry about the late addition. Initially it was part of the External links section but the nominator mentioned that he could not see it. As far as the independence of the actual URL of the links: I can understand why an algorithm would be confused about that, but not a human. Besides, I would have linked them to the ISSCC web site but unfortunately they are not available on their complete form (the IEEE wants to charge for the complete articles, and only the authoring organization has the right to distribute them free of charge on the web). Please look here for proof that these are not forgeries: http://www.isscc.org/isscc/2004/ap/ISSCC2004_AdvanceProgram.pdf (similar link for the other one). As for the second "problem" WP:CORP mentions that the criteria apply to an organization product or service. Technology companies are most of the time indistinguishable from the product or service they supply. If I were to adhere to the letter of your suggestion I would rename the article to 'Aeluros' 10GE technology' which would look much more like an advertisement. Hope that makes sense. E2550 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Additional Comment I re-edited the page to include references in multiple sources so that any misunderstandings should be cleared by now.E2550 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are different ways a corporation can be notable, and sales rank is not the only one. Developing multiple notable products is another, and developing products the subject of peer reviewed articles in their own right certainly is. But you need to sy it right at the top because it might happen that someone does not look at the references.DGG 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be quite honest, I think the article looks like it is worth keeping now. I am not going to withdraw my nomination, I think it should sit out the AfD in case I am wrong. I admit, my understanding of WP:CORP isn't great, so though this article looks an awful lot better than it did before, I can't be certain it should be kept. J Milburn 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep `'mikka 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a subject expert, I can personally attest to the notability of the claims in the article, as supported by the references. I think this is a good example of an article that should have been tagged {{expert-subject}} rather than AfD. Dhaluza 01:26, 14 February 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. Tyrenius 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddastrianism

First deletion reason: completely Non-notable, entirely original research, fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article admits non-notability, and Google confirms it. Pan Dan 20:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I restored the original db-nonsense tag that was contested but overwritten. Tikiwont 21:01, 10 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleedman

Webcomic artist, most of whose work is illustrated fan fiction. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Kotengu 小天狗 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet the criteria as a notable person.WP:NOTE Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because I don't agree with Wikipedia's current deletion criteria. Harg 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kotengu. I like Bleedman's work, but he does fail WP:BIO. ~e.o.t.d~ 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A talented and certainly popular artist, but his main works are fancomics and there just aren't any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snafu Comics could perhaps be expanded instead with relevant material •CHILLDOUBT• 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well-written and seems to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. Doujinshi is not the same thing as fan fiction. --Carnildo 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific and well known artist. His popularity is no more a question of personal likings, but a sheer statistical fact DrTofu83 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any evidence of that whatsoever? We need reliable third-party sources to construct an article. Jkelly 21:56, 7 February 2007 (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) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Nardman1 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the artist nor his creation qualify as notable. If the political controversy had been covered by multiple major news outlets, as more than just an Internet curiosity, then I would have to argue for a weak keep, but given the facts, a controversy in the social web does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. NetOracle 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep artist with a very widely known webcomic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Montco 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, was the most viewed page on deviantART. Mathmo ^Talk 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. SakotGrimshine 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eight million hits on his deviantART account attest to notibility, plus most people forget that he is a published comic writer. And oddly enough, Bleedman himself commented on the fact that he does not want a Wikipedia article. (Justyn 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Gerald Glaskin. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christos experiment

The concept of the Christos experiment seems tied up in the works of a single author, Gerald Glaskin, and is seldom mentioned outside of reviews of his works. Whosasking 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fringe.-MsHyde 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gerald Glaskin. There's no information in the Christos experiment article that can't be easily accommodated in the article about the author. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — no keep arguments whatsoever, little participation, no even semi-reliable sources. Could have been speedied. — Deckill er 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers and Sisters (band)

