Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

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 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Japanese values

[edit]
Japanese values (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page Japanese_values has no quotations and isn't backed up in any way with evidence. It's entirely subjective and basically doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article is unencyclopedic and notably has no translation into Japanese. It is also worth noting that most other cultures/countries lack a 'values' page... Why Japan? This is basically an excercise in Nihonjinron and in my opinion has no place on Wikipedia.

urusainaa

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Priory School (Hitchin)

[edit]
The Priory School (Hitchin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Redshaw

[edit]
Mark Redshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is extremely non-notable. There is no evidence that the player has ever made a senior appearance for any notable clubs and the article is also very poorly written, having had a total of three editors in its entire history. PeeJay 00:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Canley 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A Google search has come up with numerous hits for this player, but they don't support the article content. He was on Wrexham's books as a youth player and played in the FA Youth Cup. See match report. Neither Soccerbase nor www.allfootballers.com show that he made any first team appearances for Wrexham, nor is he listed in the squad for either of the games against Blackpool in 2001-02. It seems that he did also join Manchester City as a trainee. Other than that it seems that the article comes from the realm of Fantasy Football. After Manchester City, he played for clubs such as Radcliffe Borough[1] and Caernarfon Town[2][3]. Curiously, these achievements don't warrant a mention in the article! The supposed connections with Manchester United, Chelsea & LA Galaxy appear to be nonsense. If someone can come up with firm citations, then I'll accept that I've unfairly maligned the article's editors. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that one of the editors of the article is Mark Redshaw himself, or someone who knows him, which would explain the outlandish rumours. Basically, the subject of the article isn't notable in the slightest and so it should be deleted ASAP. - PeeJay 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is when it is believed that one of the editors is the subject of the article ;-) - PeeJay 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this artical should not be deleted because Mark Redshaw played for Manchester United it states this in Phil Bardsley's wikipedia page and also in the Manchester United Offical year books. He also played for Radcliffe Borough and Caernarfon Town on loan from Manchester City where he was also a professional player. He also played for US Triestina a number of times in the first team in Italy. It also states in Billy Mcnicols book about Mark Redshaw signing for LA Galaxy,(saying how skilful he was) and he was assitant manager of LA Galaxy at the time but I dont no how long he was there of if he played any games. It also said on chelsea's website that Mark Redshaw was having a trial with the club but I dont no how long he was there for. He was also on a professional contract at Wrexham, I can see he played in the FA Youth cup and also the Welsh cup. Soccerbase is also always wrong about players so u carnt depend on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2007


Reply If that is meant to be counted as a vote to keep then please see above how to vote by putting Keep in bold at the start of your post. And if you have reliable sources to prove his notability then add them rather than talking in very general terms about books and so on. However, it should be noted that notability is asserted by him having played in a fully professional league and not having a trial at Chelsea for instance. Thus far though there is no evidence that he has done so. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been asserted despite all the efforts of the users above. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Is the Italian league not a professional league then, Redshaw played over 20 league games for US Triestina of the seria B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 June 2007

Where's the proof? You can't just say things like that without some hard evidence! - PeeJay 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hard evidence where is your evidence peejay who are you anyway? He has played in Italy the proof is in the games, he played in over 20 matches, I dont no how many games at LA Galaxy he played in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2007

Where is my evidence for what? Look, I've had a look through LA Galaxy's records and there's no record of a "Mark Redshaw" ever having played for them. I couldn't find anything for Triestina either, so I find it very doubtful that any of this, apart from the Man Utd and Wrexham stuff is true. The sooner this article is deleted the better. - PeeJay 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply what have you looked through on LA Galaxy and Triestina? If you want the artical deleted so badly then just keep being busy because you are one busy person. bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2007

I have looked through LA Galaxy's squad list for the last few seasons and there was no Mark Redshaw on the list. If you can explain to me how this article is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then obviously it will be kept. Until then, I see no other fate for this article than its deletion. - PeeJay 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply 81.102.126.95, you are taking this way too personally as it really is very simple, and you could easily have sorted this out by providing an online verifiable source that confirms he played for US Triestina, rather than having a go at other editors for trying to stick to wikipedia policy. However, I should also point out that whilst you have stated here that he played 20 times for Triestina, on the article you have tried adding that he played 7 times for them. In addition, will you please sign your messages. It is very easy to do just type four tildes (~) at the end of your post. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his defence, what he was adding to the article was that Redshaw allegedly scored seven goals for Triestina in his supposed time there. - PeeJay 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, my mistake, though I have also tried to help the user, as have you, seemingly to no avail so far.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply sorry peejay didnt mean to be nasty, peace out,'emma, 007 G agent'

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language personality theory

[edit]
Language personality theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not provide any significant sources or assert notability. Also suspected WP:COI, as the only other articles edited by the creator were references to this theory and the username is the same (Sergey). The addition to Personality psychology was deleted very quickly, the other was in a Further reading section, so it may have escaped notice. The talk page contains another editor's unfavorable comments as well. Clarityfiend 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete given the broad scope and strong arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous books and novels

[edit]
List of famous books and novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Famous" is too subjective, and the described scope of this list is too broad.Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, please, and as quickly as possible. There are thousands of "famous books and novels"; this article could never be complete. --Nonstopdrivel 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Drivel. This is yet another "0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" list that is supposed to be expanded by subsequent visitors. The author means well, and my 9th grade English teacher, Mrs. Midkiff, had a similar list for book reports. However, this doesn't belong here anymore than my grocery list does. Mandsford 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as an inherently subjective and unmaintainable list. Someguy1221 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaliatory Comment. it appears that your "comment" is being used purely to persuade people to vote on your side, it has weak support, just a dialogue to help "attack" the voters that are for the page's comments. But i guess you're just trying to help so oh well. Barn Stork 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not at all, just thought I'd point it out. Also, chill with the "official" lingo in this situation, trying to make me look like a fool. its a vote and you know it, regardless of alternate titleization. Barn Stork 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True. but can you tell me aproximately what percent of the time, something that has more "votes" does not occur, and the opposite resulting occurs and overturns the majority? Barn Stork 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent for reasons of sanity)


  • Delete. "Famous" is too POV. One could argue that all books listed on Wikipedia are famous because they are notable (otherwise they shouldn't be here!). Lists of books is perfectly fine for anyone searching for a notable book. -- MightyWarrior 09:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Hardworker (author) Not that your effort isn't appreciated, but if you're going to do something like this, I suggest these rules (1) My favorites rule: look beyond yourself for sources; many an organization has compiled and published its list of books, and refer to those-- that which may seem to you to be "common sense" is still one person's point of view (POV) if you can't show that it's the POV of many persons.

(2) Trebek's rule: generic titles are meant for game shows, not academia; (3) Famous fried chicken rule: the fewer franchises there are in a chain of chicken restaurants, the more likely that the chain will describe its product as being "famous". Who's famous? Mark Twain's famous, but so are Sue Grafton, Louis Lamour, Nora Roberts, etc. I think that your own defense of your article-- "obviously, I'm in favor" signals that you had your doubts on this one too. Save it on your harddrive, and don't let the experience deter you. First time I had an article deleted, I wasn't happy either, but in retrospect, I can see the other side to this. Mandsford 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Can we change the title and keep the article? I hate to see good work go away and 15 stubs done in 35 minutes by a likely one time editor stay because of the "notability" standard for his/her type of article. --Stormbay 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put so much hard work into this page. I think its ridiculous how weeks of editing to make this page better is simply going to be deleted becaus esome people don't agree with it. Thats all I have to say, do what you will with the page. And thanks everyone who is satnding up for the page, it means a lot to me. Hardworker111 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compassionate response: I feel your pain, but unfortunately, "I put a lot of work into it" isn't a good argument for inclusion. I support WP:USERFYing this article so that a monument to your labor may be preserved and perhaps converted into an appropriate, encyclopedic form later. --Nonstopdrivel 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take "famous" for "notable" in WP parlance (and if kept ought to be removed from the article name). It is utterly unmaintainable and articles will huge numbers of members are best handled by categories, unless something special about the members is being conveyed in the list; there isn't here, however, so it ought to go. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read this 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die and compare it to your list. Maybe you did some hard work in trying to come up with the ulitmate list before you posted it. It went up earlier this month, and you added to it. But when somebody else tried to add to the list, you deleted some of those additions when you didn't agree with them. Can you not see that, without citing to published lists, this compilation simply represents your own personal opinion? Not that I disagree with your choices, but are anyone else's choices less important than yours? Mandsford 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course certain choices are less important. Now that I'm looking through the history, I take note on the fact that certain books have to be deleted because they clearly are not very notable. The Name of the Rose strikes me as one such example that was removed. Though I did read the book, not many people would know of it just by hearing the title, so clearly that one addition just did not live up to par. I see what you're saying about it being "too opinionated" and that may be true, but there are certainly books that do not deserve a spot on the lsit, and hardworker did the right thing in those situations. He even said if you disagree feel free to change it back, meaning he/she wasn't banishing anything from the list permenently. Barn Stork 24:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is way too indiscriminate, as there are thousands of famous books and novels. Because fame is very subjective, this list is very hard to maintain and possibly contentious. The fact that the article's creator maintains very odd standards for adding and removing books (e.g.: "This book is not famous because it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia", "I've never heard of this book"), doesn't help matters.--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because useful reference and convenient, but should add such references as that 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die for each book entered, i.e. something as a source that proves fame of books and novels. --164.107.222.23 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Productions

[edit]
Ferris Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Has only been in operation six months. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. De-proded by author without explanation. eaolson 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deserves second consideration after no consensus result last time. Generally trivial list, should probably be merged into any of the popular culture articles on film or books. Bulldog123 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, if you can find academic sources for that topic. WP:NOT#INFO says nothing about "listcruft". The list is evidently useful as credible people have studied the topic and written or filmed about it. Once the article is improved, it can be linked more heavily from related articles. –Pomte 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be less random, more sourceable and hold more encyclopedic value than, say, List of porn stars who like pizza but it's still way too indiscriminate for my tastes. -- S up? 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list and instead write a prose article based on secondary sources that have significant coverage about the premise of the white man in Africa. The entries have been synthesized by the editors themselves, and there's no attributable source identifying that "white protagonist in Africa" is a primary premise. (And "watch the film for yourself" is not an argument.) We don't get to choose what we think fits the list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the general subject of these movies is discussed by critics, and the list's introduction makes it quite clear that this is not any white protagonist. A rename would be appropriate, but the name of an article is not a reason to delete an article. John Vandenberg 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To explain further why I don't think that this list is appropriate, try to see this article from an objective eye. The title is, at face value, no more significant than any of the suggestions by those who recommended to delete. Now, exploring the article's content, there is some dialogue about the underlying premise for a white protagonist in Africa. However, it is original research to find a film, surmise that it matches the so-called criteria for the premise, and add it to the list. Should Egyptian films count, such as The Mummy? Obviously, an editor should not make his or her own argument for the film's inclusion, but use an independent, attributable source to support this premise. One of the external links is USA Today, but it does not specifically mention white-protagonist-in-Africa films. It mentions films that take place in Africa. From my perspective, without attribution, I don't see what films like The Ghost and the Darkness, Tears of the Sun, and The Constant Gardener have to do with each other. There are many films with underlying common themes, like Bulldog mentioned -- protagonists who are out of luck at the beginning, protagonists who are stuck in desolate urban conditions, et cetera. It does not seem that putting together our own list based on our interpretations of the premise is supportive of the encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about mothers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of songs about mothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Again, with the many lists of songs about something they're not really about...delete. Bulldog123 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness Formula Clubs

[edit]
Fitness Formula Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small (7 location) local fitness chain with no claim of notability in article. Gsearch does not turn up evidence of notability in first several pages Kathy A. 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contested prod.--Kathy A. 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a presumably very good company and quite non-notable for a encyclopedic article. --Stormbay 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Liverpool Institute for Boys. --Coredesat 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Edwards

[edit]
John Robert Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Videmus Omnia 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most of the material is at Liverpool Institute for Boys (probably not sourced either). It reads like an obit so I would guess it is one. I would say he is notable but it hasn't been established (seems to have been Head when McCartney and Harrison were at the school). Suggest the page is replaced with a redirect to the 20th Century heads section unless someone can produce refs. -- roundhouse0 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuichi Tsuchiya

[edit]
Yuichi Tsuchiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested {{prod}}. Despite the fact this article has hundreds of edits (among them speedy deletions of images, etc.), it has never gone anywhere. It blatantly fails to assert notability, it is unsourced, and it reads like a poorly written vanity piece or fancruft. A Google search reveals no reliable sources, mainly Wikimirrors and first-person pages. -- Nonstopdrivel 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidic Affect

[edit]

No notability established. Unsourced. 0 ghits for "vidic affect". Prod removed by author. OnoremDil 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic group names used as insults

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of ethnic group names used as insults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedic topic, and lacks references, it still lacks references since its last AfD. Until(1 == 2) 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The many contributors have evidently used a dictionary of some sort, hence the etymology of the words is explained. I'd keep as a list of words that some might not realize are offensive, or at least started that way. Mandsford 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is limited, informative and provides context. Keeping this list should not, however, be used as an endorsement for existence of low quality lists. Pavel Vozenilek 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These names can change in meaning over the decades and centuries. Wikipedia must not be the benchmark as to their meaning. Gold♥ 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything can change in meaning over years or centuries. WP is not an arbiter of notability--we're not a benchmark for anything. Dictionaries record historical meaning changes, and encyclopedias talk about the concepts and uses of notable things, and also record the changes. Ethnic insults are generally fairly notable, there is often something to say, and changes in meaning of the items on a list like this can be indicated. Thats why lists forthings like this are better than categories, and the factor you mention is a reason to keep, not delete.DGG 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added two entries to this list as there is nowhere else to provide such. The words themselves link to the article with references. There is a place for this list in the Wikipedia. Gwyncann 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, I though Wikipedia was not a dictionary? Or does voting override that? I am so confused with this place, the policies say one thing, but the votes go another way often. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Moonwatch

[edit]
Operation Moonwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I just came across this article while deleting images lacking in source information- there was an image originally from this, and I thought it a shame to lose it, and so I tried to find the source online, as it claimed to be from NASA. However, when I started doing a little searching, I could find no reference to this programme online, and so have a horrible feeling that it is a hoax. It has been edited almost exclusively by a single editor, sources are print publications, but I am not certain how genuine they are. I may be completely wrong here- if so, I apologise, I just think it is better to be safe. J Milburn 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:ESSAY for numerous examples of POV writing. I also suspect WP:COPYVIO. The use of print sources is not in itself reason for deletion, though the fact there are no references online to the print source raises verifiability issues. Changed to Keep per citations produced by other users. --Nonstopdrivel 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It appears that I entered the wrong search string in my Google search. I have since been able to corroborate the other sources listed and thus change my opinion to Keep. I still remain unconvinced that the Smithsonian annual report citation is appropriate, in that it is not a third-party reference. I also cannot shake the feeling that at least parts of the article was cut-and-pasted from somewhere (certain paragraphs seem to have a promotional tone), but I haven't found evidence of this, so I have stricken the comment for now. I have added the article to my watchlist and will do some work on its tone later this week. --Nonstopdrivel 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment: After a rather comprehensive web search, I can find no evidence for WP:COPYVIO, at least not of existing web sources; there remains the possibility some of the verbiage was cribbed from print sources. That being said, some questionable claims that cannot be verified online are made in this article; for example, the only reference to any relationship between James A. Westphal (himself a redlink) and Moonwatch listed online is a very obscure MARC record of a transcript of an oral interview from the early 1980s (which isn't even downloadable). So without citations to paper sources being provided to corroborate some of the claims of this article, certain portions fall into the realm of WP:OR and should probably be deleted. --Nonstopdrivel 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as your raft of suspicions that this article is unsourced, a copy vio of something on the net and worthy of deletion as a whole have all been disproved in the last few minutes maybe you ought to just hang fire on deleting material based on your suspicions of Original Research for just a tick? Just a friendly suggestion. You site a source for a link between Westphal and Moonwatch and then seem to say that it doesn't count. Why is that exactly? Of course it's 'obscure', that doesn't mean it isn't real and the fact that it's not downloadable on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you tried contacting the original writer of the article and asking him for his sources for his writing? Nick mallory 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, and after further reading and thought, I freely admit admit the error of my ways and have stricken the remainder of my prior comments. I shall endeavour to be more circumspect in my evaluations in the future. My apologies to the original author of these piece. I will leave a request on their Talk page to cite the relevant portions. If citations for the claims cannot be produced, the uncited sections can be removed at that time. --Nonstopdrivel 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough pal. Nick mallory 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP For heaven's sake. [[5]] Operation Moonwatch was launched by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Announcement of the program was made in a news conference on 11 September 1956 by Dr. Armand N. Spitz, coordinator of visual satellite observations. Operation Moonwatch was started to track the path of a satellite to be launched by the United States during the International Geophysical Year (7/1/1958-12/31/1958). Tracking was accomplished by teams of volunteers, mostly amateur astronomers. Citation: Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the year 1957, p. 8, 74. This [6] is from the Harvard Crimson at the time, this [7] and this [8] from Time Magazine in 1957. There are plenty of sources and these have been added to the article. Nick mallory 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, the Smithsonian Institution described the program in its annual report, but that hardly qualifies as a third-party source, and it certainly does nothing to establish notability. It stretches credulity to imply that anything the Smithsonian Institution does is notable. Are there any external sources that point to this program? --Nonstopdrivel 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the two in TIME MAGAZINE maybe or the Harvard Crimson? Or the several independent sources now given in the article from Universities, Astronomy Groups and Astronomers from around the world? [9][10] This was a worldwide programme which, famously, observed Sputnik. If you can spare three seconds why not try googling, I don't know, "Operation Moonwatch". I found all these [11] Nick mallory 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Another reference is Something New Under the Sun: Satellites and the beginning of the space age by Helen Gavaghan, ISBN 0-387-94914-3, pg 38-42 & 49. But that book calls it Project Moonwatch. BTW, I think the IGY started 7/1/57, not 58. Also, the article needs to taks out a lot of caps in the section titles. Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this and this are just two of many references to it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are now. Nick mallory 00:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the primary author of this article, I have no idea why it would be selected for deletion or how it could be considered a hoax. Moonwatch was a REAL program run by the Smithsonian for nearly 20 years; the fact that I included a reference to the archival materials pertaining to Moonwatch at the Smithsonian should help alleviate any concerns.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge; further merge discussion can continue at the talk page. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 06:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language families (Ethnologue)

