Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leina Ogihara[edit]

This is a non-notable person. There is very little info on this person RockerballAustralia 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete' per WP:BIO, tagged A7. --Javit 12:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 9 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. Mango juice^talk 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Association of Lithuanian[edit]

direct, unedited copy from two sections of Lietuvos Skautija; misnamed in English Chris 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment an article does need to be written for Lietuviu Skautų Sąjunga, but not just as a cut-and-paste of text we've already written. Chris 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in addition to all else, being misspelled in English warrants deletion.Rlevse 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #REDIRECT [[Lietuvos Skautija]] ~ Infrangible 01:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response - it really doesn't go there, the organization the user instead intends is Lietuviu Skautų Sąjunga, an in-exteris organization for which a fresh article yet needs to be written, explained above. Chris 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the above comments, this article needs to be renamed to Scout Association of Lithuania (provided this organization is notable - can't comment on that) and needs a complete rewrite. -- P199 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:38, 14 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. Will mark for cleanup. The only argument that saves this article is that the article wasn't given a chance to improve. If it doesn't improve, that argument won't work next time. Mango juice^talk 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)[edit]

Violates WP:NOT by being just a plot summary by year. Clarityfiend 23:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh good lord, plot summary for a soap? Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:A (I don't see a single source on this). --Phirazo 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin's comment (below) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Gungadin 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the two previous respondents. This is not a vote system. You actually have to provide a reasoned rationale for why you think it should be kept. Look at the aforementioned guidelines and you will see why it should be deleted. Adrian M. H. 15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article could be improved, but I think it should be rewritten to just include the notable storylines from the decade and the real world impact that each storyline has, as well as changes in the shows format, popularity, criticisms etc - similar to the way Coronation street history has been written. Again this nomination could have been avoided if issues were discussed beforehand. It would have given editors the chance to make the changes first. --Gungadin 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now is your opportunity. Show us this article can be more than a plot summary. --Phirazo 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly violates WP:NOT, and I do hope that the closing admin will be able to see past unjustified keep votes to eliminate this page. Indrian 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. 84.9.61.204
Delete per the very clear point made in #7 at WP:IINFO -- "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the content had to be forked from elsewhere and stand here without any real-world context to back it (and its immense length), then it's obviously not being presented as an aspect of a larger topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plots are encyclopaedic, clearly policy is broken in this case. WP:NOT#PAPER Matthew 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you link to WP:NOT#PAPER quite often in AFDs in which you participate. I think I've asked you this before, but don't recall ever getting an answer. Can you point out to me exactly where in that section of the policy it says that it's OK to violate other parts of the policy because Wikipedia isn't printed on paper? Because I'm not seeing it. Otto4711 22:31, 14 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. I will mark the page for cleanup. The delete arguments are solid, but those arguing for a keep say they can address those issues, and haven't been given time. We'll mark the page for cleanup and give them time: if the cleanup doesn't happen, we can always delete it later. Mango juice^talk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Phil?[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing there besides plot details. Clarityfiend 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely notable storyline in the UK, which can easily be edited to include real world context. Concerns should have been addressed on article's talk page to see if it was improved before the nomination.--Gungadin 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If it is to be kept, it needs satisfactory application of reliable third party sources in addition to the single existing reference and should be fully re-written to address plot summary issues. Currently fails to fully demonstrate notability, but I am willing to believe that some improvement might be possible. Adrian M. H. 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Can be expanded to provide more information similar in detail to an article about an individual Simpsons episode.--Kylohk 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no real-world context or sourced analysis. The only source I see is an award for the storyline from a magazine. Delete this plot summary per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:A. --Phirazo 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure and not note worthy Eastbayway 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Who shot J.R.? precedent. JJL 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Who shot J.R. was a seminal television moment that helped define the modern season-ending cliffhanger. I doubt this event had nearly the cultural impact. Indrian 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It caused the third-largest power surge ever on record, a UEFA Cup football game was postponed for it, 50,000 bets were placed on the outcome countrywide, and the reveal episode was watched by 22 million viewers. Enough cultural impact for you? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, maybe not, but still illustrates how Who Shot JR hardly set a precedent for this because it still was far more historically and culturally significant. Indrian 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you provide a source that says that the JR storyline was mor historically and culturally significant or is that solely based on your own opinion? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is noting but plot summary and therefore fails WP:NOT. If this has actual cultural signifigance, it should be noted in the article. Indrian 09:01, 12 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 G3. Peacent 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyardium[edit]

Junkyardium is certainly not a real chemical element, nor even an element in an important fictional work. Plinth molecular gathered 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt Articles like this are as strong a case as ever for changing the rules and allowing such obvious crap to be speedied. Also warned the author with {{uw-hoax}}.--Blueboy 96 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - My suggestion: Do it now. Obvious hoax. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3, vandalism, in particular 'Silly vandalism'. Creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages So tagged. Kesac 02:10, 9 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. --Core desat 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagadone[edit]

Non-yet-notable baseball player. Technically not eligible for speedy deletion because it claims he's a major-leaguer, but his current status is that of a college player who was only selected in the MLB draft yesterday (June 7), and he's not likely to hit the big leagues for at least a couple of years. --Finngall ^talk 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just barely escapes being speedied--he was a national collegiate baseball player of the week. Come back when you've made it to the majors.--Blueboy 96 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's not yet a major leaguer — draftees, even one as high as #55, don't usually go straight to the majors. He will probably go the minors first. If and when (likely when) he moves up to "The Show," submit this to a deletion review and it should go through pretty easily. It's just too soon right now. Good luck to the kid, though. The game needs good lefties. Realkyhick 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete about 10 relevant results on Google -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once you eliminate the obvious false statements about him being a MLB pitcher for the Red Sox, you are left iwth "Nicholas Hagadone is a baseball player." Recreate if he does something significant at the college or minor league level, or makes it to the majors. Resolute 05:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an "obvious false statement" that he's a Red Sox pitcher. Misleading, maybe; jumping the gun a little, maybe; but there's plenty of reliable sites to back up the claim that he's been picked. You know what else is a little misleading? Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё's statement that there's only "10 relevant results on Google." That's right, only 10 on the first page, the first of 14 pages. These include results from FOX Sports and the Red Sox websites. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was sorely tempted to delete myself, but refrained. After all, we keep collegiate football articles for less than that. "National collegiate baseball player of the week" probably means he has some level of notability at college level too.Circeus 22:23, 12 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. Sr 13 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface computing[edit]

Delete article "Surface Computing'

Reasons:

"Surface Computing is a new technology successor of touchscreen systems, developed by Microsoft"

Surface computing was not invented or developed by Microsoft, and has been in development by different asian developers and american colleges since 2002.

The article sounds more like an ad then an informative article
" This is by making the surface appear as the board with a 3D ball and your hand-movements can be sensed and ball positions are suitably altered."

