Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Ducky Ducky

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was this recreated? Not Notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 01:37, 17 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 Howards Alias. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:35Z

Skylar

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at the moment. The article could do with some sources but obviously meets point 5 of WP:MUSIC, 'Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable'. Nuttah68 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion about the deletion, but if we do delete it, can we keep the redirect to Skyler, the Scandinavian name that Skylar is a variant of? --elzr 03:41, 15 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, Agent 86 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Howards Alias.--TBCΦtalk? 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. with Howards Alias :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nuttah68. Only just notable is still notable. Jcuk 20:07, 17 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. A Train ^{take the} 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of hypocoristics

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the articles have already been transwiki'd.--TBCΦtalk? 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, not really encyclopedic material and the precendent is clear. -Elmer Clark 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The explanatory material in the first paragraph could include more information, but it's still more than a list of names.Circumspect 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to merge any intro material to an article about hypocoristics, but such material doesn't justify the keeping of a word list, or all word lists would be kept. Dmcdevit·t 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any explanations of what hypocoristics are, and how they are formed in various cultures, belongs in the article on the subject, which is hypocoristic, and which, as one can see, has plenty of spare room for further expansion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as dictionary material. Nuttah68 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and everyone else, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments above. Noroton 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to provide useful and structured information about personal names in the English Language. Expanding the article to give more info about the derivation and conventions for nicknames would improve this article. Dave w74 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could never hope to be comprehensive, and if not comprehensive is useless. Reverse Gear 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is useful. I found it with a google search and it answered my question. It is as comprehensive as most other wikipedia articles and could be expanded. There are plenty of other wikipedia articles that are effectively just lists. Poujeaux 09:03, 22 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 by admin Proto as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Han

Article created and edited by two banned users, who vandalized a number of articles, including that on Zionsville, Indiana. Of the 37 google hits, the only two in English refer to a student from Zionsville named Andromeda Han. Pretty sure this qualifies as a speedy. AniMate 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Hoax. Article claims it is an actress in a major movie, but no listing for that actress at IMDB. SchmuckyTheCat 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax, but do not speedy delete (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria).--TBCΦtalk? 00:59, 17 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 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Baur

Spammy bio. Written by the PR shill for the organization as a promotional piece. Even the referenced stuff is inflated puffery. SchmuckyTheCat 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, this page is completely factual and not at all biased. It seems obvious to me thatSchmuckyTheCat just has a problem with Gene Baur or maybe animal welfare in general. Who knows. The sources look really solid to me. If he could even point out one sentence that is biased - it might be helpful. Brooklyn5 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You work for the organization. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIV and WP:NPA, both of you are starting on a way you don't want to go - feb^talk

Weak keep. Founder of a somewhat notable organization; has been interviewed by the New York Times.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a good enough article to me. His organization, as far as I can tell, is notable enough - at least there has been no talk of deleting its article - and he has been mentioned by CNN and other notable outside sources. I don't see anything too "promotional" either, seems neutral enough. -Elmer Clark 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not noticeably NPOV and seems sufficiently sourced to me. If anything were actually inaccurate or incomplete then it should be corrected but no obvious reason to delete the article. --Zeborah 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article has references and he is the president of an notable organization, although I can see this article being merged with Farm Sanctuary. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not violating WP:V i kan reed 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what's wrong with PR people writing an article? If it's NPOV and sourced, then they're doing their job well. Denni ^talk 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's NPOV because other people keep having to come back and police it. The sources are fairly poor for what the article says until other people come along. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a spammy article, but there are plenty of sources especially when searching on his married name Bauston.Google News Archive Google Books --Dhartung | Talk 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least until someone can make it into a proper biography instead of a resume -- feb^talk 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given some work, can be transformed into a good article. Minor violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI can be changed. --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides sourced bio of prominent leader of major organization of a social movement. Kaydee1970 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a go at rewriting for better NPOV. Text seems to have remained more or less as in my version, though some additions have been made. Author was understanding about NPOV and providing citations. A couple of citations from the organization's web site might be iffy, but discount those, and there's sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NOTE. Could use some more work, but don't see any major concerns that'd suggest deletion. Shimeru 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person passes the notability test and if the POV and citation issues are resolved it can be a good article. Whether one agrees or not with what he does is completely irrelevant. --Kimon 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to write the Gene Baur page in a non-biased voice. Everything in the article is true and factual. You can find any of this info about Gene in newspapers published all over the web. The article includes numerous citations from reputable sources, as suggested by Shimeru. I definitely welcome any other suggestions or constructive criticism on how to make this a better article and if any changes need to be made to conform to Wikipedia standards. FarmSanctuary 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' provided it is heavily NPOVized. Now reads very much like a PR firm's braichild.--Ramdrake 17:46, 18 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) 2007-02-22 13:37Z

1001 Ways to Beat the Draft

Contested prod; A partial copyvio of a non-notable list. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Soltak | Talk 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per just about every single item in WP:NOT (I'm not sure i've seen that happen before)i kan reed 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuli Kupferberg.--TBCΦtalk? 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not suitable. Turgidson 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page -- feb^talk 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia isn't an advice Column.Corporal Punishment 03:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) - along with the play "Fuck Nam" probably the principle 1960s work of artist. It seems to pass WP:BK notability criteria 1 (subject of multiple published works mentioned in articles references), 4 (is a part of the syllabi of university courses on the Beat Generation and the antiwar movement [1]), and 5 (author is significant beat artist). Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save or Merge with other Vietnam War articles. This is an article related to an historic event, and is therfore notable. ZimmerBarnes 05:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smmurphy. Citations:

The Portable Sixties Reader says "As the Vietnam war continued, both mainstream and radical presses in the US kept up the antiwar protest in magazines and books. Three of the most notable were 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft...." (the other two were poems by Denise Levertov and Robert Bly).
Capsule bio of Kupferberg in Kerouac and Friends: A Beat Generation Reader says: "Tuli Kupferberg -- pamphleteer, poet, publisher of Birth, and author of over 20 books, in particular, 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft"
The Buddhist Third Class Junkmail Oracle: The Art and Poetry of D.a.Levy (another sixties figure) writes: "Levy was inspired ... by Tuli Kupferberg ... Tuli's Birth Press published multitudes of things (probably the best known was 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft"
The New York Review of Books reviewed it [2] (1968)

As I mentioned on the talk page, the NYRoB didn't really review it, its just mentioned in a review of a legal-type guide to avoiding the draft, and they give its information at the top, as they like to do when they mention any book in a review. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to find online sources of material for any period of history, so when we have this much we should take it seriously. This is a de rigueur inclusion on almost any list of Vietnam protest literature. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known and notable, even in the UK. Nuttah68 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, this was a hugely important protest document. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is both asserted and cited. Why is this article listed on AfD? -Markeer 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verbatim as by Markeer and Dhartung Alf photoman 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps better Merge with other similar Vietnam era or anti-war texts. It's notable and had an impact at the time. I even remember it being brought up over the recent talks of bringing the draft back. --Kimon 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as its own article, I don't see any valid reason for deletion, and it passes N, V —siro χ o 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per common sense. Thedreamdied 00:02, 21 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; article is highly unencyclopedic, WP:SOAP and WP:OR. ~ Arjun 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God in everyday life

This is a stubby POV essay, not an encyclopedia. "God in everyday life" might be a potential article, but even then would face endless POV issues, as it is, this is Original research, Unverifiable and has point-of-view issues. Wintermut3 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like a personal essay and somewhat like a soapbox piece. I'm not sure an article could really be developed on this topic, but if it can, this is not the place to start. GassyGuy 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Elmer Clark 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV; maybe then redirect to Immanence (or not). --N Shar 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not one to usually bring up WP:SNOW, but honestly, this article would never survive under any conditions. Inherently fails WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV--Wafulz 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:OR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also fails to adhere to the requirements of WP:CSB for being a strictly Western, monotheistic, and apparently Protestant American Christian diatribe. --Charlene 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR i kan reed 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:SOAP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under about half of WP:NOT -- feb^talk 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cedlaod 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nice title, nice sentiment, but it violates several policies. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant delete - per everyone else. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Is this religious spam? ZimmerBarnes 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and is thus eligible, essentially, for WP:SNOW. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had we a better umbrella article on religious devotion I'd suggest it be redirected there. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious POV essay --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no substance and no apparent workable form. While there's a good chance the article creator is new to Wikipedia and would need help on the learning curve of article creation, this particular form has no future. Bbagot 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like the text you'd find on a religious inspirational card. This has no place in an encyclopedia. --Kimon 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Laughable content :) Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:52, 18 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 Beyoncé Knowles in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:39Z

Speak My Mind

I noticed this page while it was protected. Apparently it has been the subject of much edit warring. Anyway, the article claims to be about an unreleased album by Beyoncé. I actually don't doubt the claim, but the problem is, there doesn't appear to be a reliable source to verify it. It has good Google presence, but most of the sites are either references made on message boards or MP3 piracy and purchase sites, but not the sort that could be called reliable as sources of information or as retail outlets. Some of the hits are unrelated (e.g., references made to Beyonce and the site's writer speaking his or her mind). I tried to search a newspaper database and came up empty. All of that said, I believe this should be deleted. GassyGuy 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline. Also, I couldn't find anthing about the album on allmusic.--TBCΦtalk? 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the information can be attributed (confirmed through the use of reliable, published sources - WP:ATT proposed core policy merger). -- saberwyn 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Possibly delete per WP:HOAX as burden of proof is on the editors of the article. i kan reed 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If official details are released to verify that this artist is planning an album of this name, it can be recreated. Resolute 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save if factual information can be verified. ZimmerBarnes 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until album actually comes out, per WP:CRYSTAL, at which point an article can be created that actually contains correct information about the album. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some confusion. There's no claim that this album is ever being released. Rather, it's about a scrapped compilation album. Any information should already be sourceable, because it's unlikely that any new sources will appear now. GassyGuy 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Although there is confusion over this article the fact that it is well known throught the web should be just enough to keep this article. I suggest re-wording it. 134.241.194.110 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) — 134.241.194.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete future gazing at a mere possibility of notability, and there are no possible facts at this time. --Bejnar 03:17, 22 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 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Somerset Wrestling

Doesn't meet WP:ORG criteria Samw 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, and the fact that it was created in September 2006 doesn't exactly lead one to believe that any will surface. -Elmer Clark 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; fails the WP:ORG and WP:ADS criterias.--TBCΦtalk? 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado DD_eleT_e Non-notable wrestling federation, fails WP:V. Caknuck 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Entirely non-notable / made-up "group". (Although we should be honoured to have an article written by the Heavyweight/Intercontinental Champion himself...) Bencherlite 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. A Google search only brings up 3 Google hits (the articles page, this AFD page, and a WP mirror). The fact that the logo looks like it was made by a 3 year old with crayons doesn't help it. Lrrr IV 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also recommend deleting the picture. Lrrr IV 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:ORG. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable wrestling league, possible WP:OR, certainly fails WP:ORG and that logo doesn't help.--John Lake 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack notability Warfieldian 22:20, 18 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 possibly mention at Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:40Z

Southern Ohio Patriots

Non-notable minor league (American) football team. Their league, the United States Football Alliance, does not have a Wikipedia article. They return only 19 unique Google hits. They were only founded in 2006 and play their games at a high school. I see nothing in this article that supports this team having any sort of notability. The article was speedied before, but the article was evidently blank at the time, so that is probably not relevant to this discussion. Elmer Clark 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; non-notable football team.--TBCΦtalk? 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a high school team, or a team with a high school homeground. If the former, weak merge (mention in 1-2 lines) to the high school in question (Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio)?). Will support outright deletion in either case, per the eventual consensus developed here. Also note, the logo used in the article, Image:SouthernOhioPatriots.gif, is a direct copy of the New England Patriots logo, as seen in the top left hand corner of the New England Patriots official website. -- saberwyn 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the logo on their website, but their website does include small copies of the NE Patriots "flag" bit (without the lettering) as decoration. I searched for any indication that they have some claim to being a farm team, but without luck. The NFL hasn't had a farm system for years. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "leauge" doesn't even have an article. Corporal Punishment 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete recommendations. This is not a high school football team; they just use the high school stadium for their games. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the league not having an article. Can be revisted if the league itself is shown to be noteworthy first. Bbagot 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! Why?! Why are you trying to delete the page on the Southern Ohio Patriots?! The article is not nonsense as you may believe. I can show you so many pages like that page that it is not even funny! Some pages like Southern Ohio Patriots have ten times less information and have never been considered for deletion. The list:

This list is only of football teams like the Southern Ohio Patriots!!!!!--Sportman2 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, if those teams aren't notable then they should go too, although even with my minimal knowledge of American football I know that at least some of those teams played in the NFL. The fact that another page is less in-depth than article X is not by itself a valid reason to keep article X, and the fact that other non-notable subjects have not (as yet) been deleted is also not a reason to keep an article on a different non-notable subject ChrisTheDude 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sportman2, see What about article x?, inclusion is not notability and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The question at hand is whether this article before us now satisfies guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree if those articles are like this one, please delete them all. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons; this team seems doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Also, after clicking on a few of the team links listed above by Sportman2 it appears that many of those articles also need to be deleted if someone wants to take the time to go through them and do the nominations... --The Way 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There being no criteria on American football teams, one must revert to WP:V and WP:N, which this fails due to a lack of WP:RS. Given the long list of articles of minor league or defunct teams, there seems to be enough critical mass to develop some sort of criteria. The matter should be brought to the American Football Wikiproject to start developing a consensus. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone being hurt by having this article here? I can understand deleting articles that are totally random. But, football is a popular sport so shouldn't articles about football's many leagues and teams be here? I think if the article provides true and liable info it should be kept.--Sportman2 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no reliable sources exist to verify that the article contains true information. We need a reliable third party source in order to confirm that the information in the article is accurate (and that any future information that might be added later is accurate as well). Since no such reliable sources exist, this article does not pass the requirements set forward in WP:V. Even if it the article was verifiable, there are many who believe that articles on Wikipedia should meet a certain threshold of notability. If you believe Wikipedia should have articles about football teams in America, where do you stop? Are adult amateur teams notable? intramural college teams? How about Pop Warner?? Even though Wikipedia is not paper, it does rely on a an all volunteer group of editors, and they would be quickly overwhelmed by tens of thousands of articles that would need to be evaluated against the basic Wikipedia criteria. The system would quickly break down, and would turn into another clone of Myspace, without the ugly backgrounds and annoying music. Notability is determined by consensus, which is why I feel like a discussion should be started. I personally believe that only current and defunct teams in the top professional league of any given variant (turf, arena, Canadian rules) are notable, including officially associated farm leagues like NFL Europe. I can't think of any reason to include any other semi-pro or amateur team. You may disagree, and thats a discussion that should be had, either at the American Football Wikiproject or other suitable venue. But even so, that discussion will have no bearing on this debate - if the article can't pass WP:V, it wouldn't measure up to any other criteria, present or future. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sportman2, see It doesn't do any harm and It should be about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG notability standards. I haven't found anything that indicates a link to the NFL team. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete How is the article not liable? Sources used to create the article:
League's Official Site
Team's Official Site
Fan Website

Those are all liable sources. You (CosmicPenguin) state that you think only major league or affiliated minor league should be noted here. There are many non-affiliated leagues and teams listed here at Wikipedia. Just take the Frontier League for example. If you think only well-known teams should be listed here then take Wild West C.O.W.-Boys of Moo Mesa. That is a TV show I didn't hear about until today. Sure it could be big among people who like that kind of stuff but I don't like that kind of show. So I wouldn't be the one watching it. Maybe you wouldn't watch the Southern Ohio Patriots but that doesn’t mean their unpopular.--Sportman2 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they were unpopular - and even if they were, Notability is not popularity. I also didn't say that only well-known teams are suitable for Wikipedia, I said I thought that only full-time professional teams qualified. That the NFL and AFL are also quite popular isn't part of that equation. Regardless, as I stated before, the threshold for your article is simply WP:V. And as per WP:V - the team website and the fan site are not reliable, since they are self published (and the fan site seems to be more about the USFA then the Southern Ohio Patriots). The League official website is the strongest of the three - I would be inclined to use it, especially if there existed other reliable sources to bolster it. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would really help to justify this article would be coverage of this team in a mainstream newspaper, since that would be an independent, reliable source. The league's website and the team's website are not independent sources, and a fan website is not considered a reliable source since it generally would not have editorial oversight any more than a Myspace page or a blog would. This particular league is not even listed at Our Sports Central which is a website devoted to independent and minor league sports, which raises concerns about how notable it is. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is unverified, then it should be deleted unless verified; that said, there must be a point along the line from NFL franchises to once-a-month pub teams on the Hackney Marshes where a team ceases to eb sufficiently notable for Wiki. A decision on that point would then allow the rational winnowing of the list of teams provided above. -- 62.25.109.196 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?--Sportman2 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that the community should decide what "level" a football team has to play at to be considered notable. It's just a general comment regarding that list you posted, not specific to this discussion. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor league team without verifiable sources of info should be deleted. Warfieldian 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not heard a legitimate argument in favor of keeping this article. I agree with Warfieldian, that especially notability is required. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 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; possible slight merge to hijacker articles. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:45Z

List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers

Non-encyclopedic, non-notable information – Zntrip 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haha, what's next? List of Pokemon cards owned by the 9/11 hijackers? Someone seems to have put a lot of effort into this, but seeing as there's no connection between these cars and the attacks themselves, I'm going to have to agree that this is completely non-notable. -Elmer Clark 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm working on the Karen cards and Simpsons memorabilia used by the 9/11 hijackers in everyday life, you insensitive clod!! --Action Jackson IV 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about shampoos used by the 9/11 hijackers? That would be negative "product placement". :P Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The types of vehicles driven by the hijackers, and motoring incidents like speeding tickets and impounding of the cars post-attack, while interesting, has no connection to the events that made the hijackers infamous. As such, it is trivia, and should be deleted. -- saberwyn 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Really crufty. Dragomiloff 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on some mythical 9/11pedia that wouldn't be overrun by conspiracy buffs. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as completely worthless, non-notable information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why on earth would anyone think this is relevent? Resolute 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:INTERESTING -- feb^talk 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - do any of the 9/11 related pages have a trivia section? --Action Jackson IV 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and also mostly WP:OR, it seems. Sandstein 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and quickly. WP:NOT#INFO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the articles focusing on the hijackers, or keep. ZimmerBarnes 14:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is completly not needed as it is completely random and can hurt people. (inside) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge anything relevant into the hijackers articles (I assume the hijackers have articles) Jcuk 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence to even support that this is list is real. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 22:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is amusing and it is well-researched. I see nothing wrong with it. Nardman1 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just kidding. Nardman1 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge whatsoever. You have GOT to be kidding. Listing VINs? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find the information interesting. Some or all of it should be merged into the larger 9/11 articles. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A well thought out article with interesting, but nevertheless not fully worthwhile. MrMacMan 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information with hijacker articles - this is well-sourced. Extreme emphasis on "relevant information." - Chardish 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info with articles about the hijackers. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the cars were not used in the attacks, the information is irrelevant about 9/11. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that the subject were Wiki-suitable, how would one propose to *verify* the content ? Delete -- 62.25.109.196 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft unrelated to 9/11. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minutae with no established relevance to the events. 23skidoo 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone spent a lot of time putting together something that really isn't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but DEFINITELY save the info somewhere, someone (for some reason) has spent a lot of time on it. Thedreamdied 00:07, 21 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.--Hús ö nd 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save the idiot