[edit]
Language families (Ethnologue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is it really a good idea to have an article whose sole purpose is to uncritically duplicate a single source? Ethnologue does not necessarily represent the current consensus. Also, the "superfamilies" in the article are not only controversial, they aren't even mentioned in the Ethnologue itself. Ptcamn 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no expert in this area at all. All I can say is that the article neither claims to be the theory of language families, nor a survey of theories. Note the title — Language families (Ethnologue).
Now, is the criticism of the article that it dupicates without critism, or that it fails to reproduce accurately? Please decide which, because they are inconsistant. Either would be good ground for editing the article — addition of criticism, or correction of errors — not deletion of an article.
Both. I don't see how they're inconsistent. Citing criticism against something which is inaccurately reported would be bad, as would accurately reporting something without comparing it to any other points of view. --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you want to exclude presentation of the Ethnologue material. Ethnologue is not sufficiently notable or reliable for Wiki?
Articles are written by comparing multiple sources. It would be fine if Ethnologue was cited in a general article about language families, alongside other sources. But we shouldn't have articles dedicated to single sources. It could be construed as POV fork. --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not an expert, so I sense ruffled feathers, perhaps Ethnologue is not in favour in certain circles, and for all I know they are just plain wrong. However, it'd still be of historical interest. So write it up! I'd love to know! If it is not as simple as right/wrong, what we need is an expert who is not opposed to Ethnologue, but who is opposed to the article, for an impartial judgement. Otherwise it just looks like silencing alternative views. In the mean time, perhaps you could improve the article by adding criticism of Ethnologue (I just don't know where to look) and by correcting any errors.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If people want to know what's in the Ethnologue, they can look at it online. --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, what has been duplicated uncritically, must be retained by the golden principle of Wiki — sited sources are not to be removed without a solid case. Alastair Haines 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference between citing a source in an article about some topic, and having an entire article dedicated to copying a single source's data. --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion, the problems noted should be dealt with by editing the article  ⇒ bsnowball  17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is that the article itself is inappropriate. You can't fix that by editing. --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there are various classification for languages, and obviously they are considerably debated. An article about one particularly frequently used source is appropriate. We have an article on the LC classification, and antoher one on Dewey. DGG 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a false analogy. Language classification is nothing like book classification. Book classifications can each have their own merits, based on how useful they are for different purposes. Language classification isn't a question of usefulness, it's a simple factual question of whether and how languages related or not. It's something that can be either right or wrong.
    I would also note that Ethnologue is a tertiary source. They did not invent this classification. This isn't "the Ethnologue classification", it's "the classification that Ethnologue happened to use in its 15th edition". --Ptcamn 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptcamn, could you expand on this a bit. As I see it, DGG is demonstrating that multiple notable sources of classification each deserve an article, if the classification has been in use at some time. Has the "Ethnologue" classification never been in wide use? Has the "Ethnologue 15th edition" classification never been in wide use? John Vandenberg 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of "use" do you mean? --Ptcamn 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert, so I am open to any definition of use that seems appropriate. Ethnologue "Language families" -wikipedia -Britannica returns a bucket load of hits, so I expect a damn good definition of use in order to discount those ghits. Compare that with the 24 for Encarta, and 300 odd for Britannica. John Vandenberg 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My google results are:
    "language families" 284,000
    "language families" -ethnologue 264,000
    "language families" -wikipedia 252,000
    "language families" -Britannica 259,000
    "language families" -ethnologue -wikipedia -Britannica 217,000
    so of the 284k places using the text "language families" 264k (93%) of them don't mention Ethnologue; 252k (89%) don't mention WP, 259k (91%) don't mention Britannica, and 217k (76%) don't mention any of them. So as for whether any of these is a source that is "used" is open to debate, but it seems as though Wikipedia and Britannica are used at least as much and perhaps more than Ethnologue by websites using the phrase. So much for quantitative measures. Qualitatively no amount of ghits can mean anything. The up-shot is that if we keep this, there is no principaled reason to not have the others (and whatever mysterious sources that the 76% may be relying upon). A final note: many things are in dispute, but rarely do we admit of separate articles of each various source. Take the population of a major city (in the U.S.), we have the US census bureau that gives one number, the state, county and city goverments probably have their own numbers, the chamber of commerce gives yet a different one, advocates for various groups (e.g., immigrants, undocumented immigrants, homeless, various ethnic or cultural groups that have historically been undercounted in formal censuses) give yet a slew of different numbers, so are we fated to have Population of Philadelphia (Census Bureau), Population of Philadelphia (Chamber of Commerce), Population of Philadelphia (Coalition on the Homeless), Population of Philadephia (La Raza) etc. all deserving of article status? Carlossuarez46 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos! There are plenty of opposing points of view that can easily be catered for in individual articles (Drink and Drive/Catch a Cab), but there are others that cannot (Capitalism/Communism). How do we determine what is appropriate in this case? The main reason this article is here is because I found the material easy to obtain, but didn't dare put it in the main article, because I felt it was only one "incomplete" treatment of the subject. I think merging it into the main would lead to frustration for some experts, but maybe it would stimulate contributions of sourced criticism and alternative approaches. But then again, it's just a list! Alastair Haines 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Stats are fun. Of all mentions of language families ( 283,000 ), 215,000 dont mention any of the reference material raised here, so it is easiest to see things by removing them from the results. 1,000 mention only Encarta; not worth mentioning further. 14,300 only mention Ethnologue, 22,000 only mention Brittanica, 23,100 only mention Wikipedia. As an aside, 2,310 mention only Brittanica and Ethnologue, 1,050 mention only Brittanica and Wikipedia, and 865 mention only Wikipedia and Ethnologue. Your point is well made that Brittanica is more referenced for this topic than Ethnologue, but I think there is something to be said for Ethnologue being in the same ball park, given it is not a general encyclopedia. The importance of Ethnologue as a classification of languages hasnt been discounted in my opinion. This Wikipedia article will become more critical over time. Ideally it would outline the changes between the earlier editions and the 15th and then future edition.
wrt to the Population of Philadelphia, language families are not population stats of a single region. This article is providing a taxonomy as provided by Ethnologue. A more accurate comparision is that we keep records of both U.S. Combined Statistical Areas and United States Census data. Both are slightly different ways of breaking up the geography of the U.S., and both are useful and authoritative (i.e. as a series rather than a specific edition). John Vandenberg 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google stats are fun. The question in my mind boils down to whether in the article Language family, we ought discuss the differences among (major) sources, or whether we have separate articles for the topic each according to its own source. Moreover, the articles by source will inevitably be just the list without any meaningful discussion why the tertiary source came down the way it did - which choices were controversial and why did they take that view of the controversy or the evidence? I am not a listophobe (if that's a word); indeed, good lists are good for WP. I can agree that the contents merit inclusion at WP in some form, but just not as a context-free stand alone article. I was trying to come up with an example of how we treat wholly divergent sources of material, and couldn't so I came up with a controversy that so far hasn't hit WP. But with further thought I have come up with the proper metaphor: different English translations of the Bible name and organize the material slightly differently - the ancient Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc., didn't always come with chapter and verse markers, or even sometimes punctuation in a modern sense. So while we properly cover the Douay Bible and King James Version of the Bible and Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version and others and we cover contents common to each, the Ten Commandments and Psalms, e.g., - we don't have and ought not have articles such as Ten Commandments (Douay), Ten Commandments (KJV) etc., even though they group and translate the commandments (and Psalms) differently - those differences are handled either at the articles about the translation in question (it is with Douay and the names of certain books that differ from the KJV, and in the numbering of the Psalms) or in the article about the passage (like Ten Commandments or Psalms). The grouping of data, the naming of things, is quite similar pedagogically to language classification efforts. Again we shouldn't have various "versions" of each language family by source. The article's contents either ought to be merged with Language family or with Ethnologue. Another indication of why that is so is that were the article expand to the next level of detail - which is also encyclopedic - how Ethnologue organizes each language family it recognizes will lead to further Indo-European language family (Ethnologue), etc. articles, when the contents with various sources' contrasts and bases for analysis should be consolidated at the "family" in question's article, with a general survey at the source's article (particularly if the source is the source of more than just language classification - such as Britannica - or we'll have a multiplicity of articles of each language family, subfamily, etc., by source with no context or critique of what evidence supports or militates against the view taken by the source. Sorry my $0.02 was so long, but there you have it. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It would appear that SIL International as an organization is trusted by the International Standards Organization, and Ethnologue (15th ed) is trusted as data. Perhaps this additional information needs to be added to the article. Of course that doesn't preclude addition of criticism of ISO, SIL or Ethnologue, which should be sourced and cited and added to enhance the article. :) Alastair Haines 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether Ethnologue is a reliable source or not (as Carlossuarez46 pointed out, articles like this are inappropriate no matter what source you use), but nevertheless I will point out that ISO 639-3 has since been revised where the Ethnologue data has turned out to be inaccurate (and is still being revised). --Ptcamn 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand Carlos' argument, he is saying separate entries for tertiary sources are inappropriate. I agree with that as a general principle, but not as an absolute rule. Many large subject areas have similarly large tertiary literature, with clearly defined groupings — for example, Realism and Idealism in philosophy. These are so notable in themselves, they need no parenthetical descriptor.
However, the argument is specious anyway, given that Ethnologue 15 was specified as the basis for ISO 639-3, it is a primary source wrt ISO 639-3. Primary sources contain errors, in this case it is being peer-reviewed. Ethnologue 16 should end up being a consensus document, but it might not document minority opinions. We certainly can and should do so.
I really appreciate your concern, I suppose people are indeed inclined to accept things uncritically, and to miss the important point that Ethnologue is only now going through a truly global peer-review process, and even then this process is moderated by the organization that publishes Ethnologue! There are valid criticisms of what the ISO have authorized, and surely of whatever ends up being produced. If we have an article on it, we can document criticism, if we don't, we look to be making an editorial judgement for censoring what the ISO have determined. I'd find that hard to defend. Alastair Haines 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That ISO relies on Ethnologue for the existence of languages, their spellings, their best names, says nothing about ISO's reliance on Ethnologue for the organization of those languages (correctly named and spelled) into larger groups families. Similarly, ISO relies on [12] for extinct languages, and that site (apparently maintained by a couple of universities, so probably a reliable source as WP goes) also ties its list into families. Once again, there is no indication that ISO buys into the categorization that is the basis of this article. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me Carlos. From a Wiki point of view, though, it's not our job to prefer one source over another, but to report each. If one source seems to get unmerited attention, surely we should add material about alternative sources, not delete the reporting we already have. If the source has questionable methodology or speculative results, there will be criticism we can also report. This is a great discussion because it shows us work that needs to be done, not work that needs to be undone. At least that's how I see it, but I'm an idealist. Alastair Haines 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is long for new people to read (not a criticism). I'll attempt a summary, tear it apart as biased and that will still help summarise everything. ;) Seems the ideas are:

-- additional argument, we may not even want this level of detail for all alternative classifications
  • alternative -- merge -- into Language families or Ethnologue, material here is sourced and relevant elsewhere, why stand alone?
  • status quo -- keep -- Ethnologue 15 has special status wrt ISO and this list can be used or not elsewhere as required w/o cluttering another article.

Does anyone know how to make a Wikitable both sortable and collapsible? Whenever I try, the hide/show goes in the wrong place, or the sort buttons go to the wrong line. Sortability helps this list a lot. Collapsibility would make it less intrusive if moved (now or later). Cheers. Alastair Haines 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about the environment

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of songs about the environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. Bulldog123 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about friendship

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of songs about friendship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. To summarize: WP:NOT collection of indiscriminate information. Friendship, love, parental-relationship. It's all very POV in the end. Bulldog123 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This would warrant a list for everything mentioned in a song except love because anything else mentioned is "rare" compared to mentions of love. This would render it unmaintainable and unlimited. I would also consider friendship to be a categeory that encompasses love, since its not easy to love without having a friendship, making friendship a bigger category than love. Corpx 08:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1. Vague inclusion criteria. What constitutes a song's being "about" friendship? A mention of friends or being friends with someone? 2. Fails WP:NOT#DIR as it draws together songs from across every style, genre and era that have nothing in common besides this vague sense of being "about" the same thing. Otto4711 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vaguely defined, potentially immense (think about the whole world), currently it is just a list of names w/o context with low to no value for a reader. Pavel Vozenilek 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We probably are making a mistake in deleting these lists. Many many songs mention friendship, some are primarily about it, and enough to make a list appropriate. The title should be changed (or clearly interpreted as ) Songs primarily about friendship, or an equivalent phrase. This is a good place to stop deleting these articles. it's not a mere list, there are obvious groups used, and it includes songs by notable artists for which we do not have a separate article, so it can't be replaced by a category. DGG 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as love and frienship are often confounded and confused, songs "about" them are as well. And how "about" the topic does a song need to be? Let's consult the article (unsourced as it is) for wisdom: Looks like having "friend" in the title is good indication (ok, but the Cars' "My Best Friend's Girl"? "...she used to be mine" seems more about lost love and jealousy but heck I'm gay and don't particularly understand the emotions, perhaps. "We are Family"? Great gay anthem, that; but the actual lyrics seem more about bonds of blood than of friendship. Without sourcing it's all just a POV OR list. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about friendship, I'll later look into sourcing an article on a similar topic. -MrFizyx 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a song database. As per WP:LISTCRUFT, this list qualifies as unlimited list as it is in no way possible to catalog all the songs out there. By the way these lists are going, every line in every song would categorize it in a list somewhere. Article also fails WP:NOT#DIR in that it is a list of loosely associated topics. Only thing these items have in common are that they're songs and they somehow relate to the broad category of freindship. Unless explicitely stated, the lyrics are open to subjective interpretation, like MakeDamnSure, which mentions the interpretation of rape. The first song I recognize on that list, "All my rowdy friends are coming over tonight" is not a song about friendship - its rather about getting drunk and partying. Lyrics. This again goes back to the point that this list not being maintainable, as well as being a list of extremely loosely assosiated topics. As "All my rowdy friends are coming over tonight" illustrates, its inclusion was based solely on a word (or a dependant clause) in the song - showing how loose the inclusion standards are. Corpx 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors 5

[edit]
Tremors 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Universal Studios has nothing about the existence of this film, Stampede Entertainment says it is not going to be made independently, other reference given (geocities) is a fan site. There is no IMDb or AMG listing for this, either. Delete for now until there is some indication that the film is actually going to be made SkierRMH 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molfie

[edit]
Molfie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and this is a plot summary stub with no real-world significance. Otto4711 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomination withdrawn and kept. Provided that within an 3 week period that Nonstopdrivel has added sources and this article actually has a paragraph of text to be expanded on. The reasoning behind the time period is because it has already been a blank article for over a year and I know nothing on any subject I edit would normally survive that long without source, references, etc. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's unacceptable in it's current state. Within 3 weeks, I will nominate for deletion again. — Moe ε 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaeroceroidea

[edit]
Sphaeroceroidea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely blank article other than an infobox. No references, sources, external links, etc. — Moe ε 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add the reliable sources to this article then? Otherwise, I don't see an article that is just a stub identification and a box. — Moe ε 22:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you'll withdraw your nomination, I'll add the article to my watchlist and add some references later in the week. This is somewhat outside my area of expertise, though I was a Bio major in college. --Nonstopdrivel 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Superman III. Decisions as to what content to merge left to editiorial discretion. WjBscribe 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Superman

[edit]
Evil Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Effectively an extended plot exposition of Superman III; wholly unreferenced w/o any evidence of exceptional notability. Originally {{prod}}ded [13], removed w/o comment [14]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy/guideline reason is WP:FICT under which characters should be dealt with in the article for the fiction in which the character appears unless an encyclopedic treatment requires that the character article be split off. Since the bulk of this article is simply a restatement of the plot of the film, there is no reason for this article to exist. Otto4711 13:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tag for speedy deletion is what to do, not bring it to AFD. — Moe ε 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UsER:Meldshal42/The Potato Club

[edit]
UseR:Meldshal42/The Potato Club (edit | [[Talk:UseR:Meldshal42/The Potato Club|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I deleted everything on the page. The club broke up so I don't want to keep up the page. After all, it's my page and I don't care for it anymore. Please delete it. Thanks, Meldshal42 21:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - although arguments to merge are persuasive I consider that this fails WP:RS so any merged information would have verifiability issues. Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua Coollist

[edit]
Interlingua Coollist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Interlingua Collateralist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Collateralista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Collateralist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coollist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable email list. No independent WP:RS for WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria. Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but contested/recreated. Leuko 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the numerous redirects to the nomination. Leuko 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I assume that means Delete? Leuko 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I think the circumstances of this nomination warrant closing the discussion immediately. I am the author of this article, and I had hardly finished writing it when I received a notice that it had been nominated for speedy deletion. The grounds were "no assertion of notability." I quickly responded by quoting three assertions of notability from the article and explaining why I thought the article should be kept. Then, I accessed the article again to add a fourth assertion of notability. The article had already been deleted! I undeleted it and added the fourth assertion, only to find that an editor had deleted my explanation in support of keeping the article. I was forced to defend the article a second time. A few minutes later, I got a message on my talk page that, again, the article had been nominated for deletion. The repeated deletions and nominations - before the article even had a chance to develop over time - have been disruptive and have served no purpose.
There are now five assertions of notability pointed out on the article's discussion page. As for there being no independent RS, or reliable sources, one was already cited. It was written by an influential scholarly author who consulted with Alexander Gode, probably the most prominent male figure in interlinguistics, on the development of Interlingua. The article appears in the journal of the American Society for Interlingua. The journal isn't affiliated with the Interlingua Coollist, however, which is instead affiliated with Interlingua USA.
I went to the userpages of the two editors, and both of them, especially the second, had apparently evoked anger repeatedly with previous deletion activities. The first had nominated 19 articles for deletion or speedy deletion in 46 minutes, a rate of one every 2 ½ minutes. This seems unusually fast, and it seems highly unlikely that the editor had done the searches and other research necessary for a sound nomination. The impression given is one of "deletion for sport" insufficient caution, and would likely also be disruptive to the other authors affected. Matt 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Line drawn, as promised. Matt 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur that you deserve a little time to make the case and delaying the nom. would have been reasonable rather than a same-day nom. for what is not clearly nonsense, but I disagree that as it now stands it shows notability. Can you cite a newspaper article or the like about this Yahoo! group? If not, is merging it to the Interlingua article so undesirable? JJL 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that a merge would be a bad thing, it's just that the Interlingua article is already very large, and it doesn't yet cover many important topics, such as Interlingua and Religion. Specialized subjects like this one rarely appear in newspapers and other mainstream sources. For specialized articles, the Notability page suggests using the expert-subject tag, and specifying a WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable of the field. They may have access to reliable sources not available online. I think this would be the best response if you feel that the subject may be non-notable. I'm not seeing where the page gives the article's original author sole responsibility for establishing that a subject is notable. Wikipedia is a community effort, is it not? Matt 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is a community effort, but at an AfD focusing on the notability of the subject of an article, it is the responsibility of those community members voting "keep" (or "speedy keep") to establish notability using WP:RS. If there are no sources, how can other editors verify the content of/claims made in the article, as this is a cornerstone of WP policy. Leuko 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, the expert-subject tag comes before the AfD. My point is that adding the tag would have been consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policy, while the delete nominations weren't, under these circumstances. I'm suggesting that we should change course and, if anything, add the tag. As far as there being no sources, a source - in my opinion, a reliable one - was already cited. Matt 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I too thought you should have a little time to prove the notability of the article's subject. That's why I brought it to AfD, instead of pursuing other avenues. AfD's last for 5 days, so that should be plenty of time. And as far as assertions of notability go, I could assert that I am the greatest Wikipedia editor. Doesn't mean much though without WP:RS to back up that statement. There is one reference in the article and from what I can tell it is not independent (as it is written by the same organization that sponsors the mailing list), and it may not be all that notable/reliable itself, since I can't find much about it on Google, save for some usenet groups. The WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria requires that the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. In this case, I am not seeing the multiple WP:RS. In regards to your other comments, please comment on the merits of the content, without making judgments of other editors, as they may be seen as personal attacks. Please Assume Good Faith and accept that most are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Yes, I was on New Page Patrol, and tagging many articles that were obvious WP:CSD candidates. It was not "deletion for sport" as you put it. I did research before nominating the article for deletion, and I did not find anything particularly notable about an email listserve on Yahoo Groups. And yes, people obviously get angry when "their article" (contrary to WP:OWN) is nominated for deletion. However, does that mean the deletion was incorrect? Of course not. If you take a look through my talk archives I am sure you will find many editors complaining about the deletion of articles, however, in most cases the articles remain deleted because the articles did not meet WP guidelines/policies. But don't get discouraged, hundreds of articles are deleted every day, so you are not being singled out. Leuko 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please know that I was expressing concern about a series of events, not making judgments about you personally. If you feel my remark was a judgment. I'll draw a line through it and replace it.
I quoted assertions of notability from the article because the reason given for speedy deletion was "no assertion of notability." Those assertions are different from a claim to be "the greatest Wikipedia editor" in that a reliable source was already cited.
As far as I know, the American Society for Interlingua doesn't sponsor the Coollist, and I said as much above. So again, to my knowledge, the source is independent. As to its reliability, it's the official organ of the ASI and as such should be a reliable source.
It isn't surprising that you "did not find anything particularly notable" in about 2 ½ minutes. Did the search include Finnish, Swedish, and Brazilian publications? Interlingua is a multinational phenomenon, and most offline sources on it are published in Europe or South America in non-English languages. Establishing a lack of notable coverage would be a time-consuming prospect. At most, the Interlingua Coollist article is one that "may be non-notable" and can therefore be tagged, not deleted.
In my experience, authors don't usually get angry if their articles are handled appropriately. I was angry because of the way the article was handled, not because I was the author. Being on New Article Patrol doesn't mean nominating a long series of articles for speedy deletion. I suggest using any sort of deletion only as a last resort, or in such cases as obvious nonsense.
The web notability inclusion criterion you mentioned is only one of three options. That page also begins, "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use …." The page is a guideline, not policy, and as such is "not set in stone" and "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Surely one of those exceptions is an article that has just been created and, moreover, was repeatedly interrupted before further editing could occur. Again, I'm describing a series of actions, not a person or people.
A notability guideline is especially problematic. A search of the Notability talk page suggests that there is no consensus on what notability is or whether it should be used at all. Matt 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a pretty well established concept that generally has a consensus. Sure, you may search through the archives and find a few disgruntled people after 'their' pages were deleted on notability grounds. Notability criteria are necessary so that Wikipedia remains an an encyclopedia, rather than a dumping ground of random information and WP:COI spam. I do think I am using "common sense" when applying the guidelines - an internet email list serve of any type is not likely to be notable unless covered by multiple WP:RS in a way that independent WP editors can verify the content of the article and claims like "most popular list," etc. And since you continue to bring up my "deletion for sport" rampage, rather than the merits of the article, I can assure you that I carefully consider articles before tagging them for deletion. For example, this article did not assert any notability in the version which I first saw it. However, I did manage to do a Google search that indicated multiple WP:RS covering the subject of the article. Therefore, I did not tag it for deletion, rather I tagged it as needing sources. When I saw another editor marked it for speedy deletion today under non-notable criteria, I quickly added some sources and assertions of notability to stave off deletion. I used the same methodology with Interlingua Coollist, but was unable to find any WP:RS. I don't mark pages for deletion for personal pleasure, I only mark those that I feel are not in line with WP policy/guidelines. But this isn't all about my opinion - that's why I brought it to AfD, where numerous editors should share their thoughts on whether the article should be deleted or not. Unfortunately, it seems that the large amounts of off-topic tangents has diminished the usual brisk participation. Leuko 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - No RS, no strong case for NOTE, and short enough that it could be easily dealt with in a two paragraph section in Interlingua after cutting a wee bit of cruft with odd tone. MrZaiustalk 19:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really familiar with the source, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you feel it's unreliable. As to merging, this would mean putting it in the Community section or the Interlingua today section. Both of these are in a very summary form and really don't include two paragraphs on anything. Matt 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's just no way of knowing how this new article might have turned out – whether it would merit merging, GA status, or something in between. And I think we would need to know that to fairly decide what to do.
To summarize my thoughts, here is what I think should be done:
  • Speedy keep on the basis of disruption.
  • Attach an expert-subject tag, per the notability guideline, that asks for additional reliable sources
It's the only approach suggested here that's consistent with Wikipedia policy. In addition, I suggest that it's the fairest decision. Matt 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how many experts do you think there are on the subject of Yahoo Groups mailing lists? And bringing an article that does not meet notability criteria to AfD is not disruption, as brining an FA to AfD would be. Oh and deletion and/or merging is plenty consistent with WP policy. Leuko 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The expert subject would be Interlingua, and the disruption is the series of events that I described under speedy keep, not simply bringing the article to AfD. It is this series of events, and the omission of the expert subject step, that I consider to be at odds with Wikipedia policy. And again, I think it's important to be fair. Matt 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, apparently no notability established. Sr13 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarTux

[edit]
MarTux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub describing a niche, alpha-stage operating system. Notability not established, ant not immediately apparent from Google results (90 unique). Possible vanity article (author and primary contributor is user:Bochnig; the article attributes MarTux to Martin Bochnig). lcamtuf 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco Ranch High School controversies

[edit]
Cinco Ranch High School controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel this has WP:NPOV#Undue weight on a high school that is not nationally known for being controversial. Some of the content seems non-verifiable. In addition, it may be too easy to add weasel words. WhisperToMe 20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [15] for why this is a terrible idea for an article. WhisperToMe 20:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, weak speedy delete, at least one section (which I intend to delete upon finishing this discussion) is a blatant BLP violation. The nomination pretty much says it all. Corvus cornix 21:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly unnotable. If it were a "controversy" featured on CNN that would be one thing, but this is stuff that isn't important enough for the school paper (official one, anyway). --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any really well sourced material should go in the article for the school--only the drug tests seem to have a RS. As for BLP, no names are mentioned either in the article or the links--had any been, I would have removed that section or link now without waiting for the close of the AfD. BLP concerns only named or identifiable people. My thought on BLP is that it should be enforced strictly, but within defined limits. DGG 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good, removal of clearly BLP violating content is the first thing to do-- whether or not we keep an article. . DGG 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of hippie-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics, with no well-defined criteria for inclusion, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Eyrian 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Criteria added. Easily sourced to published works found in Hippie#References and topics covered in Hippie. List is not "loosely-associated" nor does it meet WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Half of the list is currently sourced directly to Chelsea Cain's The Hippie Handbook (ISBN 0811843203). The other half to the sources listed in the references of the hippie article. All of these topics are notable and directly related to the hippie movement itself, and either mentioned in the article on hippies or found in their related publications. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new criterion is overly broad (and inaccurate, based on reading the articles). That criterion would allow anything that was mentioned in any association with a hippie eligible for this list. That an author of some books that might be read in certain psychedelic circles (Huxley) is listed alongside movements that are inexplicably linked with hippies speaks to how loose the association is. --Eyrian 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "inaccurate" about the criterion, and it would most certainly not allow anything in the list per notability. The example you give proves my point. Not only was Stewart Brand (and many hippies) influenced by Huxley's The Doors of Perception, eventually leading him to meet the author; (Markoff, 2005) Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were also connected with Huxley; (Markoff, 2005) In the front matter for the 2005 Harper edition of Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited (ISBN 0060776099), Christopher Hitchens notes that Huxley's relationship with Leary attracted the Beatles and the Doors, leading the Beatles to put Huxley on the album cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and causing the American rock band The Doors to take their name from the title of Huxley's seminal book. The back matter of the same book calls Huxley's books, the "essential texts for the counterculture during the 1960s" and the publisher adds a similar statement to the back cover of the aforementioned version of The Doors of Perception (including Heaven and Hell) as well ("these two books became essential for the counterculture during the 1960s and influenced a generation's perception of life"). Huxley has been described as "a guru among Californian hippies" [16] in multiple sources. According to Tom Wolfe, Huxley was associated with the "mystic brotherhood" of like-minded counterculturists and hippies (MacCleary, 2004); Jay Stevens writes that the hippies "absorbed Leary and Huxley and Alan Watts, picking up those parts that struck a responsive chord, and dispensing with the rest. When a hippie claimed that "I'm from another race, not black, not white, maybe I'm of a race that's not here yet, a race without a name," what you heard were echoes of Huxley's evolutionary romanticism filtered throught the dog-eared science fiction epics that graced every hippie pad." (Stine, 1995) Multiple published sources emphasize the theme of the "wide-ranging influences" of the counterculture that drew on Aldous Huxley for inspiration. (Boggs, 2000) Even the original Psychedelic Shop, whose primary focus was selling books to hippies on Haight street, made a point of stocking Aldous Huxley by request. (Stine, 1995) The relationship between Huxley and subsequent drug use by the counterculture and Huxley's influence on the social history of the 1960s as a result is written about in dozens of sources. (Lee & Shlain, 1992) So we see that this isn't a loose association at all, contrary to your claim. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Even with the criteria added, it's still too loosely associated. Nor is it sourced. I don't think this could be improved, or even well sourced, as it's just too encompassing. I mean, what constitutes a "topic"? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hippies are a subculture related to the counterculture of the 1960s. Hippie-related topics refers to anything notable in that subculture, and the list is for the most part, fully supported in reliable sources. That is to say, these are notable topics that have directly contributed to the cultural development of the hippie movement. This is not a loose association of topics. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I am a supporter or lists as differentiating from categories, there is nothing here that cannot be solved by a category. If there were narrative here, this would be a different story, but it's nothing but an indiscriminate list with no references and it's just whatever somebody wants to put up on a whim. Corvus cornix 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I don't think a category, such as Category:Hippie movement, is appropriate, and I do believe the list can be expanded with narrative, and I intend to do just that. —Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too support lists, but this one doesn't make sense to me. Section 4, art, philosophy, beliefs, would be best handled by links in a appropriate general articles. There might be a point in separate lists for people and events and cultural artifacts, but I do not see the advantage over categories.DGG 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles are fine. The entire list represents a bloated see also section from the main article that was split off. It's important however, to understand, that this list is not a loose connection of topics, but tightly, interwoven concepts that compse the core ethos of the hippie movement. Obviously, some editors have added stuff since its creation that should be removed, but that doesn't qualify for outright deletion. The entire AfD debates seem to be based on ignorance of the topic, rather than actual research, a very sad state for Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can anyone state any other situation where a similar lisit of very lossely related topics were allowed? I feel that given the very loose connections between most items (e.g. Yoga?, Ibiza? The Grateful dead? etc) that the page really has nothing holding it together. I wouldn't accept most of these entries in a category and don't feel that any counterculture is quite seperated enough from any other culture to warrant such a page. --Jimmi Hugh 00:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topics aren't loosely associated or related; they are the core topics that compose the ethos of the hippie movement and full articles could be written on the relation of each topic to the hippie movement. I removed Ibiza, as some misguided editor evidently added that, but if you are questioning the placement of yoga and the Grateful Dead, I don't know where to begin with you. As I said previously, AfD seems to be a haven for ignorance. Deleting articles based on an unfamiliarity with the topic is shameful. —Viriditas | Talk 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Don't know where to start with me? Please elaborate; As a former hippy, long time Grateful dead fan and someone who has never practiced yoga i believe i have some amount of insight into the subject. Clearly these things relate to hippies, but as has been said throughout this AfD, loose association is not good enough for a list. These things would all have to be obvious Hippy Centered topics and not simply an association of sorts. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Grateful Dead has a "loose association" with the hippie movement? You're kidding, right? That was supposed to be funny, right? And FYI, yoga has a very strong association with the hippie movement. Try doing some actual research. There's about 609 references to the relationship between hippies and yoga on Google books alone, and 630 for the Dead and hippies. People can say whatever they want, but they are still wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 12:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a pretty simple one to kill... the Grateful dead existed after the end of the original Hippie movement and have no association with modern Hippie Trends. They were once a small part of the movement but it was minimal and they now reach far out and beyond hippies, making them a loose association. Perhaps if they had died of at the end of the sixties it would not be loose. This is like calling Pink Floyd a Hippie band, it's futile and wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmi Hugh (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a very small sampling of evidence refuting your position: The Grateful Dead itself is strongly associated and deeply rooted in the original hippie movement of the 1960s. This is widely sourced in hippie entries in most encyclopedias. (Mitchell & Salsbury, 1999) In late 1965, the Dead became the "house band of the San Francisco LSD scene" supplying most of the music for the Acid Tests of Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters. (Turner, 2006). These "Acid Tests" represented the countercultural transition from the beat generation of the 1950s to the hippie movement of the 1960s, most notably with the advent of the Trips Festival which opened the door to teenagers and made the hippies visible to mainstream America. (Turner, 2006). "The Grateful Dead helped forge the chain that linked sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll during the counterculture's emergence in San Francisco." (Cavallo, 2003) As such, the Dead were at the vanguard of the burgeoning hippie movement and the start of the Haight-Ashbury era, playing almost every major event and festival of importance, leading to their description as one of the "key psychedelic rock bands" (Miles, 2005) and the "ultimate hippie band". (Dodd & Spaulding, 2000) As late as 1966, the Dead's performances were being described as "religious rituals" (see Timothy Miller's books and essays on the hippies as a new religious movement) and they were considered the loudest band in the Haight, making use of innovative sound and light shows that subsequently spread around the world (Perry, 2005) developing into what we now recognize as the modern rock concert. By 1968, the importance of the Grateful Dead as beacons of the hippie movement was widely acknowledged. In March of that year, the Dead were forced to move out of the Haight (and into Marin county) due to their popularity as hippie icons; tour buses were pulling up and taking photos of their house and harassing the band. (Miles, 2005) "Whereas other bands might have played to an audience, the Grateful Dead saw themselves playing for a community." (Turner, 2006). By 1971, roadie and manager Steve Parish described the majority of fans of the Dead as "hippies". (Parish, 2003) In 1992, Lee and Shlain wrote: "A few of the original psychedelic bands from San Francisco still tour, - most notably...the Grateful Dead. The Dead made a mystical pact with their fans, vowing to carry the psychedelic torch as long as they can play their music. They still attract the old sixties Deadheads, as well as younger people who feel they are connecting with that era through the music...they seek a nostalgic cultural experience, to individually experience what happened in the sixties." (Lee & Shlain, 1992) —Viriditas | Talk 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do in fact find this list indiscriminate. Based on that list, the hippie movement was a group of Buddhist Christian Taoist Vaishnavist-Hindu New Agers who rejected wealth and property except for their bicycles, cars, drugs, comic books, and hotels, and who rejected the idea of government ... well, mostly. In all seriousness, I do know that all these topics, to some extent or another, have some connection to the hippie movement. And, yes, to fully understand the movement and related events during that period, their "mutual relationship" is important. But the way to do that is to improve hippie (which needs the help) and related articles, to ensure that they are thorough and well-sourced, and link to other topics in order to demonstrate those relationships. This list, though, is just an uncited, unsourced collection of topics mentioned somewhere in the same context as hippies; in some cases, directly connecting them with the 1960s counterculture in this manner may constitute original research as well (as an example, making a direct connection between the predominately-American hippies and the New Zealand ohu would require citation; no such connection is mentioned in any of the salient articles). Serpent's Choice 06:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned in my original response, at least half of the list is sourced directly to to Chelsea Cain's The Hippie Handbook (ISBN 0811843203), and the other half is sourced to references in the hippie article, some of which I have mentioned here. This list originally started as a massive "see also" in the hippie article itself; in order to improve that article, this list was split out into a separate article of its own. Despite outstanding problems, some of which you demonstrate (some editors have added OR to the article as you observe) the list can be salvaged by rewriting it with sourced material and expanding the relevant, historical narrative for each entry. The hippie article is already bloated, hovering around 59 kilobytes (I've removed most of the unsourced material to talk, material that has gone unreferenced for a long time) and it needs further splitting; it does not need more material. —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list could be useful to someone researching the subject. I see nothing harmful in keeping it. I don't think the policy cited applies to this list. This list is not a directory. There is an advantage to having a topic like this arranged as a list instead of as a category. Some of these topics are just influences, and it would not make sense for these influences to be categorized as "hippie related". That would never survive CFD. Study guide lists (which is what this list is) make lousy categories. This list could be a "See also" section in the article about Hippies, but since it is so long, it makes sense to be a separate page. What is the harm of keeping it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pleas read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The interpretation does not mean that any useful article should be deleted, just that Useful alone is not enough, and SW suggested other reasons as well. --note that I !voted to delete, but we should use valid arguments.DGG 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other reason was that it was a study guide list. Wikipedia articles are not study guides, per WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Eyrian 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this for another "NOT": Wikipedia is not an exercise in finding reasons to delete everything. I wish people would put more effort into things that are truly destructive to the project. This page is not. Deleting harmless pages like this just makes Wikipedia a less friendly, less enjoyable and more acrimonious place to hang out. Most "See also" lists are study guides. I don't see anyone working to delete the "See also" sections. Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete origional research--SefringleTalk 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Wars

[edit]
Union Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

So many reasons. Plot summary of unnamed, unpublished science fiction; article created by the author. Clarityfiend 20:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanta Rose

[edit]
Chanta Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded, but there is refs, procedural listing, No opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. After the !votes of IPs and SPAs are discounted, there's a majority to delete. More importantly, the arguments for deletion establish that this is a local news story, not an encyclopedic subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg oil spill

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Williamsburg oil spill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No context given, this appears to be about a local news event. Article doesn't even make it clear they are talking about a neighborhood in NYC. Maybe belongs in wikinews. rogerd 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep seems to discuss the situation in general, not just current local news, and does have sources. (Unlike most spills, this is chronic, not a one-time event--is there perhaps a better word than "spill") Possibly should be rewritten to put the general historical material first. DGG 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify. Adequately sourced and once N always N. --Bren talk 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really the case, notabily can fade away with age, especially local news events that what this to be case Delete Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't keep the copyvio version because of the GFDL, if the article is kept the copyvio version has to go. Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. After rewriting part of the article, it appears that this is largely a local story with implications only to the Williamsburg neighborhood. At first I thought this was talking about the Greenpoint oil spill, but this is about a different, possibly unrelated, situation that only affects one construction site and its localized area. The sentence "The Williamsburg "aka Roebling" Oil Spill is getting a lot of attention from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, but not much attention from the mainstream media." is also troubling, since the only secondary sources are essentially a blog (Gowanus Lounge) and a short New York Times article. Tinlinkin 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps better to transwiki to Wikinews, given it might be better off as a news article, but I still don't believe it is worthy as an encyclopedia article yet. Tinlinkin 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The New York Times covered the oil spill on april 1 2007. The DEC has been investigating the origin of the spill and are trying to determine its size which, considering the long history of the astral oil site on the Williamsburg waterfront, could be millions of gallons. The spill has required the NYS DEC to put borings all over the community. This is not an isolated or insignificant event. The Astral Oil property and the Eastern district terminal site are Federal Envirionmental Superfund sites. The idea that major events that have been covered by one major media source can be subject to deletion seems suspect. If there are issues with the structure of the article, then that should be corrected, but deletion is not warranted.71.247.67.172 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC) — 71.247.67.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • By your logic, an NYT article about the controversial removal of a highway exit ramp [19] could be a Wikipedia article. That's also a big concern to local residents. You should be concerned if a single article is the source of all information. Quoting from WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people." If you are unable to find multiple reliable sources now, wait until the investigation is finished, if you're so sure it is a "major event". If it is a major event, it would have greater media coverage by then. Tinlinkin 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is no passing story. As more of the envirionmental consequenses of Eastern district terminal's industrial past become revealed this historical event becomes the catalyst for the adoption of more rigorous remediation and midigation strategies.68.161.44.129 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — 68.161.44.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can see, there has been no reliable sources willing to call this an oil spill, so the current article title can not be used. As the current status is unknown, this is better covered on Wikinews. Williamsburg, Brooklyn already covers this. John Vandenberg 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is already an underground oil discovery with an identical history, except for the location, called a spill and is cataloged as Greenpoint Oil Spill so the naming seems appropriate. The NY times has published a story about this spills. Also DEC confirms the spills existence. One of the more well known blogs "The Gowanus Lounge" has done some extensive investigative work on the environmental concern. Although the oil has seeped underground, and not into a body of visible water, does not preclude it from being named a spill.Wburged 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Wburged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The three "Keep" votes after mine overstate the influence of the New York Times article on the Wikipedia article's subject. (They may also suggest that they could have come from a single editor.) The reliance on the single Times article [20] (published as a Sunday "The City" neighborhood story, if there are WP editors familiar with The Times), and the Gowanus Lounge blog is weak for a Wikipedia article. While it may be amateur journalism, and regardless of the credentials of the author, the Gowanus Lounge blog is an independent blog hosted on Blogspot [21] , and I don't think it is a reliable source. I do not discount the neighborhood's concern, and if I was living there, I would be concerned. In fact, I live in Brooklyn and I am familiar with some of the industrial history and the health concerns of residents from the conversion of industrial spaces and lviing near industrial areas. But don't try to justify keeping this article for the purpose of increasing awareness. Wikipedia is not the place to push for more media coverage of a subject.
  • If you (most likely addressed to User:Wburged) want to have a greater chance of keeping the article, I suggest you expand the Roebling Oil property history with sources other than self-knowledge that would be original research, and Gowanus Lounge and similar blogs. Also, if the Astral Oil is somehow connected, that also needs to be proven better than what the article says now. Saying Roebling is downstream from Astral with the blog as a source is not enough. And clear up the claims of it being an "underground oil spill", per John Vandenberg's comment. See also WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the AfD result is to transwiki to WikiNews, all of the above would still be good advice. Tinlinkin 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Bob and George. --Coredesat 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline of Bob and George