The technology behind Microsoft Surface is not fully revealed, but it does not use "3D balls", rather motion sensitive cameras and some multi-touch sensing. Alegoo92 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poorly sourced advertorial, without prejudice to future recreation in a different form. Lots of hits for surface computing that would be enough to make an article, but this advertorial is not it. The ref to MS probably comes from http://www.microsoft.com/surface/ Adrian M. H. 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian M. H. Pavel Vozenilek 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a news story. JJL 23:45, 11 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, with no prejudice toward recreation, provided it passes the problems cited below. Sr 13 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté[edit]

Spam for pyramid scheme. THF 22:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see relevence to this point. Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising. Supported exclusively by self-published claims. Not many reliable sources exist for this product, which suggests it non-notability. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are media clips done by the WB network affilliate in Dallas as well as specific date mentions to Dallas Morning News, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News. Some don't have the actual links, but the dates of the articles and segments have been published. I don't understand what more you really want.Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Web hits are primarily first party or otherwise promotion-orientated. Clearly intended as advertorial. Adrian M. H. 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flunks WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like spam. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing usable on google news, is advertisement --h2g2bob (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThe article is written in NPOV. Some negative press is given to the company, including a removal by Dr. Leaf's endorsement of the village the company is partnered with as well as a rescinding of the IASC certification. User TedFrank obviously does not know what a pyramid scheme is and is using someone's biased opinion to define it. There is no endorsement of the product or the company. Some references need to be cited and are in the process of being done, but the content is completely valid. Any link not given to the actual source is given by a date and venue of where it happened (e.g. Terry Bradshaw's promotion on MSNBC January 3, 2005). If you're going to have entries on Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc then I don't understand why one won't have an entry here. People are welcome to put up criticisms of the company if they want. It should be cleaned up, NOT deleted. Arnabdas 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate any suggestions on how to re-write the article by any of the people here who do call it spam. Please message me if you have specific suggestions on how it should be reworded, or feel free to reword it yourself. Arnabdas 17:00, 11 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. Sr 13 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian profanity[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a dictionary of obscenities, swear words, or blasphemy. Completely unsourced, unverified, possibly original research, and totally unencyclopedic. Parent article List of profanities is gone. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1) the fact it is currently unsourced does not mean it cannot be sourced; 2) I am Italian and everything in there is the truth, so it's fully verifiable. 3) Italian language is not "original research". 4) It is as encyclopedic as a relevant part of a popular spoken language. If you don't like because it's full of obscenities, you should also request deletion for pussy, cunt, dick and so on. --Angelo 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Find the sources, then. 2) No man, that's not the way it works. Wikipedia doesn't work on a take-my-word-for-it basis. 3) Who said anything about the Italian language? THIS article doesn't cite any references, so it is possibly original research. 4) Relevant? How relevant? Again, you don't cite any sources. Please read WP:WINAD; "Wikipedia is not a ... slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia." —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are books and publications (all in Italian of course) regarding the "Italian profanities" issue. This is not just a idiom guide, the article is full of examples but there is also very encyclopedic content in it, such as linguistical and historical origins of these words, regional distribution (Italian is a heterogeneous language, maybe you don't know this) and a fine paragraph about "Profanity as blasphemy". It needs to be cleaned up and sourced, not to be deleted. --Angelo 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L'italiano e' una lingua eterogenea. Lo so e lo capisco. Maybe this article is not _just_ an idiom guide, but it IS an idiom guide, and it blatantly violates WP:WINAD. In addition, blasphemy doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and sure it ain't "fine." —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. If the only actual reason you'd like to see that article deleted, is because you're offended by the "blasphemy", then remember that Wikipedia is not censored, there's conservapedia for that. PS. You might benefit from studying folklore.--BMF81 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad your argument is biased, witness your blasphemous userpage. This is not myspace; objectionable content may exist only if useful, it cannot exist for the sake of itself. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I'm Italian too, and totally agree with the above comments by Angelo.romano.--BMF81 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F. Evilclown93 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where are these reliable sources? —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The published book is a reliable source, and so is the BBC article. Evilclown93 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They only cover a couple sentences, while the article is 11,000+ bytes long. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it proves it's not a hoax, and like other Keep-sayers pointed out, it is notable enough. Also, if every article was judged like that, we'd have 10000-strong backlogs at AfD every day. Evilclown93 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very interesting, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically "...a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Mannaggia. (I hope I'm using that right.) Clarityfiend 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we have many article on words, as Truthiness, Nigger (offensive yet highly notable) and Thou, which is a featured article.--BMF81 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in all truthiness, the words thou hath mentioned are placed in context at some length, whereas this just gives definitions. Clarityfiend 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Fails WP:WINAD and is insufficiently sourced to alleviate OR concerns, but could be improved on both counts if reliable independent sources (preferably editorial, rather than an Italian dictionary, for example) can be applied and the article is extensively rewritten in line with the other cited articles. I would urge those who wish to keep it to make these improvements. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a Latin profanity and Spanish profanity. The Spanish one fail deletion in 2005. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles about other languange's profanity aren't only interesting, they're also educational. --Candy-Panda 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm reasonably sure there is an Italy which has its own language and thus its own profanity. Frankly, if they didn't have it, I'd support an article on that merit. The various idioms and profanities of a given language/culture are certainly encyclopedic, as they are frequently the subject of scholarly study and even commentary in the news. Concerns about references are valid, but not for deletion, but rather cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above; Italian profanity is no less encyclopedic than Spanish profanity. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 11 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. Sr 13 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Straight Guys[edit]

self-evident WP:COI article by User:Amateurstraightguys promoting his site. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASG = Absolute Speedy Getridofit. Yechiel Man 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, speedily. Chris 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV, article fails WP:CORP. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --♫Twinkler4♫ 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just an advertisement. Aleta 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, textbook spamming of the wiki. RFerreira 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one of the more obvious violations of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Like Aleta said, "its just an ad"--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 12 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 (closing this a tad early). Sr 13 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zip Codes in Ohio[edit]

Inherently unencyclopaedic listcruft. (Article had speedy tags repeatedly removed.) Chrisd87 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought we already nuked these? Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason above, too bad they don't have 44902:-)Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as valueless unencyclopædic listcruft. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I thought we also deleted all of these as well. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before someone goes postal. RFerreira 06:07, 12 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. Sr 13 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost metal[edit]

Unsourced original research, possibly in attempt to promote a non-notable band. Prod tag removed by creator. tomasz. 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, uncited, apparent foo metal neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As how is something supposed to grow if it is stamped on constantly and same could be said for any sub-genre. P16 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Twiin 16:12, 10 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. --Core desat 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian F.C.[edit]

Soccer team at 11th level of English system; not notable. NawlinWiki 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent a showing of significant coverage in third-party sources. It is possible that the organization they belong to merits an article, but not every single team merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, somebody might want to take a look at Middlesex County Football League just to see if it's notable, and see if the rest of the teams might be worth deleting. FrozenPurpleCube 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the team - general consensus seems to be that teams only warrant an entry if they're level 10 or above on the pyramid unless they've done something unusual, and this one's on level 11. Keep the league, though - there aren't that many leagues in the pyramid, and I do think it's useful (eek! a Forbidden Word!) having articles on the leagues to illustrate the structure — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can accept that the league itself is reasonable to include (though I would prefer more sources, and I'm not at all committed to keeping it), but I'm concerned about the half a dozen or so individual teams with articles and the rest that are red-linked. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW on the teams, the only one I'd keep of the current batch would be Stonewall F.C. who do get the odd bit of press coverage as the only all-gay team at a respectable level in the pyramid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per accepted precident. As far as the side issue goes: I would argue that the league itself is notable. Resolute 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. If Stonewall FC are to be kept becaused they are an all gay team then this club is similar in that it is also from one specific group, Brazilians in England. If it were by some chance kept because of the club being specifically from the Brazilian community in England, it reads like a press release for the club and as if it were copied and pasted from their website. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm only (weakly) arguing to keep Stonewall because they get the odd bit of press coverage, rather than that they're unusual in and of themselves. Brazilian FC may get coverage themselves in the Portuguese language press, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons I can't check - and I'm guessing it might be a bit tricky to find them by googling "Brazilian football" — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes sorry I wasn't suggesting that Brazilian FC should be kept as my vote is to delete. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:51, 11 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. Mango juice^talk 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the result was actually "no consensus to delete". To be a keep result it would have needed 2/3 of the votes to be keep, which it did not get. I left a message on your talk page about it, and you did take action, so I am making the statement here. If you'd like to update the line later you can remove this message.DreamGuy 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amending. Yes, let's call this no consensus, because there was at least one uncountered deletion argument, namely, Adrian M. H.'s. However, in response to the above comment, AfD is not a vote, and the count doesn't determine things. In particular, although DreamGuy struck out User:67.39.194.114's comment, anons are allowed to participate, and that argument was relevant. Mango juice^talk 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse Than Failure[edit]