Doesn't assert notability, poorly written. Evan Reyes 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no sources. Nardman1 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court Sullivan

nn webmaster of site with alexa rating of 75,000, very little assertion of notability Booshakla 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leuko 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lesnail 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Close to a speedy. --Edcolins 17:05, 11 February 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 — only keep argument was a google hit counter, which is high because of the other two games. — Deckill er 11:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Faction 3

Speculative article that only gives a possible date of release. Totalinarian 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete complete speculation. Can be recreated when sources can be cited. — brighterorange (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close to million results on google. Though most are fans merely talking about the possibility, bigger sources have picked it up and mentioned it such as IGN apparently. Mathmo ^Talk 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. BJ^Talk 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until there is actual information about it. Too vague right now. Thunderbrand 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact (band)

I can't find any asertion of notability here. One third place prize, that's it. No chart successes, either for albums or songs. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, of course, since I created the page. About this third prize :at present I am looking for public and official proofs about it. I contacted the band, who said they had a diploma of course (but how can be a paper be a proof on Wiki?), and would see to give me relevant links. So I am waiting for that. But otherwise: it is a third prize in the most important metal festival in the world... well... that means playing with groups like Lordi, Lacuna Coil,Immortal, Dimmu Borgir etc.. etc... But anyway, is notability really only dependent on commercial success? it is what I feel you are saying here. I believe that if this page is deleted, a great number of other pages on black metal bands should be as well, and that might mean notability criteria are really quite different in this area of musical creation, don't you think? I would very much like to get other opinions, thank you.--Ordocello 09:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that prize is very close to establishing notability. One more thing should do it. Mention it here if you find anything, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you I shall do What I can. Anyway I put here a summary of all the modifications I have done since the creation: italicizing album names, deleting bold words, citing and referencing influences and facts as much as possible, adding external links where importance of the band could be shown--Ordocello 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found what was necessary : http://several-bleeds-records.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=11&products_id=30

this link is from their label (official website) and show three very good chronicals about Magic Spellcraft

this other link : http://several-bleeds-records.com/rupture/artefact.html shows officially the obtention of the third prize in Wacken Battle and how their music was received there. I have included both links in the article --Ordocello 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly now verified. OK, if no-one says delete in the next 24 hours, I will withdraw and close the nomination. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, if a little late, per the conversation above. As a rule, I never close AfDs, so I don't have a clue how, but this is practically closed :) Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:27, 15 February 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 G12. - Daniel.Bryant 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Edwards (opera singer)

Opera singer that does not seem to meet the criteria for notability in WP:MUSIC. Article is a cut and pasted resume. A Google search reveals only a University home page, a private home page, and a large number of trivial references (CD credits and such). No mention on AllMusic Guide. Then again, I'm no expert on classical music. If notability is established, the article needs a total rewrite, but if not notable, the article needs to go. Peter G Werner 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio from here. ShadowHalo 04:06, 11 February 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. Only one keep vote, no potential of reliable sources given evne mentioned in the discussion. — Deckill er 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Lakes Middle School

Middle school. No sources listed whatsoever. Article is 9 months old -- that should be plenty of time to find them. Prod disputed, without providing any sources. Shimeru 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable school. TJ Spyke 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the highschools are bad enough, we certainly don't need junior highs (unless there is a massive shooting at one of them.:-)-MsHyde 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Should have drawn the line properly with high schools. A year from now we'll be having these debates about elementary schools. WMMartin 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly this school does not come close to meeting WP:SCHOOLS. That is the closest to consensus about what a school article needs to meet to merit an article. While there may not be a school notability policy, notability is an issue on the wiki and clearly this article does nothing to assert in any way, shape or form, any type o notability. Vegaswikian 02:59, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak Canadian

(cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniakophobia)

This appears to be a neologism; a Google search for "Bosniak Canadian" results in only two unique examples (four unique pages, three of which contain the same sentence). The article was WP:PRODed and as a result several "external links" were added ostensibly as sources, but only one of the websites actually contains the term "Bosniak Canadian", and then only on a single unique page (CNAB goals).