[edit]
Storyline of Bob and George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. Eyrian 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IrishGuy talk 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masta-T

[edit]
Masta-T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough. Chris 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to InuYasha as there is nothing mergeable. --Coredesat 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of InuYasha

[edit]
Plot of InuYasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. --Eyrian 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are a great many articles on InuYasha and it is a very very long series. There is no way that the summary in the main article can begin to do the series justice. This article is needed. If you think that it is sub-standard then be bold and improve it. But destroying the work of many people who built this article is counter-productive. JRSpriggs 08:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - Articles like this clearly shouldn't exist in the first place. If there is good (and sourced) material not found elsewhere, it could be trimmed and merged with a main InuYasha article. And from a skimming of some paragraphs, it sounds almost like original research of someone's analysis. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many other similar articles, why should this one be deleted? It does a good job at describing the plot of the series. If it seems redundant, why not remove most of the content on the main page regarding plot and provide a link? Articles like these should be kept out of the main article for the most part, a link will do. The anime is over and the manga is continuing, I wouldn't call a plot article "recaps", the plot is very important to the main InuYasha article, as it has a very long and complex story. We need to keep this article, if it gets deleted, the quality of the main article will drop for sure. If we delete this, then why not all plot articles? While we're at it, why don't we just delete articles on countries' histories and merge them into the main articles? It's madness. Also, if this article does happen to get deleted and replaced with the List of InuYasha episodes article, it will need someone serious improvements. The Plot of InuYasha article is fine, but the List of InuYasha episodes article is sorely lacking in material (and screencaps). --Mathew Williams 12:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is impossible as I explained, the manga in existance covers more than ANY article other than this one could support - it goes beyond the anime and the US releases.--88wolfmaster 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be merged. --Eyrian 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it could not be merged. --EAZen 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (perhaps too subtle) point of my edit was to show that the content most certainly could be contained in a short section. Yes, details will be left out. But anything other than original source requires that details be left out. A plot summary that is too long not only exposes us to risks of copyright violation (people have stated that they use these summaries instead of watching), but it is fundamentally against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is about the real world. Fictional worlds impact real ones, but those impacts must be cited. This article has too few. --Eyrian 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an AfD issue; what you state is an extension on policy that would remove extending plot summaries: books, episodes, radio shows, movies et c. If you feel current guidelines already exist for this, then you have a lot of AfD's to put out there. That goddam Stargate/Harry Potter/IP as Physical Property isn't going to delete itself. Unless, what you meant was the lack of sources; I believe that's a different tag. --EAZen 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF states that plot summaries should be brief. Just because other articles would need to be deleted as well doesn't mean this one shouldn't be (please read WP:ATA). And the problem isn't lack of sources; it's unsourceability. A plot summary article can never be more than plot summary, which is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy(WP:NOT). This article will never be cited (to a secondary source) because there's nothing to cite it to. --Eyrian 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only portions of this article are redunant in the main article summary, and the anime cuts off too early to be a useful source of summaries. Furthermore the collected Manga summaries are, due to chapter releases, behind the continuously appended version of this article. This article does not out-live its usefulness until the Manga ends (which is at least another year from now) and the chapters are finally completed and available. --EAZen 05:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what everyone seems to be forgetting when citing WP:NOT is that "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Inuyasha is a larger topic, thus this does not violate that guideline. Now, it does certainly need to be rewritten, as it is confusingly worded/structured and close to copyright violation in places, but its very existence is not wrong. As for the list of anime episodes, or a paragraph or two being acceptable - even though I'm not a fan, I can recognize that the thing is basically a soap opera. Even if you trimmed and summarized as much as possible, you're still going to end up with something that is ridiculously long - it would take up more than 50% of the entire page about Inuyasha. Furthermore, the anime stops covering the story quite early on. KrytenKoro 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. PART of a larger topic, which means not as its own article. That's why this page breaks the rule. How much of it all is importent to the overall arc of the entire story, that can't be covered in other places (character articles, etc)? I don't know Inuyasha, but I DO know Takahashi's other popular manga, Ranma. And in Ranma, the answer is really very little. The series is pretty much all self-contained, with very little actual progression once one gets past about volume five or so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have not read Ranma 1/2, but I can assure you that most of the information in InuYasha is important to the overall story. The story progresses quite a bit throughout when it comes to the characters, abilities, etc. The story is very long and complex, and if the plot article is improved enough, it will help the reader understand the story. --Mathew Williams 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with this article is there is NO other place for the entire series to go. I am not saying that the article does not need work, but honestly where could you add major plot developments from the latest chapters written (there aren't any more episodes and Viz can only translate manga so quickly). as to importance, the anime just ends without a resolution so fans have to turn to the manga to get that resolution. and in regards to people just reading the summary and not buying the graphic novels, you can't stop them from doing so any more than you can stop free scans on the web - where there is a will there is a way--88wolfmaster 06:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Farix. -- Jelly Soup 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot," which is exactly what this article contains: solely a summary. Also delete per my personal believe that if reading a Wikipedia article on any fictional work serves as an alternative to actually reading or watching said work, then the article must be trimmed. (or in this case, deleted)--Nohansen 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alot of these votes on both sides of the argument look like WP:JUSTAVOTE to me. Votes without a valid arguement should be ignored in my opinion. I don't mean that we should decide which arguements should be counted and which ones shouldn't. But a vote that only includes a message like "per (insert name here)" or an extremely short comment should not count. --Mathew Williams 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echoing another's sentiments can be a way of indicating that you agree with their logic and that it is a valid claim to make. It can add weight to the argument if others think it is convincing. --Eyrian 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as pure vandalism (given the oh-so-subtle anti-Gypsy content) Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy revolution

[edit]
Gypsy revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Events described in the article never happened MariusM 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nibblecode

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Nibblecode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Alleged computing term. Unreferenced neologism. -- RHaworth 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasteland War

    [edit]
    Wasteland War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Uncited article, does not assert notability to meet WP:WEB BigrTex 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Malley

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Keith Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article was previously deleted as non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Malley). It's now reappeared and makes various dubious claims of notability. Examples:

    • "He was crowned the 2004 grand prize winner at the prestigious World Comedy Laugh Off in New York City." — "World Comedy Laugh Off" gets only 15 Ghits; it can't be that prestigious.
    • "His 2004 and 2005 stand-up albums, Coming of Age and Children's Party Songs, are all currently in high rotation on XM Satellite Radio." — I can't find these albums on Amazon.com. Do they even exist?
    • "He is also the author of The Great American Novel" — Can't find this on Amazon.com either.
    • "He starred in the movie movie, Crushed which will be released soon." — No such movie listed in the IMDb.

    The only remaining claim to fame is the podcast "Keith and the Girl", and I'm not in a position to judge its notability. Even if it is notable, does that mean that Keith Malley is? —Psychonaut 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bren talk 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Debate was raised due to notability and verification issues of the article. I have relisted today as since the initial 4 delete votes were cast, article has been worked on to address these issues. The relist tag was put in to differentiate the former and the newer votes. If this is not the correct way to handle such a case, please feel free to remove the relist tag, or alter to a correct one. --Bren talk 12:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would note that consensus appears to have been reached before you decided to imply that it was not (and use as a justification to relist). I also note that, at this time, consensus appears to have become even more clear (4-0 before, 6-2 now). Of course, this isn't a simple excercise in vote counting, but the consensus remains (at the time of this writing). I would note that the AFD was listed, and the opinions were issued, based solely on notability, not verifiability. Despite your claims, you can't "work on" notability -- it's either there or it's not (which was always the issue). /Blaxthos 13:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I apologise for relisting if that was not the correct procedure. What I am trying to explain is that Keith Malley is notable as he has been the subject of multiple secondary sources, and citing helps establish that. The 4 initial votes were cast without this information, the folling were. Since the AfD nom included "makes various dubious claims of notability" then verification of claimed facts is required. I also don't see the point of the nom argument "was previously deleted as non-notable" as between October 2005 and now there are sources to establish his notability per WP:BIO --Bren talk 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be obstinate here, but the article had included dubious claims about nonexistant projects to try and assert notability (the movie, the novel, etc.), and there has been some underhanded mischaracterizations within the AFD discussion as well. Without throwing out WP:AGF completely, I think that there has been a considerable effort at giving the appearance of notability (not the same thing as actually being notable). /Blaxthos 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum - Of the sources you've pasted, the WSJ source doesn't even mention the subject of this article at all. The BusinessWeek source only talks about the Keith and the Girl video, and mentions Keith Malley en passent. More dubious claims... the sketch may be notable, but the harder I look the more I see smoke & mirrors. /Blaxthos 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to the Keith and the Girl podcast article, until his other work has seen notability. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. ...but with thanks to the nominator for flagging this. The article's original over-the-top promotional quality is separate from the issue of whether or not the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. The podcast, the mention in a Wall Street Journal shortlist of top podcasters, and the comedy prize seem to add up to enough notability that you can imagine somebody looking for info in Wikipedia. Without the comedy prize, I'd agree to just merging this into the podcast's article. bTW, I came here expecting to want to see the article deleted, after some anon claiming to be a pro-Malley partisan was trying to stir up trouble in the talk on Adam Curry.betsythedevine 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandfield Lutheran Church, Sheyenne, ND

    [edit]
    Grandfield Lutheran Church, Sheyenne, ND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable church. No WP:RS to indicate notability. Contested speedy. Leuko 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, db-author, as author has blanked the page. Leuko 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Son of Tony Montana

    [edit]
    Son of Tony Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I could not find any WP:RS to verify the existence of this film, only mentions in Google are WP mirrors. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Leuko 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy deleted as copyvio. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Loon-E-Tunes

    [edit]
    DJ Loon-E-Tunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable DJ, does not have WP:RS to indicate meeting WP:MUSIC. Leuko 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Michelle Lambert

    [edit]
    Lisa Michelle Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article is about a murderer who in themselves is not notable, even if the murder itself may be (although I would argue not). More importantly, there are no reliable sources in the article (the two provided seem to be blog-type self-published sources) raising BLP concerns. CIreland 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This article should be retained, cleaned up and expanded. According to Judge Dalzell, this case concerns one of the most heinous instances of police misconduct he had encountered in his long and distinguished career on the bench. And, subsequent to his ruling, it has shown the cynical corruption of the Pennsylvania courts even more clearly than the various Justices accusing each other of attempted murder. A simple examination of the facts of this case shows that an innocent young woman has been incarcerated for over fifteen years while the actual murderer was set free. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported extensively on this case, but their archives are in jeopardy due to financial uncertainties. Nevertheless, this is one of the best references, especially since interested parties have disseminated a lot of disinformation. Comment left by Tedwray
    In the future, be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~
    • Keep Notability based mainly on TV movie and mention in 20/20. Corpx 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as judging by the comment left on the talk page, this article may have been created for the purposes of POV pushing. --Nonstopdrivel 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a well known habeas corpus case and could legitimately be the subject of an article, but there are obvious issues with the current version. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a major case over several years. The obvious question is BLP with respect to the subject; along her conviction stands, she claims innocence. However, it is apparent from the story that she and her supporters want the publicity, and the story has been on major news media. Access to Inquirer news stories is a long-standing problem, known problem , but there are paper and microfilm files (I am aware of it from having worked in a library in the area). The other living people mentioned by name were also convicted or are public figures). What is needed is more specific source from the references provided--there are probably more. Like most such articles, it is not an example of the highest standard of editing. Some murders are notable, and this is the proof.
    In our zeal to remove non-notable news stories, we should not remove notable ones. Part of the opposition to removing articles on less well-known crimes was that the tendency to delete them would spread. The people who support deleting such articles should be anxious to keep this, to show that they understand the difference. Some potentially good projects have failed when they have over-reached. DGG 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I simply must reject your slippery-slope argument outright. Should we keep all articles on non-notable subjects lest we delete some notables? Each article must stand on its own merits. --Evb-wiki 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment DGG, you present a cogent case that the murder may be notable and your argument is making me doubt my opinion on such an article. However, this AFD is for an article about the perpetrator not the crime itself. CIreland 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In many case, agreed. In this one, the article is about the legal efforts with respect to the perpetrator. DGG 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Taprobane Linux

    [edit]
    Taprobane Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spinix Linux

    [edit]
    Spinix Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 05:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for failure to assert notability. Distro is not currently under development, and there is no evidence it ever achieved widespread usage. Of the 795 Ghits on the topic, the majority appear to be Wiki mirrors or first-person accounts from the distro's developer and thus fail WP:RS. --Nonstopdrivel 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PilotLinux project

    [edit]
    PilotLinux project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable and apparently dead software project. Chealer 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    War Linux

    [edit]
    War Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zynot

    [edit]
    Zynot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 05:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Genital play

    [edit]

    Unsourced, not mainstream use of term. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • All the following sources, mostly from published books on sexuality and childhood or modern governmental pamphlets, attest to genital play as a separate subject of childhood sexuality distinct from masturbation.

    [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] VanTucky 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tango (rapper)

    [edit]
    Tango (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    "Tango" is not notable enough on his own to warrant his own wikipage. There also is not a single cited source to back up any of the claims stated. Until this person does something more notable than winning a single reality show contest, this article should be deleted. Gamer83 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was deleted by Anthony.bradbury (NN school). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Hill Elementary School

    [edit]
    Golden Hill Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is likely a duplication of Golden Hills Elementary School as it was started by the same user (who have been warned for vandalism and speedy deletion notices in the past. The school it self is non-notable as well see other nom. I could have nominated it for speedy deletion as well JForget 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quizzing.co.uk

    [edit]
    Quizzing.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-noteable website. Un-sourced also. Is this advertising? Dalejenkins 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable site. Corpx 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:N. --Nonstopdrivel 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (These are my views) I used to work for the company before being unfairly banned from its events and events run on its behalf. I run a web site they consider to be a rival. The talk page is extensive, and contains information about the origin of the article and how it was hijacked into a non-NPOV advert. It is still disputed, but the approach taken by the company and its supporters equates to them having decided they own the article, and thus censor any criticism (of which there is plenty). Anybody not towing the party line seems to be regarded as a competitor, and unfit to make edits to the article. The Wikipedia 'rule' that you shouldn't edit articles about yourself or your company seems to be ignored. I am sure there will be many Keep opinions in this AfD, as the word will get out about it. Given my position I feel I can only really comment. Jw6aa 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (These are my views) Jw6/Will Jones is partially correct in that he has been banned sine die by this company. The page was originally created by David Bodycombe and quickly edited by Jw6 to portray this orgnaisation in a unfavourable light, and as both of them gentlemen own rival sites it quickly became a POV/NPOV Battleground.

    The argument as to whether the page amounts to an advertisement is perhaps best left to those with no personal stakes in the matter. However I would urge the moderators who make the final decision to leave up the results section please.

    The British, European and World Championships are recognised by many of the quizzing community (even jw6 has a website that records the results of these events)and it would be a crime if this was deleted simply because of the continuing animosity between jw6 and one of the directors of quizzing. Portlius 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the eds there changed it back to include the names of all the winners. I've changed my !vote, on the grounds that the article was intended as vanity and a place for spam. Can't help people who don't want to be helped.DGG 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry what was so controversial about a shortish list of winners at UK, European and World Championships? And what is namecrufting? By all means edit the descriptive sections for tone but surely the winners list is objective and worthy of some note? Portlius 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trip Lee

    [edit]
    Trip Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prod removed twice. Procedural listing, no assertion of any notability, can't meet WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Akkanat

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Akkanat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    As with Muhammed Sonny Mercan, this appears to be an example of WP:COI. This person does not appear on Google except on WP and his own site. Possibly a walled garden? Vizjim 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete and redirect to Fullerton, California. --Coredesat 02:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Hills Elementary School

    [edit]
    Golden Hills Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The article does not any content rather then the city it is located, but fails to meet WP:SCHOOL. A merger was suggested to the city's school district, but does not appear to have an article either. Delete, mostly per lack of content and per failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or merge to the city's article if the article is deleted--JForget 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added note, the user who've created the article duplicated it see: Golden Hill Elementary School, which I will nominate it.--JForget 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arrogance

    [edit]
    Arrogance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary Akiyama 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Dicdef already in Wiktionary--Ispy1981 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete nya nya. --Coredesat 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neko nya nya

    [edit]
    Neko nya nya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability, however, unfortunately does not qualify for the narrow definition of A7. Leuko 16:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Since the AfD, the article seems to have changed dramatically. Delete per WP:HOAX. I can't seem to find any Grove Gazette that backs this. Looks like some school kid's (ongoing) prank.--Ispy1981 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the {{spa}} tag. :-) Leuko 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. The spa tag was added while I was checking on the user.--Ispy1981 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    how much evidence do you need? [32]

    i can provide as much info as you like. if you seriously think someone would make something like that up you are very mistaken. the school was grove lea,hemsworth,w.yorks the head master mrs mcnichol and the other producers and workers for the gazzete were kane rush, amber milnes, georgina akyroyd and kim mitchum if you need any more info ask me on my email: (email and phone removed. Posting personal contact info is not a good ideaEdison 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)) 18:19, 23 June 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovescene123 (talk • contribs).— Lovescene123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • fine then delete it i can't be bothered arguing with a load of internet geeks about a manga series but dont you dare dis the site!!thos drawings took ages aswell as the whole comic me and most of the people who got the gazette think its important. if it gets deleted i hope your happy. i bet you couldnt draw much better when you were 12 anyway comment added by Kohaku-x
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherokee identity

    [edit]
    AfDs related to this topic:
    Cherokee identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Original Research WP:OR and POV fork of Cherokee Heritage Groups. Spillover of on-going debate on Cherokee. Article contains an ocean of uncited materials which are almost entirely original research. Materials fail WP:V because it is not possible to verify these groups or individuals are Cherokee. Additionally, article violates WP:BLP since it attributes Cherokee tribal membership to various individuals and subjects them to public scrutiny.