Non-notable blog Oscarthecat 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; Speedyable? Chrisd87 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable; 4-year old publication contributed (and continues to contribute) several new, important concepts to field of s/w development; User:John.adleson 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)— John.adleson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Got reliable sources that prove those claims? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The site is frequently cited as a source for humorous lessons of how not to do things by notable people, including Thomas_Kyte, Joel Spolsky, Raymond Chen, Jeremy Zawodny, etc. Three of those named are judges for their contest.75.59.191.233 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please consult Wikipedia:Notability (web), e.g. "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Right now, the article does not make its notability clear at all. --Oscarthecat 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article does not even claim that publication contributes to new important concepts, looks like just a free ad for a blog. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~Article as it stands doesn't even assert notability, all external refs are only to blog itself~~. Okay, all of my issues were addressed nicely. Article now explains why the blog is notable, includes sources, and doesn't read like an advert. Yay. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable blog. Doczilla 06:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep After some research, definitely notable. Spent time searching for thedailywtf.com and worsethanfailure.com and added external sources. Site is pretty big.Smauers 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Smauers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There is nothing worse than failure, and this fails WP:WEB. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of those sources don't treat the subject in a non-trivial manner. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The site is quite educative in providing 'how-not-to-do-it' examples in an entertaining way. Regardless of WP notability it is quite useful for developers. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because of the popularity (IMHO) among SW developers (at least temporarily). Printed publications had practically disappeared from their world so asking published sources won't get far regardless of its actual notability IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:WEB and expanding on Pavel Vozenilek's point, WTF and its content has been the subject (non-trivially) of quite a few notable online publications (from InfoWorld to Schneier on Security). While references to these publications don't add to the article, they do attest to its notability. 67.39.194.114 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)— 67.39.194.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anon IP *and* no edit history, no ability to vote here. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this does meet WP:WEB as it's a reasonably well-known site that has external references. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gassim Abdelkader[edit]

Self advertizement of an unknown artist Arielle72 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. A few search results in Norwegian (linked in the article) don't appear to establish sufficient notability. Not much from Google either (by Google's standards): mostly MySpace-style stuff like [1]. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --Aldux 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been long uncertain on this one, as nobody knows better than me that google hits are an extremely way to judge an African topic, and especially a Chadian, as it is extremely common that Chadian individuals have extremely few google hits, even when they have or have had a formidable impact on their country. But in these case, none of the links that a search connects to him shows he is known in his country, let alone internationally, and as for Norway, I have to conclude with Adrian that he's simply not renown enough.--Aldux 17:56, 12 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 for including the material at Runescape, take it up on Talk:Runescape. Mango juice^talk 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoparScape[edit]

Deprodded without comment by an anonymous user. This is an article on an illegal copyright violation of RuneScape. It completely fails to assert notability (450,000 Ghits, consisting of its own site, download mirrors, fansites and forums) and stinks of advertising. Delete. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam article that appears to fail WP:N. A lot more than 450 hits, but nothing that qualifies as independent editorial sources. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "kGhits" as shorthand for "thousand Ghits". CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Runescape: The Massively Multiplayer Online Game? This software is real and seems to be related to Runescape: The Massively Multiplayer Online Game, it is an illegal runescape client which allows people to access private servers, Should be noted on the runescape article but does not need an article of its own. Skullblade 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Runescape! I agree that the article should be merged with the main Runescape main page.Wii Kid2 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No merge. Violates WP:SPAM and fails criteria of [[WP:BIO]].--Edtropolis 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Merge.--Edtropolis 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an ad. Drop the page and if we can figure out that this is really notable add something under "Cheating" in RuneScape. Also has no sources. I think we've had a number of AfDs for RuneScape cheats. OSborn 03:42, 15 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. Sr 13 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Algayer[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. Similar set of contributors to fellow AfD candidate Stewart Thomas‎. --Finngall ^talk 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability as a high school teacher could conceivably come from research or writing, though it's very rare in the US (but see Frank McCourt). It could more likely come from prominence in professional affairs at a public level; I think we probably do not have many examples here, and we really ought to. Butt here's no real show of it here--at least not yet. DGG 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is weak. I am from the same area as Mr. Algayer and I have heard of him, but he doesn't seem that notable. He is not a region-wide notable person such as another article on this site, Stewart Thomas. Algayer has done some research and study of math, but not that much.MrMustard92 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) R. Morgan[reply]
Delete No claim to notability, instead we have vacuitities such as "He is noted for the expertise he shows in solving equations using logarithms." C'mon. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepJason Algayer is awesome. I have read so much about him. Guys c'mon he is the best mathematician ever.Sthomas101 18:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)— Sthomas101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This is so clear a fail of WP:PROF that I'd rather talk about a different problem with the article: the references. They consist of two school-level books, one on trigonometry and one on the history of mathematics, that neither are used to justify any claim in the article nor are mentioned in the article itself. Normally my reaction to bad references would be to judge the article on what the references could be made to look like if only someone put some effort into it, but such egregiously bad referencing deserves special note, I think. —David Eppstein 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; RS via google are non-existant. However without access to the two books listed as references, its hard to conclude that RS are a problem. Only one of the books is in Worldcat. John Vandenberg 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think could be in those books that would save the article? They do not appear to have been written by Algayer, and are on subjects that, if Algayer were a major contributor to, would be much better documented. At best I expect a trivial mention of the form that Algayer suggested some formulation. I think it's fair to judge by sources we can dig up ourselves, not just the ones already in the article, but am much less comfortable speculating about the contents of not-easily-viewed sources. —David Eppstein 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of any significant academic works published, nor can be easily found. Two textbook references are unlikely to have any significant content about him. Hence not notable.--Kylohk 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable high school teacher. Item 2 under "References" is, in part, available at Google Books, and Algayer is not entered in the index. I have a feeling that the two "references" are books A. uses in his classes, not books to which he contributed. Deor 15:51, 10 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ylenia Aurucci[edit]

Losing contestant on a reality television show. This completely unreferenced article claims that she's done a bit of work, but noting at all notable compared to notable, professional models. Now just another struggling young model in a very crowded and competitive field who has done nothing to discern herself from others. Mikeblas 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has appeared in movie Fantastic Four. [2]
- Comment. Did she have any lines? IIRC, she didn't. Even if she did, her part was very minor -- nearly that of an extra. -- Mikeblas 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article sounds promotional, yet it lacks reliable sources. The IMDB reference noted above is not yet in the article, but it shows only minor roles. Not enough to keep. EdJohnston 20:41, 7 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, Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable per above. Yechiel Man 21:21, 8 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. Sr 13 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakened slavery[edit]