I hasten to say that I do not dispute that there are indeed Bosniaks in Canada. However, it seems clear that the group is not notable enough to have any sources outside a single mention on the CNAB website, and even that website says nothing about Bosniak Canadians in particular except for the fact that they exist. There just doesn't seem to be enough published information out there to satisfy the notability and verifiability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, there does seem to be a lot of information on Bosnian Canadians, which is a superset of Bosniak Canadians. I would hazard to guess that almost anything encyclopedic about Bosnian Canadians would also apply to Bosniak Canadians. —Psychonaut 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, neutral - there are >300 unique ghits for the term "Bosnian Canadian". -- Black Falcon 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable subject at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.115.192 (talk • contribs) 04:41, February 11, 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, and clearly WP:NEO // Laughing Man 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am Bosniak Canadian. It is ridicolous for you to deny my identity. Although it is not a notable subject, it does deserve to be included in wikipedia (see here). Do whatever you want to do. Go ahead and erase this name from encyclopedia. But you can't erase me. On the last Canadian population census I declared myself as Bosniak and my Bosniak Canadian identity is there to stay. Cheers. Bosniak 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bosniak, did you miss the part of my nomination where I said "I do not dispute that there are indeed Bosniaks in Canada"? I am not denying anyone's identity. With this in mind, could you address the actual arguments of the nomination respecting the WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NEO policies? —Psychonaut 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bosniaks (or Bosniak diaspora once it's written) or keep after rewrite. The article is now a dicdef, more or less. I don't mind having a separate article in principle, but nothing in the article suggest that they stand out of numerous immigrant/ethnic groups.
On the other hand, I'm surprised that no one has found e.g. this as a source. As for the title, it can be sorted out (although "Bosnian Canadians" may have a greater prominence, note that only Bosniaks tend to preserve the epithet "Bosnian" in diaspora, so the current one is more accurate.) Duja► 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Usedup 04:00, 14 February 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries, Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight

The prod tag on this article is confused; it was restored (with an old date) several weeks after someone contested it. It needs to be on AfD, then. Incidentally, I support deletion as it's nothing but a plot summary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes WP:BK. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real book, if the content is nothing but a plot summary....tag it for clean-up. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, one of the most popular YA series out there currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --UsaSatsui 21:28, 11 February 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 all - the club (and the copy-and-paste at Clonlost), the tournament (International Youth Cup) as well as the players. - Daniel.Bryant 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitelink Rovers

Non-notable football team, probably in fact entirely fictional. Google returns only two hits; both of which are to Wikipedia. I am not sure if this meets the criteria for speedy deletion, so I'm listing it here instead.

I would also suggest that the articles on the 'players' the article links to be deleted on the same grounds. Stevefarrell 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - nonsensical. Archibald99 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - just a load of bull. -- Mattythewhite 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - A hoax that even if it were true would not be notable. Scottmsg 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all definitely a hoax. Please consider for deletion also International Youth Cup, David O'Sullivan-Kontoursis, and Clonlost, respectively the fake league, the fake manager and a duplicate of Nitelink Rovers. Please note how all these articles were created by the same user, Gizmo10. So I also propose to block him for vandalism, if possible. --Angelo 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this, but the same user created a fake logo for the fake team: this. --Angelo 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do not wish to be offended by this but i feel i must defend myself. Nitelink Rovers is a football team affiliated with a youth club in Dublin Ireland. I am responsible for this youth club and run it along with other adults. The mentioned "coach" is another leader in the youth club who has qualifications from the FAI(football association of Ireland). We are an amateur youth club and the international youth club cup is what the group of teams refer to the tournament as. Our youth club is affiliated with the E.C.Y.D. and regnum Christi (see legionaires of Christ) who have a boarding school in Wicklow, Ireland known as Dublin Oak. The other teams are all teams of E.C.Y.D. Members from clubs in the country. The children in the youth club all use Wikipedia as a resource for their school work and asked that they could have themselves on the site. This article may not be of significant use to other members of the site but the children really enjoy being able to see themselves on the internet. As a user of Wikipedia for many years I am upset that other users are saying that i should be blocked as i have put nothing untruthful in any of the articles I have written. The only part of any article that could be deemed untrue is the inclusion of Eugene O'Connor and "Zippo" Nolan. These are two fathers who have done alot of work installing toilets and doing building work on the club and as a gesture of goodwill the children asked them to be included.