The term does not look notable Alex Bakharev 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Google shows few relevant results.--TBCΦtalk? 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Turgidson 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if not even WP:NFT or OR. eaolson 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Escort -- feb^talk 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN--[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's a common mechanic used in a number of games. Quiet a few actually, so I see no reason not to have an article on it. (Animedude 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Then you should be able to cite sources to show that it has already been researched and documented outside of Wikipedia, in accordance with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. You have so far not cited any sources at all. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Demonstrate that you aren't coming to Wikipedia to document the undocumented. Uncle G 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cite what? Thats like asking me to cite "shooting game". There are games in which you shoot, there are games in which you escort an NPC. The article names three of these games. Would like a longer List?(Animedude 10:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - I beleive what you're thinking of is "Escort Mission", which is still probably not notable enough for WP, though more widely used than this -- feb^talk 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it IS fairly common in gaming, from Spider-Man 2 to Resident Evil 4. References and cleanup would be groovy. ZimmerBarnes 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Not notable enough to have own article, but mention on the Lemmings/Earthworm Jim page. JameiLei 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails to meet wikipedia standards; delete. Retiono Virginian 17:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on lack of notability, unless reliable sources are found. This particular game mechanic (in platform games in particular) is familiar though not often used, another example would be the Comic Relief game Sleepwalker, though I've not heard a catch-all phrase for it and mixing up Lemmings with them weakens rather than strengthens the term. It's also quite derogatory - sounds more like a term bandied around on message boards by irate gamers than a widely-accepted descriptor. QuagmireDog 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SriKorange

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:48Z

Prof.R K Sharma

Not a notable academic. I cannot verify that his textbook exists or is widely available outside of his class. Looks like a vanity page. Cybergoth 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Heavy POV, no citations, cannot find any mention of him anywhere and the text itself admits that the book he allegedly wrote is not yet notable: "aims to become" --Kimon 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professor in Nepal. Needs sources, but we have maintenance tags for that. John Vandenberg 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are provided since there are absolutely none. In response to Jayvdb, having no sources is a valid reason to delete. Maintenance tags for needing more sources are for pages that have sources establishing notability but don't have enough sources to back up statements needing citations. --The Way 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained myself more in that regards. I have just worked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathmandu University High School (second nomination), adding sources. For this region of the world, they are pretty hard to find, and the Afd process is too short to be sure they will be found. I would prefer that in cases like this, tags are used first, and if after due course no sources are provided, then it comes to Afd. Listing it here as a first port of call smacks of having no WP:FAITH. To be fair tho, Cybergoth did welcome the newcomer and notify them about the Afd. John Vandenberg 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your position, but policy generally holds that anything that is unsourced can and should be deleted. Information, quite frankly, shouldn't be added unless sources are provided when it is added. Nominating something for deletion because it violates policy is not a violation of WP:Faith. --The Way 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAITH is a principle that has made Wikipedia what it is. If a newcomer writes an article that violates policy, it is beneficial to the project to be gentle. Let me put it this way; if the article had of been tagged before being listed here, I would have voted delete because the article and editor had been given a chance. I have added three sources; they are not real good ones, but it is a start to put this subject in perspective. It looks like this is the person the original contributor is referring to, however I havent had much luck verifying that person is involved with Kathmandu University Medical School, simply because their website is down again (or the link into that region of Nepal is down). John Vandenberg 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The Indian medical journals assert notability.Baka man 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verified/sourced. -- 62.25.109.196 10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The KUMS website is visible again, and it confirms he is the sole member of their dept of forensic medicine.[3] John Vandenberg 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The verification listed above is sufficient. I wasn't sure that would be sufficient sources for Nepal, but it seems there are. DGG 04:09, 20 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) 2007-02-22 13:49Z

Shin Wen-Bing

Not notable. Ideogram 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. University presidents are usually notable. Perhaps someone who reads Chinese will be able to expand the article. --Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:PROF. -- feb^talk 06:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I created this article as a result of monitoring new pages. Some one was authoring tons of content on Southern Taiwan University of Technology, and so I was trying to clean up everything. I have no preference whether it stays or goes, though I do feel it is notable. -- Zanimum 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the mayor of a city and president of a University he deserves an article JameiLei 15:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything in the article says that this man is notable. If the article had been tagged with {{sources}} or the like, I would have voted delete; but bringing it to Afd without any attempt to give editors time to dig up sources is lacking WP:FAITH. John Vandenberg 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, technically sources are supposed to be provided when information is added. Quite frankly, a page shouldn't be created nor should information be added unless sources are provided at the same time so it really isn't a violation of WP:FAITH. --The Way 08:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created before we really started cracking down on sourcing. Anyway, it's a fairly sourcable article, it's not like some topic where there's likely to be argument or lies slipped in. -- Zanimum 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doubly notable as a university president and town mayor. Can we do better than "not notable" when presenting arguments to delete something? (jarbarf) 00:50, 22 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 wasSpeedy deleted as hoax/vandalism per WP:SNOW. -- The Anome 11:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Ham

Looks like Hoax, the only ghits are on role playing game Alex Bakharev 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, WP:NFT. Looks like the worlds newest blogger is using Wikipedia as a playground. Resolute 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparent hoax, clear nonsense. I've also nominated Aronicus Bijork, created by the same user and linked from this article, for speedy deletion. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter nonsense., Actually, speedy delete since this is clearly vandalism. --Wafulz 06:22, 17 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 as WP:CSD#G4. riana_dzasta 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Janniger MD FAAD

Delete - unsourced article on a non-notable doctor. Ghits are all wikis and directories. Otto4711 02:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make that speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. I thought this name sounded familiar. Previous deletion under "Camila Janniger" Otto4711 02:32, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverdale Community Football Association

Non-notable ~~soccer~~ football association. (Edit: correcting sport) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a soccer association at all - rather a Canadian Community based organization for Canadian Rules football teams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.18.36 (talk • contribs).
Weak Delete - Not notable enough for an article JameiLei 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:41, 17 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 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shin-Ninjutsu

Made up word with no real meaning. The article appears to be designed to advertise a non-notable single school. This was initially a PROD but the initial authors placed a comment on the Talk page. Because of that the PROD was removed. Peter Rehse 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since it is about "new ninjutsu styles" that aren't verified, and "that have no direct relation with the established traditional Ninjutsu schools," there are inherent notability issues. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than an ad. -- feb^talk 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for neologisms, or for things thought up in martial arts class one day. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just like everyone above has said, this article just doesn't belong here. --Kimon 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what people have, had, and will say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They didn't even translate "Shin-ninjitsu" properly. --UsaSatsui 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ugh. JuJube 10:10, 19 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 by admin Mailer diablo as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood Anonymous

No claim to notability. Fails WP:WEB

Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and so tagged. eaolson 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Torchwood fan website. --Canley 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WEB -- The Anome 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article itself states only 169 registered members. Not notable enough JameiLei 15:29, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Straddle

An impressive ZERO Google hits for this sex position. Probable hoax -- see creator's edits and consider reverting if this is a hoax. N Shar 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely unreferenced; and wow, an article that wiki-links to a walrus and an Indian cricketer. Checking off that scavenger hunt item... ◄Zahakiel ► 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite apart from the wikilinks, Wikipedia is really not for stuff thought up in the bedroom one day. Pardon the pun, but this one really is complete bollocks. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that this article matches the "my left sock" pattern. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joke article. Move to WP:BJAODN, and delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has to be a joke, has no notability, WP:NFT. --Kimon 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Riiiiiiiiiiight. (jarbarf) 00:49, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Victoria Cross recipients

Antoine melancholy edited a number of Victoria Cross-related articles to claim that a Filipino named Michael Juarez won the VC in Iraq in 2003, and created this article claiming the same. This is a blatant hoax. All the other articles have been reverted, but since even being total rubbish doesn't qualify an article for CSD, I bring this AFD here. For those who are not knowledgable about the VC, only two have been awarded since the Falklands War in 1982 - Johnson Beharry for action in Iraq in 2004, and Bryan Budd for action in Afghanistan in 2006. -- Arwel (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PostScript: This apparent paragon of military virtue is claimed not only to have won the VC but also the Philippine Medal of Valor, and the Israeli Medal of Valor, and to be a Hero of the Russian Federation (information inserted by anon 206.73.209.94, now blocked for a year, having previously had a final warning against vandalism). -- Arwel (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a website maintained by the Imperial War Museum on the Victoria Cross (http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.941), the information on this Wikipedia article is false. The webpage is slightly out of date, not listing the 2006 VC, but states that as of June 2004, only one VC was awarded after the Falkland conflict of 1982, to the abovementioned Mr. Beharry in 2004. If Mr. Juarez had been awarded a VC in 2003 as the article indicates, I believe it would have been listed on this site. Beharry's VC is, according to BBC News, the first to be awarded in 20 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4358921.stm). Again the conflict of dates indicates that this article is false information. -- saberwyn 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Canley 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Nuttah68 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Berserkerz Crit 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete this already. Berserkerz Crit 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we delete this now? --Howard the Duck 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Baka man 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a Filipino abroad made it with something as big as the Victoria Cross, it should hit the local newespapers in as little as one day. And I've never even read of this. I don't think the others have, either. --- Tito Pao 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Tito Pao. If this was true then Philippine media would have already reported it. Lenticel 06:11, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cole

No outside links, probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. dcandeto 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are four people named Adam Cole in the IMDb, none of whom has been in any of the things the article claims. dcandeto 02:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncredited walk-ons do not a notable subject make. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:39, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myliye

No outside sources, besides the band's page. Probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not many Google hits (105 total, with 64 "unique"). Many of the results appear to be self-submitted, except maybe the ones titled "Latest Penis Enlargement" (???). Not in AllMusic, either. ... discospinster _talk 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising an un-noteworthy band, lack of content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JameiLei (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 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. A Train ^{take the} 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith in popular culture

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time something that resembles the band appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Ckessler 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I don't think this is original research (no "random event x in show y may be a ref to Aerosmith"), I don't see the need of a extensive list of Aerosmith appearances and references. If they're not in the main article, then they're clearly not important pieces of information. ' 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By original research I'm referring to items like A rock band of elves resembling Aerosmith is featured in the movie The Polar Express performing a song called "Rockin' on Top of the World." Steven Tyler sang the lyrics in the song, yet the rest of the band was either not featured in the song or not given credit, meaning it is likely one of Tyler's few solo works. I mean, it's not "theory of everything" style OR but still. Otto4711 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ah, I see that now. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep to Aerosmith. I know this is probably where the article started, but I'm sure most of what's in the article is verifiable, even if not currently verified. I suggest merging non-trivial popular culture references to Aerosmith, tagging them with {{fact}} and deleting them if they remain unsourced for more than, say, 2 weeks. I think this could be a stand-alone article, but it would require adding a lot of context, performing a great deal of cleanup, and sourcing every claim made. Possible, but hard to do--that's why I write "weak" keep. -- Black Falcon 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Incredibly Weak mini-Merge, as per the precedent listed above. I would actually consider an article like this even less encyclopedic than a list of Rush references - Aerosmith is just too gigantic for something like this. It would be similar to the color blue in popular culture, List of country songs about loving someone, or List of UPC codes divisible by two. A few of the more defining uses (i.e., the earliest known use of an Aerosmith song in a mainstream movie, some factoid involving Revolution X, and the Head First (Aerosmith) download) could be placed in the main Aerosmith article. As a side note, the Revolution X trivia blurb is a prime example of how not to write trivia - the game came out for several consoles at once, and the "focus" of the blurb should probably be on the arcade game, which came first and was the most successful. Okay, taking my Nerd Rage and signing out -- --Action Jackson IV 06:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Action Jackson IV. I don't see how a subject like this could effectively be merged into the Aerosmith article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, just a collection of unencyclopedic random facts. Anyway, this article is pretty much nonsensical as Aerosmith are part of popular culture. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple response is that humans are not omnipresent. None of us have the ability to scour every article and nominate all offending ones for deletion. We are not debating those articles; we are debating Aerosmith. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing to a single article or two here; there are entire category trees that start at the In Popular Culture as a root. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This changes my argument how? ' 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This does need to be sourced, but it appears to be factual information. Also needs to be edited alot more. ZimmerBarnes 14:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial fancruft in popular culture. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aerosmith has passed the test of time and culture into notability. It would be hard to deny that. Bbagot 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying that Aerosmith the band is highly notable. What is not notable or needed is a listing of every passing mention of the band wherever it may be found. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't just a listing, it was descriptive context, and appeared to be events that would be considered to be quite notable and verifiable. There was no indication it was an unabridged rendering. Bbagot 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's with the Aerosmith hate-fest lately?? I sense some extreme bias against this band on Wikipeida and it disgusts me. We can have an article for every song the Beatles wrote, an article chronicling Madonna saying the F-word on Letterman, an article about the Beatlemania, a list of Christina Aguilera's B-sides an unreleased material, and even AC/DC can have their article about pop culture, but God forbid Aerosmith (a band that's been around making music for nearly 40 years and sold more records than any other American rock band) has a few specialty articles. Considering many kids today only know of Aerosmith because of their soundtrack contributions, their being featured in a rollercoaster attraction, and their appearances on Saturday Night Live, I think it's important to have this section. Otherwise, the band's history section is going to become incredibly long as we incorporate (merge) many of these important items into the band's history section, making the Aerosmith article, which is already too long, even longer. But who am I to say anything. I simply want to expand knowledge on Wikipedia, the rest of you seem to want to hinder it. --Abog 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am unaware of any "Aerosmith hate-fest" on Wikipedia. I am aware of two articles relating to Aerosmith being nominated for deletion recently, this one and one about outtakes. That does not amount to a "hate-fest" under any reasonable interpretation. Second, you are expected to assume good faith of your fellow Wikipedians and accusing them of orchestrating a campaign against your favorite band fails to do so. Finally, if you believe that articles on Madonna's swearing of Aguilara's b-sides or whatever else do not belong on Wikipedia, then put them up for deletion. The existence of one crap article does not justify the existence of another crap article, so arguing in favor of this one by pointing to other shitty articles is a poor argument. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say that I thought they were all shitty articles? No. Don't imply. I think they are all good articles and should stay, especially considering how prominent these musicians are in pop culture, and the fact that their main articles would be incredibly long if they weren't broken into these sub-sections. Aerosmith is no different, and it seemed as since their articles were all being gone after at the same time, like people were suddenly denying Aerosmith's importance or notability. And that's where I took issue. But now that I realize this is an artist-by-artist thing, I'll back off a little. Since many of these bulleted items already appear in the main Aerosmith article, I'm backing off a bit, and I think that we should just merge most of the rest, either into the Aerosmith article, or into the appropriate song articles. This isn't a matter of shitty articles, it's a matter of what appeared to me to be double standards. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I support the afd on Stephen Hawking in Popular Culture. I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "Aerosmith in Popular Culture" equals "Aerosmith in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). If there is anything encyclopedic in the article then it should be merged into the Aerosmith article. --The Way 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone ahead and removed all the information from this article that I could find which already appeared in the main Aerosmith article. I'm sure there's stuff I've missed, but a lot of it is repeated. Ckessler 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, finally we can agree on something for once. I applaud you for your efforts. I had had this idea too, and knew that many of the factoids had been incorporated into the article already. Can we at least give this a couple days, so I can put in some of the more important things into the Aerosmith article or into the articles of the respective songs? Thanks. I think merging is a good compromise. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of trivia, similar to precedent offered in nom. GassyGuy 05:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 20 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 by admin Mailer diablo as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G12. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telepresence-enabled cognitive apprenticeship model of teacher professional development

Non-notable and not content suitable for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). --24fan24 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as admitted original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. No evidence that this ...theory?... has any reliable sources from verifiable indpependent, non trivial publications. Resolute 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as highly unencyclopedic. Of very dubious notability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [4]. So tagged. eaolson 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of this article is apparently the author of that site, as asserted on its talk page. A speedy delete tag was already removed for this reason. Resolute 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, OR synthesis, and complete bollocks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated, I, the author of the article, am the copyright holder for all of the text and information in the article. The article is a presentation of the state of the science in cognitive psychology as it applies to teacher professional development and telepresence in education. The research was peer-reviwed and published in a doctoral dissertation.rsedmo

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote

The list is not encyclopedic - players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote is not a widely recognized category; the Hall of Fame does not differentiate between those with more than 90% and those with less. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia already has two other lists of Hall of Famers, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological). The information on this list is readily available at the Hall of Fame Web site [5]. BRMo 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an arbitrary standard for inclusion. Otto4711 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move the information regarding the percentages to List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological), then delete. The information appears useful to the understanding of indoctrinations into this hall of fame, but in my opinion does not need its own article. -- saberwyn 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge -- I think it is safer to take the information from the original source rather than merging it as this article may contain mistakes. -- Black Falcon 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and unencyclopedic information, of which Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial sportcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already found within the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) article and, as stated by nom, no precedent for partial list cut off. If is was a constructed list that showed all members of the Hall of Fame by % of vote, then I would vote to Keep as per the other 2 lists above. Bbagot 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Trivial in nature. Neonblak 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging List of players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) into a sortable list List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Why have three lists when 1 will work! Vegaswikian 07:17, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix in popular culture

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of Hendrix and every use of one of his songs appears in any medium, with no indication of the information's importance either in the fiction it comes from or in the real world. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now this has some original research, and I don't see the need of a extensive list of Hendrix appearances and references. If they're not in the main article, then they're clearly not important pieces of information. ' 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts, and nonsensical as Jimi Hendrix is part of popular culture. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense original research is good but not encyclopedic--Cometstyles 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree is extensive. I've been reviewing the articles and as I find ones I consider AFD-able I'm AFD-ing them. It takes some time to do that. The AC/DC article was just nominated and closed with no consensus. If a consensus develops that these sorts of articles should be deleted, the AC/DC article can be renominated. Otto4711 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Take the most notable and merge into the already established sub-section. Delete the rest JameiLei 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft! Cited information could easily be condensed into a paragraph or two on the main Hendrix page. Ckessler 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I've cited in the AfD's on Aerosmith and Stephen Hawking in Popular Culture; it's original research and 'popular culture' is a very ambiguous term that is very US centric, or at least Western centric. --The Way 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia section. Funny, I was just thinking someone should start an "exterminate all Simpsons trivia" movement. Gazpacho 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia rules say WP:OR should go.. but its a shame, as its good information thats going to be lost. Thedreamdied 00:10, 21 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. If I were closing it factoring purely the strength of argument, it would probably be a delete anyway, as most of the 'keep' arguments are based on "I like it". However, all articles have been transwikied to Wiktionary; this is not only a reason for deletion, but a common reason for speedy deletion. I will not include List of common Chinese surnames at this point, as this is being addressed in a seperate deletion discussion. Proto ► 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of surnames

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zuid-Gelders surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Saxon surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telugu Brahmin Surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic and Romance-speaking cultures surnames, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of common Chinese surnames - I don't know about the other articles, but the article for common Chinese surnames have a lot of useful information. It gives both the 1990 and 2006 rankings on how common the 100 most common Chinese surnames are, it gives the romanisation/pronounciations of several different Chinese dialects for each, and it lists the Vietnamese and Korean equivalents for each, if applicable. It's not just a simple list with no other information. As the article explains, the commonality rankings is a researched and published list. A plain list of Chinese surnames would actually be much much larger. The comparative commonality between 1990 and 2006 of these surnames alone would make this list encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of common Chinese surnames: Chinese surnames are integral part of Chinese culture, and cannot be purely expressed in Wikitionary. If a list satisfies the requirements of WP:LIST, I don't think it's a great idea to delete them. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hesitant~~ delete - If Wikipedia is going to mean anything more than the sum of its parts, this has to be discussed at a principled level. I will withold my final judgement as to whether these categories should be kept or not, but I think we need to be restrictive.--Niohe 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep List of common Chinese surnames which is clearly not merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose, especially given that many of the surnames themselves have individual pages. Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames (many of the links in the article actually lead to placename articles rather than surname articles, which isn't great). cab 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup (and maybe rename) List of Hmong surnames. It's actually a listing of the Hmong clans, of which 18 exist; this can be cited (e.g. "18 hmong clans" GBooks Google). So this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list, as well as being at least a weakly notable topic. However, Delete the others (including List of Japanese surnames which I voted weak keep above) as being collections of random information without any particular sourcing or criteria for inclusion, and also being fairly useless for navigation given that half the links in question go to placename articles or disambiguation pages instead of articles about the surnames in question. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of common Chinese surnames per above. It is not just a list of names, but includes additional (encyclopedic) content. -- Black Falcon 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for other articles.