It is an essay ("In reading the text, many of these key factors were learned." But is it a valid concept/topic for Wikipedia?) 650l2520 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge along with The eurpoean penetration ( by the same author ) into african slave trade. cornis 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I don't see content worth merging, and I agree that these are essays. Someguy1221 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. Evilclown93 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essays, with nothing of value to merge. Adrian M. H. 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete aslo teh essay The eurpoean penetration. Pavel Vozenilek 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essay. JJL 23:41, 11 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. Sr 13 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sangi[edit]

Made-up language, this article is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, it's a textbook. Delete as per the creator's comment on the talk page saying that it's never been exposed outside the creators' minds. Thus, no reliable sources are possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles regarding the Talossan language and other constructed languages of that nature only have a reliable source of information because the information was placed on a website before its creation. The group of individuals who use Sangi have no knowledge on website creation, therefore a suitable online source does not exist. No written work has been on the language either. Wikim3 21:15, 8 June 2007

Comment. Actually, even if this language had its own website, it would still fail the notability requirements, which require independent sources. Tolossan is at least the official language of a country, even if it's a teeny tiny one. Someguy1221 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the notability requirements page and you do have a point. I've realised that this page would come over as an advertisement or a self-publicity page. This page was created in order to tell people about Sangi, but with no outside research done into it, no person outside the project could write this article. Wikim3 21:29, 8 June 2007

Delete This language should have a nice website, but not a wikipedia entry, at least not yet. Capmango 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing verifiable or attributable. To the author, there are wikis out there that are less stringent about the requirement for reliable sources. I believe that langmaker.com and wikia are two. - Aagtbdfoua 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article author's comment of 21:29, 8 June 2007, above. Deor 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...created for private use by a small number of individuals in North Yorkshire... == NN ~ Infrangible 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:43, 9 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 by TexasAndroid. Yechiel Man 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papathanasiou Marek[edit]

Lack of notability Sverre 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7—no assertion of notability. So tagged. Deor 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - completely fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 8 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. Moreschi ^Talk 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gesine Confectionary and Gourmet Market[edit]

It's a cake/coffeeshop owned by Sandra Bullock's sister -em.. that's it. NN - might require a line in Sandra's article but that's about it. Fredrick day 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mmm...spam pastry. Clarityfiend 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the modern-day equivalent of, "George Washington slept here." (Or maybe John Stamos' brother when he appeared in an episode of South Park.) I don't see any notability for the shop, or any notability in the career of Sandra Bullock and her family, so delete this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As creator, keep This is a store which is known nationwide. Come on: here's an excerpt from one article about it. "I first went into the shop out of curiosity, as many people did. The P.R. for the store's opening day was national — Gesine's sister, Sandra Bullock was giving out free macaroons..." (located here As the article says, the P.R. was national. I drove past this store on the opening, and there were hundreds, if not thousands of people lined up all along Elm Street to get into this place. Some of the websites, magazines, etc. which ran this story or at least mentioned the store: AskMen.com [], USA Today [3], Yankee Magazine [4], MSNBC.com [5], and International Herald Tribune [6]. I know, media coverage isn't necessarily notability, but this is not spam (no, not even tasty spam), this is a big thing in Montpelier, indeed, all of Vermont. We have a defined lack of famous people, and this is about as close as we get (barring Martin St. Louis). It's not spam, and I don't believe it's not notable. Bmrbarre 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first article is a dressed up blog post so doesn't count and most of the other coverage is about how Sandra Bullock worked in the shop on it's opening day - so in actual fact, the coverage is trival because the store is secondary to the fact that Sandra Bullock worked there for a shift to promote it. --Fredrick day 22:47, 5 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, W.marsh 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP, as news coverage is merely incidental and does not establish notability. Note that the first two references in the notes are to somewhat different rewrites of the same AP report. Deor 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & pastry spam. --Evb-wiki 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Spam or not, this is not really notable enough, with fairly trivial coverage and an attempt at inherited notability. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Harmless. Culinary and style articles still written. Tourists from miles around visit.DrM 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)_{there is no user Drake M - this is IP address 69.235.10.190 who's only edit is to this AFD. --Fredrick day 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment Note that the signatures of User:Adrian M. H. and this Drake M. are the exact same, and that they both have an M. in there. Some newbie probably came along and copied Adrian's sig and name. Just a theory, though.

Keep - not mind blowingly notable but enough there, with sources. TerriersFan 04:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the assertion that its notability is trivial. The place's opening was a publicity stunt, the coverage is minute, and the shop itself is not notable enough to warrant an article. Information about the shop and Bullock's sister can be merged, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this should become a section in an article on Gesine Bullock-Prado. She not only owns this shop, but she (with her sis) is the owner of Fortis Films, which is responsible for The George Lopez Show, Hope Floats, and the Miss Congeniality duo IMDb. I think that I could get enough information together to make an article on Bullock-Prado featuring this. I am userfying the current version of Gesine just to make sure I have a backup copy. Would any of those who voted in favor of delete be satisfied with this proposal? Ben
Comment I didn't vote either way, but I'd support Ben's proposal, since her non-bakery related work will have coverage, in the same way that the article on Cathy Rogers includes details of her (non-notable) olive farm — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability asserted. Indrian 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:21, 14 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. Sr 13 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio[edit]

Search for "Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio"=1 hit, Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure it's an important association for the assistants of Lucas County, but it's not encyclopedic outside of that very small group. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. WP:LOCAL applies. Yechiel Man 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the commissioners themselves aren't notable enough, so why would the assistants be? DarkAudit 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. If I'm reading this article correctly, the association was founded a few months ago and has had a total of 6 different members (not necessarily all at the same time). Wikipedia is not an organizational minute book. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 10 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. Sr 13 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Epsilon[edit]

Non-notable chapter of a college fraternity. This was prod(ed) over a year ago but no one caught on to the fact that someone removed it. As per previous AfD debates regarding fraternity chapters, Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) a webspace provider for student chapters. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no association of individual notability in this article, but instead, it's a chapter of a national organization. I wouldn't even support a directory of members of that organization on Wikipedia, let alone this whole article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other frats probably have GE chapters too. JJL 23:43, 11 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 killed. Daniel 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WowZolo[edit]

Non notable World of Warcraft bot. No real content other than external links and saying what the bot does. Google search reveals no results for "WoWZolo" outside Wikipedia. Userpie^{talk to me!} 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't even assert notability - if A7 applied to computer programs I'd tag it in a heartbeat. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of importance, sources, or any other redeeming features. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The frightening thing about this is that, in a short span of time, this kind of thing might actually become notable ~ Infrangible 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How might it become notable? Userpie^{talk to me!} 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 per logic. The current wording of the criteria may not explicitly include computer programs, but that should not change the reality that this article does not assert any kind of notability, whatsoever. Resolute 05:50, 9 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 keep arguments here are thoroughly refuted, and the article has had plenty of time to improve. Mango juice^talk 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (3rd nomination)[edit]

This article, while well written, does not assert the notability of the topic, and could not possibly be rewritten to assert any notability. Although World of Warcraft, Everquest and other MMORPGs are notable, fan-made systems used by their players do not automatically become notable by association. Popularity aside, the only sources currently in the article are:

Guides on how to use DKP, written by WoW players
Definitions of DKP from lists of gaming terminology
Trivial mentions of DKP in articles about WoW
A single "fun" whitepaper on DKP which links this Wikipedia article in a footnote