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

    The result was delete all. --Coredesat 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Canden Jackson and other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestants

    [edit]
    Canden Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Minor state-level beauty-pageant winners. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references or none at all. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. So now it's time for the rest. I'm doing this because I had already added PROD tags to them and which were removed by the article creator (User:PageantUpdater) and User:Jeffpw, so technically I can't re-add the tags. The list includes:

    --Calton | Talk 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete (WP:SNOW). Anas talk? 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Polynomadic Ovary Syndrome

    [edit]
    Polynomadic Ovary Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Medical nonsense. No verifiable sources on scholarly WebMD, PubMed, or Proquest databases. Syndrome appears to be a joke, the name being indication enough, its cause being too much masturbation and its treatment being less masturbation. --David Andreas 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Gregory

    [edit]
    Martin Gregory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is about the owner of a non-notable local garbage company. Even if it's an article related to my hometown, it does not meet WP:BIO even he supported current Gatineau mayor Marc Bureau. Also, there are no Google hits related to himself (there are links to other Martin Gregory's from Indiana and the UK )nor his company. So it is probably a hoax. Also it has no sources to support the information. So Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO and possibly WP:OR.--JForget 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Valete

    [edit]
    Valete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No verifiable sources to back up the relatively weak case for note, only source is a blogspot citation, considerable issues with tone MrZaiustalk 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Note: Originally flagged for prod by User:The Rambling Man. Moved to AfD when prod removed w/o resolving issues therein.[reply]

    Delete Very few reliable sources. In fact, only one and it's borderline--an interview in a Portuguese hip-hop website. Everything else is lyric sheets, which could be uploaded by anyone--Ispy1981 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep It’s borderline, but I think he’s notable. He’s certainly not as famous and notable as Sam the Kid or Boss AC – two hip hop “superstars” – but he seems to have had a significant impact on Portuguese hip hop recently, even with only two albums and two or three videoclips. Someone who knows more than me about Portuguese hip hop should give their opinion on this. Anyway, here are some sources supporting his notability: Acording to this article on a Portuguese music site, his second album “Serviço Público” was considered by the critics as one of the best Portuguese hip hop albums of 2006. On this article on the newspaper Jornal de Notícias, a prominent hip hop critic, Rui Miguel Abreu, calls him the only political rapper in Portugal. Cattus talk 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to get some clear and accurately translated quotes from those articles posted to Valete? That would remedy everything but the tone issues, and those are easy enough to fix. MrZaiustalk 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to use quotes as references, but I'll try. I've also found another article about him from the magazine Visão transcribed in this site. In the introduction it says he “jumped from the underground hip hop to the radio playlists”. Cattus talk 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Cattus has provided ample demonstration of note. Tone issues largely resolved. Nom withdrawn. MrZaiustalk 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment agreed that tone has been attended to. Still wondering how this meets WP:MUSIC though. The Rambling Man 13:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the two sources from Cattus is a print newspaper source, albeit Portuguese - Guess I'm just willing to take his word for that. He claimed that both sources dealt with his songs in radio rotation in Portugal. According to my reading, the article now meets points 1 & 11 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, albeit in a somewhat difficult to verify, although not unverifiable, way. MrZaiustalk 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep The article is referenced, and he seems notable.--LindsayLauren 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)— User:LindsayLauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    I just wanted to include, that when I googled Valete, I got about 571,000 results. I believe this is notable enough.--LindsayLauren 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. However, valete has many meanings in many languages, it doesn't simply refer to a Portuguese rapper. A simple concatenation of 'valete' and 'rapper' reduces this to under 10k Ghits so perhaps your half million is slightly overstated. The Rambling Man 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, even if Valete were a unique name, WP:GOOGLEHITS would argue that search engine results do not notability make. That said, I am now in favor of keeping the article, per my earlier comments. MrZaiustalk 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I now know that search engines aren't used to prove notability, but I did want to include that while googling 'Valete' and 'rapper' only makes about 9,000 results; if you do it with 'Valete' and 'rap' you get 36,600... 4 times what you said. --LindsayLauren 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep His video, Anti-Heroi, is featured on MTV Portugal: [33] . I think this assures his notability. Any musician with a video on MTV is notable. --HipHopLover 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — User:HipHopLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Comment thank you, both of you, for chosing your one and only edits on English Wikipedia to be on this article! The Rambling Man 15:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment and your point is...? --HipHopLover 15:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment it's unusual that two of you would both stumble onto this page within half an hour of one another and vote similarly to keep an article with your very first edits. But welcome, nevertheless! The Rambling Man 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment LindsayLauren & I are friends and we both thought this article should stay on Wikipedia since we believe its very notable. Do you decide who can give their opinion and who cant? Thanks for the welcome, by the way. --HipHopLover 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I make no such decisions, all are welcome! The Rambling Man 16:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep He is a famous rapper in portugal and improves the information of portuguese hip hop on wikipedia.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt. Anas talk? 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammed Sonny Mercan

    [edit]
    Muhammed Sonny Mercan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This activist's name does not appear anywhere on Google except in Wikipedia and similar websites. The article seems to promote his art, so I suspect a WP:COI violation. Vizjim 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete' Deleted twice. Person lacks notability. Salt the page? Corpx 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is a little off. This page seems to start off as an autobio, then it's edited by Akkanat, who also has an article, edited by Muhammed Sonny Mercan. What's going on here? Unless there are reliable sources, I think both this and the Akkanat article should be deleted. Sounds like massive COI. And if the MSM article has been deleted before, I suggest speedy delete per recreation of a deleted page and WP:SALT--Ispy1981 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as with Akkanat above, this appears to be a walled garden. --Nonstopdrivel 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban Vibe Recordings

    [edit]
    Urban Vibe Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    NN label. Has released "a couple of mixtapes". And? How is this notable? Lugnuts 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Signs (game)

    [edit]
    Signs (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable game with some hints of WP:NFT (to me at least). Craw-daddy 14:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Porscha coleman

    [edit]
    Porscha coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails all tests of notability. Repost by author who also appears to fail conflict of interest guidelines. NMChico24 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I looked at the page. Lots of roles as 'Dancer #2' and no notable work. The BIO section on actors says she needs to be cedited with 'With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions' which I don't believe she is.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable actress - basically an extra? Corpx 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Possible COI. Article's author is Porschaporsche (or something to that effect). If not, non-notable extra.--Ispy1981 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. This is a borderline case, and I'm probably affected by the tone of some of the delete !voters, who take her weakest roles (the sort of roles almost all actors have while "paying their dues"), then dismiss her as an "extra." A fair reading of her credits shows that she's appeared steadily on some clearly major series, so that takes care of the "notable... television" half of the BIO requirements. So are those roles "significant?" Many of them are named, and a couple of them span two episodes. And although she hasn't been in the main cast of any show, the cumulative work on multiple major series is enough for me. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; I already speedied this as an A7, and the COI problems which seem to be involved let me tend to a delete vote here; also keep in mind that IMDB entries can be edited by the actors themselves, there is no check included as what to constitutes notable or worthy for inclusion. Lectonar 10:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mind if this article gets deleted through regular process, but I don't see how it qualifies under A7. If anything, it can be accused of over-asserting the importance of its subject rather than not asserting it at all. As for IMDB, I know some people like to claim that it shouldn't be relied on, but in my experience its accuracy compares favorably to that of many so-called "reliable sources" (whose "fact-checking" consists of printing what an interview subject or publicist tells them). In any event, other sources confirm many of these roles. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --soum talk 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Benoit and Dean Malenko

    [edit]
    Chris Benoit and Dean Malenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    All relevant information is located in other articles. Their ECW tenure is covered in Triple Threat, their WCW in Four Horsemen, and their WWF in The Radicalz. Nenog 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per nom. Nikki311 04:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unlike Michaels & Cena or Nitro & Dykstra these two guys have teamed up for years, yes off and on but they've held both ECW and WCW gold and achieved a lot as a team, the current content in the article could be greatly expanded giving the readers the opportunity to get a full picture of the team in one place instead of havign to read 3 stable articles and 2 individual articles. MPJ-DK 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional Delete I suggest the article be deleted. If someone can come up with reliable secondary sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS that suggest this article is needed (even though all the info this article could contain would be included in the three article mentioned above by Nenog, then I would consider changing my vote. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment remove the unsourced material, even if it leaves it as a stub instead of deleting it. That way we leave a place for people to slowly begin to source the article instead of having to start over from scratch MPJ-DK 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It's not just about having one source, it's about having sources that are considered WP:RS that meet the criteria of proving WP:V. If that one source now listed did that, then I'd be thrilled (it would make our lives a whole lot easier in the pro-wrestling project). What would be even harder with this article though, is to find a WP:RS that meets WP:V that shows that this article needs to exist, and not an article about the Triple Threat, The Four Horsemen and The Radicalz. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Waltontalk 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As Cities Burn EP

    [edit]
    As Cities Burn EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Demo albums from As Cities Burn released before they were signed in 2005 to a label. 650l2520 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As Cities Burn Demo 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    4 Song (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I made these articles, I agree most of them don't comply, But the 1st and Last release are real and talked about on their official website.

    http://www.ascitiesburn.com/main.php

    Click the biography tab, it mentions the 2 EP's the only thing we don't know is which of the 2 releases are being talked about out of the 3, the one that isn't being talked is obviously just demos and not officialy self-released. That article should go is the one thats not talked about or mentioned anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.36.81 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment Just because a band passes WP:MUSIC, that doesn't mean that everything they've ever created becomes a notable thing independent of them. Studio albums are a lot different from early demo tapes, and so on. In this case, at the very least the "Demo 2003" and "4 Song (EP)" articles should be either deleted, or simply merged into As Cities Burn if they are deemed notable at all. However, I would say Keep for As Cities Burn EP, assuming some development will take place. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Delete those 2 articles 4-Song EP 

    and Demo 2003 aren't good. Technically, the only official releases they had were the ones in As Cities Burn EP
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of clichés found in science fiction literature

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    List of clichés found in science fiction literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Original research, no references or sources. Should be deleted per the precedent established at this previous "Fictional cliché" list debate. The consensus there was that the article was purely uncited original research, and therefore did not belong in Wikipedia. This article here appears to have exactly the same attributes, and should probably be removed entirely. It's been around for ages with nobody interested in fixing it.--Folantin 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blather

    [edit]
    Blather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A web site that fails WP:WEB, since no hints to secondary coverage are given. PROD contested in last June, without comment. Notability warning since October 06, no major changes have been made since then. A number of people contributed to the talk page, but no one has bothered to add any independent references. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    'zza nicknames

    [edit]
    'zza nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article seems not to meet the criteria for a wikipedia article especially due to notability concerns and the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a repository for information. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The compilation of it all into one article seems to be Original research. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ripper chaingun (Duke Nukem 3D)

    [edit]
    Ripper chaingun (Duke Nukem 3D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - prod removed by anon without explanation. The weapon does not appear to have any notability as attested to by multiple independent reliable sources. Claims that it is or may be based on real-world weapons are impermissible original research. Otto4711 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Glenn Kurtz

    [edit]
    Glenn Kurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No indication of notability through third-party sources. Article had previously been speedily deleted under A7, and has been recreated. Only references provided are the author's own book and the author's own Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SmartFrog

    [edit]
    SmartFrog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - uncertain notability of software product, appears to fail WP:NOTABLE, already deleted once via prod. Oscarthecat 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - The project was listed in the [Comparison of open source configuration management software] page, which is why I expanded the external link to a proper page describing the project. I've tried to include a number of relevant external sources so that people can judge if the project is notable or not.

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgia Brown (child prodigy)

    [edit]
    Georgia Brown (child prodigy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Recentism. How is she notable? There are plenty of children out there who may be just like her but haven't taken an IQ test. If you argue that she's notable for being the youngest member, when the next youngest member joins should this article be deleted? There's also the concern of her being a minor (which she will be for another 14 years). Non-notable imo, but it's probably too controversial to be speedied. Strong delete. – Chacor 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep or Merge to Mensa --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think it's natural to retain and expand on this article as this child is obviously going to receive a lot of public attention. __meco 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you figure that she will receive such attention? - SpLoT // 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being the youngest member of MENSA ever it is obvious that this child will serve as a poster child for the organization and in addition to her hereditary advantages will hence be propped up and given all sorts of opportunities and stimuli in order for the self-fulfilling prophecy of her becoming (or retaining rather) her shining star to come true. Is that a far-fetched conjecture, you think? __meco 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As with all records, this one stands to be broken. I'm not entirely sure that opportunities would indeed be thrown her way by MENSA or any other organization, but I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification, - SpLoT // 09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Even were this to be the case, meco's argument is still problematic from the perspective of WP:CRYSTAL and hence is inadmissible here. --Nonstopdrivel 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I have changed my opinion based on arguments put forward on this page, reading the article again and realizing that she has indeed not yet done anything remarkable. I think we will be much less hesitant in accepting an article about her once she has "performed" som notable feat. __meco 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Mozart was a child prodigy. Miss Brown is a toddler who reportedly got a high score on a test, and who someone has seen fit to enter into an organization for which 2% of the people in the world qualify, which would be a select group of about 120,000,000 people. Also per WP:CRYSTAL arguing that someone "is obviously going to receive a lot of attention" is not convincing as a "keep" argument. Edison 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: To put this into perspective, a group this size is equivalent to one-third of the population of the United States, and is larger by at least an order of magnitude than most countries in the world. Yes, it's impressive that two-year-old made it into the group, but the potential population in reality is huge. --Nonstopdrivel 21:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. She's not even the youngest Mensa member ever, just the youngest girl. Clarityfiend 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Or, merge into Mensa. The only thing that can be said about her is "youngest girl in mensa". Ok, why does that need a separate article? Resolute 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in spite of press coverage, this is a case where i would invoke BLP--although the material is favorable (in a sense) there is no way a two year old could have consented to any of this, even if particularly brighther mental age is above 3 (which is all IQ 152 means). Not strictly relevant, but I wonder at the mental age of her parents. I'm not concerned about the folly of a 17 year old or an adult; I am here. Nonetheless I do not delete it myself--I think it would take considerably greater harm than this for me to do that, especially as my take on this may not be shared. DGG 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, what you say above:"even if her mental age isbove 3 (which is all IQ 152 means)" is untrue. That is a ratio IQ and isn't used, all IQ's now are "deviation IQ's". See Marilyn_vos_Savant#IQ for more info. Also the talk above about 2% is misguided also, Mensa's requirements are IQ's above 2%, but a 152 on the stanford-binet (sd 16) would put her in the top .06% of the population[34].Tstrobaugh 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not convincing solely as an appeal to the numbers. 0.06% of the world's population is not quite 4 million people. I know Wikipedia isn't paper, but... I really think the coverage at Mensa International is more than adequate; she is an age/gender recordholder in a well-known, notable organization. That's worthy of a sentence or two, but with nothing else (and at age 2, there is nothing else) just doesn't support a standalone article. Serpent's Choice 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update on interpretation. I've fixed it. DGG 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shrek the Halls

    [edit]
    Shrek the Halls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only source is an unreliable webpage with 1 fan-made looking screenshot. Merge any noteable and sourced infomation with Shrek (series) and re-create closer to the time (if this is true). Dalejenkins 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete, as inferior to the associated category. If anyone wants the article list to perform a completeness check on the category, please ask --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of English footballers

    [edit]
    List of English footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.

    Article has ~600 entries versus to over 4000 in the category that shares the same name, Category:English footballers (thanks to Daemonic Kangaroo for the entry count). Appears unnecessary as it is just a simple list of articles with no new information compared to the category list. Palffy 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to add that a number of these lists exist as well (see Category:Lists of footballers by country for links to them) that would likely follow as precedent to this Afd decision. --Palffy 11:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging shall be worked out on the talk pages. -- Y not? 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The West Wing presidential election, 2002

    [edit]
    The West Wing presidential election, 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    The West Wing presidential election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Articles about TV show storylines aren't allowed. Barely any sources and not noteable. Dalejenkins 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nelson Mandela#First marriage. Feel free to merge any content, but its looks like everything is included there already. WjBscribe 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Evelyn Ntoko

    [edit]
    Evelyn Ntoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Well, I don't really think this article demonstrates notability.. Nelson Mandela is of course an extremely wellknown figure.. but is his first wife as well? Doesn't meet WP:BIO. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleeping with Fishes

    [edit]
    Sleeping with Fishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable film; no IMDB or AMG listing; no mention of notability in article, no 3rd party coverage. (as per prod) Eliz81 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 10:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bog Slog

    [edit]
    The Bog Slog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable event. Jeff Biggs 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hedgehead

    [edit]
    Hedgehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Definite neologism, probable protologism. Jeff Biggs 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 interesting to note the nominator wanted to keep. Gnangarra 11:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nagambie Football Club

    [edit]
    Nagambie Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Team notability per WP:ORG. Oo7565 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. The artcile contains zero references. As DHowell mentioned, the slogan has some mentions in the press, but most of the results are not freely accessible, and from search results it seems that most mentions are quite trivial, which is not enough to establish notability. MaxSem 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome Home (CBS Television Network)

    [edit]
    Welcome Home (CBS Television Network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Patent nonsense. I suggest a redirect to CBS.--Edtropolis 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    -Edtropolis, I would really like to hear your idea of "nonsense"! My artcles are totally based on fact by what is seen in all forms of broadcasting. -numbaonestunna

    Support redirect though it doesn't fit the CSD definition of patent nonsense--Ispy1981 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Believe it or not, it's been covered in articles in major papers: [35]. This meets both significant and multiple coverage standards. My preference is for a single article covering the subject per network, though, not one per slogan. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on what I anticipate with the addition of the other articles. Merge to one article; CBS slogans (currently a redirect to the list) seems like an appropriate title. This slogan does not seem to have sufficient notability for an individual page, lacking significant coverage per WP:NOTABILITY -- the news articles do not seem to focus on the slogan. I presume this is true for most if not all the slogans. Also, these articles currently do not satisfy verifiability: there are no sources listed for this and other slogan pages I checked (You're on CBS, This is CBS) as well as what appears to be some original research (artistic analysis of the advertisements). I am presuming notability for the list as a whole, but I haven't looked into it properly yet. Presumably most of the factual content from the articles came from somewhere, and hopefully one of the original editors will provide their source. Ichibani utc 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Mentioning the slogan and providing "significant coverage" (from WP:NOTABILITY) are not the same thing. There's no guarantee the content of those articles is satisfactory to either warrant or fill an encyclopedia article. Considering that the a lot of the article's content is not trivial mention of what it was, but also why it was that way and what effects it had, reliable sources specifically discussing the topic are needed. Ichibani utc 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not nonsense, but not sufficiently notable, either. The slogan itself seems to be one common thread through a saga of many otherwise completely separate events and occurences.--Vox Humana 8' 13:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    -Vox Humana, read my full statement below. It isn't just about the slogan. -numbaonestunna

    I've used my spare time to compose these articles about these CBS campaigns, and I for one think it is a total waste of my time for you all to just decide to scrap work that has been seen by other users as totally relevant by both Wikipedia and nostaligic standards. For one thing, you all discuss this matter as if it only applies to mere slogans. You all need to look at these articles more carefully; it is the network campaigns that are covered in these works, not just necessarily the slogan. A slogan is just the tool used as a way for the public to identify a campaign. Besides a slogan, campaigns also feature jingles, a variety of promotional spots in TV, print and radio, and they also closely tie in with the shows on any given network. Many network campaigns run over the years have become quite popular to the point that they seep into the subconscious of the public. With all this figured in, the articles definately should stay, since people do search for this kind of information, especially if they haven't seen material from a certain campaign in many years. -numbaonestunna

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture

    [edit]
    American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable film soundtrack. The film is a fairly ordinary film, and the music does not appear to be particularly notable in the music or film-score world. The article does not make any attempt to explain why the score has a separate article, as opposed to other films which have a "sound" or "music" section. Seems insufficiently notable to have its own article.