All of the above comments only address the List of common Chinese surnames article, because it seems people think that isn't in the same class as the others. As such, it shoudn't be listed in the same batch AfD. I hope it's okay to remove that to list it separately, and consider the others as a class for the rest of this discussion. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be listed at all, seperately, or in this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the Chinese one, all these articles are just indiscriminate lists - and would perhaps be better off at WikiSource or something. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists add useful information to Wikipedia, and should be expanded, rather than being deleted. -- The Anome 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I concur with all else that's been said by people with "keep" votes. There's additional encyclopedic information, plus links to Wikipedia articles... more than useful, this is meaningful and encyclopedic. LordAmeth 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/Keep I think all of them should be added to Wiktionary, then deleted from here. But theres no reason to lose this valuable information forever JameiLei 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are already on Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep (I commented on List of Chinese surnames above) the following

List of Hmong surnames -- as noted by cab, there are only 18 Hmong clans, "so this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list".
List of Italian surnames -- provides sourced encyclopedic (non-dictionary) information about commonality of surnames and geographic origin. However, adding {{wikify}} might be a good idea.
Weak keep on List of Jewish surnames (some encyclopedic content provided about historical/geographic distribution)--I am essentially neutral on this one.
Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames -- the article is well-organized and complements Category:Japanese surnames. Some people find lists easier to use than categories. I think keeping this list does no harm and instead makes WP more user-friendly.
As for the rest, delete after transwiki successfully completed. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to seeing the List of Hmong, Italian, and Jewish surnames merged into Vietnamese name, Italian name, Hebrew name articles (although not all Jews have Hebrew names). However, I think List of Japanese surnames should still be kept for navigation purposes (I will note again that some people finds lists easier to use than categories. -- Black Falcon 02:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Italian name and other articles are mostly about first names. Still, I'm not opposed to a merge, if it can be appropriately performed. -- Black Falcon 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the information is now on Wiktionary. (There is clearly a difference in usefulness between some of these articles - perhaps it would have been helpful to list them separately - but some, for example List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames, are so poor that there is nothing to be gained from keeping them either here or on Wiktionary, but that's a different question). HeartofaDog 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to ask, does anybody plan on relisting List of common Chinese surnames in a seperate AfD? If not, I'm going to remove the AfD notice on that article. As for the rest, I see that some are probably more encyclopedic than others. This should probably have been better done if they were listed seperately, because people seem to be commenting on different articles. An admin will have a hard time picking out what should be deleted and what should be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's no longer nominated. I removed the tag now. Dmcdevit·t 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Glad to hear that, I just added to it. Shenme 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Hmong surnames as it's a listing of clans, and includes totem symbolism and origin myths. Needs expansion instead of deletion. Delete all others as they make either no attempt or very little attempt at encyclopedic value, but are mostly lists of words that are used as surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of the Middle East-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the listing from list of China-related deletions as List of common Chinese surnames is no longer one of the articles nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:V. Others have argued there's no encyclopedic content at all here, just a list of names, and I won't disagree. The main additional point I want to raise is that there's no verification at all. Without sources, how we tell whether an item on the list really is a common name or not? The claim that particular names are common (iand others not on the list are presumably not) appears to be entirely based on editor's own original research. Editors who wish the lists kept need, at a minimum, to show that reliable sources exist capable of making verification possible. This simply hasn't been done. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Note that the List of Hmong surnames identifies a single source, but then the article states the source isn't very accurate. Based on what other source? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Although this is a group nomination, these articles are being discussed separately and are not all in the same state of (dis)repair, so they should be nominated separately. Dekimasu が... 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced directory/dictionary-style lists with too unclear criteria for inclusion. Kusma (討論) 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just had a look at the List of common Chinese surnames, and I cannot image any other reason why people want to discuss this page separately other than the fact that we are distracted by the visuality of Chinese characters. Sure, Chinese characters are used for Korean and Vietnamese surnames. But are we to assume that people with these surnames are related to their namesakes in China? If yes, please give a source for that claim. Or are they listed for no other reasons that they correspond to the Chinese surnames. Well, then we are dealing with a typical dictionary article.--Niohe 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well firstly, that article has been delisted. But secondly, perhaps that article was misnamed, but it's not a list that's been gathered together by WP editors like most other lists. That list is actually a researched and published list in real life, and the article is about that list. The fact that it gives a commonality ranking for each surname for both 1990 and 2006, so readers can look at the rankings comparatively, already makes that article encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beg to differ and I want to relist the article. This article is a hodge-podge of unencyclopedic assumptions. Most common surname where? In the PRC? Taiwan? In the Chinese-speaking world as a whole? It seems that the list of common surnames is based on the PRC, which begs the question why Korean and Vietnamese names should be ranked according to the commonality in the PRC. If this article should be kept at all he only way this article should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, because that is what this article is about.--Niohe 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't stop you from re-listing it, but the issues you brought up are not criteria for deletion, they're just editorial issues, and the article is far from perfect and could use more work. Like I said, the commonality rankings alone would make the article encyclopedic, plus, the list is a researched and published list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and cleanup. The purpose of having these lists on WP is that the articles can add extra dimensions to the names and how the culture uses them. With some cleanup, all of these articles can accomplish that. --Danaman5 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination - I would renominate List of common Chinese surnames for deletion as per WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and listing Chinese character surnames according to commonality in the PRC is unencyclopedic and adds nothing to our understanding of surnames outside of the PRC.--Niohe 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article on Richard Nixon adds little to our understanding of presidencies outside of the USA. Should that be deleted as well. A geneological database is simply a listing of names without any encyclopedic information (such as rank or related-language equivalents). That is hardly the case here. -- Black Falcon 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???? I somehow fail to see the validity of the analogy.--Niohe 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the commonality rankings or the fact that it's a researched and published list does not make it encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is not on me, but on those who want to keep it. The article has already been transwikied, so the information will not be lost. If the article is not be kept in Wikipedia, it should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, referring to the only verfied encyclopedic value of the text, which is really just a figleaf as far as I am concerned.--Niohe 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the burden of showing how an article meets criteria for deletion falls on the nominator. Also, without further research by WP editors, there is no evidence that the list is applicable only to the PRC. Furthermore, believing that the article should be renamed is not criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make the discussion more confused than it is, and please respond to my substantive arguments. I have already told you what policy I think this group of articles violate and I have also stated why I think this article is inappropriately named. To the extent that the burden of proof is on me, I have already fulfilled my part. Now the ball is in your court.

As for applicability to the PRC, I note that the article for 2006 states "调查涉及全国１１１０个县和市，得到了２．９６亿人口的数据，共获得姓氏４１００个。" I also note that the book quoted for 1990 is published in Beijing and I think it is reasonable to assume that this book is based on PRC data only.--Niohe 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... You haven't really said anything substantive. You've cited WP:NOT#DIR, but as I've said, the listing is a researched and published list, it has comparative commonality rankings, etc etc. More than one editor have stated that this is not just a mere list with no other information. And this article is not a genealogy. Please actually read WP:NOT#DIR, the genealogy clause pertains to biological articles or listings of persons to show only genealogical relations. It doesn't even apply to this list because it's not a biographical article, nor is it a genealogy. And again, believing that the article is misnamed is not criteria for deletion - simply to say, do you believe the article should be renamed, or do you believe it should be deleted? There are two completely different sets of criteria for the two. Also, just because it was published in Beijing, and that it says it's about common surnames in the whole country does not necessarily mean it excludes Taiwan. If this publication is PRC-government related at all, I'm pretty sure it will claim to include Taiwan. But this whole issue is a different discussion altogether. You've mentioned nothing that actually warrants the deletion of this article. It just seems like you don't like it, that's all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to most of these points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I think it was way to early for Japanes surnames to be transwikied, considering there are way over 200,000 Japanese surnames in existence. If this list was deleted, what you would have is a very incomplete list that has been transwikied with no access to the easiest of the wikies, and the information on a much less used wiki, to edit on to help fill in gaps and finish it.Williamb 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this comment at all. Could you please explain why the articles are encyclopedic? Transwikied articles aren't erased, it still exists at wikt:Appendix:Japanese surnames where it can be expanded. Wiktionary is a wiki just like Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Nomination - I have started a new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the other surnames were. Usedup 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep --Java7837 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- ~~I don't see how Wiktionary is appropriate for this at all~~; and, given the fact that the Chinese article contains some referenced info above and beyond most of the articles, perhaps everyone's time would be better spent tagging the other articles for improvement (not deletion), or, even working on the article content, instead of debating the same points over and over. Neier 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind wikt remarks, after finding http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Names - Neier 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The burden of improving the articles rather than deleting them falls on those who want to keep them - not on those who want to delete.--Niohe 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, my point being that articles in need of improving should not even be brought to AFD to begin with. WP:DEL#Editing (There used be an instructive table regarding this, but, it has disappeared in the past few days. The gist remains, however). It is that type of "Improve this article in the next five days, or else" posturing that is starting to grow old. Neier 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime123 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-19 19:25:16
Marginal delete -- I'm assuming articles like Mottershead and Jones are not to be transwikied... If they're staying, then the majority of these articles offer very little that a decent categorization wouldn't.
Keep, the List of Jewish surnames is very useful and links to good articles and is a perfect source for information in Category:Hebrew names. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The list of Jewish surnames is interesting, but it is not an encyclopedic article at all. Just a list with a lot of red links. It should be transferred to Wiktionary.--Niohe 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the creator of the List of Luo surnames, I can say that the comment "no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose" does not apply there. There is a brief description of Luo nomenclature/name structure, then most of the surnames listed have a "meaning" or explanatory note after them. The argument, therefore, does not always hold.... Valerius Tygart 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The List of Luo surnames is one of the worst examples of unencyclopedic articles. I doesn't even lead anywhere else. I would suggest that you rewrite the article into a generic article about Luo surnames. As it stands now, it just a worthless list with little content.--Niohe 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your careful & thoughtful comments! Have a NICE day... ;-) Valerius Tygart 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete totally and utterly worthless. Thedreamdied 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up all per the above. If one article should be kept, they all should, as they all have the same potential. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The same potential?! Another example of circular reasoning.--Niohe 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep - I use these articles all the time in my own research. Why would a Wikipedian try to remove information that others use frequently and is, in fact, essential to their research? Incomprehensible. Please improve Wikipedia in some other....productive way. Badagnani 03:28, 23 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 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails in popular culture

Delete - this is another indiscriminate list and directory filled with largely unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time something that resembles the band or its name appears in any medium. No context provided to indicate the importance of the listed items either within the fictional item from which they are drawn or in the real world. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. It is a page much better suited for the new "ninwiki.com", not Wikipedia. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 06:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I bet I can find more references than this to Domino's Pizza in popular culture; should I start a page on that? This set of pages could be endless. --Brianyoumans 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except that while 90% of these are just drive-by name-checks (or a listing of minor bits of music heard somewhere else) a few, such as the whole Tori Amos entry, have some relevance to the history of the "band" (Reznor). Items like that should be included somewhere else (and properly sourced; there are a couple of books that have brought up that one) if they are not already. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet again, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts: and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? This article was spun off of the original Nine Inch Nails article because it, like many other articles, had a large "In Popular Culture" section. Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles appear to be in part "all the references to the band that were too trivial to put in the main article, but we wanted to put them somewhere so that people wouldn't keep adding them." I suspect some of these subjects could have a useful article on "the image of x in popular culture", expanding upon their branding, use in subcultures, differing perceptions worldwide perhaps, etc. On the whole, though, I would agree that most of these ...in popular culture articles could go. --Brianyoumans 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ckessler 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial fancruft in popular culture. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote from my arguments given in the number of other 'in popular culture articles: I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "NIN in Popular Culture" equals "NIN in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). --The Way 08:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, unencylopaedic, all the stuff the nom said, precedent... GassyGuy 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial. MichaelGriffin 00:09, 21 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley

Delete - This article was split off from Elvis Presley with the comment that the trivia section in that article had gotten out of hand. I agree, and the trivia works no better as an independent article. Most of the items are unsourced and some of it requires original research. Otto4711 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Detailing every reference to Elvis would simply be a long list of unnotable trivia, whatnot with his immense popularity and influence. ' 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any important cultural figure will have a lot of "cultural depictions" That, combined with silly trivia like "Elvis had a pet rabbit named Dean, after James Dean", make this a permanent list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 07:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Splitting off trivia sections from the main article prevents useless trivia from collecting in the main article. I had trouble even getting the Elvis article to load on my computer before I split off the trivia section. Now those who want to add information about what TV shows Elis has been mentioned on have a place to do so. As for it being an indiscriminate collection of information - it's true that it isn't the most organized article, but with some effort it can be brought up to the standard of some other similar articles (like the Joan of Arc and George Washington ones). YankeeDoodle14 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If the content is "useless trivia" then it belongs neither in the main article nor in a separate article. The proper response to useless trivia in articles is to delete it, not split it off. Otto4711 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with YankeeDoodle14. Elvis is notable as are his cultural contributions and a fork from the main Elvis page is warranted. That the article could use work is a call for better editing, not for deletion. Bbagot 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruftalicious. As I have stated on the AFDs for similar pages, this stuff could easily be condensed down to a paragraph or two, and added to the main Elvis page. Ckessler 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elvis is a notable figure who has been portrayed both seriously and not-so-seriously in an extensive amount of media over the years. I see this as a worthwhile spin-off of the main artcile. 23skidoo 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 20 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. I felt the "delete" arguments here were stronger than the "keeps". Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Who in popular culture

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time even a poster of one or another of the band members appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep to The Who. I know this is probably where the article started, but I'm sure most of what's in the article is verifiable, even if not currently verified. I suggest merging non-trivial popular culture references to The Who, tagging them with {{fact}} and deleting them if they remain unsourced for more than, say, 2 weeks. I think this could be a stand-alone article, but it would require adding a lot of context, performing a great deal of cleanup, and sourcing every claim made. Possible, but hard to do--that's why I write "weak" keep or merge. -- Black Falcon 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Who is a rock band. It is part of popular culture. So the title makes no sense. But besides that, it is not clear what the point of this article, and those like it, is. The only justifiable purpose is to show that the band has had a major influence on (other) popular culture. But their influence is better attested by benchmarks that are actually relevant to being a musical group, such as album/single sales, successful tours, and statements by later musicians saying that The Who was influential on them. These can all be put in the main article. Any other way of conveying the idea of influence will do nothing but be a collection of trivia. Andrew Levine 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Andrew Levine, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree is extensive. I've been reviewing the articles and as I find ones I consider AFD-able I'm AFD-ing them. It takes some time to do that. The AC/DC article was just nominated and closed with no consensus. If a consensus develops that these sorts of articles should be deleted, the AC/DC article can be renominated. Otto4711 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems The Who's contributions to modern culture are notable, including having the theme song to what was the #1 ranked show on television. While I do not listen to them personally, the article makes a strong case for notability. Bbagot 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable and no one is suggesting otherwise. The notability of the band, however, does not confer notability onto every appearance of the band, its music, or random photo of a band member drawn from every other medium ever. Otto4711 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, any sourced information can be added to the main article. Ckessler 06:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote from my arguments given in the number of other 'in popular culture' articles: I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "in Popular Culture" equals "in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). --The Way 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with The Way that all "In popular culture" articles should be deleted, but THIS one definitely should, it's nothing but insignificant trivia. Furthermore, no article on this topic should exist either.. The Who are an element of popular culture, anything really worth having should become part of the main article. Mango juice^talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some work and sources, but it is an article worth saving. The main The Who article is already too long and this article shouldn't be merged with it under any circumstances. TheWho822 4:22, 21 February 2007

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Díaz

Non-notable, unverifiable, and unsourced. Only real claim to fame appears to be participation on post 9/11 committees. Fails WP:BIO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability claimed, established or likely. Nuttah68 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not even sure from the article which hearing he participated in. Congressional, City council or "Free Speech Day" at the local YMCA. Montco 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment that is probably my fault; I did some work with the article before I decided it was better to ~~delete it~~ propose it for deletion. The previous (highly POV) statement did mention more thoroughly the nature and source of Mr. Díaz's comment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references and unverified citations. All this makes it necessary to delete a living persons bio Alf photoman 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity bio. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. (jarbarf) 00:46, 22 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 Biological determinism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:51Z

Biologism

A basically incoherent article. Doesn't even define the article's subject. It has something to do with evolution and homosexuality and testosterone. Or something. De-proded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Peter G Werner, below. Thanks for finding that. eaolson 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: nn neologism. -- feb^talk 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Under what speedy delete criteria? eaolson 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A1 or G1. Honestly, makes next to no sense. Kind of like those "arugment maker" sites, you put in the name of something you don't like, and it comes up with a bunch of perfectly fine english to describe what's so awful about it, but if you actually read it it doesn't actually have content -- feb^talk 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ - Article appears to be using an existing word as a neologism for something else. According to the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, Helicon Publishing LTD 2007, biologism is "biological theory; use of biological terms." This is a very general idea, and appears to have nothing to do with the content of the Wikipedia entry of that name. In addition, the sentence "Biologism will become the underlying principle of the future societies" is probably the worst violation of WP:CRYSTAL I've yet seen. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the proper term, as below, unless it is properly sourced in short order. But in either case, the content of the current article should still be removed (i.e., do not merge with anything) per what I said above. The existing content is not salvagable. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Biological determinism, which this term is clearly a neologistic synonym of. I'd recommend a merge, but the writing in "Biologism" is so unclear, that I don't think it can be salvaged. A google search of "biologism -wikipedia" yields 55600 hits, most having something to do with biological determinism, so clearly the word is a semi-established synonym. Peter G Werner 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not neologistic. A quick search turns up books discussing biologism at length that go back several decades. It is the "attempt to reduce social science to biology" in the words of ISBN 9027719136, published in 1985, and "biological reductionism" according to ISBN 0802088600. ISBN 0887068219, published in 1988, discusses the "new biologism" that arose in the 1940s. ISBN 0873955188, published in 1981, talks about the biologism of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Oswald Spengler. There are books from 1938 discussing biologism in British philosophy, and books from 1946 discussing the attraction of biologism for George Bernard Shaw. Uncle G 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Copy Uncle G's comments to article & put it on the clean-up list. It's marginal & obscure, but a worthy topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peter G Werner. » K i G O E | talk 05:30, 19 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 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of swear words

No real use, unencyclopaedic, no guidelines for what words should be included and which shouldn't. Would seem to be better to use Category:Profanity than this list feb^talk 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. List that is better suited in a CAT. --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per WP:LIST. The list is informative, even if not particularly englightening. Unlike Category:Profanity, this list includes definitions after each of the terms, so it aids in navigation. By WP:LIST, it should stay. However, I do believe it should be rephrased to the more verifiable title List of profane words. -- Black Falcon 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Doesn't your comment sort of point out WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, particularly #2? -- feb^talk 13:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words: It's a dictionary of swear words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. List of profanities (AfD discussion) was deleted for being a dictionary, too. There is no navigational purpose to this list, because it doesn't link to articles on the words. The articles that are bluelinked, such as lance (a thing) and Gaylord (a name disambiguation), have nothing to do with the words and are pretty much bluelinked by accident. Dictionary articles on the words will be found on the project that is a dictionary: Wiktionary. Wiktionary has plenty of lists of swear words and profanities that editors who want to be lexicographers can work on, such as wikt:Category:Vulgarities, and wikt:Category:Swear words by language, for examples. Uncle G 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, those blue-links don't link to the words, but others like honky and wanker do. In any case, my goal was not to keep this list as is, but to keep and see it improved with encyclopedic content (such as information on origins, commonality of use, geographic distribution of use, etc.). However, as I doubt anyone will, I have removed by suggestion to "keep". I do agree with you and the nominator that the list cannot remain as it is. I though it could be expanded, but upon further consideration, I seem to have overestimated its potential for expansion. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what exactly is a swear word anyway, and how do we verify it? Rklawton 07:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It serves no purpose--Cometstyles 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is yet another dictionary of words, mostly slang words, many of which are not, in fact used to swear. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. Its articles are not dictionary articles, nor are they dictionaries in their own rights. wikt:Category:English swear words is the proper place for this, and it already exists. Delete. Uncle G 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a dictionary. If the information on each word were expanded, it would have to be done in a non-dictionary, encyclopedic way, and I don't see how that's possible when the list clearly focuses on words, which is just the focus of Wictionary, not Wikipedia.Noroton 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Profanity would work much better. Dfrg.msc 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per msc. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others...and really, what qualifies as a swear word? "Krutz" isn't even on the list. --UsaSatsui 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joie de Vivre 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A large majority of these words aren't swear words, they're slang. What's the point, seriously? 80.41.104.38 20:01, 19 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 per consensus. Pea ceNT 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Victorian election campaign