Those don't strike me as reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and no sources other than guild sites and gaming guide sites can be found, resulting in an article that states what DKP is, but not its impact on gaming or the real world. The arguments for keeping in the past consisted of "I like it," "It's useful" and "Lots of people play WoW." The article would work well on a gaming wiki such as WoWWiki, but not here. Phony Saint 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to see this one on AfD again for a bit, and considered suggesting it's too early to put this one through the AfD grinder again so soon - but given the changes made to the article I suppose it's appropriate. I was the nominator for the previous 2 AfD's, and both times my beef was that the article was a massive WP:OR piece and a repository for links to guild websites. Since the second AfD, I have made an attempt to rewrite the article and purge the OR elements. While I feel it is a massive improvement in terms of the issues I had with it, there is still the issue of notability and encyclopedic content. Regarding N, my gut reaction is to say "Yes, this is notable. It is a well known concept within the context of MMORPG's." That said, the problem is that the concept is only notable within the context of the games and to date there is a paucity of reliable, secondary, independent sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Secondly, as the closer of the last AfD stated, this article needs to focus on encyclopedic content - history of the subject, measurable impact it has had, etc - and less on descriptive analysis and, essentially, "game guide material." My attempts to remove OR material and apply the given sources appropriately still don't do much at all to alleviate the fact that this is material still better suited to a game guide, such as Wowwiki as suggested by the nom, than a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I dislike the conundrum that this article presents. As demonstrated by the previous nominations, there is little community consensus to delete this information, and I don't percieve that as changing. On the other hand there is the undeniable fact that this article suffers from a number of problems with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, also well demonstrated by the previous nominations. It feels like an unecessary stalemate where we are saying "Yeah, this article is a mess and no one knows how to fix it, but we can't delete it either, so it's a no-consensus conclusion." I find the continual lack of consensus dissatisfying. I cannot quite endorse the article as it stands but also cannot deny that deletion would be in contravention to consensus. There must be a solution. To that end I am forced to suggest stripping this down to a barebones definition (sans the detailed analysis) and merging the resultant definition into Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms, while retaining this as a redirect and allowing for future recreation if and when the reliable secondary sources to establish an encyclopedic (not game-guide material) article. If the agreeable, stripped-down definition is still too large to merge, then retain it as a stub. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the problem with such merges is that they usually lead to loss of content, & the good material is more extensive than the single paragraph that would fit there. And that article is quite long already. I think that we need to find a better way or organizing its, though it's not really my area of expertise. (I note that we can probably expect academic studies etc etc. in future years--they would eventually justify good articles.)DGG 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to "fix" the article. Anyone else who thinks they can do more to make it more encyclopedic is welcome to do so. By now I've reached a point where it's hard for me to get worked up further about this issue, and if consensus is that the most recent revisions are acceptable then I'll support an outright keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For articles like this, it is a challenge to find outside sources that are fully "independent" of the subject, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Shouldn't be merged because it stands well on its own. Capmango 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's inherently difficult to find independent sources, then Wikipedia is the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I know nothing about the subject matter, but comparing the current version to previous versions it seems to me this one is marginally better. If past decisions in AfD were keep, then I don't see why this one should be any different. That said, I think notability is a legit concern. --Kangaru99 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have played WoW and heard of it often, I rarely heard external sources citing it, let alone the WoW website (forums aside). Notability within a small community does not necessarily translate into notability in the whole world.--Kylohk 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that a global level of notability is our threshold. I haven't seen any guideline on how big a community needs to be before it's big enough to imbue notability. Capmango 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly these games are ubiquitous enough to be within our scope by any standard--we certainly have an extensive collection of articles about this and other similar games--and the article is more general than just the specific game where the terminology originated. By common estimation, this is the heartland of WP.DGG 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The games are certainly notable, but why does that notability extend to related fan-made systems? DKP does not have multiple reliable sources, and nobody knows how widespread DKP is. Simply saying "DKP is used in WoW and Everquest, so it must be notable" is not a good argument for notability. Phony Saint 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this isn't notable - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one. I prefer we find a way to incorporate into a MMORPG-related article. The idea of splitting items in MMORPG didn't start yesterday; rather, it has been around a while. I guess I'm neutral leaning keep/merge - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:24, 14 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 per WP:SNOW and because references have been added to the article. Early non-admin closure. Yechiel Man 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole (song)[edit]

Wholly unreferenced and w/o any evidence of notability. {{prod}}ded, and removed w/o edit summary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to No Cure for Cancer. (No AfD listing needed, actually.) --B. Wolterding 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a song that hits #2 on a national is notable, at least under the proposed WP:MUSIC guidelines for songs. Until guidelines are settled, I say err on the side of following the proposal. Article needs references, but that's no reason to delete. Capmango 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. Specifically "is a released single by a notable artist, band or group" and "has been ranked on a national or significant music chart." Song passes both. DarkAudit 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capmango and DarkAudit. Note that the image needs a rationale written or we're going to lose it. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DarkAudit above. The article doesn't currently mention it, but this also used to be the theme song for the UK government's anti-drink-drive campaign, so I assume there will be plenty of media coverage should anyone want to look (my dedication to the project does not extend to wading through the ocean of crap a Google search on "Asshole" will bring up...) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a top 10 (top 5, really) hit in a large country, as well as being voted onto the Hottest 100, which is a pretty big thing here. I'll add this source to the article forthwith which backs up the second claim. Additionally, given that the Hottest 100 it topped was the first time that votes could only be cast for songs of that year (Joy Division always used to win, I'm told), that's another notable fact. That it's a single by Dennis Leary, a notable artist, clinches the deal. ~~I'm also finding Idriscenti's Freudian slip rather amusing.~~ Points to Idriscenti for the line on the Google search, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Give me some credit - that was carefully phrased, not a Freudian slip! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. I wasn't quite sure which way it should've been taken this morning, so I flipped a coin. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BigHaz. -- Mattinbgn/^talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a massive hit in Australia, in no small part thanks to Triple J's high rotation playing of this novelty song. --Canley 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DarkAudit and Canley. John Vandenberg 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily the most well known single of a highly notable artist. Resolute 05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- highly notable song. The article requires references, not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 11:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Very notable and popular song. --Candy-Panda 01:42, 10 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. Sr 13 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidlan[edit]

Non-notable web site / organization. The first versions of the article were pure advertisement, even copyvio from their website (cf. Google Cache, site seems to be down at the moment). PROD and Speedy were contested. Tone rewriting has occurred, but still there's no hint to notability. Google gives hardly any hits. No major changes to content since initial creation. I think this is a hopeless case in view of WP:WEB and WP:ORG, rewriting or not. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are no sources of any sort to support notability.DGG 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this clearly fails WP:ORG, and nothing Google turns up suggests that will change --L200inLA 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. - Nabla 12:50, 10 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. Sr 13 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Clemens[edit]