    AFD proposal - delete and merge with the film article. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1). —Xezbeth 13:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tower Battle

    [edit]
    Tower Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This reads like advertising and also makes no claim of notability. (At AfD because a speedy was removed by an anon, and a PROD removed by an account with few edits.) Iknowyourider (t c) 08:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnny Hanson

    [edit]
    Johnny Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    An anonymous editor has had a pattern of deleting relevant information from notable porn actors articles and then submitting them for speedy deletion. Although one of them had won an award, and both of them had received quite a bit of media attention, their authors didn't understand the importance of citing sources, and both were summarily deleted. I don't know much about this subject, although as he was a Falcon exclusive in 1995, I am sure he received quite a bit of media in his day (Falcon has been the gay equivalent of Vivid), I don't have immediate access to the sources to support the information on the article, although I assume it does exist. As I'm sure the anonymous editor is going to keep resubmitting this article for speedy deletion, I would much prefer to have an actual discussion than a much more quick and (in my opinion) fallible process. I am of the opinion that this subject is notable under WP:BIO's first criterion, "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I have listed a couple of such sources as part of the references in the article, but it would take much more time for me to dig up the sources from his main heyday than a speedy delete process would allow, not to mention gay pride is this weekend, so I'm probably not going to be on wikipedia much. Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment WP:PORNBIO lists number of titles as a non-entity as far as notability is concerned, but if you are looking at the total amount of work he has done, also look at other work he has done besides videos, i.e. magazines he has been in, etc. Ryan Idol a very notable porn actor was only in 10 videos, but managed to make a major contribution in that amount of time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SneakyTodd (talk • contribs) 04:52, June 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. WP:PORNBIO did have specific movie count criteria for a time (as a sign of prolificness) but they got pulled out because they worked only for currently-produced heterosexual porn. Genres such as gay porn, porn from before the 90s and some foreign porn (such as Japanese AV idols) were poorly served by having numbers. Tabercil 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see how a high porn movie count would not lead to notability, but I dont see the inverse being true Corpx 17:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linda Lovelace. Her entry at IAFD lists only 18 films, 8 of which are compilations of her scenes from other films. As I said, film count and notability do not go together.
    I don' see what's wrong with that--it is reasonable to obtain a community opinion in instances which are known to be disputed. DGG 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as failing WP:BIO, as per Edison. Disagree with DGG: to nominate articles for deletion only to argue for keeping them is to manipulate the deletion process in order to achieve a desired end; to do so does violence to the procedures established by Wikipedia. Disagree with SneakyTodd: referring to the speedy deletion process as fallible both maligns it and insults the editors who vote in favor of deletion under that process; and, to compare Johnny Hanson to Ryan Idol is like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy. Hanson is no Ryan Idol. Johnny Hanson has done nothing noteworthy, he does not warrant an article, and his article should be deleted. 72.68.112.59 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kennedy/Quayle comparison you thought up is perhaps apt. Although Quayle is a notable politician, he has nothing on Kennedy. Hanson is not Ryan Idol, but he is notable enough that the GayVN, a print magazine took up valuable space for an article about Hanson's return to porn; he is notable enough to be placed in front of Chad Hunt on the box; and he is notable enough that there will be plenty of people wanting to look up information about him. Having an article with some basic information would be nice. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at his profile, he is a gay guy born in '68 or '69. He is almost certainly familiar with the subjects earlier work (gay guys tend to be more familiar with porn stars than straight guys, especially with Falcon exclusives), and probably 'voted' accordingly. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The speedy deletion process is fallible, but so is the AfD process. (Both are run by humans, and AFAIK nothing run by humans is quite infallible.) Pretty much all admins try in good faith to do a proper job when checking speedy tags. Removing key relevant info and then tagging for speedy deletion is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and not far short of vandalism, but removing unsourced info because it is unsourced, and then tagging because what is left qualified for speedy deletion, in the good faith belief that the article is unlikely to be legit is reasonable, if the article actually fits one of the speedy criteria. Using AfD to get a sort of declarative judgment that an article should be kept is at best unusual, and IMO not generally a good idea. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page would be better, as deleting admins are supposed to look at the talk page. (They ought to look at the history too, but that is less certain). DES (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current sources appear to be two blogs, one directory that confirms that the subject did appear in a particular issue of a particular magazine, but says nothing else, including no comments on how significant or unusual this appearance was, and one profile on what seems to be a fan site. This is the closest thing to an independent reliable source now cited, and what does it say? "He was hailed as the next big thing by Falcon, but he didn't really live up to the billing...." and "he later tried to break into the legitimate entertainment business as a singer and actor before returning to XXX in 2007..." (emphasis added). That hardly establishes his notability, unless all actors who appear in multiple released porn films are notable. Weak delete unless more or better sources are found. DES (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in question has been deleting more than just unsourced info; he has claimed that some sourced statements are irrelevant, or has even gone so far as to delete references to mistitled movies (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons instead of "Michael Lucas's Dangerous Liaisons - this editor should be aware of Michael Lucas's version, as he has edited that article as well). The AfD process is also fallible, but is less so because more people are putting in their input instead of relying on one person to make a judgment on whether or not something is notable. Gay porn in particular is a tricky subject as most actors perform in relatively few movies and are still talked about for a long time after they have finished, but when someone unfamiliar with the industry looks at the actor, it often appears like self-promotion and non-notable. An example of the fallacy of speedy deletion of notable gay porn related subjects via an administrator being unfamiliar with the subject would be the speedy deletion of Falcon Studios for sounding like advertising, which is probably the gay porn studio with the most name recognition in the world (Ask any gay guy what Falcon Studios is, and there is at least a 99% chance they will know who they are). Also, when somebody is trying to help out Wikipedia by adding information, there is a good chance that they will not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and might not know how to source the information that they have. WP:BIO only states that contentious unsourced material be removed vigorously. Much of the information that has been deleted from these articles is not particularly contentious, and, in my opinion should be tagged to allow editors to find better sources. Finally, there was discussion on the articles that were speedy deleted, I can't tell whether or not the deleting admin paid attention to them or not, regardless, unless there is not claim of notability at all, lack of notability should in general be determined by consensus rather than a single admin. This is especially true for articles where there are more than one author that have contributed to creating the article.
    As far as this particular subject is concerned, one of the blog links was a reprint of a GayVN magazine "innerview" with Johnny Hanson. GayVN does at most 1 such interview per month. I didn't have the magazine in hand to confirm the blog post, but have just recently found it, and will adjust the source; it was from the March issue.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete all. Anas talk? 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Championship Wrestling

    [edit]
    Phoenix Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    It’s a small time wrestling company that existed from 2001 to 2003 and never did anything to achieve notability. Only aired on local TV never getting any widespread distribution. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:V

    I am also nominating the following related pages because: They are title pages for the shortlived PCW and should be deleted if the main article is deleted

    Phoenix Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Phoenix Championship Wrestling Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Phoenix Championship Wrestling Television Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MPJ-DK 07:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you using as the basis of your decision that this is not notable? So far you have not described why it is appropriate to delete it; you have just listed policies and guidelines. Wake Up! WA is a local show as well, yet it passed through the fire of an Afd. Our core notability criteria doesnt require that a company have done much except having been noticed (being on TV sure does that). These championship victorys are recorded as part of the history of notable wrestlers, so readers of Wikipedia will ask "I wonder how important that championship victory was?" -- you want to hinder the readers ability to satisfy their curiosity; I would prefer we keep the articles and explain that it was a minor championship that didnt last very long. Also, I find it highly unlikely that there would be no newspaper coverate of this. Which of these articles contains factual problems that you would like verification for? Also, Wikipedia includes lots of information that is available elsewhere; we keep it here so that it is freely available under the GFDL. Note to the closer, wikia may be a wiki on this subject; not all of these articles being considered for deletion have been copied there. John Vandenberg 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using the policy of WP:COMPANY, which in case you have not read it states
    "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
    In other words "being noticed" = covered by secondary reliable sources. That's it. that other stuff has passed through AFD is neither here nor there in this discussion, the subject here is PCW and if it lives up to the notability guideline set up in WP:COMPANY, obviously I don't think so which is why I put this up for AFD MPJ-DK 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problems with it being listed at AFD, as it is borderline. However, this isnt just a company; they have issued titles to people, and they were also on TV regularly. Besides, I am pretty sure that there will be coverage in offline resources. John Vandenberg 14:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got issues of Power Slam and PWI going back 8 years, not a single mention of substance that I can find. Darrenhusted 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus was that it did not meet WP:WEB. — OcatecirT 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Invasion3042

    [edit]
    Invasion3042 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website, only two Google hits, and one of them is the site's page itself. I nominated this for speedy deletion, but an anon removed the tag without explanation, so I'm forced to come here. Corvus cornix 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be that Anon. A player of the game the page is about, and I beg your pardon on missing wikipedia etiquette as this is my first time change/editing/altering anything on here. We're trying to have a base wiki to help inform people about the game, and as a resource for fast information about the game as the need arises. There are five tons of information, technical and fluff about the game, all of that we plan to edit in, as for now, we're just getting the ball rolling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs).

    As I said, the aim is mostly aimed at having a page for quick information, when needed. What would be your thoughts on making less add like?

    I created this page as one of the players, not one of the people coding or working on the game. I noticed that there are references to many online battltech games and I decided that this one should be referenced as well. The game is non-profit and therefore the page wouldn't be advertising. The page would simply show what the game is, how it is played, and possibly in the future, history of in game happenings or changes such as war etc. This game allows people to play classic battletech with others in an online environment and the wiki may alert classic battletech fans of a way in which they could play their beloved game. -InvaderC1 00:52, 23 June 2007 (PST)

    Comment The best thoughts you will find on making it less like an advertisement are at WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. There's valuable stuff on those pages. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, this article should not be deleted as there is no profit involved, its just a way for people to know that their favourite hobby has an online counterpart with which they could partake in User WingedPuma 08:58, 23 June 2007 GMT

    This is WingedPuma's first edit on Wikipedia Corpx 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    just becuase its not on google doesnt mean its not relevant to the battletech communit. Is it your rule that only popular information gets on here? Not much of a wiki if that is the case. - jamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately, I dont think being a non-profit makes a difference in this case. The site's even soliciting donations. I also notice that there's a wiki on that site. That should be the place where you can put all the game details/how to play etc. Its currently not notable enough to be on wikipedia though. Corpx 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not "popular information", but notable information. Corpx 08:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If thats the case then i can suggest about 5 others that would be in the same category. look at the other links where Invasion3042 is listed - would they not be the same? JamesD (as for solicting donations, i wonder hwo amny other wikipedia listings accept donations or talk of a commercial product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    Feel free to list articles up for deletion if you feel so. However, I think you may have to be logged in to do that Corpx 08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, but what about all of the other battletech games with pages. As an example, on the list of battletech games page, there is several online games there as well with wikipedia entries. If we made our page look similar to theirs, could our page stay on wikipedia? This page I use as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_BattleTech_3025 --InvaderC1 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that game has more notability due to the involvement of EA & Microsoft, but that's just my opinion. Corpx 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh so its because they are mega multinationsals is it? didnt they have to start somewhere too? i think this stinks of hypocrasy and an obvious attempt to discourage wiki involvement - JamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    "JamesD", please, please, please read those notability guidelines. We practice what we preach here. Before you accuse anyone of hypocrisy, you should make yourself aware of exactly what we preach. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Alright, so that game has major corporations as backing. Are you suggesting that only people with money behind their projects are worthy of a wiki page? This is all centered around giving people information about outlets for the classic battletech game. Our page is not meant as an advertisment and we aren't forcing people to play it. What would you suggest our page needs?--InvaderC1 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again its not about the money, but rather about the notability. A major corporation like EA/Microsoft doing something would gain much more notoriety than if I had done the same thing. Corpx 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest it needs notability. And even if you had that, it would still need to be written from a neutral point of view. Read. Please. It's good for you. Regards, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?

    (edit conflict) To be perfectly frank, that just about sums it up perfectly. Simply replace the word "big" with "notable" Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You could build a bigger base for the game (without using wikipedia to promote it) and get mentions in gaming magazines/major review sites etc to get notability. Corpx 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?

    Short answer - Yes. If this game gets big and notable, it can have an article. Corpx

    Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If the game is endorsed officially by the US army to relieve stress, then it would be a notable reference. Actions by individual servicemen/women does not constitute notability Corpx 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question, please define "big", how many players would be needed for it to be commonplace? - JamesD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    "Big" enough to be directly mentioned in gaming mazines/review sites/other media. Corpx 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "big". It's notable. PLEASE read that article. Essentially, you need media coverage. Preferably in multiple sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Battletech was big and is the basis of the game. Wouldn't the fact that it was a well known board game and is the entire basis of this game be notibility? --InvaderC1 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Battletech's notability only applies to Battletech Corpx 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Sorry. That's how it is. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (double edit conflict!) :No, not any more than if I built a board game based on Battletech tonight. Being based on something notable doesn't make a game notable. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming Magazines don't mention anything thats not major label, or that they're not paid substantially to mention. Also: building and programing a game, and paying for the infrastructure to support it isn't exactly a basement project. - James B—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    To put it frankly, that's your problem. Your goal is to publicize your game; Wikipedia's is to build an encyclopedia. The fact that they don't intersect shouldn't surprise you as much as it does. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    But could it be used as a reference to perhaps increase the strength of our weak article? And as for review sites, if we had enough people review us would that help for notibility? --InvaderC1 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only if said review sites qualified as reliable sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have your mind made up that its not going to fit in wikipedia no matter what I say, sorry to waste your time - JamesD

    As for notibility, the game is on www.mpogd.com to be voted for as the top online game of the month. There is a website mentioning the game with a neutral point of view about the game.--InvaderC1 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The game will now also have the notibility of having a debate marked on two wikipedia entries.--InvaderC1 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    InvaderC1, I've left a comment on your talk page about this. I would like to encourage you to read it, and also please read the page found here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    To what Invader says, I'd like to add that the website he linked is a community kept reviews and rating site, and for the subject at hand is a reliable and mostly objective source of information regarding this sort of game. -James B

    Alright, I need sleep. My closing point is that I simply wanted to add to wikipedia something that I deemed was missing. The message sent to me indicates that we are able to, and will try again at this endeavor. For now, it looks like the game needs to make a name for itself first, or receive endorsement from a credible source.--InvaderC1 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! That is exactly correct. Rock on. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To quote notibility and deletion: "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." James B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

    Put very simply: So far, no one has demonstrated that the game is in any way an even mildly significant part of the sum of human knowledge. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    James, I don't see that quote in WP:NOTE. Could you link to where you see it? The relevant part I've been trying to point out is this: "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. [...] A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The quote, actually was found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_and_deletion

    And in response to Iknowyourider: The context of that quote is to illustrate that anything, however insignificant or non-notable at one given time may be at a later date, and conversation and old information about a given topic lost due to deletion could later prove to be interesting, notable, and valuable(In a non-monetary sense). If the game, in ten years, has five hundred thousand players, the game mechanics when the game was first introduced would likey vary greatly, and be of much interest to those five hundred thousand. A second key point is that, simply put, no one uninterested in this has to look at it, ever. Unless they're looking through at the classic battle tech wiki, or searching invasion 3042 specifically, they are likely never to see it. Or perhaps if they are looking for new posts. Also, the article is less than twenty four hours old, and is still being announced to the attached community, to be developed into a more mature an informational page. 67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)James B67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James, at the top of that page you will find this notice: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Certainly there are editors here at Wikipedia who feel that way, but it is not the policy. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point, which I made on InvaderC1's talk page, is: do not panic! Even if the article is deleted, you can recreate it. The information won't just "disappear". However, because of the nature of the subject matter, you should probably get some consensus from editors here before moving it to the main site: I suggest developing the article at his talk page in the meantime. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails to meet criteria for web notability. No evidence for notability asserted in the article, nor likely to be forthcoming. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the author seems to have requested page deletion on his talk page, so the article now meets a second speedy criteria, in case the first speedy is declined. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what we have here is a fairly new editor and an extreme question of notability. Would a userfy be in order if any of the creators want to do the work behind it? (For the newer editors, see WP:USERFY to understand it. It's especially important to note that a userfied article is intended to be worked on, it's not a substitute to "get" your article "in" by having it in userspace.) But it might be a better solution, if there is a good faith desire to build on the article's notability.

    So will this article be moved to a private page where all of the users can add onto it while the game gains notibility until we can move it to the mainstream, or will we have to start over anew?--InvaderC1 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You can move it yourself, keeping all the text that is currently there. Go to the page, then click the 'move' tab at the top. Rename it as something like User:InvaderC1/Invasion3042 and you will have the page in your own user space, where you and others can edit it as you wish. Post here or on my talk page if you need more advice on how to do this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm working on Userifying it. Thanks for clearing this up in a respectful manner. InvaderC1 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Well... I know I am new to wikipedia and everything so I know most of you will probably disregard my arguement before I even start typing,but here goes... I was asked to help build the wikipedia page for the Clans of Invasion3042. The Clans are actually a group of just 17 of the 39 factions in this game and actually were the term Invasion3042 comes from... since that is the year that the 4 of the clans (in official Battletech History) invaded the Inner Sphere. the whole purpose for building the Wikipedia page is of course so that people that are interested in Battletech will see this as an online alternative to the boardgame. and actually this game was as an alternative to another online battletech game that had strayed too far from what the community wanted. so the Community stood up and did something about it. Yes.. this game is still in Beta phase. but it has an expansive Roleplaying community and that community makes use of a WEALTH of "secondary sources". We use the battletech sourcebooks and Novels for the official backstory. but when you add roleplayers to that established enviroment and let them loose... the established history differs from the history in the game. There are currently several forums around the internet for the 39 factions in the game.. each faction currently has up to 70 individual players. so you can see that that is alot of history to keep track of. all we ask is to be able to record our little bit of history.. True this might not apply to everyone.. but we have players from over 20 countries that are working and playing together... this is not just a dozen kids and the game they came up with on recess. It will be great to have the history of the game and the universe we had created recorded for those that come later.--Rianna Rose 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I'm not sure how being programmed in C# gives this a heavy case of notability. Actually, I wonder if a heavy case of notability is contagious, because it sure sounds nasty. Anyway, this site fails WP:WEB fairly comprehensively. Sorry guys. Lankiveil 10:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete Agree with above comment about letting them move this information to their own wiki Q T C 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    LoveStill

    [edit]
    LoveStill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism. Jeff Biggs 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Nomination withdrawn) Corpx 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp

    [edit]
    Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This page has had a number of differing incarnations, but (short of looking through all revisions) I didn't see anything approximating a notability qualifying source. The page suffers from both lack of verifiability, and lack of proof of notability through the provision of multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the older incarnations were better than the current version, but no real assertion of notability beyond allegedly sparking reports across a whole county. Further, while police reports (present in some versions of the article), are certainly reliable sources for quoting individuals, since anyone who "reports" something like this can end up making one, it's no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just a quick note to remind people that this entry should be about "the claim of the existence of a creature", not "the actual existence of the creature". Therefore editors should primarily be concerned with the verifiability/notability/accuracy of claims and their contents, rather than the zoological reality of any actual creature.