The article is a chronological summary of media reports about the election campaign for the Victorian general election, 2006. Seperate articles deal with encyclopedic content about the candidates and the election itself. I would consider an article on the policies of the parties and candidates of the election to be encyclopedic, but this is just a collection of sourced opinions, media stunts and quotations. Grumpyyoungman01 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable topic and is well sourced. John Vandenberg 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this is unencyclopedic, and it's clearly notable and verifiable within Wikipedia policies. --Canley 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Victorian general election, 2006 article is about the election and this article is about the campaign. I see nothing wrong with that, especially given that it's presented in encyclopedic format (it is not a list of links with brief summaries--the article is a coherent whole). Both topics pass WP:Notability and are encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would detract from Victorian general election, 2006 to have more than a summary of this article included there. The campaign is equally notable to the election itself. Clearly the success of the various parties campaigns are shown in the result of the election.Ga rr ie 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources, notable, etc. —Nightst a llion (?) 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the topic per se is notable and the article is well sourced. I haven't found any official WP policy which refers to this type of article, but from a search of "election campaign" this is the first article of its type. This section from 'what WP is not' is the closet I could come to a guideline. I refer to section 7 - plot summaries. The article in question is a massive plot summary, which doesn't actually discuss itself in broader terms. Grumpyyoungman01 08:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 7 of WP:NOT#IINFO refers only to "works of fiction". -- Black Falcon 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but as this is a new type of article it isn't dealt with anywhere in WP, so I decided to use an argument from analogy. Surely some of the ideas in section 7 are relevant to all plots whether fictional or non-fictional. Grumpyyoungman01 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the analogy is appropriate, as the whole point of section 7 is that plot summaries complement "real-world context and sourced analysis". This is real-world context and sourced analysis. -- Black Falcon 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No reason for deletion. Dfrg.msc 09:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep verifiable, notable and useful article about the election campaign. Sarah 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article should be cleaned up so that it is a history, or a chronology, of the election, rather than a list of media mentions of the election. But that alone is not sufficient reason to delete. The article might be improved by a rename, though not sure to what. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. It needs at least a partial rewrite, but is good enough to not warrant a deletion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above - the subject is not in violation of any policies although the style and content is in drastic need of revision per WP:SELF and WP:LENGTH IMO. Orderinchaos78 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is encyclopaedic, even if not all the content is. I'd suggest the article be pared down substantially. Joestella 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as topic is clearly notable. Possibly needs a bit of a rewrite but that can be further addressed in the talk page. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets notability, NPOV and source criteria. I could do with a tidy up though, and the last two weeks of the campaign needs to be added. I think the actual content and style of the campaign are likely to be of considerable historical interest, particularly the last two weeks Peter Campbell 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. Compress important information and integrate it into the main article. michael ^talk 08:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Michael is 100% right that we should improve the article as he describes. But that doesn't mean we should delete it in the meantime. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, loads of precedent for "election campaign" articles like this one.

Lankiveil 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment It was my impression that there weren't any precedents from a quick search. Grumpyyoungman01 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public government elections are notable. Just H^{editor review} 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously. But are election campaigns notable? That is the point in discussion. Grumpyyoungman01 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Worst case scenario, merge it into a bigger article. Just H^{editor review} 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only criterion by which we should be judging events is WP:N. This article clearly passes. To debate whether certain classes of events are notable outside of the guidelines set by WP:N is original research and subjective. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and merge The campaing is not separate from the elections.Circeus 13:20, 21 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, CSD A7. -- Steel 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Txhc.com

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per WP:SNOW -- feb^talk 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..... what? --- RockMFR 04:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Was just created, hardly enough time to even become notable. --Dennisthe2 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; fails WP:WEB criterias.--TBCΦtalk? 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone else, fails WP:WEB, does not assert notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -not notable, fails to meet WP:WEB. Retiono Virginian 17:37, 17 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 per consensus Pea ceNT 08:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GayNZ.com

Non-notable website. No secondary sources seem to exist which verify notability. --- RockMFR 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - taking a look at the Ghits, it may meet point 3 of WP:WEB: "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." The distribution of GayNZ.com stories by multiple other sites is enough to tip me to a keep !vote although it's hardly cast in stone. Otto4711 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Has to meet most of the criterias of notability, not just one. --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:WEB: "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability using reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content are deemed notable, if they meet any one of the following criteria." (emphasis in the original) Otto4711 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Otto4711's opinion, plus countering RockMFR's assertion that it's not notable as GayNZ is NZ's largest on-line GLBT community and is referenced by NZ media as a source for the views of the GLBT community. Enzedbrit 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a dick, but would you mind providing links to where it is referenced by the NZ media? --- RockMFR 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Television New Zealand, Scoop.co.nz, New Zealand Herald, NZ Edge... Grutness...wha? 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Grutness. I'd have suggested www.scoop.co.nz with a searchEnzedbrit 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. The page is notable enough. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears notable. Though a secondary resource would be nice, it gets over 22,000 hits on Google. ZimmerBarnes 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability = Pass. Dfrg.msc 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. There's a lot less notable stuff than this on Wikipedia. Alun 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711 and the sources provided by Grutness. The website appears to be a notable NZ online community. WjBscribe 09:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tolbert

Non-notable, non-verifiable, and indication of WP:COI. Crunk 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any verification of his alleged contract with Comedy Central; Google shows few, if any, relevant results[6].--TBCΦtalk? 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, google hits hardly encouraging for the production of reliable sources, WP:COI issues aside. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:20, 19 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNC imam controversy

As a member of the evil godless liberal Muslim atheist Democrats of Wikipedia that swear there is no God and Muhammad is his prophet, I'm afraid I must nominate this article for deletion. I simply can't stand our evil schemes being revealed. Also, this is more appropriate for Wikinews anyway as this is an utterly minor non-incident. A local Imam prayed at a Democratic meeting; hardly any different than your average Christian minister with some perhaps odd views praying at a Republican meeting. This fails the 10 day test, and seems to have already blown over.

Though it doesn't technically impact on notability, I'd also point out that all the sources are from the tabloid wing of the conservatives rather than the intellectual side, which leads to POV/reliability concerns. Most of the G News articles seem to be copies of one Debbie Schlussel editorial.

(By the way, feel free to discount my personal vote, but I hope that merely bringing this page to other's attention should be sufficient. For those curious as to how come a one-edit account knows Wikipedia policy, I'm friends with another Wikipedian and just haven't edited much myself...) Quiet Isomorph 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic POV. szyslak (t, c) 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, blatant NPOV violation. Cedlaod 07:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom, with tongue firmly in cheek, kinda sez it all. --Dennisthe2 11:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent nomination, non-notable news event of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Delete to Al-Husainy if he passes notability since the article is about him, otherwise delete. Koweja 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the new name is much more appropriate, and he seems notable. Koweja 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete I have a problem with teh "DNC" being in the title. That seems to be questionable to me.--Sefringle 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment looking at google for Al-Husainy with keywords related to the dnc thing removed [7] seems to come up with some stuff that I'd like to make an article out of. I'm wondering if we could move this article to Husham Al-Husainy, so we don't loose the edit history or whatever. Here is a sketch of what the article would look like over there: User:Smmurphy/Husham Al-Husainy (POV issues still abound in the dnc section, which is unchanged). I realize it still borders on nn, but I like its chances there much better than here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to Husham Al-Husainy, and redirected the afd for that page to this article. I'm not sure what people think about the new article, its still borderline, but Al-Husainy is often interviewed by national news sources independent of this controversy, so I think it passes WP:BIO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:53, 22 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator. I will relist the pages individually. szyslak (t, c) 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of flops

(View AfD)

There have been many AFDs regarding lists of "flops", such as List of miscellaneous commercial failures, Lists of flops in entertainment and others. Here I'm nominating the remaining "flop" lists for deletion, except List of commercial failures in video gaming which was AFDed with a "keep" result a few months ago. All the pages in this nom are descendants of the old "List of major flops/List of commercial failures". Feel free to add other articles.

The same old arguments apply to these articles: they're indiscriminate, POV lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and there's no solid definition of a "flop". szyslak (t, c) 06:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V as a flop (etc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 07:01, February 17 2007.
Keep and possibly speedy close. I strongly disagree with the decision to list them together. List of military disasters, for instance, is sourced by two books which are specifically about "military blunders". The information contained in List of political flops is mostly true and verifiable (including the part about such incidents being classified as "political campaign[s] which fails disastrously in spite of high expectations"). I think {{unreferenced}} would be more appropriate for this case. At this time, I have no comment on the other two lists. -- Black Falcon 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there has already been a "delete" !vote, I doubt this'll be speedy closed unless you can demonstrate that I have violated policy by listing the articles together. Besides, I figure the articles will all be AFD'd on their own sooner or later. szyslak (t, c) 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the delete vote when I received an "edit conflict" notice, but didn't change my comment (I have stricken it now). I don't think you've violated policy, I only called for a speedy close because I didn't think the same arguments applied to all the articles (especially List of military disasters, which is referenced). -- Black Falcon 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep - I think people are being incredibly sensitive with these. I liked commercial failures. I liked entertainment failures. True, the articles are (were :( ) amateurly written, for the most part - but the products within them were uniformly awful. I don't think it's POV to call a square a square. The only article that had troubles was the Video Game Failures one, and that was the result of a rather petulant group of self-appointed dictators who refused to allow the inclusion of any game that wasn't in Seanbaby's Bottom 20. (sorry, confused it with the Worst Videogames Ever article) It is (was :( ) articles like these that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place - the forgotten and failed, the dismal and pathetic, the OK Sodas and Turn Ons of the world. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and niggling over objectivity in areas such as this is counter-productive to the utmost. --Action Jackson IV 10:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think these articles would be better debated separately. There is a big difference between a commercial failure (which is verifiable), and a political flop (which is a matter of interpretation). Sam Blacketer 10:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, list them separately. I think the grocery one should be deleted (unsourced, untrue for a few, poorly written, undefined), but not the military one (as per Black Falcon). Lrrr IV 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, as I would never attempt to add 4 entries in one deletion nomination in this lot of AFD list massacre I seen within a month, all you get will be a keep answer by the end of it. The political one should be retitled though and the military to be kept. Willirennen 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, list them seperately, these articles all have problems certainly, but each has it's own unique problem. Some might well be good candidates for deletion, but probably not all. I'd suggest an admin stop this AfD for a prodedural "no consensus" and send a note to the nom to relist these as individual AfDs. -Markeer 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except the grocery list Whilding87 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Most of the articles seem extremely weak on sourcing, but I see no reason to believe they can't find sourcing for nearly everything in them. Political flops are hard to source without either citing an election result (in which case they're easy to source) or perhaps poll results, although if enough highly respected sources can be cited, that article too should be possible to source in its entirety. Adequate sourcing should eliminate nearly all POV concerns. It seems to me incredibly useful to know the history of flops in a particular field. That doesn't seem indiscriminate at all, and it sounds very encyclopedic to me. Noroton 18:34, 17 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Peace Action

Nom - previously successfully prodded and now recreated (so here we are). Non-notable student organization located on the University of Central Florida in Orlando campus that fails WP:N and WP:RS. No claims to membership, no press, no notability, (but they do host a movie night at a local coffee house... folks!) Too bad G4 doesn't apply to Prods. Rklawton 06:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article does not assert the importance of its subject--TBCΦtalk? 07:11, 17 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 Khaled Mashal. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:53Z

Third intifada

This is essentially a re-hash of some November 2006 news stories. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. A current Google News search yields numerous hits regarding similar threats to launch a third intifada due to the current Temple Mount situation, which illustrates that - as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - maybe we should not have an article on every threat to launch a conflict, but actually wait for a conflict to occur before writing about it. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the symbol of a new intifada, and the use of the term when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is itself worthy of an encyclopedia article. KazakhPol 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- I agree with the nominator. For all we know, this will turn out to be just another Hamas threat. Suggesting that this deserves an article is crystal ballism. Mangojuice^talk 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move, then merge Having looked a little more closely, I note that this event is not covered at Khaled Mashal, and probably should be. I suggest we move the page to Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada, and then make a note on Talk:Khaled Mashal that the information is there so it can be merged into the article. (Move, rather than delete, though, because of the GFDL requirements.) Mango juice^talk 16:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Crystal. --The Way 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - While WP:CRYSTAL doesn't technically apply since the article covers past statements, and WP:NOT only applies to Wikipedia not being a primary source in regards to news, this should be deleted or merged for other reasons; namely, the article only consists of one statement by Khaled Mashal then two statements not necessarily connected to the subject--i.e. WP:OR. So, WP:OR applies here as well as WP:N since the article only cites one source referring to the third intifada. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:20, 18 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. There is a case for developing the historical ramifications of mountain biking on Mt. Tamalpais, but the article as-is does not go into detail. As the article has been transwikied, the only action left is for much of the content to be rewritten, but that is an editorial decision independent of the deletion process. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Delete: This article is a content fork created after blatently unencyclopedic material was removed from the article Mount Tamalpais. The article is essentially a mountain biking guide to Mount Tamalpais and, like other "how to" guides, has a place in Wikibooks, but not Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Are you sure Wikibooks wants this type of material? b:WB:WIW#Wikibooks is not a general repository for nonfiction works seems to suggest otherwise: All works here must conform to Wikimedia-wide policy of NPOV, no original research, etc. As such, the vast majority of books which you would find on the nonfiction shelves of a book store are not appropriate for Wikibooks. A quick browse around Wikibooks finds some material that seems to violate that guideline, but maybe the policy enforcers haven't gotten around to it yet. In any case, Bicycling Wiki definitely wants cycling-related articles of this kind. --Teratornis 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bicycling Wiki it is, then. I figure the "trail guide" info is appropriate, somewhere, just not on Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a sports guide. Sandstein 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This content fork seems pertinent to the Mount Tamalpais article. Mt. Tam is the birthplace of mountain biking and provides ideal beginner to advanced mountain biking terrain on its extensive trails system. It is a premier and renowned mountain biking recreation destination that readers would like to know more about. This article provides specific links to locations to ride and the best rides that other editors can contribute to. That information would probably be overlooked by readers at the more general links that the Mount Tamalpais article has already been reduced to. Also, WP:NOT does not NOT mention "sports guide" or sports. uriel8 (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOT does not mention every single possible example of what kind of content does not belong in Wikipedia. But by way of analogy, a mountain biking guide is almost the same as a travel guide, which is specifically mentioned as an example of unencyclopedic content in point 2 under WP:NOT#IINFO. Again, why not just start a wikibook on "Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais" or "Recreation on Mount Tamalpais"? Peter G Werner 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a part of Wikiproject Cycling. It provides a valuable addition to to the Recreation section of the Mount Tamalpais article because of the relevance of mountain biking to the mountain itself, being the historic origin of the sport of mountain biking. uriel8 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and brief essay - I am a member of WikiProject Cycling, and a personally non-neutral partisan of cycling, but all WikiProjects must conform to Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a general-purpose information appliance for any particular group of users. Perhaps the most basic feature of encyclopedic content is that it has been published in a reputable source already; see: WP:VERIFY and WP:ATTRIBUTE. Everything we write on Wikipedia has to be attributable to a reputable source. That's why, among the bicycling-related articles, there seem to be so many articles about elite bicycle racing, and fewer articles about the bicycling most bicyclists actually do: bicycle races are widely reported in published sources, whereas much of non-competitive bicycling gets less press. The key to writing an encyclopedic article about a cycling-related topic is to get the article's information from published sources, and cite them all properly. Doing that generally avoids these article deletion nominations.

Given that Mount Tamalpais is notable at least within the cycling community and literature, demonstrating that notability should be straightforward, if somewhat laborious. Someone merely needs to research the cycling literature and find multiple published sources documenting the history of mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais. I can recall reading about the legendary "Repack" race years ago (mentioned in Gary Fisher, but also unsourced there, regrettably). There have probably been notable bicycle races on or around Mount Tamalpais, reported in published sources, which could go in the article without dispute.

Writing about cycling in an encyclopedic style would be simpler if editors had online access to the complete library of published cycling literature. Unfortunately we don't, as far as I know. One worthwhile task for WikiProject Cycling would be to assemble the most comprehensive possible list of what material is suitable for sourcing cycling-related articles on Wikipedia.