This person from history fails WP:BIO. The article does not contain a valid claim of notability: He was a businessman; but that doesn't make him notable. Secondary coverage that could support notability is not given. No major changes since warning tags have been on. I also didn't find independent sources via Google; there's coverage by the firm he founded [7], but that's not independent. Still, many historic sources cannot be found in Google - so, if someone can support that he's notable, please comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a guy who started a modestly successful business. Folks like him are in the hundreds of thousands. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. RGTraynor 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged since last September with no changes; plenty of time to establish notability, but no one has bothered to. Capmango 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty clear cut. Adrian M. H. 16:27, 9 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, socks blocked. Sr 13 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Thomas[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references indicating notability, and doesn't appear to meet bio guidelines; don't see anything on Google Scholar with regards to that name, nor much other chatter. Unless there's some notable publications or media coverage, this isn't encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article needs not to be deleted. Although he may not be notable where you live, he is well known in Pennsylvania for his work, especially in the northeastern part of the state. Dr. Thomas is a highly respected member of the academic community here.71.161.245.103 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)C. McDonough — 71.161.245.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CommentI live in northeastern Pennsylvania and I know all about Stewart Thomas. Everyone does. He's is one of the most well known members of the community next to polliticians. He is the single most respected member of the North Pocono faculty and everyone in school respects him as a scientist who conducts independent research and as a great and innovative teacher.MrMustard92 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)MrMustard92 (R.Morgan) — MrMustard92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Contributor list is similar to that of Jason Algayer, a similar article that I have also nominated for AfD. --Finngall ^talk 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is a much stronger article and a more important career than for J.A., mentioned above. I don't think it's really sufficient--but such material as the NEA and PSEA presentation might make for notability, especially if they've been published, and details should be added. If sufficiently noticed, that's the sort of professional activities that would make a teacher notable for WP purposes. DGG 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is fairly strong, but I guess that's coming from someone who lives in the same area as Dr. Thomas and knows about his career. I will try to find more research and help to contribute to this article. 71.161.245.103 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)C. McDonough — 71.161.245.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. You get to express a "keep" opinion only once, 71.161.245.103. I suggest you strike out either the preceding one or the one farther above. Deor 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have actually met Stewart Thomas and may be able to obtain more records through him. He may have kept publications about himself. Also, I will check the Sctanton Times newspaper for more information and articles.MrMustard92 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)R. Morgan — MrMustard92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Aside from the peacock language in the lead and elsewhere, there's no real assertion of notability, and the listed references aren't much help. Several of the sections ("Humble Beginnings," God help us, and "Continued Education") are unnecessary and unencyclopedic or ("Future") are blatant WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No decent claim to notability: "a pioneer in using multimedia in his lessons" is insufficient. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI have had Dr. Thomas as a teacher, he was simply the best. Also, I believe if you look carefully there are things he's published in magazines and I would not be surprised if there was an entire book.Chestermobile1 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Chester Shultz — Chestermobile1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepDr. Thomas is a respected member of the academic community all around Pennsylvania. He has been honored and published several times. He's met both the president and governor. — Mountainman81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete not notable, despite the sock-puppetry clearly exhibited above. --Oscarthecat 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And below! Deor 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself admits that his contributions to research are not notable, and is otherwise filled with fluff. —David Eppstein 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what is wrong with the article. Stewart Thomas seems to be a pretty notable guy by the stuff in the article and by other users so I say keep it :) Sk8rchick69 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Sk8rchick69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep If he really met the president thats awesome and probably means hes notable. His work seems impressive and I guess if hes published thats even better so save that article.Rocknrob144 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Rocknrob144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep biology teachers deserve notewrothyness on wikipedia. someone should give them credit for all their hard work. this guy sounds like he stands out from the pack Bugboy148 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Bugboy148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep thomas sure seems to have a lot under his belt. he is notewothy especially if there are self-written sources Typershark 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Typershark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - there isn't anything written in the article that would elevate him well above the level of a really good teacher. -- Whpq 17:08, 12 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. Moreschi ^Talk 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops[edit]

This article was previously deleted due to the obvious consensus that the article lacked any secondary sources (see here. The article was rewritten and moved back into the article space; however, it still only uses primary sources (archived versions of the game's website). Googling for sources only brings up the usual Fileplanet and other directory listings, which are not independent reliable sources. Delete for lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, mod was retail released on the UT2004 Editor's Choise Edition. Contest entries in Epic's contest are also clear. Mentionnings from Developers and Publishers can be found across the internet.

Delete: as failing WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V. Just another game mod. RGTraynor 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor's comment. It's way of WP:V and is not notable. Adrian M. H. 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Neil ╦ 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you had actually read the current article, you'd see that more than primary sources were used. Your state that it needs independent reliable sources, and that is why there's an entire section titled News articles (by date). It is also generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Wickethewok this is the second time you've put this article up for deletion, and yours reasons this time seem more specious than the last. --Basique 10:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are those links reliable independent sources? Neil ╦ 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any myself. There isn't a single source from either mainstream media (not expected in any event) or from well-known gaming industry publications which would at least have a modest rep for fact-checking. I'm also not enthusiastic about the presumption that just because we're not swallowing these sources as reliable, we must not have read the article. RGTraynor 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent news sources were asked for and provided along wiith dates, Beyond Unreal is one of the three big Unreal sites, Boomtown isn't small, and are you saying that UGO isn't notable? Or that Epic's own Unreal Tournament website listing Frag Ops is not? In fact quite a lot of data has been provided. No one asked you to swallow anything Traynor but when you vote to delete something, make sure you at least understand the topic you are sitting in judgement of. Because someone who did would have immediately recognized Beyond Unreal, that is of course why it's the topmost link. Going back quite a ways in the contribution histories of most of the Delete voters, I do not see any gaming articles contributed to or edited, I just see deletions and admin work. The question is if you only posses a superficial understanding of a topic, how can you effectively determine its notability? --Basique 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing a link to the Frag.Ops page was posted on their forums on June 8th at 12:46 PM, and then at 18:04 PM on June 8th Wickethewok added (afdx) to an article that has been up since March 21st, in fact it is the very first action he takes that day. So if he just rediscovered the article on June 8th, where exactly did he rediscover it? --Basique 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we're judging its verifiability. Reliable sources must be independent. Unreal's own websites don't qualify. RGTraynor 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Basique is accusing me of, but the thing that prompted me to nominate it was that someone edited it on June 8 popping it to the top of my watchlist. I still had this watchlisted still from when it was deleted a few months ago and hadn't realized until then that it was back in the article space. I saw that the reasons it was deleted last time had not been addressed, as the "news articles" aren't reliable or independent (also, at least one is a press release). Wickethewok 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was watchlisted since the last time it would have also popped up on March 21st. Those news articles are from reliable independent sources. In fact all of you have edited articles a lot more dubious than this and have not nominated them for deletion, I know this because I've gone through all your contributions. This is a solid article I built it that way, and I put in the references to back that up. So what I think now is that I need to bring this issue to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Basique 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find other articles that are impossible to source/are junk/etc, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but that doesn't really have to do with this AFD. This AFD is already listed at WP:CVG#Deletion, so I assume that Wikiproject CVG already knows. FYI, since the article was in your userspace until March 30, my watchlist wouldn't have shown any of the edits made before you moved it to the deleted article's location. Wickethewok 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Basique. IP198 14:40, 15 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. Sr 13 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carter (music producer)[edit]

Delete.Non-notable. Vanity page. No references except those created by subject on myspace. Smerus 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. The lead hits being the Wiki article and his Myspace page, the notability Kiss of Death. RGTraynor 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number 9 in the melodic MP3 trance charts!? What the...??? Yechiel Man 07:05, 10 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 but move. Whatever this is, it isn't a bio article on the Judge. I am persuaded by the keepers that there are enough secondary sources for a notable article. However, there is sufficient precedent that such articles should be based on the event not the person. Disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Madeleine McCann is a case in point. The new article, obviously, concentrates too much on the Judge but I am now looking to the keepers, and other interested editors, to sort the article out or else I suspect we could be here again. TerriersFan 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Parrott[edit]