I would like to hear from people regarding this issue as i feel it is highly unfair what is being said of myself and these articles.

Gizmo10, aka. Aidan Dunne

Then it isn't in the least bit notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's a youth club team. There are thousands of these throughout Ireland and the United Kingdom. I can think of ten in my own home town, which has a much smaller population than Dublin. Your youth club's football team is not notable. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it isn't. Please read WP:N and WP:NOT. There are also separate guidelines on what kinds of football teams are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but I forget where those are. This doesn't even nearly meet the criteria for notability. Sorry. --Stevefarrell 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Qwghlm 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP does not exist to give non-notable people a kick out of seeing themselves included. If the kids want to have an internet presence they should check out MySpace or something similar..... ChrisTheDude 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- also Delete all the articles on the club's individual players, namely Shane Kearns, Aidan McCann, Odhran Mahar, Niall O'Cuilleanain, Peter Ryan Cosgrove, Luke Nolan, Morgan MacFhionnlaoich, Fionn Kelly, Seán O'Connor, Karl Rogers, Cormac Roche, Jason Cullen, Ryan Connolly, Richie Keely, David O'Sullivan-Kontoursis, Duane Dalton, Zippo Nolan and Eugene O'Connor....... ChrisTheDude 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychedelic rock songs

As User:Ardric47 put it, this list is "unmaintainable and possibly subjective". There is no concrete criterion for inclusion of items, and the definitions of "psychedelic" and "rock" are also vague. Unless this list can be made specific to focus on some actual criterion, or the items on it can be referenced as being psychedelic and rock songs, this list will remain more harm than help. I think Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information also applies. Merovingian ※ Talk 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate subjective list, rife with WP:V and WP:OR issues. Otto4711 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. JuJube 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate both in theory and practice. Punkmorten 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what counts as "psychedelic" or not is subjective. VegaDark 02:32, 15 February 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) 2007-02-15 22:56Z

Hill and Plain RECON

Originally prodded in August 2006, deprodded without comment.^[56] Original prod: Non-notable summer camp program - not one Google hit, and no verifiability. A good 6 months later, the article still hasn't a single reliable source to confirm camp notability. A quick Google check for "Hill and Plain RECON" returns 12 hits, references to Wikipedia article. ReyBrujo 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, yes, I could have speedy deleted it, but somehow I do not like doing that against 6 month old articles, regardless of their content. -- ReyBrujo 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any indication of notablity. Vassyana 20:09, 15 February 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discus fish

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reposting of deleted content.--cj | talk 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. Evan Sackett

Second time this page has been created -- it has already been deleted once. Evan Sackett was deleted twice as well. COI, Sockpuppet problems, ANI was submitted before. Speedy Delete Rockstar915 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 as a recreation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged with {{db-repost}}. No reason to create an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Moore (UEL)

The same as his alleged father: no sources, no statement of real notability, and I can't find anything. Rmky87 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to just barely assert "interestingness", but nothing exceptional or of historical value. Probably just a genealogical entry. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be of interest to the Moore family but nothing of note in the wider community. Nuttah68 10:15, 11 February 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, consensus is not very clear on this one. However, there is a general lack of multiple, non-trivial and independent reliable sources. Hence I am closing this as a delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central-Hower High School