In the meantime, any cycling-related article deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia is welcome on Bicycling Wiki, which has no requirement for encyclopedic content. --Teratornis 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that User:Uriel8 has notified a number of other users of this debate. I make no assumptions as to their intentions, this is for information only. Chris cheese whine 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer - I am one of the users so notified. However, I think I can add constructively to the discussion. See below. --Teratornis 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's written like the contents of a guidebook, and so it belongs elsewhere. Blank Verse 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content forks not allowed, a blatant how-to/travel guide, which isn't allowed either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite within another article. The article looks like a content fork, and the how-to style isn't very encyclopedic. On the other hand, there's some significant history of mountain biking that happened on Mt. Tam. I'd suggest removing the driving directions from the article and adding some history of the pioneers of the sport as practiced on Mt. Tam. As far as the trail descriptions are concerned, they can either be covered by an external link, or summarized with a couple quick sentences. The pictures can be included as a gallery within another article. As far as the merge goes, I'd suggest putting the useful content either in Mount Tamalpais or Mount Tamalpais State Park. I'll also mention the Mountain biking in British Columbia article as a precedent. I created that article several months ago by splitting off some content from Mountain biking that was digressing from the main article content. Also, I'll mention that my opinion was solicited in the discussion, but when that happens, I don't always vote "keep" indiscriminately. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You're right about the historical information, however, note that there's very little historical information in Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and that that information is already in the Mount Tamalpais article. If the historical information on mountain biking on Mt Tam got to be extensive enough, that could justify a breakout article from the main "Mount Tamalpais" article. However, as it stands, the real reason for the present breakaway article is to include largely unencyclopedic content. Peter G Werner 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect that given the prominence of Mount Tamalpais in the cycling community for 25+ years, there is probably more than enough properly-sourceable historical material to fill an article. However, digging it up would be some work. --Teratornis 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bicycling Wiki and develop there. Bicycling Wiki welcomes articles of this type, which provide the kind of information cyclists need. As far as whether an article about mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais can be made suitable for Wikipedia, that seems straightforward enough, because the area has been extensively documented in the cycling literature. I suggest putting the how-to, travel-guide information on Bicycling Wiki, which wants this information, and working on an encyclopedic version of the article for Wikipedia, which can for example survey the extensive cycling literature references to mountain biking in the area, and link to the eponymous Bicycling Wiki article for the travel guide material. I've been cycling since 1980, and I've been reading about mountain biking on Mount Tamalpais for as long as I can remember. The location is legendary among cyclists. --Teratornis 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think this would be a really good solution. I don't deny that the information that Uriel8 wants to add isn't useful in some context, just not in Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copy to bicyclingwiki.com. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Teratornis. Article's author should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a how-to guide. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite within another article. I agree with [[User:Elkman|Elkman]. If Mt Tamalpais has historical significance in the development of mountain biking, then a new article should be written concentrating on the historical aspects. The current article reads more like a travel guide. I'm sure it will be a useful addition to other sites, but not really encyclopedic in its current form. Moxfyre 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I just found out that much of the content in the Mount Tamalpais and Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais is straight up plagiarized from the following website: [8]. That's going to mean the "Mount Tamalpais" article is going to require a lot of cleanup to separate the plagiarized parts from legitimate contributions. <grumble> Peter G Werner 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) – It appears the website in question copied Wikipedia – sorry! Peter G Werner 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais does make some very strong claims to notability. Such as being the "birthplace" of mountainbiking and having had famous races there. I'm going to take the word of members of WikiCyling on this for now.... but it would help a lot if we have a few sources for these claims. Mathmo ^Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, disagree with nom. With a few minor changes, there would be no reason as to why I cannot stay on Wikipedia. Dfrg.msc 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transfer the info somewhere else but not in Wikipedia. When it comes down to it Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide (WP:NOT#IINFO), mountain biking guide, how to guide, or any other kind of guide - its and encyclopedia. AfD debates should always be focused on policy and it is pretty clear in this case. Madmedea 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mountain biking at this location appears to meet notability criteria and is certainly of interest to the cycling community. However, I agree with others who have noted the article does need a rewrite so that references/citations are provided and to make the style more encyclopedic. A 'guide style version' could live on in the Bicycling Wiki Peter Campbell 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable points in the history of mountain biking such as supposed invention and races.<marquee>James Barlow 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately for this article I am a strong believer in WP:CITE and it doesnn't appear to be anything close to citing something. Also for the title, I<m not to enthused... Next thing we'll have mountain biking in the Gatineau Hills. A lot of the information appears to be first hand experience trip or original research. Up to what level can and should an article allow such info. According to WP:OR we shouldn't allow it. Good start but I don't quite see an legitimate article. If you want to do the pictures maybe you should have a gallery at the commons and then link the main article about that area. with all the stuff that needs to be improved I think this could probably be 2 - 3 tiny paragraphs.I recommend the information be copied to a usser sub-page as a personal experience tab for exemple.--CyclePat 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – if this article is kept, it will have to be knocked back to a short stub immediately. So far, I've heard some good arguments on the potential for an encyclopedic article on mountain biking on Mt. Tamalpais, however, I haven't seen anybody make a good case for keeping the most of the existing content. The "travel guide" style content flat out goes against the guidelines of WP:NOT and belongs in Bicycling Wiki, not Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the development of Mountain Biking and its association with this area makes it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, much of the existing content needs editing and perhaps some deletion, with proper referencing of sources, including its historical notability. I suggest the article is cut back to a stub. I was contacted to participate in this discussion as a contributor to Wikiproject Cycling. --Takver 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Takver, the are is very important for mountain biking history and I believe is notable enough to be included here. But I also think much of the content must be deleted or transwikied or something. Maybe it can be left as a cycling-stub. --Suleyman Habeeb 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've taken the liberty of transwiki-ing this article to Bicycling Wiki. (Most of it, anyway, they don't allow image uploads.) It can be found here: Bicycling Wiki: Mount Tamalpais. Peter G Werner 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for transwiki-ing. I'm checking on the image uploads with the Bicycling Wiki proprietor. My understanding from a few months ago was that Bicycling Wiki would allow image uploads. --Teratornis 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the Bicycling Wiki sysop fixed the problem. Let me know if you have any problems with image upload. --Teratornis 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There doesn't seem to be consensus for deleting the article. Is there at least consensus on the fact that most of the present content of the article (which constitutes both a content fork and a kind of travel guide) is inappropriate and should be deleted? In other words, knock the article back to a stub until it can be expanded with encyclopedic content. Peter G Werner 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatently unsourced spam. Why is there even a discussion? WilyD 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of rides that are useful to people who read Wikipedia is sourced to the same place that the Mount Tamalpais recreation section is sourced to: Marin Trials site. The reason that it is useful to break it out for casual readers who are interested in mountain biking is that it would take them 30 minutes to find any of them there. uriel8 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that so far, you've failed to provide any valid argument according to Wikipedia policy for keeping the content of this article. Your arguments have simply been variations on "Its Useful", which in itself is not a valid reason for including an article or particular content. Peter G Werner 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can link to your transwiki to the Bicycling wiki you can delete the Wikipedia article. uriel8 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I just added this link, and had intended to do so anyway. I'm going to wait until this AfD is closed before making further modifications to the article. Peter G Werner 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not seem to address my concern that the article is blatently unsourced spam. I'm perplexed - perhaps you care to elaborate? WilyD 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jumps out right at me as an advertisement, or at least not an article from an encyclopedia. If not deleted, this article needs a total rewrite.--Windsamurai 02:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, we're not a how-to guide. There is a section in the article on Mount Tamalpais about hiking and biking, and it's appropriate there (I'd argue) to provide a link to www.bicyclingwiki.com. (And if it's not appropriate as a footnote, it certainly should be okay as an external link.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom Avi 16:50, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California school

What little info is here duplicates that in The Industrial Revolution in China. --Ideogram 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO as a single author's protologism. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An explanation of this term can be added to The Industrial Revolution in China if need be. Otherwise, the notability of the term needs to be better established. --Danaman5 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant duplication of material already there, quite apart from neologism and notability issues. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to The Industrial Revolution in China. » K i G O E | talk 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the original article - I have no objections to redirecting the article to Industrial Revolution in China and moving content there. Roadrunner 06:47, 19 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, per WP:SNOW, article created by self-confessed hoaxer. -- The Anome 11:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aronicus Bijork

Originally tagged as speedy under A1; however, this article provides sufficient context to be a stub. But there are no google hits at all for this, which make me suspect that it is a hoax. Heimstern Läufer 08:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear hoax, Someone toying with Wikipedia for fun. Zero Google hits. --Wafulz 08:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax, and therefore mere vandalism. (See [9], where the poster declares their intention to add hoaxes to Wikipedia, a link to which has also been added to the article by the article's poster, User:NoFanOfReality.) I've deleted the user's other contribution Seamus Ham, part of the same hoax, which was marked for speedy deletion. I have now also indefblocked the article's poster. -- The Anome 11:29, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon spence

Not notable. Not been elected to any public position. Also, autobiographical. Chris 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Getting chosen as a candidate for a ward is not a claim of notability, as in most parties there is no real competition. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article virtually deletes itself. Patently non-notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply unnotable. What next, someone making an article for their den mother? "Vandalizing secular website" Merit Badge? -- feb^talk 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician, one of the ones whom the people notablility guideline applies to when saying "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." James086 ^Talk 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep yes this article is autobiographical but remains factual and referenced, if being a candidate is non notable then the article should be deleted, however this article should be cross referenced with anoth AfD Tim Kalemkarian who has repeatedly stood for candidacy through self nomination and it would appear that the general discussion favours a keep. I, on the other hand, have been nominated through a candidacy process and local selection. Clarification is requiredas to level of notability that selected candidacy brings versus self nomination?Leonspence 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO in almost every way. (jarbarf) 00:49, 22 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. Transwiki'd and cross-link already added to Electronic learning W.marsh 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-learning glossary

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not for dictionary definitions or lists of such definitions. Word definitions are to be explained in the context of an encyclopedia article and lists of words generally only occur for the use of disambiguation pages. Also, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." Dictionary definitions, however, are appropriate for Wiktionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

Deletion after transwiki is therefore standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been transwikied, so now delete. Again and again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a dictionary or a list of terms. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me this information is organized with a specific topic in mind. Perhaps merging it to E-Learning in a glossary section might be appropriate. Bbagot 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wiktionary article is now cross-linked to e-learning with {{wiktionary}}. This seems more helpful than puting the list of words into an article. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Dmcdevit as transwikied. I agree that a inter-wiki cross-link is more appropriate in this case. -- Black Falcon 18:25, 23 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?)} 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPC of Myrtle Beach

Contested deletion. Golf course and commercial housing developments with no claim to notability other than being owned by the PGA Nuttah68 10:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no assertion of notability other, seemingly, than existence, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - location of one Senior Tour stop in 2000. [10] - Neier 01:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but in need of rewrite as to make notability more clear, and be less advert-like Cornell Rockey 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage [11] [12] [13]. Appears to pass WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 20:55, 20 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 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Theory

Apparently unverifiable. Various Google searches for the topics in the article find only this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. The only contributions of User:Wilson phd, the editor who created it, are this article and links to it in other pages. The Anome 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe a hoax, maybe not, doesn't really matter. Completely non-notable either way. Not only unverified but also unverifiable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether it is a hoax or unpublished original research. --Tikiwont 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N and possibly WP:HOAX. I find it troubling to see an article about a 'theory proposed by a scientist' that doesn't even cite the article or articles that scientist proposed the theory in. Scientific theories aren't something they mused about to a friend over lunch, they are formalized with publication. Except this one, which seems to have no evidence or assertion of it's existence. -Markeer 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is hoax I guess. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:50, 18 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian "Abe" Shaw

No verifiable sources provided. Delete as unverifiable. The Anome 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, blatant promotion, and I would guess that this fellow is about as notable as my left sock. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable article about a film director without an IMDB entry. Tikiwont 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. S .D. ¿п? § 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Edcolins 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V Alf photoman 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a vanity page of sorts, and the lack of an IMDb profile (or any other sources) reinforces that image. (jarbarf) 18:06, 20 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zofia Kulik

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. There's no direct assertion of notability and there are other ongoing AFD debates about Polish contemporary artists, so I've deprodded this article and brought it here. I'll say I'm neutral. Mereda 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if shes the subject of multiple, non-trivial works, but I did find [14] and a critical analysis of some of her art [15]. Those are just English though and there are many more ghits when not searching for English only. Perhaps someone who speaks Polish would be better able to prove notability. James086 ^Talk 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work for the English version of wikipedia, especially if their are so few English language references, but the artist was in the Venice Biennial, so that's some notability right there. Freshacconci 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:As I've argued before, inclusion in the Biennal is an assertion of notability, but as usual that needs to be documented. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which is why the article needs work. I think we should take it as good faith that the artist was at the Biennale and that this can be referenced, which would require someone to do the (most likely Polish language) research. Freshacconci 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable per the website; this is not adequately shown in the article yet. Johnbod 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment culture.pl usually lists notable artists, but this stub currently makes no refs on notability... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that at all. What is culture.pl? Besides which, no one source is the ultimate arbiter. Tyrenius 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying the same as me just above; it is the website, which makes a much better account of notability than the article does. Johnbod 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info There's also a generic discussion on artist notability that started Feb 14. --Mereda 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources now on the article demonstrate WP:V and WP:N. John Vandenberg 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that I've inserted inline citation for Venice Biennale! Tyrenius 05:07, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Summons in the Final Fantasy series

This article is a laundry list of summons appearing in each Final Fantasy game. Summons are already explained in the article Final Fantasy magic, which in itself is in need of some work once our WikiProject gets the chance to do so. Speaking of which, you know our stance on unencyclopedic information - we shun fancruft, and we devote free time to removing it. This "list" has no sources (let alone reliable sources like a strategy guide or magazene article), and serves as just a pointless extention to the adequete section on the magic page. Of course, then we have the traditional and obvious WP:NOT reasons, such as "list of loosely associated topics", but I try to not be a condecending deletionist (I'm a mergist, actually). — Deckill er 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as FFcruft. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. Combination 14:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a meaningless list of names incomprehensible to people who've never played a video game in their lives. ' 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for the names of chemical compounds. It's only meaningless if you WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Oh, FYI, I don't know it either. That said, however, ... delete per nom (WP:NOT, WP:RS, etc.). -- Black Falcon 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that it's meaningless without the context of the game articles, nor is it neccessary for understanding of the game articles. Do we have a WP:IDONTKNOWITANDTHISARTICLEFAILSTOCORRECTTHAT? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do know it. I just have sympathy for those who don't. A list composed solely of names like "Alexander" or "Bahamut" won't help them know it. I don't like the idea of lists consisting solely of names, even chemical, but that's another topic. ' 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The table into the main Final Fantasy article. It could certainly be meaningful for players of the game. The lists underneath are redundant and serve no purpose. Bbagot 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already merged in Final Fantasy magic#Table of appearances by the same author actually. Kariteh 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information. Then I would certainly vote Delete Bbagot 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, please don't clutter up a GA with a trivial table. --PresN 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Final Fantasy (series) and Final Fantasy magic are far, far from being GAs anyway. Kariteh 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; Final Fantasy magic has been subject to a downward spiral. — Deckill er 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, was thinking of Final Fantasy (video game) for some reason, though why it would be merged there I don't know. --PresN 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An indiscriminate list of things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Nimrand 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The table of appearances was not merged into Final Fantasy magic until after I had a discussion with the author about the unencyclopedic value of this page and it's probable deletion, for the purposes of this AfD, we should assume that the table is not here. The table's appearance in Final Fantasy magic is a seperate issue. --Daedalus 15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment segues into my next point:

Delete per nom. --Daedalus 15:47, 19 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of DiC Entertainment

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the pictures into DiC Entertainment. Lrrr IV 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its got to be original research. Madmedea 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much obscure information without any sourcing or indication of why it's notable or encyclopedic. Also, many of the logos have been deleted.--Kubigula (talk) 23:08, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation logos

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much obscure information without any sourcing or indication of why it's notable or encyclopedic. Also, most of the logos have been deleted.--Kubigula (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Salvageable info can be transferred to the main article if a reference can be providedLenticel 06:06, 20 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 Kept This article was nominated for deletion because error in consistancy of years. The article has now been clarified.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election

This article was Speedily Kept This article was nominated for deletion because error in consistancy of years. The article has now been clarified.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is covered else where like in Manitoba general election, 2003. Also the title, intro, and the section about Donald Bailey have nothing to do with each other. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Manitoba general election, 2003. Also, I'm confused: the title says 1990, but the article discusses 2003. This article says the NDP won 20 seats, while the Manitoba general election, 2003 article says 35. Also, the only person discussed is someone who lost. What gives? -- Black Falcon 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with several precedents.

Some time ago, Wikipedians had an extensive discussion about the proper method for retaining information about defeated and minor party candidates in national and state/provincial elections. The compromise option we arrived at was to permit "list pages", which would provide short biographical entries for each candidate according to party affiliation. Not everyone favoured this option, but most participants agreed that it was an acceptable outcome.

Wikipedia now has many such "list pages", which have generally attracted little controversy. A few of these pages have been nominated for deletion in the past, and in each case the result was keep.

This particular page is currently a stub, and was admittedly in rather rough shape when the nomination was made (the "2003" link was an error). In time, however, it has the potential to become a good repository of information. Pages such as this should not be deleted. CJCurrie 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be kept pending a cleanup where the name of the other candidates can be added. Given that 20 of the candidates were elected, they may have articles of their own and are certainly eligible for them. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepify -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:14, 18 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common items used as paraphernalia

Author's intention is to list items that can be used to facilitate drug use, in order for a ban on such items, apparently in place in Philadelphia, to be respected. Author: "It is critical to establish a list of items that are commonly turned in paraphernalia so that retail stores can be in compliance with the act". However, the page currently seems indiscriminate, listing apples, lemons, potatoes, squash, the Holy Bible and the New Gideon Bible. Is this encyclopedic, or a WP:NOT violation? lightspeedchick 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for so many reasons, but mainly because it is POV and Wikipedia is not in place to provide supporting evidence to regional (or any other) laws. Nuttah68 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page contains no explanation for what constitutes "paraphernalia", so no criteria for inclusion can be determined. No sources, some of these items are clearly original research. JulesH 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've just handled this very non-neutral soapboxing at Philadelphia blunt ban (AfD discussion), where exactly such an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox was replaced with an encyclopaedia article, that deals with this legislation in an encyclopaedic manner, with sourced analyses of the expected impact of the ban and without taking any of the sides on the issue that there clearly are. This article is a fork. Uncle G 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless list as anything can be used as drug paraphernalia. Koweja 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. --Metropolitan90 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research (although, some of my own original research supports some of the items listed ;) --The Way 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced listcruft. Nardman1 08:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far, far too open ended to provide any type of value. (jarbarf) 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and List of tangible things. --Descendall 06:51, 22 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Chill

Seems to be a non-notable character. Skimming the Google results (about 750), most are related to other uses of "jill chill," most for an album named "Jack and Jill: Chill and Shrill." Nothing in the article suggests any notability for this character. Metros232 14:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does appear to be notable as a comic book. ZimmerBarnes 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, nonnotable character. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find multiple nontrivial sources regarding the character. Article raises concerns about WP:COI.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 19 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 Wild Hope; disambiguation may be appropriate too. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:59Z

Extraordinary

This is an article on a song that has been posted on Mandy Moore's official MySpace page, but there are absolutely zero references supporting the assertion that it has been released as a single. When I redirected it to the album article, the original author, Parys (talk · contribs), reverted me; when I asked him/her for sources, he/she didn't provide any and told me I was "wrong". Because nothing is referenced (there's a huge slab of original research concerning the meaning of the song and comparisons with Moore's previous material), there's nothing to merge into the album article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was NEVER asked to provide Machine any sources in his message, that is a lie. but since he requires some here you go. 1 2 3 4 i could go on forever. but i am tired. Parys 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you say I'm lying, when it's all there to read in the edit histories [16] [17] [18] ? Regarding the "sources" you list: the first one has "hot off the press" news that is inaccurate (e.g. Dido's next album doesn't have a release date yet, contrary to what that website reports), the last three are blog posts. These are not reliable sources. You say the song is already being played by radio stations, but it doesn't appear on this Mediabase chart. The release of "Extraordinary" as a single is not even mentioned in the official press release about the album from Moore's record label, or Moore's MySpace, or her official website. Extraordinary Machine 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to something... I can't think of anything appropriate right now, but that name should not remain vacant, I think. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lack of anything better, delete and redirect to writ. --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you really don't want it blank, perhaps a soft redirect to wiktionary would suffice? GassyGuy 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination - no reliable sources. Hang on in there Extraordinary Machine. Madmedea 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable song. Not even the most notable song with this title. GassyGuy 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we must delete the unreleased michael jackson songs, the numerous all over wikipedia. Parys 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may very well be correct, but could you point to the specific offenders? I did a quick glance at Category:Michael Jackson songs and it looks like it's populated with his released singles. GassyGuy 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know where they are - nominate them for deletion yourself if you believe them to be non-notable. There's lots of articles on WP that probably deserve to be deleted, it's just that they frequently go unnoticed. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 a leaked song that never was released as a single along with that gangsta song. But it strange we are all over a mandy moore song that has atleast questionable valid release. Parys 23:30, 19 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 per WP:SNOW - Peripitus (Talk) 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooks Hill, New South Wales

Basically self Promotion of a town in New South Wales. Magistrand My Talk 15:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per precedent, places are inherently notable. Clean the article up if it is needed. Nuttah68 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article may need a bit of a rewrite, but places are inherently notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suburb of Newcastle, New South Wales. Needs a clean up including wikifying but this Newcastle City Council webpage confirms that it is a real place see [19].