Article about a judge that made a controversial decision. The judge himself is non-notable and both provided sources concern the controversial case rather then judge. One could argue for an article about the case (although I would not) but an article about the judge cannot be justified. In addition, this article has been listed at the BLP noticeboard here. CIreland 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article in current form per nom. Possibly write about the case (if you can find a few more reliable sources), but not the judge deciding it. Very few exceptions (John Sirica comes immediately to mind.)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The case itself only returns 8 unique hits [8], although charmingly, one from morons.org. The judge, however, returns many more hits, a number from reliable news sources. It isn't a strong one, but it certainly passes WP:V. The thing is, this case isn't just A Random Case where there was, as there always is, some judge who passed judgment. The case revolves around the alleged bias and misjudgment of the judge himself, and its notability revolves around the judge rather than the citation line of the case itself. RGTraynor 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and is there an agenda for having this article? Thanks! --Tom 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national news interest in the case. In this particular article, the importance is primarily the conduct of the judge, and the article is appropriate in his name. The material presented is factual.That readers may draw negative conclusions about the person is not a fault of the article or of WP. BLP prohibits only unsourced negative information. DGG 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists three independent sources. Over 600 ghits for "John Lee Parrott"+lesbian. I don't see the problem here. ~ Infrangible 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and RGTraynor , BUT . . . from what I recall of this case, the article is not really written in an NPOV manner. As I recall, there was a little more to his ruling than "I don't want you to have the kid cuz your a lesbian". I forget the details just now but I recall that 1) he was applying a strict interpretation of the state law against same sex marriages that, in his view, somehow also extended to adoptions and 2) he argued that the adoption petition had come to the court fraudulently since the woman applied as being "single" even though she had been in a live-in committed relationship with her partner for several years. Personally, I do not sympathize with these arguments. In fact, one could even argue that the two arguments are mutually contradictory. If the same sex marriage ban is that holy, then she was just being mindful of that law in stating herself to be "single". But still, the point is the article needs to be much more comprehensive about all of that in order to reach NPOV status. I don't have time to work on it right now, but I may get to over the weekend if no one beats me to it. Mwelch 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete So Wikipedia is devolving to a point where people who disagree with any judge's ruling will simply post a hit piece on them here. This case has not gone to any higher judicial body, and did not set any type of precedent that will affect future rulings. I had a traffic ticket a few months ago, maybe I need to create an article for the police officer and the city solicitor. This is a BLP, and the rules clearly state that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a single event does not give a person notoriety. Dougdeal 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you call posting information published in many dozens of reliable sources "devolving," then you're probably right. BLP, however, does not mean "we can't say anything negative about a living person." We are absolutely free to quote reliable sources to that end. As it happens, the article's been massively rewritten to sound quite sympathetic towards Parrott; calling it a "hit piece" is grossly inaccurate, unless you mean that it now slams the lesbian mother hard, an assessment with which I'd agree. RGTraynor 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed since I last read it, and no longer has the biased point of view of the original poster, however I am still against it because it is not an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrott, it is a news story about the incident with Emily Rose and Ms. Hadaway. What was John Lee Parrot's law school? What was his undergraduate degree? What year was he born? What is his judicial philosophy? What, other than this ONE case, has Judge Parrott presided over? How old is he? What was the margin of victory of his last election? When was his last election? These are questions that one would find an answer to in an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrot.Dougdeal 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dougdeal. A well cited article on the incident could be OK, but this one is ostensibly an article on the judge, and isn't close to that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now. Doug makes a good point but all those matters could be easily added in. It may however make more sense to merge this to an article about the incident. JoshuaZ 17:16, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Passantino (2nd nomination)[edit]

Vanity, vandalism, nonsense Yaoichan 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Vandalism isn't a valid reason for deletion, especially when the nominator is one of the people doing it. Phony Saint 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Phew, that's the first time I see someone adding questionable content and then directly sending the article to AfD... For the article as such: Certainly it needs improvement - no secondary sources, and that alone makes notability questionable by WP:BIO. But given the circumstances: Give it time to improve, reconsider it later. --B. Wolterding 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sending to afd looks like a hatchet job to me. Capmango 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speedy keep in this instance due to obvious bad faith nomination. Questionable is quite an understatement to describe the content added. DGG 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note" The only contribs. of the nominator have been this nomination & the vandalism to the article concerned. DGG 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may indeed be that this is a bad-faith AfD nomination, but even so the article fails on its own merits to convince of notability. This guy's a webzine editor with only a few lengthy articles under his belt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Dom writes for the Guardian. Jonathan Williams 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's written exactly six pieces for the Guardian, none more recent than last September, most of which are very short, in fact only one of which is longer than a one-paragraph review (and that barely). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Bartleby 08:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Jonathan Williams 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jbmurray. Obviously a bad-faith nom, but where is the notability? —David Eppstein 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Petersen (talk • contribs) — George Petersen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep; the notability is for senior position of notable webzine and history of writing for other notable publications. John Vandenberg 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C'mon. He's in 9th spot on Stylus magazine's stafflist. None of the eight above him have WP entries. Why should he? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If everyone who ever tackled a music review or was on an unpaid list of 'staff' on a webzine were listed it would surely make a mockery of notability. User:Trebuchet 13 June 2007.

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bathtime in Clerkenwell[edit]

As much as I love the animation, it's not notable under the criteria for Notability. Ixistant 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete per nom. Yechiel Man 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, showing at 1 film festival not enough to establish notability. NawlinWiki 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:34, 9 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. Sr 13 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of counterculture films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Renominating List of counterculture films for deletion as original research with apparently little hope for correction. In the original afd, which ended as No Consensus, the feeling was apparently that the article might be salvagable if the definition of what a "counterculture film" is could be tightened up with appropriate references. However that has not occured, and in fact the list appears to simply be a hodge podge of films that individual editors feel in their opinion are "counterculture". No verification is given to justify the classification of anything on the list, or even to justify that the term counterculture itself can be objectively defined. Since there seems to be no hope of bringing this list out of what is clearly original editor opinion status, delete. Dugwiki 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what's to define if one film fits that and another doesn't. Edit war bait as well. Whs itc hy 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning I used last time - the criteria for inclusion are too vague and subjective. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "counterculture film" appears to be neologism, not landing a strong number of results with Google. The article for counterculture does not address counterculture in entertainment, but more societal topics, so the term seems even less appropriate than cult film. It would seem to be synthesis to take a reference that explains how the film contests society and tie it into the term of "counterculture film". List of cult films was similarly deleted for being highly interpretative, and I believe the arguments there also apply here even more strongly, especially with the term's lack of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the list is totally without focus. --Rumblegoose 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's just a list, with one vague opening sentence. Also because counterculture is too hard to define. Could potentially be useful if there were info on each film about what made it counterculture, etc, but not worth trying to move it in that direction. Capmango 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that many of these films are notable counterculture films, especially those from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of these films are notable in this quality and could be sourced with some work. This topic is dreadfully under-represented (read: missing) in the Counterculture of the 1960s article and needs a section there. Films like Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces are still studied today for their impact on the culture of their time and their representation of the 1960s counterculture. If you look at the discussion, you will see that it was created as a list for 1960s counterculture films, but due to poor naming, it turned into a general list for anything deemed countercultural. It needs focus and possible renaming. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, the proof has to be in the pudding. You might believe that these films can be reliably verified as having "counterculture status", but the fact is that despite multiple requests for that verification over a period of months and a previous afd no such sources have been provided. Secondly, we are not saying here that the general subject of counterculture films isn't a valid one for an article. Just that a comprehensive objective list of counterculture films probably isn't valid. It's one thing to provide Easy Rider as an example of a counterculture film in the article Counterculture, but it's another thing to try and construct from scratch a list of all films that might be considered counterculture films by various people. Dugwiki 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reason Zepheus mentioned. All the more I found this article to be very interesting and would be disapointed not finding it. Without this list I wouldn't know in what genre to place a certain movie. 19:44, 9 June 2007 (GMT, Bangkok) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.155.1.253 (talk • contribs)