    While this might seem like a rather cryptic point to make it is nevertheless an important one because, as a paranormal entry rather than a scientific one, it means that that the creature can be just as notable as a hoax or a myth as it can an actual physical creature.

    perfectblue 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Out of interest, how would you go about doing this for an entry that you waned to see saved from deletion? For example, would you consider a single citation from a big name newspaper like the NYT as sufficient, or would you consider a topic to be notable if it received widespread coverage in half a dozen lesser newsapers? Alternatively, would you look for a mention of it by a big name paranormal writer such as Clarke? - perfectblue 07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That seems more like a question for my talk page. Someguy1221 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zagalego seems to currently be doing just that, as said just above. --Chr.K. 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I have so far:
    Newspaper articles (all available on Factiva):
    • Randall Floyd. "Lizard Man Stories Tell of Dangerous Creature." The Augusta Chronicle. 19 November 2000. F02.
    • Cindy Horswell. "Lizard man leaves mark; tale still told in sleepy S.C. town." Houston Chronicle. 30 July 1989. 14.
    • "To keep a monstrous legend alive, man admits lying about Lizard Man." Houston Chronicle. 13 August 1988. 3.
    • Stephen Milligan. "Sightings of a monster lizard from the swamp has struck terror into a small community in South Carolina." The Sunday Times. 7 August 1988.
    • "Youth Who Saw 'Lizard Man' Gets an Agent." San Francisco Chronicle. 2 August 1988. A4.
    • Wayne Beissert. "On the lookout for 'Lizardman'; Monster sighting enthralls SC town." USA Today. 27 July 1988. 3A.
    • "Bigfoot Researcher Says Lizard Man Is `Skunk Ape'" Associated Press. 27 July 1988.
    Books which devote a page or more to the legend:
    If these are inadequate to establish notability, I can probably scrounge up a few more sources. I admit that the books sources are iffy in terms of reliability, but the newspaper sources should count. If nothing else, they show that there has been widespread interest in the Lizardman stories. Zagalejo 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'll be...Someguy1221 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the 15th of August 1988, the Washington post ran a story about a man named Kenneth Orr who admitted perpetrating a lizard man hoax. The story was titled "Lizard Man Claims a Casualty". As far as I'm concerned, this is an account from a reliable, notable and NPOV source which verifies this topic. - perfectblue 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Charmed season summaries

    [edit]
    Charmed season summaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and this is nothing but a series-long plot summary. See similar deletions for season summary articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6. Otto4711 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was CSD A7, non-admin closure Rackabello 13:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prospectz

    [edit]
    Prospectz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable rap group with no releases as of yet, fails WP:MUSIC Article reeks of WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CSIHSIS

    [edit]
    CSIHSIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    nn school. Article really isn't about the school itself, but is simply a vanity article by its creator, who has made sure his own name is mentioned as often as possible. Prod removed without comment. Resolute 05:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - I've cleaned up the article to remove the creator's traces of vanity (it really is vanity to drop your name everywhere in an article you write!). Has some sort of non-trivial mention in at least these websites external to the school itself: [39], [40], and [41]. Resurgent insurgent 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Good job. I'm still not convinced of this school's notability, but I am willing to withdraw the nom if you guys do believe that this school is notable. Resolute 13:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Based on revisions - I think being a high school by itself gives it notability on wikipedia (based on the fact that pretty much every high school has a page on here). However, I'd also suggest a Move from acronym to full text Corpx 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In its present form this is nothing more than a directory-style entry. It is a very new school and unlikely to have established its notability. Dahliarose 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since I first looked at it with the addition of several references. It still doesn't do a very good job of telling us why it is notable but, judging by the material in the references, the potential is there. It really needs a good strong lead and a focus on the unique qualities of the school (why do the Asperger's pupils not get a mention?) Dahliarose 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I've just made numerous additions, including adding information from two articles in the Staten Island Advance daily newspaper that focus on the school, as well as information from a few other sources. This means the school meets WP:N criteria. While the school isn't unique, it's definitely among the more unusual among the almost 160 public high schools in New York City. I hope everyone who's voted for it so far will take another look because it's really another article. I'm concerned about additions of employee (well, coach) names in the athletic section, and the student names bother me as well. I've asked the editor who put them there to reconsider that. Noroton 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the two Staten Island Advance articles was found as a reprint at the Web site of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I think we can trust that foundation to be accurate in reprinting it. If I can find the article at the newspaper's Web site, I'll change the footnote. Noroton 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the basketball info again - it is part of the same vanity that the article creator tried to start the article off with. He seems intent on keeping his name on the article somehow. Resolute 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep even though Noroton thinks I'm going to go in the other direction :). I read over this article four or five times and it just marginally meets my qualifications for notability but doing a google search on this school showed me that there's still a lot of material out there to expand this article - easily enough to meet WP:N. I think it could stand to lose that table in the athletics subsection though. Also... the current revision is much stronger than it was when the AfD was initially proposed. Trusilver 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep revised version of article due to demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:V and WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunny Mehta

    [edit]
    Sunny Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No notability shown. Co-author of upcoming poker book is the closet thing to being notable. Is a professional poker player, he has not won any major poker tournaments. Is a musician, yet he has not had any recording contracts. Jauerback 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, articles on Jeffree Star have been repeatedly deleted and protected. NawlinWiki 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raquel Reed

    [edit]
    Raquel Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nomination. Speedy tag was put up but there is a weak claim of notability. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Imadadin Halawa

    [edit]
    Imadadin Halawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be self-penned vanity article. Originator removed both speedy deletion tag (placed by another user) and proposed deletion tag (placed by me). No sourcing, and Google yields nothing of interest. Does not appear to meet notability. Proofreader J-Man 05:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David K. Zandi

    [edit]
    David K. Zandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Actor with a total of two (uncredited) roles at imdb, and supposedly a producer too but imdb has nothing. Few google results. He's Iranian--does anyone know his Farsi name so they can see if that pulls up more? He apparently has fans from my searches but I can't find any sources that show anything substantive he's done, or any substantive coverage of him. Note: if this gets deleted, can someone nominate the wikiquote page I made where I moved all the quotes from this page to? Calliopejen1 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation Welcome to wikipedia :-) Being Notable in wikipedia is open to lots of interpretations. Just because I know someone and I know that he has does something or I read his site and think he was good/bad doesn't merit an article. A useful rule of thumb is a google search, using my useual rule of excluding blogs and mirrors he didn't give me a single google-hit. Just using his name gave me 222 hits. I like 1000 plus relevent hits and I didn't get one from this search. Happy editing :-) Mike33 09:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer mike 33 thank you for Explanation. people who like to stay in hiding or like low key like him, have ways of going under the radar. like one thing i find out today is he gets his company to get credit for work so people can't imdb or google his name. http://www.imdb.com/company/co0179212/
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 me. J Milburn 11:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PVYO

    [edit]
    PVYO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

    non notable stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherzo (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IT trend today

    [edit]
    IT trend today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Vague, unsourced original research. Sent to AfD because a PROD was removed. Iknowyourider (t c) 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Web 2.0 keep changing the IT trend from navigating the see of information to navigating the see of knowledge where information becomes knowledge by the human manipulation with a specific target. In the period of Web 1.0, the continuous improving of knowledge was not happened so that to get the proper knowledge, we must manupulate the information founded in the some website at the cost of not so short effort. Hence, if Web 2.0 can be perfectly deployed over the whole internet, it is almost not necessary that we generate from informations to knowledge any more; just search and find well-organized and suitable knowledge (even more well organized than how you can do). One possible drawback in practical web 2.0 systems is the potential to get "bad knowledge" because of poor objectivity or improper clarification between the finder and the generator. Note that the definition of knowledge as used here can be somehow different from the general definition of knowledge.

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rachel Howe

    [edit]
    Rachel Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable dancer. Claims of notability, so I didn't list it for speedy deletion. There are lots of Rachel Howes on Google, but this one did not show up on the first two pages of hits. Corvus cornix 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for anything, really. It defaults to keep, though you guys can merge it if you want to. Wizardman 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs in the Donkey Konga series

    [edit]
    List of songs in the Donkey Konga series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    "List of Songs in _____" Corpx 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristen Zaik

    [edit]
    Kristen Zaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unremarkable bio. Very small IMDb entry. Article has high vanity/advertising value and low encyclopedic value. Dali-Llama 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Ran through google - found a lot of Wiki mirrors and massive IMDBesque sites listing her acting credentials, but nothing substantial to support her notability (awards, press coverage, etc.) Ozgod 04:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I declined to speedy this article because the subject's lack of notability wasn't obvious to me. She's had minor roles in three movies as well as minor roles in several TV shows. Isn't there a cumulative effect we should consider? This point is not addressed in WP:BIO. If an admin more experienced with actor bios wants to speedy this article, I won't object. Rklawton 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I ultimately concur the CSD may have been premature, looking at WP:BIO again, I notice that she doesn't match any notability criteria for Entertainers, and while she may have had roles, they were certainly not significant roles in what can be called a significant production.--Dali-Llama 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shrek 4

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Shrek 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I believe that this article, which states that the movie will open sometime in 2010 (which is 3 years from now), falls under this wikipedia guideline and it should be deleted. dposse 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    comment: there are untold number of films in various stages of development, but until films are officially announced in some regard, there's no reason to create a new WP page for each film. Doing so smells of fandom, and WP is not a fan site. Nobody who is suggesting delete is saying to not include development information elsewhere, they're saying to hold off on the creation of the individual page until such time when there's enough information... and official announcements... to warrant having that separate page. SpikeJones 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    one last comment: When the director of a future/in production film is asked specifically to talk about that project and their response is "No. It's way too early...", shouldn't that be an indicator that it's too early for a WP article as well? Moving forward with a future film page when the people working of the film itself aren't talking is not exactly WP's mission, is it? (Granted, it was Brad Bird talking about his next film and it has nothing to do with Shrek, but the sentiment is the same.) SpikeJones 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - That's exactly my point. Shrek 3 just came out a month or so ago. This movie isn't even scheduled to be released until three years from now, and that's just an estimate. This article seems to be based on alot of speculation. dposse 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - that's an interesting point. Does a movie exist when people start making it - or when people start watching it? Rklawton 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete until 2008-09 It is way too early to start an article about Shrek 4, while the 3rd just been in theaters.--JForget 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per User:SpikeJones. Dave101→talk  19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This movie is going to be released, it was even talked about by Cameron Diaz and other members of the cast. As for Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, I happened to see articles yesterday about the 39th century. If this is not prediction, then what is? mjohnsona 09:17 24 June 2007
    • Keep per above, just read another story about this in a newspaper today. Not a case of WP:CRYSTAL--this is a sure thing, and continutaion of this series is notable. JJL 01:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Oh whatever, normally I have no patience for such articles, but I think nobody doubts that this film will be produced and will generate one heck of a lot of interest. As a practical matter, by the time the film comes out, the article will look nothing like it does now, so deleting it now accomplishes nothing. There is no deadline. YechielMan 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for many of the same reasons above. This is not so much a crystal ball entry as it is an entry for something that, while admittedly a little while away, is fairly likely to happen. Exigence 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above comments. It has been announced that the film will be released so it is not a "crystal ball" article; several references are also included. Although much information may not be available about the details of the film, the subject of the article is still notable being part of the extremely successful Shrek series. --musicpvm 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If Dreamworks is already saying its on the way, lining up directors, and putting up preview posters and such, then the crystal ball argument is invalidated. Tarc 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - sequels commonly have their own pages, this one is no exception. Lord Sesshomaru
    • Delete oer WP:V. Aside from Variety, the sources cited do not satisfy WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and read:Wow, it does not satisfy WP:RS, what geeks actully read that crap, they want content not stupid rules. Keep this comment, I am entitled to my option.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waltontalk 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Roadkill Bill

    [edit]
    Roadkill Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm not sure this is notable. The main graphic in that page started showing up on talk pages after the Seigenthaler incident and I suspect this article was created after the fact to legitimize that image being uploaded. The cartoonist is also a member of Wikipedia, but was cautious to not create the page himself. I don't think it's anything sinister, but I doubt this article would exist if the cartoon wasn't posted around Wikipedia several months ago. Philwelch 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep-- was published in The Pulse, a well-known Twin Cities mag.Rhinoracer 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with article for The Pulse, if The Pulse is notable, otherwise delete. Artw 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I advocate keep; I created the article because I like RKB, and because I think it is significant as one of the few examples of car-free advocacy to actually get published in mainstream sources. The cartoonist also gained some press coverage due to a political campaign in respect of a transport proposal in Minnesota. The strip is in there because it's GFDL'd, if Avidor would GFDL a non self-referential strip (especially the rusty muffler oracle) we'd use that I guess. Avidor has, I think, left the building, and I created it not Avidor. I first heard of RKB on the newsgroups (probably rec.bicycles.misc) about five years ago, I don't know of many other car-free movement cartoons which have been published. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as fancruft. The lack of car-free advocacy in mainstream sources is not a reason to keep this - Wikipedia is not a soap box. The reliable source cited here is Pulse, which is a self described "locally grown alternative newspaper" and I don't see references to other local press coverage in the article. Also, RKB has not appeared in Pulse (or anywhere else, as far as I can tell) for several years. A cartoon that appeared for a few years in a community newspaper but hasn't been active for several years is not notable. ATren 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's hysterical. If Delete as Fancruft was ever enacted consistently on Wikipedia, about 75% of all articles would disappear. Wikipedia is famed for its fancruft and obsession with trivia. Why start now just because the cartoon satirizes Wikipedia and this is nothing more than a crude attempt at censorship? --86.131.90.154 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not an argument for keeping. Nothing hysterical here. -- Ekjon Lok 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're kidding, right? "Censorship"? If you mean that in the counterintelligence sense, then that's hysterical. And I don't mean it caused me unrestrained laughter. Calling this AfD, "censorship" may be an autosuggestion that could be a sign that you suffer from a psychoneurotic disorder. It's unfortunate that the author chose an anti-Wikipedia strip to license to WP because it doesn't showcase the typical theme of RKB, AND it's not one of his particularly funny or insightful strips. RKB is just an example of a specialty comic about a fringe movement. I would never vote to delete anything just because it was critical of Wikipedia or because I dislike it. My vote is based on my belief that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion, not because I dislike the cartoon. (Edit: which doesn't imply that I dislike the cartoon. It's just not a funny or insightful cartoon, but I do find it interesting to see how some minds work and the cartoon amounts to the author's mind poured onto paper.) --JJLatWiki 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that this has anything to do with your content dispute with Avidor, of course, and the fact that he drew a cartoon lambasting your favourite subject. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you debate the subject rather than attack me? This is no more notable than any community newspaper cartoon. The refs you provided are at best trivial mentions in fringe magazines. If this were somebody else's favorite cartoon you'd call it fancruft and mock its inclusion here - and you'd be right. ATren 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my favourite cartoon, although to be fair I didn't exactly attack the creator on my blog like you did either. It's not notable as a community cartoon, it's notable as a car-free cartoon. There are rather fewer of those, at least fewer that I have seen. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's not my "favorite subject" (as you derisively called it above) so let's put the motive-bashing to bed, shall we? As for your notability argument - when the car-free movement is big enough to have a cartoon that runs in more than one community newspaper (and only for a few years at that) then that cartoon will have an article here. Anyone can pick the most notable cartoon (or whatever) supporting their cause and make this argument - it doesn't make it notable for inclusion as a separate article here. ATren 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The guidelines for notability specify "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent" of the subject. I don't think mere publication alone qualifies as "coverage", much less "significant". And I don't think the publisher qualifies as an "independent" source. It seems to me that the cartoonist is more notable than this cartoon. --JJLatWiki 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - sources adequately prove notability and encyclopedic worth. Oh, and I love the cartoon on wikipedia. It illustrates why stable versions is so important. WAS 4.250 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as failing inclusion criteria: no significant, non-trivial coverage in independent sources. None of the sources cited are actually about this comic (with the possible exception of "reviews", maybe, and even that would hardly qualify as significant coverage). WP:ILIKEIT not reason for keeping. -- Ekjon Lok 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep; Ken Avidor's RKB is listed in the Lambiek Comiclopedia[42]BillPrendergast 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)--BillPrendergast 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: (1) The Lambiek Comiclopedia is a registry of over 9000 cartoonists, and it appears that anybody may add their own bio/cartoon to the list, (2) BillPrendergast is a single purpose account with fewer than 100 edits, almost all on Michele Bachmann whom Ken Avidor has frequently accused of being anti-transit and pro-highway because of her support of Personal rapid transit over Light rail, (3) Bill is a co-contributor with Ken Avidor on an anti-Bachmann blog. ATren 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Lambiek reference quoted above by BillPrendegast, [43], is just a small biographical info on Ken Avidor; the only mention of RKB is (I quote literally): "A year later, he started his comic 'Roadkill Bill' in the alternative weekly Pulse. In November 2001, the first 'Roadkill Bill' collection appeared at Car Busters Press." How is that non-trivial, significant coverage? -- Ekjon Lok 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: My belief based on the evidence I've seen is that ATren has been carrying on some kind of personal vendetta against the author of the comic strip for some time now and is trying to delete the Wikipedia article to further that object. I've some of the rather bitter correspondence between these two on the issue of transportation on another blog. And here we see ATren outraged in this discussion over the issue of his personal and political motives in calling for deletion; but he is quick to attribute me with same. The tone of this debate indicates that this has got little to do with the integrity of Wikipedia and a lot to do with ATren's personal animosities. Given the fact that the work was published in a reputable magazine, given the fact that it formed a part of the the debate on transportation and sprawl, given the fact that it was mentioned in a comics journal, the fact that the Wiki article was not a piece of self-promotion, and the fact that the topic of the comic is still of great interest in Minnesota--and given the fact that that the personal vendetta stuff is clearly a motive here--"Keep it"; Wikipedia is not supposed to exclude a topic because some people have personal or political problems with the topic's originator.--BillPrendergast 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of my ongoing debates with Ken Avidor, I stand by everything I've said here - that the cartoon is not notable and the sources are weak. The reason I voted is that I had this article on my watchlist (I've had it on my watchlist since the Great PRT Wars of 2006) and I happen to know something about this topic. I believe that the sources listed are mostly trivial - either the source itself is non-notable or the RKB mention is trivial (even non-existent, as someone else pointed out). It seems others agree with me here. As for my comments on you, Bill, it is common in deletion debates to identify votes that come from WP:SPA accounts who are associated with the subject of the article. Don't take it personally. ATren 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: My belief based on the evidence I've seen is that ATren has been carrying on some kind of personal vendetta against the author of the comic strip for some time now and is trying to delete the Wikipedia article to further that object. I must commend you on your powers of observation—it was I, not ATren, who listed the article for deletion. Please assume good faith. Philwelch 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect to List of terms in Charmed. Waltontalk 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Molecular combustion

    [edit]
    Molecular combustion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is about a fictional super power and has no sources to support real world importance. It is entirely in universe Jay32183 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputes in French grammar and spelling

    [edit]
    Disputes in French grammar and spelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    poor sourcing, unencyclopedic style, little content Makerowner 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think so, and thus I change my judgement to NEUTRAL. However, if this article survives the AFD process, it will need very extensive work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. I encourage the article's creators to contact me on my homepage. Rhinoracer 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing In Action (Band)

    [edit]
    Missing In Action (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Looks like a hoax. I've never heard of "zonka" music (and we certainly don't have an article about it). No references provided. Disputed prod, no reason given. ShadowHalo 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Feature Presentation

    [edit]
    Feature Presentation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Yet-to-be-released album by a minimally notable musician, no references, only 37 google hits for '"Kutt Calhoun" "feature presentation"'. Corvus cornix 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lord Castrianni/Lord of Kensington (2007 creation)

    [edit]
    Lord Castrianni/Lord of Kensington (2007 creation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts that its subject is a newly created peer, but the claim seems confused, and I suspect the title may be... well, unofficial, much like Sir Mix-a-Lot's KBE. Other than that, he's an actor who's had a few minor roles.