Capitalistroadster 01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, as usual.--Grahamec 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. QazPlm 03:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --Oakshade 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, pointless AfD. -- Chuq 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Nuttah68/Chairman S. Daniel.Bryant 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gazetted geographical location, therefore notable. Needs some cleanup is all.--Canley 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I don't often vote Speedy Keep, but there is loads of precedent for having articles on actual real suburbs and towns. Lankiveil 12:34, 19 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) 2007-02-22 10:55Z

Sausage (game)

Non-notable game probably cooked up by the writer. Google returns no relevant hits for sausage "cheesy pie" fact game. Awyong J. M. Salleh 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this qualifies as nonsense. Madmedea 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you Sausage is a real game, I play it frequently, it is actaully very good fun and most certainly not "non-notable". I have just created a group on Facebook for people who play it, located at "http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2245237352" please have a look at the group, it should convince you of its reality. Thanks - Luke Valori, 18 February 2007
- A game can be real but non-notable. "It exists" does not automatically mean "it is notable". For it to be notable there must be at least two or more reliable sources (such as major newspapers and magazines) that have described the game in detail. There appear to be no such sources for this game. Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I nonetheless object to the description of the game as "nonsense" or "cooked up by the writer". Delete it if you must, I just disagree with the use of Wikipedia solely for the purpose of describing things that have three or more major articles written about them - 86.128.189.226 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like WP:OR to me. It also is trivial and non notable. Just because a bunch of people on Facebook play it doesn't mean it needs to be on Wikipedia. It needs secondary sources other than Facebook to stand as notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of this article possibly created the game and so he/she is trying to idolize this game but it is failing, delete this article as it lacks formal language and an organised relationship with anyone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Czesc26 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm chuffed that you think I invented the game but I really didn't, I believe it has been around for a while. I think the issue here is not whether or not the game is real (there's no way I'd go to all this troubule just for a laugh) but whether it's significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it's not, but it is quite widespread, even if Google doesn't have much on it. Lukevalori 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I currently study at Gordonstoun in Scotland. I can assure those of you who believe this game is 'non-notable', which perhaps it is, it is a real and a highly-amusing game. It should not be excluded from the Wikipedia pages. It is in fact a well known game among schoolchildren, illustrated by the fact that the craze has found it's way this far up North. As this game is evidently growing more popular among the younger generation, I advise you to keep it. It is not offensive, nor is it irrelevant; it is a page of reference for those who know what it is, just like all the other pages on Wikipedia are. Your unfounded accusation that the creator has 'cooked this game up' is quite frankly absurd and overt speculation. Oliverlock 20:34, 20th February 2007.
Delete. No matter who made it up, it's not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:08, 21 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?)} 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Judge Gallery

Not notable. Ideogram 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been speedied three times. --Ideogram 15:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gallery with coverage in Die Zeit and ArtNet, both of which are reliable sources. Nuttah68 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the cited sources are about the gallery. They're about a exhibit, which is a different thing. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Several notable exhibits being held there would make this notable as a specialized gallery.DGG 05:45, 19 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 List of characters on The West Wing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:53Z

List of The West Wing deaths

This is pure trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Characters die on lots of shows. We don't need a list of them. - Hnsampat 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If the information is worthy enough, it can be combined in the West Wing article. Noroton 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This really is pointless, and we couldn't maintain a list like this for every TV show. Hut 8.5 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator I should add that this list already includes many insignificant or completely off-screen "characters". If this list were to be comprehensive, it should include every soldier killed in any attack that President Josiah Bartlet orders as well as all of the tens of thousands of people who die in civil wars and genocides on the show. This is indiscriminate information. --Hnsampat 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is already a List of The West Wing episodes, and it looks to me like a justifiable list. There seems to be a separate WP article for every episode of this show. If you scan through the present article you will see a ton of blue links, which shows that it's heavily connected to the other coverage of The West Wing. Given that the notability of this show goes without saying, I believe this list is not excessive. In answer to User:Hnsampat's comment above, a sentence might be added to the article indicating it includes only deaths of named characters. That would be a usable criterion for the completeness of the list. EdJohnston 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The show is notable, the list is organized in an acceptable way, it does however require a lead-in, a good strong paragraph to establish the notability would be good. Perfectly encyclopaedic, and perfectly manageable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST, in particular this article is informative and aids in navigation. Also, there are numerous online references which discuss Leo's death, establishing notability. - Peregrine Fisher 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissenting comment - I must disagree here. Just because one of the deaths on this page is notable does not change the fact that the page as a whole is non-notable information. Most of the people here exist in one episode and many of them aren't even seen (e.g. the pilot who crashes into a mountain, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the guy on the boat that gets caught in the hurricane). The only deaths on this page that are "significant" in any way (i.e. having dramatic plot-altering consequences) are Leo, Mrs. Landingham, and Abdul Shareef. Other than that, it is simply a list that one looks at and thinks, "Oh, cool." In other words, it is trivia only. The fact that the show is notable doesn't make the page notable. Otherwise, a well-organized "List of characters on The West Wing with brown hair and blue eyes" would be considered encyclopedic, which it clearly is not. The West Wing is not a show about people dying and there simply are not enough notable character deaths to merit keeping this page. --Hnsampat 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hnsampat - a subject's notability doesn't necessarily make a tertiary article notable enough; this information could possibly merged into List of characters on The West Wing. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Merge as per nom. I'm afraid this is an obvious one folks. This information can easily be included in List of characters on The West Wing and does not deserve its own article.--IRelayer 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding merge I should note here that the deaths of major and recurring characters are already noted on the List of characters on The West Wing page. The rest of the characters on this page (e.g. the aforementioed pilot and boatsman, as well as the homeless veteran who freezes to death wearing Toby's coat) are insignificant beyond the single episodes in which they appear and their deaths don't deserve mention even on List of characters on The West Wing (since it's a page about major characters and significant recurring ones). Their deaths should really only be mentioned on the respective episode pages. --Hnsampat 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment citing precedent I just noticed this little archived AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Deaths_in_Scream. It was decided that an article that lists all the people who die in the horror movie Scream ought to be deleted as "fancruft." Now, Scream is a movie about people dying. If a list of people dying in that movie was deemed nothing more than "fancruft", then surely a list of people dying on The West Wing has to go. --Hnsampat 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Vsion 04:26, 22 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) 2007-02-22 10:50Z

Dan Hnatchuk

Contested prod. Article is an autobiography of a non-notable musician. Also nominating the related articles:

Caknuck 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as not notable against WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and most other criteria. Nuttah68 17:07, 17 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. When the strength of the arguments - as versed in Wikipedia policy (or otherwise) - are taken into account, I believe that there is concensus here to delete this article. - Daniel.Bryant 05:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keith

This biography of a living person contains no reliable sources whatsoever, and is home to a variety of speculation regarding his personal motivations, etc. I requested that reliable sources be added more than two months ago, but none have been forthcoming. There is no evidence that this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are no where near being met. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, article kept after September 2005 AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-***½ Delete - as an ex-wrestling fan, I find Keith's breakdown of wrestling shows are fun to read, but the nom is correct in there's no reliable sources about Keith himself. Only one of his books appear to have been reviewed in a reliable source ([20]), and the man himself has received nothing in terms of coverage in independent reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the author of four published books through what appears to be a reputable publisher, the Citadel imprint of Kensington Books and a writer for a professional magazine, Fighting Spirit magazine. One of his books is reviewed on Slam Sports and a number of internet-based stories, and is used as a reference by The Sport Journal; there are mentions of his books in an article from The Daily Texan... there's some play for his published works. The article does need work, though, as it stands, and some sources would be useful. I think the problem is that as a writer about a specific topic like pro wrestling, it's difficult to get reviews outside of the wrestling community, and I'm not sure if we consider places like 411mania as reliable enough sources to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are about the person; some of them are not even about the book, just evidence that someone referenced it. All of these only trivially mention Scott Keith. You would need to make an entire encyclopedia article about Scott Keith out of these sources, as any unsourced or poorly sourced information would need to be removed, which is not possible from the ones you have listed. —Centrx→talk • 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I was pointing out that he does squeak up against the "published author" bit in WP:BIO, noting that there are multiple references to his books - and I do point out that he gets far more play within the wrestling community than on a larger scale. This is where the 'weak' comes from. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't meet even the minor standard in WP:BIO. There are not "multiple independent reviews or awards"; there is only one review, in a rather unreliable source. —Centrx→talk • 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that Slam Sports, on Canoe.ca, is an unreliable source; it's run by one of Canada's largest media conglomerates. I point to the reviews on 411mania and other wrestling-related sites as other reviews. But, frankly, my main concern is with sites that should be considered reliable being discounted at this point, so hey, whatever. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's one possibly reliable source, and it does not alleviate problems of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which WP:BIO does not supercede. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why bother with keeping Wade Keller, Dave Meltzer, Dave Scherer, etc. 68.54.163.153 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how you can even put Dave Meltzer and Scott Keith in the same league. Without Meltzer's monumental influence there wouldn't even be a place for Keith to do what he does. 49erInOregon 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Everything on Wikipedia has and deserves and article. 68.54.163.153 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) struck duplicate !vote[reply]

Keep, Keith is a published author and a pretty influential columnist. McPhail 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not sufficient to warrant an article on Wikipedia, especially an article on a living person. The article must be substantiated by reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On principle alone. Seriously. How backwards is Wikipedia? Why is it that there is 11 seperate articles just of LISTS of fictional characters from Dragon Ball Z for example, and literally hundreds of articles on all of these individual characters, and then someone like Scott Keith, a notable real-life published author, gets put up for deletion. People seem to lose sight of the big picture here. Jamestrepanier 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is there are an abundance of sources that list these fictional characters. Also, that "Scott Keith" is a real-life person is part of the problem; unsourced inaccuracies in an article about fictional characters have no effect on the life of a living person. —Centrx→talk • 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scott Keith does not respect facts or fact-checking, so his presence on any place founded in knowledge and objectivity is unwarranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.191.81 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think a personal opinion of Keith or the quality of his work is relevant to whether or not he is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. I might think the same about Bill O'Reilly, but that is hardly reason to delete his article. Jamestrepanier 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Manager Of Champions 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he doesn't really have talent. Was just lucky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.109.217.111 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, nn internet blogger, yeah, maybe he's published some books, but they didn't sell all that well or were mass-produced. Just because you can publish a book does not always entitle you to an article. Booshakla 06:46, 20 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) 2007-02-22 10:46Z

Black and White: No Gray Area

Nominated per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and WP:HOAX. Ref links direct to a blog. Mislead the readers. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article should not be deleted because it has sources that it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterm1991 (talk • contribs)

RE: The "sources" are from a blog Superior1 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fan-based. No refs. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, JameiLei 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, that album cover is obviously fake. Superior1 07:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are also speculative articles about alleged albums from the same artists from the same creator. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though news of a new album is great. Recreate it when/if more verifiable news appears. 2Pac 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems to have some notability. But it needs more sources--Sefringle 05:11, 19 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 (for now) to Statoil; decide what to do later after (if) real-life merger occurs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:45Z

Hydro-Statoil

Very short and poorly written article, which provides false information. The merger of these companies not approved yet and the name of merged company not decided yet. Articles Statoil and Norsk Hydro provide more detailed information. It will be possible to decided how to reorganize these pages after the merger will take a place. No need for the new article, reorganizing existing articles will be enough. Beagel 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Statoil for now, simplest. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - someone misinterpreted the info, the companies proposed to merge, not have already. Agreed, reform existing articles. JameiLei 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JameiLeis arguments. Manzhivago

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-22 10:42Z

One Hair and Alex Brandy

Unreferenced articles on a comic strip and its principal character. A google search for the name of the strip and its creator turns up one relevant hit: List of comic strips M-Z. Appears to be either a hoax or really, really non-notable. -- Vary | Talk 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V if nothing else. i kan reed 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This looked like a promising article, had there not been any reference. If anyone can find a reference, preserve it. JameiLei 18:15, 17 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) 2007-02-22 10:41Z

Rdmart

desctibes an organization without explaining it's importance and has no references. Prod removed without explanation. i kan reed 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no claim or evidence of notability, no sources. Nuttah68 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be too quick with the speedy the claim is marginally there, it just isn't supported by any sources, or clear enough(as in the importance of the subject has been marignally clarified in the article since the removal of the prod and moving to AfD. I'll still endorse deletion if I can't work with the author to track down sources. i kan reed 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedily) - Collection of links, Doesn't explain itself. JameiLei 18:13, 17 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) 2007-02-22 10:41Z

Rabeh Lotfy Gomaa

Very poorly written article that asserts obvious notability (and this person would clearly be notable if the claims were true), but a google search yields not a single reference. If there is no way to verify, speedy delete as nonsense, but if verified somehow, keep. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Noteworthy enough, very badly written. JameiLei 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable writer, article fails WP:BIO. I searched Google using his name in Arabic and found nothing but a few of the articles he has written. - Anas ^Talk? 17:07, 20 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.

—I am the son of Rabeh Lotfy Gomaa, my name is "Mohamed Lotfi", I would like to contribute with any information concerning my late father... my E-mail : lotfigomaa@yahoo.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-22 10:40Z

List of Meals on Wheels programs

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed JameiLei 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith. Crystal clear. Madmedea 22:00, 17 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fenn

Not noteworthy enough, unsourced JameiLei 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally have gone with a speedy deletion tag ''{{db-bio}}''. But yes, delete. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys should wait a bit for stuff to be added to this article before deletion--Wbfanatic234 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "Chris Fenn is an new wakeboarder to the scene and with out websites like this we would not be able to create enough interest in him to get him signed by a company." QED. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Content is clearly db-bio. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The article confirms the subjects lack of notability with phrases such as 'He is expected to start competng on the pro wakeboard tour early next year'. Nuttah68 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Delete - as I nominated this article for deletion in the first placeJameiLei 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Speedy Delete was contested. The debate will resume here. JameiLei 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave it as speedy. It is the editor who contests' responsibility to state their argument on the articles talk page. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also,It could be db-spam. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started it as this so it might as well stay as this. Also its easier to get a clear decision here cause of the voting system. JameiLei 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~He's even vandalising his own articles now. Can we please either have this resolved, or go to speedy delete to get rid of this blasted nonsense for good~~ Jammy Simpson | Talk | 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the sooner the better. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:30, 19 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) 2007-02-22 10:29Z

Johnny Calling and The Cash

Contested prod. Non notable (fictitious) college band. No info other than wikipedia mirrors and sites mentioned in the external links section Garion96 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCS Entertainment

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep - Band has its own page and several references on google. JameiLei 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The band has a fanbase, website, google references. RremundO (talk •

Deletee unless multiple reliable independent sources are provided. The results of this search {[21]} makes me doubt they are available though. Nuttah68 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - The article describes the band as fictitious, and it fails WP:FICT for failing to assert any real-world context or for that matter naming the fiction in which the band appears. The article goes on to say that the band has released an album, which would bring it under the purview of WP:MUSIC which it fails utterly. Note that RremundO is the creator of this band and the writer of the article so there is a WP:COI problem as well. Otto4711 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fake band??? Pure nonsense. Nardman1 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (the fact that the external links are to the traditional MySpace/Facebook continuum is never a good sign). It's hard to tell from the article, but it's almost a case of something made up in college one day as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto. GassyGuy 06:00, 19 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) 2007-02-22 10:27Z

DCS Entertainment

Contested prod. Non notable amateur film distributeur and record label Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Calling and The Cash

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - As little references on google when i tried to find sources. Also studio website is hosted by tripod so not a corporate company. JameiLei 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:CORP or WP:BIO. Nuttah68 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for a non-notable group. IrishGuy ^talk 21:46, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of a Rhetorical Nature

Prod contested without improvements. Subject has only one google hit outside Wikipedia and the homepage[22], and that one hit describes it as "Still in its infancy as of Nov '06." Article makes no claims to notability either. Fram 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is added. JulesH 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears entirely unnoticed by multiple reliable, non-trivial sources (or anyone else?), therefore no WP:N nor WP:V. MURGH ^disc. 12:57, 18 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of grocery products that were commercial failures

Delete unless there is a neutral, verifiable definition of a "flop". This page descends from the now-deleted List of miscellaneous commercial failures, formerly "List of commercial failures", formerly "List of major flops". All the problems that led to the deletion of the original page apply to this one: it's an inherently POV trivia list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, Undefined as to what a "flop" is, and POV. Lrrr IV 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unrelated commentary: I used to consume the Arch Deluxe and wanted them to bring it back, but alas... GassyGuy 06:02, 19 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in aviation

Delete unless a neutral, verifiable definition of "commercial failure" can be found. Recently, a lot of "commercial failure" lists have been deleted, including List of miscellaneous commercial failures, from which this page descends. All the problems of the original list and the other deleted "flop" lists apply to this one: it's an inherently POV list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Examining the list, there does seem to be sufficient appropriate material,m and it is usefully collected here.DGG 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination that the term "commercial failure" is not well defined. This is illustrated very well by the first entry on the list, the Airbus A318. Some would argue that the lower sales of this aircraft compared to the A319 and A320 constitutes a "failure", others might argue that this shortened version is a niche product which was a moderately successful aircraft for the airlines who wanted a smaller version. One could say that some of the entries are "failures" by most reasonable definitions, that is the ones which never got off the ground, the Boeing 2707 for instance. But there is a big gray zone here. Where to draw the line between "commercial failure", "disappointing sales", "not as well as hoped", and "moderately successful niche product" is inherently subjective, leaving the conditions for inclusion on the list as a poor discriminator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completey OR and no verifiable. It is a joke to think they will all be sourced and maintained.--155.144.251.120 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a decent concept at the heart of this list, but the concept can't be realized in this context. The nom is correct that the current premise is insufficiently defined and invites original research. We need to start over.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 23 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) 2007-02-22 10:26Z

List of leisure activities in Leatherhead

Indiscriminate collection of information and/or Wikipedia is not a directory Croxley 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an entertainment guide. Sam Blacketer 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely a case of WP:NOT. Did make me chuckle though. Madmedea 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main Leatherhead article already has links to the few articles listed here, and there doesn't seem to be much of a case for merging. A section in that article on leisure activities in Leatherhead might be justified, but not as a list.Noroton 16:12, 18 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, but will add an unreferenced tag to article W.marsh 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political flops

Delete as yet another inherently POV "flop" list, many of which have been deleted lately. List of miscellaneous commercial failures was deleted about a week ago. Like the other pages I have listed, this list descended from the now-deleted page, and shares its same problems. (This was originally part of a a mass AFD, which I withdrew due to consensus that the articles weren't similar enough for a mass AFD.) szyslak (t, c) 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list includes quite a number of items but there is not even one citation, no sources at all. This is purely original research and POV and the topic itself seems to be inherently POV. --The Way 08:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The following comments should not be taken as saying anything negative about the two editors just above, just respectful disagreement: I have to confess to being irritated by the attitude that no matter how potentially serious the subject of a Wikipedia article may be, we need to squelch it because the article as written has flaws. Serious subjects belong in Wikipedia. Serious treatment of unserious subjects even belongs in Wikipedia if a serious purpose can be shown for studying it. If these last two sentences can't be found in Wikipedia policy, then they need to be put there. (I'd even go further and say that subjects that are unserious and where the serious purpose for reading them is slim would still belong in Wikipedia if there's citable proof they are of obvious enduring interest to a large number of people, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.) Maybe the real reason we disagree about deleting this article is because I'm inclusionist and want to keep articles that can be improved and the above editors are deletionist and want to destroy articles that might be replaced later with something of higher quality, but I'm speculating about that. My answers to above objections:

UNSOURCED: You could fell a forest to come up with the printed pages of journalistic and historical sources for political flops, so the lack of sources is reason for a citation notice, not deletion.
INHERENTLY POV': If multiple, neutral journalistic sources or multiple historians say something is a flop, it's not POV. And that should be the standard when we don't have an election or other, similar fact to hang our hats on. The item about Howard Dean in the U.S. part of the list cites The Economist cover and Dean's third-place showing in Iowa. That's an utterly solid assertion of a flop. And cited.
PURELY ORIGINAL RESEARCH Anyone who has ever read political news and magazine articles should know after a bit of reflection that this list could cite sources saying "-----'s campaign was a flop". There are countless articles out there that say just that, and it's the same with historical sources. It is harder to imagine that there are NO such sources out there for anything on that list than to imagine that there IS a source that the editor(s) just didn't go out and find.