Non-notable public high school that is now closed and on it's way to being just another building on the campus of the University of Akron. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. TJ Spyke 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important part of Akron Public School history. Needs expanded not deleted.
Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the school district under a "former schools" heading. Reasonably well developed article which does not go into detailing the code of conduct, the school lunch menu or the like. Regarding high schools I am not always sure about notability, but I can mention that the Bergen byleksikon, the city encyclopedia for Bergen, Norway, has reasonably extensive coverage of all schools in the city. The fact that the school is closed has no bearing on the notability; as an analogy: A notable person does not stop being notable because he dies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion.
Delete. I would not necessarily delete an article for a lack of notability in the case of schools and other institutions if the articles contain some substance. I believe that the assertion of notability is far more important in articles on individuals or say, commercial institutions. My delete vote here is inherently based on the fact that this article has very little useful information, has no references, and provides no external links or evidence that it could be formed into a functioning article. This school appears that it is going to be completely non-existent. However if there is some history and information based on credible sources that can be added, and if one of the previous editors could provide such credible source of information, regardless of any notability, I could consider keeping the article. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as history can be provided with proper references. Sukh17 09:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to school district page per Sjakkalle. Note: Some of the above comments are missing signatures. (jarbarf) 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — If it is no longer in existance, I think it needs something distinctive in its history to provide notability. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it is irrelevant that this school is no longer around. Cloachland 03:46, 15 February 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. Aside from the potential bad-faith nature of this AfD's nomination, the COI concern (while valid) is irrelevant to the discussion of the subject's notability, which nobody has actually challenged. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Thule Ambient Music

Non-notable vanity, self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fell asleep on the way (talk • contribs) — Fell asleep on the way (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, see WP:ORG and WP:COI/N --Dr. Who 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be demonstrated that this is a real radio show, however, running a search on the radio station's web site for the word Ultima yielded no results. Harvardy 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious bad faith nomination by sockpuppet account that has no history apart from this nomination. Multiple press references + radio station websites for both 2MBS and 5MBS list the show. --Gene_poole 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been nice to acknowledge the COI here GP.Ga rr ie 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am an impartial observer. Have known about, and downloaded, archived programs from the station for a while. I also suspect that the nominator is a sockpuppet. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the COI - it is a long-running show on community radio. That pretty much is in itself notable. HOWEVER the article needs some improvement preferably from an independant contributor, AND some secondary sources because 2MBS-FM can say whatever they want about their own show.Ga rr ie 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are already 4 secondary reference sources listed, in addition to the radio station citations. --Gene_poole 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom DXRAW 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable. But the WP:COI needs addressing. User:Gene Poole appears to be Ultima Thule's founder and producer George Cruikshank, so should not be editing this article. Tearlach 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm certainly the programme's founder - but there's no Wikipedia policy that prevents people writing about organisations they're associated with - so long as the contribution complies with WP:NPOV and WP:V - which this article does. --Gene_poole 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are nevertheless guidelines - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography - that strongly advise against it ...

In particular, you should ... avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

... and instead recommend participating on the relevant Talk pages and letting external editors do the actual writing. Nobody's saying you're biased; it's just a situation that's so commonly fraught with issues that the convention is very much against doing it. Tearlach 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the guidelines and the potential issues arising from them, and I have no issues with anyone rewriting or adding to my contributions in good faith. I've demonstrated this dozens of times during the 4 or 5 years I've been contributing to Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look through the history, you'll see that I considered putting up an AfD for this article (after shooting down an attempt at having it speedily deleted under A7), but reconsidered. My rationale (then and now) is that such a long-running radio show, with a compilation album and being broadcast on three different networks, is most certainly notable. Is there a COI? I don't care, because it doesn't matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of speedy deletion, but it matters a lot that it's COI. Wikipedia is not an advertisement site. Gene Poole should no longer edit anything related to his primary activities' economical interests, I think now it's really too much. Nothing personal, but I realize that he destroyed several contributors along the years, and possibly, before he harrassed them, many of them were good contributors. Dr. Who 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the notability of the subject, which is the only relevant concept to discuss in this AfD, no, a COI does not matter. If you feel it reads as an advertisement, rewrite it, don't call for its deletion (such as tagging it for G11). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Article rewritten. A bit. See talkpage. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:12, 14 February 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; unsourced, no keep arguments, etc. — Deckill er 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpia (organization)

not notable outside the book series MsHyde 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fictional character/organization. Probably violates WP:OR, too. -- MarcoTolo 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Lighthouses in Norway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-15 22:55Z