    Also nominating Lord Castrianni, a cut-and-paste copy. —Celithemis 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. There are two issues involved here. One is the issue of whether the page is original research. The article contains nothing but mathematical derivations, which would seem 'obvious' and not in need of sourcing to some mathematicians. The article could do with a description of why the derivations produce the correct answer sourced from an reliable source outside Wikipedia, but this seems reasonable. The description of User:Geometry guy in the discussion as to how this article is in fact itself a source for Poker probability (Omaha), rather than requiring sources itself, is an interesting statement; however, bear in mind that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by the definition, and shouldn't really be used to source itself. However, the issue of whether the content is appropriate for Wikipedia is more important. Giving long derivations isn't really the sort of thing that would be found in an encyclopedia; it's much more the sort of thing that would be found in an appendix of a textbook or other such work, as many of the comments below indicate. This content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but there are sister projects where this content is appropriate (and will still serve the same purpose, of backing up the assertions in the 'parent article'). I've asked the Wikibooks administrators to transwiki this article there; this closure is without predjudice against the article also being transwikied to Wikiversity. --ais523 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em

    [edit]
    Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Quite simply, WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection of information. This article consists solely of original research, with no references cited for any of the claims made, and it is highly unencyclopedic. Previously nominated for deletion in February (discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands), the consensus until now has been to keep, although the previous discussion agreed upon the move to its current title. I see absolutely no hope for this to ever become an encyclopedia article, and it is certainly not one now. Helpful information to "Omaha hold'em" players and mathematicians, indeed, but it has no place on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, the only edits made to the page since it survived its last AfD have been housekeeping tasks, such as adding the {{verylong}} tag to it. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for Wikipedia - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Wikipedia. I found it as the second legitimate article on Wikipedia's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs. YechielMan 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    Notice also that this is a subpage of the main Poker probability (Omaha) page. In writing this article, rather than simply providing the tables of odds and probability, which you can find many places on the Internet, the intent is to provide the derivations behind the tables. These are obviously too long to include in the main article, so thus the subpages. The subject doesn't really stand on its own as an article, so it's not a "main" article but rather a subpage.
    The reasoning behind providing the derivations, which in some cases are quite expansive, is because this is precisely the type of information that makes the discussion of poker probability encyclopedic, rather than a simple regurgitation of tables. Without the derivations, the numbers in the Poker probability (Omaha) tables have to be taken at face value—there's no way to see where the numbers come from. By providing the derivations, the complete set of formulas necessary to derive the probabilities are available.
    As I started writing the article, it wasn't clear to me that some of the derivation tables were going to get so large. As I've continue with the article, adding sections, some of the derivations, in particular this one, have gotten rather large. A lot of the size is due to the table mark up and math expressions. I've considered whether the final article when done should include the derivation subpages or not, but until the article is finished, I've been adding them under the understanding that Wikipedia is not paper. The final disposition of the derivation tables is still an open issue, but I think they add an encyclopedic value to the article that sets it apart from the many poker probability pages on the Web that are just giving the resulting numbers and not exposing the math behind them. —Doug Bell talk 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Good answer. I'm impressed. YechielMan 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    YechielMan 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment-- Well, if and when this thing gets deleted, I think it should definitely be preserved somewhere, just because it is perhaps the most indiscriminate article I have ever seen :)--Cronholm144 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it indiscriminate? Are you suggesting it is not complete, and should be extended? Jheald 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A spectacular resource to point students to, who are encountering the idea of combinatorial probabilities for the first time. Even if you'd only ever actually work through a couple of these as worked examples, what I like is the way this table succinctly shows that for any of these classes of hands, there is a (quite short) formula for the probability. So think of its value like that of a picture -- not necessarily in each pixel, but in the impression overall conveyed by the whole. Jheald 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia is not a textbook for math students; it is an encyclopedia. Please consider the material on the basis of its appropriateness as an encyclopedia article. There are other projects, such as Wikibooks and Wikiversity, that may accept such material aimed toward students; however, Wikipedia is not one such project. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well, wikipedia is not a student resource, it is an encyclopedia. WP:NOT speaks directly to this issue(indiscriminate collection...) and other issues, but I rather like the article and would like to see it stick around contrary to the policy. --Cronholm144 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, WP:ILIKEIT? Fine, but how is it appropriate to an encyclopedia? As you suggest below, moving it to Wikiversity may be an acceptable way to keep and maintain the material, but Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and arguments on behalf of keeping material in the encyclopedia should be based in their appropriateness for this cause, not in the usefulness of the information for another cause. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I think this one is a bit more subtle than it seems at first sight and is certainly worth more thought than "Delete - OR" (although I have to admit that my first thought was "delete" as well). This article provides derivations of the numbers in some of the probability tables in the parent article which I will call Pp(O) for short. Other numbers are derived within Pp(O) itself, but these particular derivations are simply too long for the main article.
    Now, an article isn't OR just because it was produced by a wikipedian (all articles are), neither is it OR just because it doesn't cite sources (we'd lose most of our content if we deleted all that): it is OR when it contains new information. There is little evidence for that here.
    Indeed, it is claimed that the information in Pp(O) is common knowledge among Omaha players and can be found on numerous websites. So if you think about it for a minute, this means that if the article we are considering is OR, then so is Pp(O) itself! I mean, how do these other websites obtain the numbers? There is pretty much only one way to derive probabilities in a problem like this: enumerate the possibilities using binomial coefficients, exactly as in this article.
    Pp(O) links to a site which calculates these probabilities, which means that there is effectively a published computer program carrying out these derivations. This is of course, a very poor source, so is it reliable? Well, the article we are considering, as Septentrionalis has suggested, actually provides a way to check the reliability of the source.
    This article itself has no references. We don't, however, normally delete articles without references unless there is a good reason to do so (copyvio, libel, living person etc.). In this case, unless we want to put Pp(O) itself up for deletion, there is a good reason for keeping this one: it actually helps with WP:V rather than damages it. Of course both articles need to cite web and printed matter to support the common knowledge that this is how Poker probabilities are calculated in general, and in Omaha in particular. I think that would be easy for an expert to do, and so is not justification for deletion. Geometry guy 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I definitely agree with Geometry guy that this is not OR. I'm rather surprised several people have stated that as a reason. But it seems to me that the obvious deletion reason, not a manual or collection of indiscriminate information, is a fairly good one. I'm personally on the fence about this one, since I think there are some subtle issues here. It depends on whether you regard some information on derivations "indiscriminate" or necessary for conveying understanding. Certainly in many mathematics articles, if I inserted a simple sentence or two giving a little more detail on something that could appear mysterious or confusing, I can't imagine people complaining to me about WP:NOT. Probably what gets people's hackles up is that there is a big chart. This may bear some resemblance to things like multiplication tables, where obviously it is inappropriate to have them up to some large number (up to 12 is considered standard). But it doesn't seem to me the level of detail here is excessive, although I flip-flop on that. Frankly, I thought this would be more controversial than it has! --C S (Talk) 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy or transwiki but definitely delete from mainspace. It's a how-to manual, which is not allowed. --Trovatore 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brandon Mcleod

    [edit]
    Brandon Mcleod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Post

    [edit]
    Laura Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Amateur actress known for fan projects. No IMDB page. Google search on name with "actress" modifiers returns less than 90 unique entries. Delete as non-notable. MikeWazowski 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Post is a voice actress known for not only fan projects, but also original projects, as well as commercial, animation, and industrial. Strong keep. Bryan Seecrets 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quint Chamberlain and Nola Reardon

    [edit]
    Quint Chamberlain and Nola Reardon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - this is an unsourced fictional history of a fictional couple. Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries and this is nothing but a summary of the storyline of the couple. Otto4711 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruslana's Charity_Concert

    [edit]
    Ruslana's Charity_Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable concert per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 23:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Sure it needs cleanup, but come on, AfD's not the place for it. Wizardman 02:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Mutha Truckers

    [edit]
    Big Mutha Truckers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article content only displays blatant advertising — N96 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep I don't see any blatant advertising, and the article is already tagged for cleanup. We don't delete articles about notable subjects just because they're badly written. Also, "blatant advertising" is not a reason for AFDing an article, if it genuinely was blatant advertising it should be tagged for speedy deletion, not listed here. Masaruemoto 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was take to Redirects for discussion. Resurgent insurgent 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is your god now?

    [edit]
    Where is your god now? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    It makes no sense whatsoever. What does "Where is your god now?" have to do with "Burger King Kingdom" Chris9086 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep and (I hope) cleanup. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of environmental organizations

    [edit]
    List of environmental organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Redundant and becoming unwieldy. Category system suffices. Alan Liefting 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as listcruft. --Nonstopdrivel 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unnecessary envirogreeniecruft. Eddie.willers 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Envirogreenie," yup, that's me. Well, Delete anyway per nom. This looks like a nigh-impossible list to keep authoritative. Doesn't belong in WP. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not because I have a problem with the idea, but because the category system does a much better job of keeping a register of the environmental organisations on Wikipedia. Cedars 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This list shows the use of several different methods of organisation, which is very hard to do with categories. A good list. Calling it unwieldy implies there's a good deal of stuff here, and there is. No list will be complete, but it can be more complete than a category. In practice , listcruft seems to mean any list that someone wants to delete, and saying this is not an arguement. DGG 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There a lot of redlinks in this list, which cannot be represented by categories and will not be mentioned on Wikipedia at all if this article is deleted. For example, the organisations listed for the Netherlands and Spain are all redlinks. The hierachy of organisations shown in the list is also very useful IMHO, especially to a casual Wikipedia reader who doesn't want to/can't wade through the categories. The article does need a lot of work though. Bláthnaid 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If a redlink exists then and article can be started (iff approp) and then plced in a category. There are sufficient categories to cover all the subheadings in the page:
    • Reply Yes, the missing articles should be started and categorized. I started one myself, but I did not know that Wikipedia was lacking the article until I looked at this list. As well as being useful for highlighting Wikipedia's gaps, the list with its short commentary in each section explains the different types of organization that exist more explicitly than the categories. When a subsection gets large and unwieldy pruning the links to maybe 3/4 of the most notable organisations and using a "see also" link to the relevant category for the rest makes the list and the categories complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Bláthnaid 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than relying on the redlinks on a page it is better to use the search function to see if an article exists. The redlink may have incorrect capitalisation or some other way of misspelling in relation to an article the may already exists on the topic. Alan Liefting 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of LGBT South Asians

    [edit]
    List of LGBT South Asians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I can understand a list sorted by race, gender or religion, but by continental region? What good does this serve us? Who identifies as "South Asian"? This is not a useful list, not only in scope but in content as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure there are loads of gay Pakistanis... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - If either is necessary, a category would serve this purpose better. --Alynna 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Should we have List of heterosexual South Asians? The idea is preposterous. --Nonstopdrivel 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Nonstopdrive Bulldog123 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep LGBT South Asians are a distinct subset in the LGBT community and have only come into higher visibility over the past several years with LGBT South Asians social, health and business groups as well as online networking. It might be a surprise to some that "South Asians" are distinct from "East Asians," etc. but not if you're from Asia and now living in American or English cultures which discriminate against both, at different times, for different reasons. Benjiboi 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nom's first point seems to be that a list by region somehow does us less good than a list by race, gender, or religion. I don't see the reasoning there, and none has been offered. The second point, "Who identifies as South Asian?" has been answered. Clearly, this is a distinct, significant cultural group. I wouldn't want an article to be deleted because discussion participants didn't have much knowledge of the field, and I've seen it happen several times. Articles on specialized subjects should be tagged expert-subject, not deleted. Finally, I really don't see how "something else would be better" (i.e., a category) is a reason for deletion. My only uncertainty is whether to vote keep or strong keep. Matt 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that adding an adjective to your vote does not make it any more meaningful, you may as well spare your fingers. I ask that instead of writing snarky votes, you improve the article so that non-experts do not make the same mistake. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I sounded snarky. If it helps, I don't consider myself an expert in the subject either. Matt 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok. But I think the chap below is right in that someone could well write a great article on the LGBT Asian community, but a list of is probably not necessary. Attutudes towards LGBt vary so much throughout "South Asia", from acceptance in india to criminalisation in Pakistan, a list in itself cannot tell us anything. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The question, I think, is not whether LGBT South Asians as a group are notable (which I think they are), but whether a list of people in that group is encyclopedic (which I think it is not). Someone could write a great article about the South Asian LGBT community, but that doesn't mean we need a list of people in it. --Alynna 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I usually like lists. But this is apparently not a list of LGBT South Asians--which would be much too large, but as list of some about whom we have articles and are either notable as LGBT activists in some sense, or notable enough to include anyway. Possibly a more explicitly targeted list would be better. DGG 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorize no need for a list bout a category would do good to replace this.--SefringleTalk 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The list is impossible to maintain. You will never cover every single one of them, and there is not much significance in listing out all the LGBT people there, since they are not likely to group together and make an impact, thus making it indiscriminate information.--Kylohk 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of LGBT composers

    [edit]
    List of LGBT composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Of all the professions where it could be considered, useful, interesting or pertinent to have a list of gay professionals, such as politicians, clergy, activists or sportspeople, composers do not come to mind. A list of LGBt composers does not seem particularly striking or helpful. Best leave it to the category and delete this list. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I have added all the composers who were LGBT to Category:LGBT composers. It would seem many people have been added to the list who are not gay - another reason to delete given who misleading it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not if the article is not worth keeping anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete without prejudice against a future article on the subject, as long as such an article doesn't violate WP:WAF, WP:FICT and WP:V. --ais523 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    Tyria

    [edit]
    Tyria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I question the need for a separate article on just a continent in a MMORPG universe. The elements of the in-game story concerning the continent are already well covered in the elaborate (almost too elaborate) plot summary in Guild Wars Prophecies. Any further detail is meaningful only to players of the game, who should be looking up information in a Guild Wars-related wiki such as the one officially maintained by the creators of the game (and linked from every Guild Wars article). For completeness in this nomination, this article also violates the following necessary points of policy and guideline:

    1. The content is not reliably sourced from multiple independent sources. Thus, it is not verifiable per Wikipedia's definition of the term.
    2. The content is written from an in-universe perspective, violating WP:WAF.
    3. Moreover, it provides no real-world context as required by WP:FICT. For instance, there are areas of the Tyrian continent that are clearly influenced by the real world (not to mention fiction) that would be worth noting in an encyclopedic coverage on the topic, but I really doubt any of that can be reliably sourced. (I am, of course, happy to be proven wrong about this.)
    4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Why is this fictional continent notable? Where has it been referenced outside the Guild Wars series and its fandom?

    I recommend deletion with no prejudice against reducing to a redirect to Guild wars or Guild Wars Prophecies and merging any salvageable content (of which I found none). Eric Sandholm 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rendering water

    [edit]
    Rendering water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a software guidebook. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Black Wall Street Journal Vol. 2

    [edit]
    The Black Wall Street Journal Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Journo's diary

    [edit]
    Journo's diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No sources. Non-notable author. Only links to this article were from Bridget Jones's Diary and Adrian Mole and Ben Elton, the author of this article having written weasel statements to link the works. User repeatedly removed valid tags from article, and restored the weasel statements to the other articles, suggesting a conflict of interest. Drat (Talk) 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Capperi, ma ke male vi ha fatto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZioPera (talk • contribs) 07:56, June 23, 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete as nonnotable neologism. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    INKSPE

    [edit]
    INKSPE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandrake of Oxford

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Mandrake of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Procedural relisting from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17. I abstain at this point. Daniel 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Per second nomination, not enough independent sources. The only source that can be viewed as even somewhat independent (the Dave Evans interview) is (1) is of questionable reliability as it is published by the store owner on his own website, and (2) in any case is an interview, which means none of the information in it is fact-checked, but rather, just reflects statements of Mogg Morgan. (3) Dave Evans may have a PhD, but that doesn't make him an expert, and the interview is published on the website for "Occult E-Books" so we should not take their choice to interview an occult publisher as evidence of notability when it's the only evidence. Mangojuicetalk 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Note the interview is not the only source by Dave Evans. Mandrake of Oxford also figures in his book, The History of British Magic After Crowley. IPSOS (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I had missed that source, I guess because no information is specifically sourced to it. How much coverage does Mandrake get in the book? Is it on the order of a chapter, a couple pages, or more like a paragraph? Mangojuicetalk 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussion of Mandrake, its founder Mogg Morgan, and its various publications figure on some dozen or so pages. IPSOS (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete with a deep sigh. Personally, I would prefer that some of this information be merged into the Mandrake Press article, along with information about the modern Mandrake Press. However multiple advocates/opponents of the two publishing houses have been conducting a WikiWar between themselves over the inclusion of the rival articles, and neither has properly established the notability of their favourite. So reluctantly, I say lets keep both Mandrake of Oxford and Mandrake Press off the Wiki (until either becomes notable), and retain only the article about the original Mandrake Press. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep or merge to Mandrake Press - Mandrake of Oxford figures significantly in British magic after Crowley. This is covered in independent secondary source, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality by professional academic researcher Dr. Dave Evans, Ph.D. Meets WP:CORP. IPSOS (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, at the risk of climbing a notable building, I have gone though all of the previewable entries on google books for mentions of this publisher, and included them on the article. It is not my intent that my additions are encyclopedic or that they add wieght to the notability in and of themselves; I have listed them so everyone has a better idea of what is being deleted. My personal preference is too keep publishers unless they have published nothing of significance, as I consider their notability as being tied to the notability of their publications, but I have yet to assess the notability of these published works. John Vandenberg 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per lack of secondary sources.--Dcooper 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge (with history intact please) to Mandrake Press. As far as I can see, the publisher is much more than a standard publisher, being quite involved in the scene. The facts of the article are all verified. The lack of independent secondary sources is a bit of a problem, but hard to avoid when this publisher prints a lot of the "academic" material for this subject. John Vandenberg 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per IPSOS and John Vandenberg. Company is notable within its field. GlassFET 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - article has sufficient reliable sources and the subject appears to be sufficiently notable. --Evb-wiki 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Boy, I wish someone had informed me that my close of the second AfD had been sent to WP:DRV. Anyway, I don't think this company's notability has been established; there's not enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject--as far as I can see, there's really only one independent source, Evans. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Online Property Management Software

    [edit]
    Online Property Management Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Reason was WP:NOT a how-to guide; essay-style and not encylopedic content, which was further endorsed by a {{prod2}}. I make it three, however this isn't a speedy candidate, so I bring it here. Delete. Daniel 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Daniel 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum

    [edit]
    List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is one of the most bizarre articles that I have ever come across, which is saying something given my work on wikifying and cleaning up articles. It is a list of topics that are mentioned in a book called Foucault's Pendulum, which is about conspiracy theories. I do not think that it is encyclopedic in any way. It is a trivia list for fans of the book. There is nothing wrong with that, but such things do not belong in Wikipedia. A message on the talk page mentions making sure that all of the topics have articles. I have no objection to the list being moved to the Wikipedia namespace, but the topics that already have articles should be removed, and the list should be deleted after all of the topics have articles. Also, I would suggest putting the list in alphabetical order rather than by chapter, unless knowing where the topics are mentioned would help in the writing of the articles. I do not think that it would since the book is fictional and should not be used as a reference. Finally, the quotations at the top should be removed. -- Kjkolb 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I am very disappointed that esoteric subjects from chapter 5 do not mention the computer program in Basic. The mysterious world of software development has been denied of its rightful position, What a shame! Pavel Vozenilek 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Somebody put a lot of work into it... but the entire premise of the book is that it ties together a lot of apparently loosely connected concepts and weaves together a clever, comprehensive story. To simply provide a list of the stuff would be like having a separate "list of ingredients" article for famous recipes, or "list of components" to complement the article on automobiles. What we're left with is a list of trivia that one author, in one book, consolidated for literary purposes. Also, from the article, "The words and subjects herein are widely considered archaic or esoteric," but by whom? This is not well defined or verified by any third-party source. ◄Zahakiel► 19:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a combination of unsourced trivia (of a sort), a plot guide and a list with exceptionally vague inclusionary criteria. Something tells me this is the kind of book which would keep me awake at night. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete, clearly a hoax with limited (if any) notability, no need to let this go further. --Coredesat 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barry McGinn

    [edit]
    Barry McGinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, no Google hits, smells like a hoax. Also, deleted once, restored per creator's request to add sources, but this wasn't done. Exploding Boy 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Simpsons, season 19

    [edit]

    Unsourced crystal ballyness synthesis on every page, are very unlikely to be unstubbed before October. Several titles aren't even sourced, for god's sake. Will (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Sr13 04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hive Workshop

    [edit]
    The Hive Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Generic modding site. No assertion of notability is made apart from list of number of members. Certainly non-notable and possibly spam. ck lostsword • T • C 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_23&oldid=1116877963"