Additional comment: The subject of this article is too broad, since you could do a political flops list for every democracy and quite a few governments that aren't democracies. In the U.S. you'd eventually have to split the list up. Noroton 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup/improvement. The term "flop" has been applied to political campaigns plenty of times. The state of the article is very poor, but everything there is easily sourceable. This is surely not OR (a few single items may be questionable, but they can just be removed). Also, POV? Huh? Against or for whom? -- Black Falcon 18:23, 23 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) 2007-02-22 10:25Z

Veoh

Article has been speedied a few times, personally, I'm unsure about this. Hence, I'm bringing it to AfD, to get a firm consensus on this. Yanksox 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be unprotected now that is has been restored? --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the article states, the company has recieved a large amount of media attention ever since Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, began investing into the company. (ie New York Times, Business Week)--TBCΦtalk? 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep just about notable because of Eisner, otherwise just another webhost. Totnesmartin 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, a simple Google search will show that this AFD is trolling. Also have a look at the Alexa ranking. Beats me. frummer 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see any reason why this article should be disallowed, provided that it is written properly (and not like an advert, for example), and the current article seems to not break any wikipedia rules.Mlscdi 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins have speedily deleted this article. I restored it because I'm such a nice guy, and then I brought it to AfD so we can finally get consensus to close the chapter on this. Yanksox 21:09, 20 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. Robdurbar 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJHS

Currently undergoing Speedy delete. I'm contesting this, per page at http://www.district87.org/bjhs/ although I am not advocating either position. Sigma 7 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete. as non-notable nonsense. The citation mentioned above is also not considered a reliable source. The author's original disclaimer of the article's falseness should justify a deletion or a complete rewrite with citations for all facts. 24fan24 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CSD doesn't apply to hoax articles; precedent says all schools are notable, so CSD-A7 doesn't apply; it isn't patent nonsense so it isn't CSD-G1. I've removed the speedy tag on that basis. 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the hompepage of the school isn't a reliable source for citation, it is reliable enough to prove it's existance (and thus can be used as an external link when notability can be established.) If there is incorrect content within the article, then it can be stripped out (even if it means taking out large sections.) --Sigma 7 13:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or someone can try to figure out what's true and what's not in the article and move it to Bloomington Junior High School or somesuch. *Mishatx*-In\Out 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that if kept it must be moved. --24fan24 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Agreed that speedy doesnt cover hoaxes, but it does cover nonsense. An article beginning "BJHS was founded in 1742 During the First Inner-City war of Bloomington, Illinois. " is nonsense. It does not take exposure to many different people to agree that it didn't happen.DGG 05:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 DGG's reason makes it obvious that this page is vandalism. Jesse Viviano 16:01, 19 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; please use talk page to discuss refinement of inclusion criteria and possible renaming. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:24Z

List of military disasters

What is a "military disaster"? Even if there is a neutral, verifiable definition of such, isn't it only a "disaster" for one side? This was originally part of List of miscellaneous commercial failures, formerly "List of commercial failures", formerly "List of major flops". It was originally part of a a mass AFD for the remaining "flop" lists, but consensus was that the pages should be listed individually. szyslak (t, c) 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a list to be valid it has to have clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and an encylopedic purpose . This list could claim to the have the second but it definitely fails the first. Madmedea 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Military disaster and rework the article so that the current list is presented as being examples of military disasters rather than all such disasters. The reworked article could cover topics such as common causes of military disasters, which is a topic covered by a large and well regarded literature. --Nick Dowling 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move per Nick Dowling. This is a way of presenting information without POV coming into it. One's "military disaster" is another's "anomaly" or whatever. 23skidoo 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What is a military disaster, you ask? "A military disaster is when one side in a battle or war is unexpectedly and soundly defeated." (emphasis added) Yes, this needs to be sourced, but the article references two books that include the phrase "military blunder" in the title, so that should not be so hard to do. If necessary, rename to List of military blunders. I also do not understand what the point is of noting that it is a disaster for one side only. If it to assert the existence of POV, to whom is it directed? Anti-loser POV? -- Black Falcon 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of military affairs-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Black Falcon's reasons. He's got an almost perfect definition, but I'd replace "soundly defeated" with at least "utterly defeated" or something else a bit stronger. The word "disaster" I think also carries an implication of drama -- something that startles. So maybe something like "dramatically and soundly defeated". Serious subjects, seriously considered deserve Wikipedia articles. Military blunders are worth studying, and examples of them are worth noting. With Black Falcon's clear definition, there shouldn't be a POV problem, at least not an inherent one. Noroton 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon's reasons. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the appropriateness of individual items are possibly worth discussing on the article talk page, but a very nice collection of information.DGG 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is indeed a 'very nice collection of information' - but it doesn't comply with rules. Its OR and a bit subjective. Thedreamdied 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be possible to declare the inclusion criteria clearly enough. highlunder 11:16, 21 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouThink.com (2nd nomination)

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouThink.com
(first nomination)

Bump from speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:27Z

Delete 16 Google hits, utterly fails WP:WEB. Result of previous AfD should qualify it for speedy deletion under G4.--RWR8189 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't qualify - different content, and subject may have gained notability since the previous AFD (it's been over a year). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:49Z

What does "google hits" mean? Just looking at it, I'd think that would mean when you search "youthink" or "youthink.com", which both are more than a half of a million. (I am really asking) EgyptianSushi 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently no references in reliable sources. Re. ghits: if you search for 'link:youthink.com' you get the sites that link to it. Ignoring those from 'i-am-bored.com', which apparently has links to every entry in one of the sections, there aren't many. JulesH 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability not established.--Sefringle 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I use to go on this site, I agree with the fact that it is not notable enough for an article. MichaelGriffin 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the main contributors to this article, I find it frustrating to receive a speedy delete nomination more than a year after the original AFD. I-Am-Bored.com, a mirror of Youthink.com has an Alexa rank of around 4000. Does WP:WEB require Alexa rankings of 5,000? If so, Youthink should be allowed to stay. Furthermore, Youthink quizzes are found on many MySpaces, Livejournals, and Xangas.Electricbassguy 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with electricbassguy - it seems to me to have a good google and alexa ranking and youthink quizzes can be seen elsewhere on the internet. Thedreamdied 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Information The phrase "Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests." returns an estimated 166,000 Google Hits. This wouldn't be seen in Link:Youthink.com because it does not link to YouThink. Electricbassguy 02:40, 21 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. W.marsh 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCI Communities Inc.

Bump from speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:32Z

Keep. WCI was an un-interesting company until billionaire Carl Ichan attempted a takeover. Any company that Ichan is interested in has public interest, especially if WCI's use of a "poison pill" tactic succeeds. If this legal tactic fails, then the reason why it failed will also be of public interest. Greensburger 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week keep - according to this article won an important-sounding industry award in 2004. JulesH 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage of takeover attempt and award (which I will incorporate into the article now). -- Black Falcon 18:27, 23 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese American High School Alliance

Contested speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:35Z

Speedy Delete Not worthy of being noted. WP:Notability. --Parker007 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total rewrite delete the article in its current form, but recreate it and do it properly - it seems notable to me. Thedreamdied 00:13, 21 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. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Von Kantzow

Bump from speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:36Z

Delete no sources, obvious COI (see talk page), no assertion of notability (besides being a member of royalty). Nardman1 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is an issue but in general not a reason to delete. "Member of royalty" seems like a pretty big assertion of notability. Can you evaluate it? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:50Z
  - I can't find any sites which specifically comment on this family. If Sweden's nobility system is anything like England's, there are many such families with minor claims to nobility, ie a hereditary title linked to a landed estate. Obviously the titles are now mostly ceremonial. The only even minorly notable member of this family I can dig up information on is Carin von Kantzow and she acquired the surname only through marriage. Nardman1 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This family is on the List of Swedish noble families. The article just needs a bit of cleaning up and tagging to put in the right category. I could do it later I suppose. Nardman1 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Nardman1 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. And I suppose since I added the speedy in the first place, could I be permitted to withdraw the nomination? PS: thanks for the motivation to clean the article up. Nardman1 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Nardman1. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:49, 17 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/no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Von Möllendorf

Bump from speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:37Z

Delete, there are hundreds of low nobility families in Germany with similar members being some kind of official, artist or other. If any of the members are notable they should have their own article Alf photoman 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The German Wikipedia already has more articles on the Moellendorffs/Möllendorf(f)s. There are articles on two of these Moellendorffs (which seems to be the more common spelling, at least during the 18th and 19th centuries) in the old Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie from the 19th century. The newer Neue Deutsche Biographie seems to treat most of them in one big article on the whole family. Some other reference works, such as the Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie also have articles on the Moellendorffs. The ADB has been scanned and put online, but in order to improve the article any further, both the NDB and the DBE and other paper references need to be checked in a library. The index to the NDB is however available at the same website: http://mdz1.bib-bvb.de/~ndb/ndbmaske.html. The most famous member of the family is probably the philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, who belongs to an adopted branch. Even if some of these individuals no doubt should have articles of their own, it seems reasonable to keep information about their relationships in one article. Pharamond 07:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Pharamond. If individuals members of the family this type of family history/disambiguation page ought to exist. -- Black Falcon 18:34, 23 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veliotis

Bump from speedy. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:37Z

Delete I can't find anything online to reference this information....except an identical article here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no effort and expansion, no references Cornell Rockey 16:59, 22 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. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belaid Lacarne

AFD WITHDRAWN I'll try to tidy up the substubs of referees that are only notable for one WCF game into one article when I get the time if others think that is a good idea? EliminatorJR 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely fails notability - ONE game refereed in a major tournament? Might even qualify for A7 EliminatorJR 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If a player had played even just one match in the World Cup finals he would almost certainly be kept. There's no notability guidelines for referees but I'd suggest that being selected to ref in the world's biggest and most significant tournament qualifies him (and for information, somewhere in the region of half of the refs who are selected for each edition of the World Cup only get to ref one match) ChrisTheDude 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say he meets notability, only one referee (and his assistants) on the FIFA list from any individual association can go to the World Cup Finals. Therefore FIFA and his own FA have judged him to be the best suited. He's been selected by the FIFA Referee Committee as one of the 40-50 possible and gone through the assessment stages to be in the final 20-30 for the tournament, therefore he was judged as arguably one of the top 30 referees in the world in that year. For example: of all the football referees in the world only 23 out of a suggested 40 were chosen for the 2006 FIFA World Cup.[23][24]. He ref'd one match and lined for another in the tournament, became a committee member for the Confederation of African Football in 2002[25] and is currently a member of the FIFA Referee Committee.[26] - Foxhill 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to include some of his later career history - Foxhill 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. Nominator possibly doesn't watch FIFA tournaments. FIFA World Cup is most prestigious football event and it is the highest honour for referees to take part in it. - Darwinek 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per above. Nominator certainly does watch FIFA tournaments. Now that the article has been fleshed out I'd agree that this person does have some notability, especially with his FIFA work. However, a page for every referee ever to have officiated a WC Finals game - which would run into quite a few hundred - would be pushing it, IMHO EliminatorJR 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per above. Mind you, it looks like Wikipedians are having a go at it List Of Football Referees!. I'm sure that this could be arranged better, most of the pages simply say "X is a referee who refereed one game at the YYYY World Cup Finals" - seems like a lot of pages with practically nil content. 'World Cup Finals officials', anyone? EliminatorJR 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly notable. I have heard of this referee, and I believe he merits an article on his own because being a referee in the most prestigious soccer tournament is enough to become notable, let alone being a member of the referee committee. - Anas ^Talk? 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referees that have officiated a World Cup match (even if it is only one) should be considered notable. As said above, doing that means the ref arguably is one of the 30 best referees in the world at that time. And it should be noted that even though many of the articles are substubs (many created by User:SndrAndrss which is a somewhat problematic user) mentioning only the World Cup, having been there that usually means the ref has officiated a few other major matches as well. – Elisson • T • C • 21:36, 18 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. –Llama man^talk_contribs 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places of interest in Hertfordshire

Wikipedia is not a travel guide Croxley 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the link you give Wikipedia is not a travel guide . This page is not a travel guide by any definition found there. Its a list of Wikipedia notable places in the county of Herfordshire.Lumos3 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because "of interest" is inherently POV i kan reed 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hertfordshire.EliminatorJR 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Notable places in Hertfordshire. Wikipedia Notability rules then apply. This article is a list of notable places and clearly not a toruist guide. Lumos3 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a travel guide--Sefringle 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Items on this list include; a cave, a cathedral, and an entire town. It doesn't get much more indiscriminate than that. Saikokira 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are not indiscriminate. They are all places in Hertfordshire which are notable enought to have a Wikipedia entry. Lumos3 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what this list represents at all. If this article is for "places in Hertfordshire which are notable enought to have a Wikipedia entry." then it would have to include every single entry from the following categories:

Category:Towns in Hertfordshire

Category:Villages in Hertfordshire

Category:Buildings and structures in Hertfordshire

Category:Castles in Hertfordshire

Category:Churches in Hertfordshire

Category:Historic houses in Hertfordshire

Category:Gardens in Hertfordshire

Category:Parks and commons in Hertfordshire

Of course it doesn't include all those places, because that is clearly not what the article is about. Saikokira 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. WP:NOT Masaruemoto 06:55, 20 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. But seems to be a consensus to merge as Quarl suggests, if anyone wants to go ahead and do that. W.marsh 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saigon Passenger Transportation Company

Non-notable company; non-encyclopedic entry; article has large sections of non-English text. PROD tag was removed, so listing here. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. --Parker007 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and other articles in Category:Public transport in Ho Chi Minh City to a new article Public transport in Ho Chi Minh City. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:16Z
merge important info per Quarl's suggestion. Cornell Rockey 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 3 articles per Quarl. -- Black Falcon 18:32, 23 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 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing (film)

I believe this article to be either a spoof or a fake. I can find no evidence of a film of this name being in production anywhere. The cast list looks suspiciously good, too good. The supposed poster that is in the article is suspect as well, a close examination of the ink bottle in the top corner will show that the writing is backwards because the image has been flipped. Would a professional film company allow a sloppy mistake like that out in to the open? The supplied link to yahoo is merely a message page. It's a total fake. X201 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB has nothing on this. The single link in the article [27] is a post on a yahoo message board...which doesn't really prove anything. The spelling in that post is unprofessional as well. The director, Stephen Daldry, is currently in pre-production on The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay so I'm not sure how he would have time to do another film and have it released in 2007. Probable hoax. IrishGuy ^talk 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Irishguy. This is either a hoax, or an incredibly non-notable project. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm almost certain that it's a hoax. The font used in the "poster" is a typical Windows/Mac font, not something fancy that would be used in an actual poster. Also, there's the aforementioned issue of the backwards ink bottle. --Hnsampat 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely a hoax. The originarator of the article is a 15-yr-old from So. Covina, CA, whom has been flooding assorted film boards with fake reports on ths film. This article is misleading, poorly written and ought to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stepford (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 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 all to List of 2point4 children episodes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:11Z

After The Fox (2point4 children)

This article and all the others bundled below contain almost no content and are not cited. The pictures in the articles have been cited as unknown copyright status. The content that they do have is almost the same in every one. The articles should be deleted and what little information they contain should be moved into List of 2point4 children episodes Mr.Z-mantalk 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all contain, for the most part, the same information:

The following represent all of the pages in Category:2point4 children episodes

Delete All. Not notable enough to have articles for each episode, and I doubt they'll ever be filled in with actual content --⁪froth^T 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If there was actually some content in these pages, I might reconsider, but as they are now, the show simply isn't notable enough to deserve all these practically empty pages. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any content (but I can't find any) into the parent list page.... why oh why to people insist on having an article for every episode of every television series...Madmedea 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't think there is much worth merging that is not already in the List of 2point4 children episodes article (maybe individual episode guest stars?)... -- Black Falcon 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge all content. Separate articles are pointless. » K i G O E | talk 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat, no sources, no reason to believe each episode is individually notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - I don't believe these episodes are individually notable. --Berks105 20:15, 21 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) 2007-02-22 10:09Z

Judd Hamilton

There are two major problems with this article. It is a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI) as it was written by a User:Judd hamilton. This, however, could of course be overcome. But as I looked for sources I began to have serious doubts as to whether this article could meet the notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO). He does have an entry on the IMDB, but it doesn't help persuade me of his notability. So I'm putting this up for deletion. Madmedea 21:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this site which claims that one of his songs was the first rock single in Japanese history to sell over a million copies. There are no references on that site and I couldn't find anything else to corroborate it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present: The figure in question is, indeed, an actor who did, indeed, do the things the article claims. However, the tone of the article is personal and laudatory, and it looks for all the world like autobiography. Essentially, saving it would mean a rewrite, and that's not what Cleanup does. If anyone wishes to dedicate time to stripping the thing down to its facts and wholly rewriting in NPOV, it could be a keep. Barring that, delete. Utgard Loki 13:50, 20 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International (USA)

Article describing a non-notable pageant. The event is not televised and is on a far lesser scale than Miss USA or Miss America -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the pageant is not televised in the United States, does not mean it does not exist or is not notable. It certainly is a real and influential pageant as illustrated by the amount of young women who compete for it every year and the work the titleholders do for their platforms. State USA and America pageants and other pageants that have pages here are not televised, yet they have Wikipedia pages.

Many women who compete in the USA pageants compete in the International system including Catherine Warren, Miss Illinois USA 2006 and Kimberly Krueger Miss North Dakota USA 2006. The pageant IS being televised in Great Britain along with the Miss Teen pageant. Bebedebroadway 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ^[1] The Miss International (USA) system is worthy of being noted for the reasons stated above. It may not be famous in the United States (although as illustrated by the popularity of conversatino on the subject on voy boards, especially Minnesota's and other state boards it IS frequently talked about and well known), it serves as a training ground for women in pageants and many contestants go on to compete heavily and do well in other systems. Bebedebroadway 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pageant itself isn't being televised in England, only as part of a single reality program where they try to turn a teenage delinquent into a beauty queen. Notability difficult to ascertain - plenty of Ghits, but there are dozens of pageants called the same thing, notably in Asia/China which muddy the issue. EliminatorJR 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other pageant does have a page Miss International and this article is linked to under "pageants of the same name." There is no confusion on the other page, and if desired I will add a link to the Miss International page further explaining the difference, though there is nothing on the Miss International (USA) page to even allude that this is the same pageant. In fact, in the specifications and information about the pageant it distinguishes itself as different. Bebedebroadway 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Deleting all information about this system would be a mistake as it leaves holes in the history of contestants of other systems, and many, many people do search for information about this system. I would settle for a merging of the USA inernational related pageants, and including the Mrs International system (which is a premiere and well-known Mrs. Pageant that has been in existence since the 1980's). That way there would not be three individual pages, but one inclusive International Pageant System (USA) page. Bebedebroadway 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided to establish notability. As of now, I don't see any references or links that indicate enough notability. utcursch | talk 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed at other pageant websites, including tftj.com http://tftj.com/db/pageantinfo.htm/750 and the Pageant News Bureau. http://www.pageant.com/index.html Bebedebroadway 03:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editor has already voted once (and practically twice). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:01, 23 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.