Homborsund lighthouse

Seems to fail notability requirements, or are we trying to include every lighthouse for some reason? Also, has been a stub for over a year. SeizureDog 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lighthouses in Norway which is currently little more than a list of external links. Individual lighthouses must demonstrate some notability to warrant an article. Nuttah68 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Do Not Merge - Passes WP:LOCAL. An historical lighthouse built in 1879 and is offically designated as protected according to the Noregian Cultural Heritage Act.[57] That's a European version of National Register of Historic Places. And stub status is not a reason for deletion. --Oakshade 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point about it being a stub is merely to show how long it has failed to assert its notability. --SeizureDog 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lighthouses in Norway. It may be on a historic register, but I cannot find any indication of notability unto itself beyond that. Vassyana 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Revolution FC

Non-notable minor football team. Articles linking from this page about players etc. should be deleted also. Archibald99 23:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Archibald99 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 02:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social indoor soccer team in the Box Hill Indoor Soccer League in Melbourne. No claim to notability. Player articles should be deleted as well. May be case under A7 non-notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to being non-notable, it looks like most of the edits are by their "manager", Jonathan Menner. Lankiveil 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- nn. - Longhair\^talk 05:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPhello lads, this page shouldnt be deleted because it is set up so people can further learn more about us and who play for us i really dont see the need to delete it, you should maybe spend some time making your own or something before you see the need to go and ask someone elses to be deleted, is it hurting anyone? do you also want me to delete our myspace because were not important enough? all the stats are right all the facts are right, who really cares 19:02, 11 February 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.48.211 (talk • contribs)

Comment The above purposes would be much better met by a webpage published by yourself rather than a page on an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The page is up to and it is providing correct details for anyone who needs to know about indoor football —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.223.209 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP I dont feel it is necessary to delete this page as it is providing facts not fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.14.160 (talk • contribs) — 203.214.14.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Unless the anons here can show otherwise, this is an article about a non-notable sports team. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ i really dont see what the problem is with this :S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.48.211 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not notable.--cj | talk 10:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DElete - division 3 indoor team says it all. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some notability can be established. A less than year old mates team doesn't cut it. Nuttah68 10:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Division 3 indoor soccer team? Not notable enough. --Canley 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being notable enough for inclusion. Ignore the votes to 'keep' from sockpuppets of the page's creator. --Stevefarrell 12:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This club although small has had hundreds of adds from people all over the world on its myspace it is followed in england and scotland by a keen few fans, this wikipedia is so that these fans can look into further statistics and further analysis of the club , all stats and facts are 100% true, i see no reason to delete this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete Recreational team. Already had a db-template, but it was removed by the article starter. Julius Sahara 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:CORP. Qwghlm 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you people need to get out more, and actually the speedy delete was not deleted by the page creator smart ass, the page was taken off the speedy delete list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP the fact that this page is of importance both interstate and internationally gives it suitable grounds for being kept on, the idea of the site is to provide pages relevant to what people want and are interested in, and obviously this fits that criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.134.249 (talk • contribs) — 58.164.134.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as a non-notable team (along with the linked player articles). The various keep !voters offer no significant argument other than "this is true" and "I find it useful", which are not valid reasons to keep an article ChrisTheDude 08:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if individual players make it to a higher league, they could well become notable enough to have an article. This fails on the same grounds as local councillors not being notable enough to have articles (despite their state parliamentary counterparts having them). Orderinchaos78 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The club has fans internationaly it maybe a small supporter base but atleast we have one we have fans in other states in australia aswell, doesnt this mean that we are not some social club? which we are not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
Delete. That's nice, a myspace page for a reference. YechielMan 23:14, 12 February 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.