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chairboy, no context (CSD A1). BryanG^(talk) 22:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Greater Manchester East

Article merely consists of external links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Croxley 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No actual content. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A3--TBCΦtalk? 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above recommendations, or in the alternative delete per WP:ORG as not independently notable local division of notable national organization. --Metropolitan90 00:44, 18 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 reference is to a commercial site that proclaims "J9A10.com brings to you for the first time in the world an online version of the Card Game 56", which supports the delete opinions that this is an advertisement for an online game site. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J9A10

Same mega-spam, blatant advertising as Fifty-six (card game) also afd'ed 2005 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant self-promotion of a minor gambling site. --McGeddon 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Delete after merging any original content with Twenty-eight (card game) - "J9A10" seems to be a promotional term for the exact same group of games, used only by J9A10.com. --McGeddon 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - There's a verbatim copy of the article at J9A10 (card game), which should be deleted as well. --McGeddon 12:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoa, DELETE!. Super long long article that I'll bet (no pun intended..) is a mere copy from their site. This search does nothing at all to help give me even a hint that they could perhaps just maybe be notable. Thus delete. Mathmo ^Talk 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer look Let us not make the mistake of judging a book by its cover. This is not a gambling site It is surprising that we are talking about deleting the reference to the only available online version of the most popular card game in Kerala, India. There are a few million Keralaties in the world and they will not be too happy with this attitude of Wikipedia Editorial Staff, Is there no single person who edits Wikipedia from Kerala India to bring reason to the table! --Kerala Online 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The card game itself is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article; an advert for a site that runs an online version of it isn't. (Even less so when it currently only seems to be "available to a select set of Beta Testers" - from the pages that weren't broken or locked, I was unable to determine whether the site was gambling-orientated or not; the poker chips in the logo suggested it was.) At most this should just be a link at the end of a neutral article about the history and rules of Fifty-Six. --McGeddon 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article is an improvement, but I don't see any information here that wouldn't be better placed in the existing article for the Twenty-eight card game and its variants. Am I correct in assuming from Google results that when you say "J9A10 is a group of a trick-taking games" you mean "a number of games that J9A10.com has chosen to host" rather than anything of wider significance? The term "J9A10" does not appear to be used outside of your site. --McGeddon 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J9A10 is not just a game it is also the name for the class of games defined by the unique hierarchy J,9,A,10. All games including 28, 29, 56 and others which use the J9A10 hierarchy have multiple references on the internet and Pagat. Ironically enough this class of games(J9A10) is neither discussed not referenced anywhere on the internet. The site is devoted to the class and is not on just a particular game. Should there not be a page for the Class of games J9A10 on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.232.151 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also you mentioned that the game is not open to public. Though the site says at this time it is open to Beta Testers only. But it is in fact open to the public, if you try registering it will let you open a new beta testing account and play the game. The game is free like Wikipedia and has no levels or usage restriction. Guess the reason there is a beta testing restriction is just to ensure there is no flood of user traffic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.232.151 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, if a "few million" Keralaties in the world cared about this game enough, there would have been an article on it already. Hopefully one of them will rewrite a new article that does not violate Wikipedia policy - assuming the game really is notable. Resolute 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is clearly spam. Even if the subject had some merit, the content is too clearly infused with spammy references to the site the article's author is clearly promoting. --Muldrake 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the author is listening The page has been changed and the spammy references have been removed. --Kerala Online 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE!!! Now the page contains nothing but links to the author's site. This is nothing but a vanity page. Additionally, the author has posted links to this page to off-topic usenet groups. This behavior must not be rewarded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinCline (talk • contribs) 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I have removed the copyrighted material. I think we should give the author a chance to make a real article here. - grubber 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete. This is copied verbatim from [28]. Although the topic is notable, this content must be removed immediately. - grubber 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grubber really appreciate your giving the chance to keep the page. The author is new to Wikipedia and it would really help if you or someone from Wikipedia could guide the author to make this article appropriate as per Wikipedia's policies. --Kerala Online 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do my best :) - grubber 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you open a website doesn't mean you can have a wikipedia article about it, especially since no other site on the Internet even mentions it. 2005 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been revised to represent the generic game class and no longer has any properitary content from the site nor does it promote the site in any way. J9A10 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J9A10 is not just a game it is also the name for the class of games defined by the unique hierarchy J,9,A,10. All games including 28, 29, 56 and others which use the J9A10 hierarchy have multiple references on the internet and Pagat. Ironically enough this class of games is neither discussed not referenced anywhere on the internet. Should there not be a page for the Class of games J9A10? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.232.151 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps you're just forgetting to log in, but please don't use more than one identity in discussion on an AfD, User:J9A10, and try to sign your posts properly.

If a subject "is neither discussed nor referenced anywhere", then no, it should not have a page - every Wikipedia article requires a reliable source, so that other editors can verify that it's not being made up or misrepresented. There is already a page for the Twenty-eight class of card games, which seems to be what you're describing here - if "J9A10" is a verifiably common synonym for that class in Kerala, then it should be mentioned on the Twenty-eight page, and J9A10 can redirect to it. --McGeddon 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion of one site, no non-trivial sources are given to verify the article. feydey 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please check the revisions to the page! tp 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not aware of a card game called J 9 A 10, which you claim is popular in Kerala. Could you please provide the name of the game in Malayalam, if possible?--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the latest version of J9A10 it should clarify J9A10 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am from Kerala and quite familiar with 28 & 56 (used to a decent player too) but I have never heard of it being called 'J9A10'. I am for keeping the current version of 56 which is on AfD but for this one I plead ignorance. Tintin 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know that you are a Fifty Six player. Please refer J9A10 for the explanation on the origins and evolution of this class of games and how 56 and 28 came about. J9A10 23:51, 16 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) 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twenty-eight (card game) if and only if references can be given showing notability. Otherwise, Delete. --Sneftel 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hard time finding online references i can do some OR and quote references if that will help? tp 20:42, 21 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) 2007-02-22 10:06Z

Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain

This articles prod was removed by user 69.232.85.231 Special:Contributions/69.232.85.231 with the comment It's an article about a linguistics journal. which fails to address the fact that this article seems to fail WP:N after a Google search, review of links on the page and translation (by Google) of some web pages it looks like the article is about the French translation of the book The d-prefix in Burushaski which does not have an article on so I don't see how the French version would need one on English Wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English

The only reference I could find with some English is this Bashir, Elena. 2004. "Le préfixe d- en Bourouchaski: deixis et point de référence." Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. (French translation of "The d-prefix in Burushaski: Deixis and viewpoint" originally presented at the 36th International Congress of Asian and North African Studies (ICANAS 2000), Montreal, August 27-September 2, 2000.) [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 February 2007

Delete, borders on speedy delete as there is not even an attempt at asserting notability. Resolute 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is badly written but obviously about an academic journal for linguistics, as was pointed out by the person who removed that speedy deletion tag. The journal Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain has been published since 1972 by the Université Catholique de Louvain, a prestigious university in Belgium. I suppose that, were Wikipedia articles in general as well-cited as they probably should be, a journal like this and the many volumes in its supplement series would occur frequently among the references of articles. Pharamond 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excursus: Most of the content in the first, unsigned, comment above seems confused, confusing and irrelevant to the issue of the actual journal. The above-mentioned title by Elena Bashir appears to be not a book, but a single article in volume 113 of a supplement series of the journal. To hopefully make things clearer: The journal is called Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. The supplement series is called Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. Volume 113 of this series is a conference volume called Bourouchaskiana: actes du Colloque sur le bourouchaski organisé à l'occasion du XXXVIème Congrès international sur les Études asiatiques et nord-africaines (Montréal, 27 août - 2 septembre 2002) ed. Étienne Tiffou, 2004. The journal has a second supplement series called Série Pédagogique de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. I hope that helps. Pharamond 08:16, 16 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) 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be a legitimate scholarly journal, in publication since 1972. I looked it up in three online library catalogs of universities in the United States, and two of them subscribe to it, even though the journal is in French. Normally I would recommend "keep", but the text of this article appears to have been poorly translated from the publisher's web page. --Metropolitan90 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can easily be rewritten in English once we determine we want to have the article. The only academic journal I can recall which was deleted at AfD in a while was one that could not be shown to be in any library at all, even in the online catalog of the institute that published it., & even that had those who disagreed. You cannot expect the same GS or other coverage of articles in journals like this. The supplements of course should not be separate articles unless one should ever be really notable.DGG 06:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How does one establish the "notability" of an academic journal in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements? People would usually cite individual articles, rather than write about the journal as such (and if somebody would, it would probably be the editor in an anniversary volume). But it would seem to me that reputable institutions and personalities of academia should be regarded as noteworthy in and of themselves, as that is where the knowledge is produced that an encyclopaedia is supposed to distill and describe. Knowledge does not just occur naturally, like apples that can be picked off a tree; it is produced in a certain institutional, social and historical context, and that is how it has to be understood. Pharamond 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very very strong keep. This journal is already in use on Wikipedia as a source; check Special:Whatlinkshere/Cahiers_de_l'Institut_de_Linguistique_de_Louvain. John Vandenberg 07:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worldcat finds 40 libraries in their network that hold this journal, including Lib of Congress, NY Public Library and Harvard University. See [30]. The fully-quoted name of the journal gets 20,600 Google hits. I think it's notable. Regarding journal notability, and the effort to create new articles on important journals, it's worth taking a look at John Vandenberg's project at WP:LOMJQ. EdJohnston 04:23, 21 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy O'Brien

I am also nominating the following related pages because his only claim to notability is also Project Monarch:

I personally thought that Project Monarch was notable enough as a crackpot conspiracy theory to merit inclusion, but others felt differently. If the conspiracy theory is non-notable, however, I can't picture how individuals whose only claim to notability is their alleged involvement in the conspiracy and its exposure could be notable. Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an author and fairly well-known dissident campaigner, she is notable. Your (or my) opinion of her cause shouldn't be relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.225.131.144 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I believe you're missing the point. "Her cause" is Project Monarch. If anyone had been able to provide evidence for the claim that the theories about Project Monarch were notable, the proposal to delete that article would not have passed. If we can't show notability for Project Monarch then I doubt we can show it for Cathy O'Brien, for obvious reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cathy O'Brien is a deluded nutbag with obviously ridiculous claims. However, that does not disqualify her from having an encyclopedia entry about her, especially since other nutbags (most notably David Icke) have reference her work enough to give her a certain level of noteriety. As long as all her claims are noted as "alleged," I have no problem voting Keep.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Her level of nutbaggery (and being the subject of multiple publications) is sufficiently high that she meets WP:Notability, irrespective of the fate of the Project Monarch article. She must be quite the crafty nut to have remained alive (in hiding, I assume) long enough to write/publish a book even though she was undoubtedly being pursued by the CIA. -- Black Falcon 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Project MONARCH is not notable, how can views on Project MONARCH be notable? Cart before the horse scenario. D Mac Con Uladh 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep For something like this conspiracy, one article but not two is undoubtedly enough, but whichever one was chose it could be argued that the other should be listed instead. The person in this case is likely to b ethe better known, so this article is the right one to keep. But for the co-author, its another matter, as he merely coauthored the book, and does not claim to have had the experiences--delete for him, or list separately. DGG 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find evidence of independent coverage by reliable sources, and none is cited in the article. Thus, article appears to fail WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 20:45, 20 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 or merge. Leaning towards merge, I will add the suggestion template for now W.marsh 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Coulter

Canadian Idol contestant. Speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 overturned at deletion review. Delete, merge to the competition, or leave alone? Technical nomination, no opinion from me. GRBerry 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a well-known reality contestant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Idol finalists are more notable than Big Brother contestants due to the fact that Idol contestants need to show some talent and good singing to reach the final stages. Each contestant has reasonably significant media coverage as well, so they meet WP:BIO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list, it's more comprehensive that way. >Radiant< 10:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, sixth place in a game show is not notability. No evidence provided of any subsequent notable achievements. Fails WP:MUSIC. Fleeting fame is not notability, and her fifteen minutes are up. Xtifr _tälk 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or even delete). "sixth place in a game show" sums it up for me. Given the number of seasons of this show, and the number of versions internationally, there is no notability in sixth place. Agent 86 02:58, 23 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 or merge. Leaning towards merge, I will add the suggestion template for now. W.marsh 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Fleury

Canadian Idol contestant. Speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 overturned at deletion review. Delete, merge to the competition, or leave alone? Technical nomination, no opinion from me. GRBerry 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a well-known reality contestant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Idol finalists have generally racked up enough media attention to be WP:BIO notable. Also, I think Idol is somehat better than "reality shows" in that the contestants need to show some talent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list, it's more comprehensive that way. >Radiant< 10:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, eighth place in a game show is not notability. No evidence provided of any subsequent notable achievements (although it does sound like she's working on it). Fails WP:MUSIC. Fleeting fame is not notability, and she's had her fifteen minutes. Once her new band has its first hit single, or its second major-label album, we can re-open the matter, but for now, she falls short. Xtifr _tälk 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or even delete). "eighth place in a game show" sums it up for me. Given the number of seasons of this show, and the number of versions internationally, there is no notability in eighth place. No prejudice to recreation if, as is suggested, this person goes on to achieve notability in her career. Agent 86 03:00, 23 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 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Speraw

Basketball coach who does not seem to be overly notable. Borderline, as far as I can see, but still delete unless notability can be established. It has held the notability tag for a few days, which is was given immediately after creation. J Milburn 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It needs some cleanup, but 14 years coaching, 4 NCAA appearances and a member of the winning Big Ten team in 1978-79 all makes him somewhat notable. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr.Z-man. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Mr.Z-man. -- Black Falcon 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kirk Speraw is the head coach of an NCAA division I basketball team at the 6th largest University in the nation, the University of Central Florida. As a coach in Conference USA, Wikipedia has set precedence with pages for his peers such as John Calipari, Mike Davis, Larry Eustachy, Matt Doherty and Tom Penders. Wikipedia also has a page of NCAA Basketball Coaches and Kirk is included, along with more notable coaches Bob Knight, Roy Williams, Billy Donovan. He has lead his team to the NCAA tournament four times and has played numerous games on national TV. Garyucf 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google news search for "Kirk Speraw" returns 53 results in numerous sources, including: Daytona Beach News Journal; Orlando Sentinel; Sun-Sentinel; Memphis Commercial Appeal; Greenville Daily Reflector; Kinston Free Press; The Ledger; International News Service; Tulsa World; El Paso Times; Dallas Morning News; CSTV.com. In addition, as the Head Coach of a major university that frequently appears on national television, Kirk Speraw has been discussed and interviewed by national media powerhouses ESPN and CBS on several occasions. Finally, as a member institution of Conference USA, Coach Speraw is regularly in the print and television media of Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Speraw is as notable as many other coaches already included on the Wikipedia site
Keep He's an NCAA Basketball Coach at a large institution. Millions of Americans fill out NCAA Office Pool Brackets each year and he has had his team in in 4 times in the last 13 years. No brainer to me. Izzone21 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I believe this person is notable per WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) 00:37, 22 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 an non-notable. I will make the content available if requested. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acorns & Merlot

Non-notable podcast. No sources cited, original research. Also nominating:

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 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) 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are added _SUBWAYguy 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where is the notability in this information? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep conditionally - the users involved state the article is a work in progress. Seeing as the item in contention seems to display notability, I suggest we let the article go undeleted for a week or so to allow it to come up to standard. Besides, if the article gets deleted the article will need to be remade from the ground up, which is a pity because it needs to be part of the podcasting wikiproject (personal opinion). This podcast apparently beat the podcast "Nobody likes onions" on podcast alley, and if I recall Nobody likes Onions has an extensive article. It would be unfair to cut this article off from devlopment when it is already more notable than another article that has been firmly established._Optomal7 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)— Optomal7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - 'At Home With Jennifer,' as well as a PPG, and Tartan source were cited for validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamsoda (talk • contribs) — Creamsoda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and userfy seems sensible here, per both HowardSF/Bignole/Subwayguy and Optomal7. Daniel.Bryant 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. this is almost notable, but at the moment it fails WP:N because only one reliable source (i.e. not a blog) is used as a source. John Vandenberg 06:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely as valuable or more valuable as other podcasts covered in the Wikipedia. They apparently have 2500 listeners a week and it is significant because they are one of the few all-student produced podcasts.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-22 10:02Z

Clint Wright

No citations; no references; no sources; not notable Bus stop 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations, references, sources. No notability established.

Delete per nom. Freshacconci 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wright destroyed many of his own paintings himself." He probably shouldn't have done that if we had wanted to attain notability. "Only three known paintings are attributed to him" and he's dead, so he's not going to be putting out any more work. Unless you're Leonardo, three paintings ain't gonna make it. Although the fact that one of them is at the Foundation E.G. Bührle, if true, indicates that he must have been hella painter. Who knows? If "Wright gained a popular... following in Eastern Europe in the 1980s" is true, then maybe he should have an article. But no references are given, so... Herostratus 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 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) 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is not on the list of artists represented at the Foundation E.G. Bührle, which calls into question his best claim to notability. [31] The article about the artistic movement he supposedly started was deleted a few days ago for lack of references (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouveau Classical Evolution). With no relevant Google hits I can find and no references, he is basically unverifiable and thus should not have an article. --Metropolitan90 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V Alf photoman 00:15, 19 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 18 Doughty Street. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 10:00Z

Doughty Media Limited

Delete: nothing useful to say here. No hopes to ever be a useful article, as the content's at 18 Doughty Street Nssdfdsfds 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 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) 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to 18 Doughty Street as some references are given there. --Tikiwont 11:26, 19 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) 2007-02-22 09:58Z

Mark altman

Borderline, but, as far as I can see, this person is not notable. The use of external links suggests to me that this may well be vanity/spam, as does the lack of other contributions from this editor. Delete. J Milburn 22:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO, all calims about a living person has to be verifiable Alf photoman 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete If he were as important as claimed, there would be sources.DGG 06:16, 19 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. –Llama man^talk_contribs 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball episodes

Hello.

It looks like a few episodes of Dragon Ball have been turned into articles. I don't think we can warrant having all an individual article for each episode, especially when we already have episodes lists and saga articles. I'd like to delete or redirect these. Beowulph 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a legitimate AFD as none of the articles have been tagged? Ok well, I guess I can fix that. The only problem I actually see with these articles, except for "Secret of The Dragon Balls" is that they do not conform to WP:NOT#IINFO point about plot summaries without real-world context. Normally, I'm in favor of this being merged into a list, where such context can exists. But there aren't any policies or guidelines against episode articles so long as the real-world context and sourced analyst is provided. "Secret of The Dragon Balls" is the only one I see that provides such context. However, let me also state that having per episode articles for such a long running series is not a good idea. --Farix (Talk) 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I thought this wasn't a real AFD since the articles weren't tagged... now they are. I have to say that throwing all of these into a list together is unwise and I'm going to have to suppose I have to say keep because the secret of the dragon balls episode and because of its real world context. For the other articles... merge? I dunno, absolutely not delete. MrMacMan 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think these story arc led series really need articles on each seperate episode as they don't really stand on their own as part of the series, let alone in a more general context, the series's storyline is better defined in it's main article or a more general plot summary spinoff article (and Dragonball already seems to have seperate articles for each "saga" already). FredOrAlive 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since other TV shows have individual episode articles, why shouldn't Dragon Ball? JuJube 10:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether there are other TV series that have episode articles is irrelevant. My view is that this is better handled by List of Dragon Ball episodes instead of individual articles. The "Saga" articles should be likewise merged because of WP:NOT#IINFO issues. In fact, I see that the Emperor Pilaf Saga is already ready to be merged so I'll probably do that in a short while. --Farix (Talk) 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact other shows have episode articles is completely relevant. If there are story arcs, then combine the articles into indiviudal story arc articles. 23skidoo 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable television series, episode is inherently notable. Consensus is episode articles are perfectly legitimate and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EPISODE. There is a consensus to improve, and not delete, articles on individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:51, 22 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. W.marsh 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slam nation

Nom - speedied (at least) once already. Fails WP:N. It is primarily self-sourced. It lacks any reliable sources. Rklawton 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:09, 22 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) 2007-02-22 09:56Z

Hypathetic

Looks like original research and a dictionary definition. Regan123 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a dictionary definition (do a search at any online resource) - it appears to be a hoax derivative of hypothetic - there is a claim within the article that this "word" is the antithesis of same. Borders on nonsense. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:04, 18 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 CSD A7, based on what the article said: "The website has a small and loyal fanbase, however it... suffers from lack of notice, due to there being no advertisment of the comic beyond... word of mouth and... myspace" - No assertion of notability whatsoever. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz and Jess (webcomic)

The article was prodded, but the prod was removed so I bring it here. Non-notable webcomic. Google brings forth a mere 14 unique hits for "Jazz and Jess". It has no Alexa ranking at all. The official forum has 52 registered members which doesn't illustrate a great deal of popularity. The article was initially created by one of the webcomic writers but it was deleted. He posted the content of the original article on his forum for others to add it again. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. bogdan 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a webcomic with only 14 Ghits doesn't seem notable to me. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delelte I request the page be given more time as both writer and artist are currently trying to advertise the comic with other sites and are using this wikipedia page as reference. Duke Palmer, Writer for Jazz and Jess

Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. As the writer for Jazz and Jess it is a conflict of interest for you to have written the article as well as for you to be involved with this AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, conflict of interest and prior deletion a factor.Freepsbane 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're sorry if this deletion inconveniences you, but the page should never have been created in the first place. If you snuck onto my backyard and built a tree house, should I let it stay because you invited all your friends over? - Richfife 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The author admits to using Wikipedia for advertising purposes, so it should be deleted quickly, perhaps even speedied as db-spam. JuJube 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author admitted to advertising it on OTHER websites, but using wiki for *reference*. This is a web comic that has reached users allover Britain - I'm from the North East of England and it is widely read at my place of work and my university, and among friends, for example KJS1982 10:16, 19 February 2007

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

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability

[1]