And to reply, we're not saying the list isn't "interesting". The complaint is that it's apparently not verifiable or objective and almost exclusively consists of original research. Just because an article is interesting reading doesn't mean it should be kept. Dugwiki 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for well sourced recreation, I don't have a problem with this list just with how there are no sources. I don't think a source needs to use exactly "counterculture" but something that suggests a similar idea. If this were sourced like "films considered greatest..." list then it could be fine. gren グレン 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete counter whose culture? POV is inherent in the selection. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 11 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. Though there are a lot of keep votes, many are by single purpose accounts. Delete votes were more persuasive. — Ocatecir ^T 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFOL[edit]

Only mentions I found came from BrickWiki and WP mirror sites. Seems to be an neologism only in use with die hard Lego fans and current/former Lego Co. employees. mcr616 _Speak! 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? A few mentions of online communities is not enough to build a house of legos. (Delete.) Yechiel Man 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DTUN (Delete This Unimportant Neologism) Guy (Help!) 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a NEO-logism, as it's been in use for at least 12 years. But it's not really a notable term outside the LEGO community, you'll get blank looks from the mundanes if you use with them. BrickWiki's article (AFOL) does a fine enough job of defining it, although that article could stand updating from this one before this one goes, should that be the outcome (ping me, I'll do it if no one else does). There may be sections of this article as well that are worth transferring elsewhere (perhaps to the main LEGO article, or to articles about fannish activities) but it won't be a great loss if it's deleted. And I speak as a diehard fan. Weak Keep as more notable than most neologisms. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable neologism within tiny field, no reason for an article. DreamGuy 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Find the appropriate bibliography, and include all human knowledge, if properly referenced. --Chr.K. 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't think a bibliography would apply here. Also, it's hard to reference something that only comes up on fan sites and WP mirrors. mcr616 _Speak! 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a file of some kind for adults who are extremely interested in, for want of a better term, "LEGO art." I recently saw a Yahoo piece on the subject of one, actually. If this specific page has to be deleted, make sure to save all the information in a more appropriate article, such as on LEGOs themselves, or on the artistic use of the blocks; when referencing the group in the LEGO page, give the references that speak of it...even if it is just "fan sites," as it is basically impossible that they're lying about such a group existing. --Chr.K. 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the group exists, it's a question of whether or not we can back the information up with neutral, reputable sources. A fan site, by definition, wouldn't be neutral, and would probably not be very reputable either. mcr616 _Speak! 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this very important? Even though Wikipedia is not paper, this isn't encyclopedic enough. Delete. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: A few editors in this AfD have limited amount of edits, suggesting that there may be canvassing/sockpuppeting at work. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know that this is not a case of sockpuppeteering, although I'm not going to comment on canvassing (none by me though). Sockpuppet is an interesting analogy with this case. In this use it is a word that has a fairly limited user group and I have never come across it outside of (internet) conversations.Talltim 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this acronym has a limited sphere of use, surely this means that that people are less likely to know what it means and so need to look it up if they come across it? Talltim 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 1,000's of AFOLs all around the world, it is a common term used by LEGO enthusiasts, and this article should stay. Duxford 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — Duxford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep How many AFOLs would it need for you guys thinking it is worth keeping? I agree AFOL is a neologism and it only refers to a somewhat small group of people, but so does Trekkie. All arguments for deleting AFOL would also apply for Trekkie. Also AFOL does not only refer to an online community, there are large, international AFOL events (mainly in Europe and North America) with thousands of visitors every year. (I am somewhat biased, since I would consider myself an AFOL.) ckruetze 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is meant to be a source where you can find information and meanings of words, acronyms, abbreviations and many more topics we normally have no or little idea of their meaning. Therefore, we need a place to search for these things using platforms such as Wikipedia to find out more. Deleting anything where information (particularly correct information) is provided to acknowledge and share the meaning/s and let others know what something in particular actually means, is not the wisest of ideas and Wikipedia loses its very purpose when this happens. I am what I consider to be an AFOL; I am an (female) Adult fan of LEGO. You cannot change that nor can you change the fact that there are thousands of AFOLs all on the same planet. Please do not delete the term, people who do not understand or know what an AFOL is, need a place such as Wikipedia to find out what it really stands for and means.LegoM 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — LegoM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Yes, there may be thousands of AFOLs, I don't doubt that. But I doubt that for most of the world, they will ever come across the term AFOL in everyday conversation. Most people's lives don't revolve around a children's toy. Thousands of members isn't enough when there is no press coverage from a neutral, 3rd party source. I am in the MCRmy, the street team for My Chemical Romance. There are around 68,000 and probably more, people in the Rmy. We have meet up's (which would be your conventions), large groups of us go to concerts and hand out promo, and we have many MCRmy related events in our local areas. But do I think we need a Wikipedia article? No. The simple answer is that the Rmy, and your group as well, isn't notable enough to attract press coverage. Therefore, there are no 3rd party neutral sources. If it can't be verified by a reputable 3rd party source, then it doesn't really have a place in Wikipedia. If the article is kept, it should be trans-wikied to Wikitionary. mcr616 _Speak! 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. To my mind an article on MCRmy would be an interesting and useful article to include on wiki. However I can see reasons to transfer to Wikitionary Talltim 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFOL does not refer to members of a specific organisation, but is a generic term for adults who enjoy Lego. While there may be a relatively small number of individuals who describe themselves as AFOLs, the number is growing, and it is likely to be only a matter of time before the term is used in mainstream media, and when it does, people will want to look it up to find out what it means.Lostcarpark 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — Lostcarpark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It may be a little used term outside the group it applies to, but it IS used and becoming more common. I see absolutely no reason to delete this. --Dean Earley 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let everyone know, canvassing for votes is frowned upon. mcr616 _Speak! 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the deletion of pages even discussed if 4 people can outvote 7 other people??? Nobody should be able to classify somebody else's work as inimportant or nonnotable neologism. In my opinion, if one other person in the world might be interested in the article, it should stay. Thomas Mueller

Is that a policy or just 'etiquette'? It seems to me that relying on people to stumble upon an article is just going to bias it to people who spend a lot of time meta-wikiing. Timgould 21:35, 15 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. Sr 13 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providence College Special Guest[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). No claim to notability, much less a sourced claim. All external links are to content created by the group itself. Article is primarily a vanity listing of current members and self-released albums. Savidan 16:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete group w/ no notability presented. Not a chance in heck of passing WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have to agree on this one. Looks like posted in good faith, but no chance it meets WP:MUSIC. Capmango 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:32, 9 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 merge and delete. — Ocatecir ^T 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arch sing[edit]

No sources given to establish that this is a notable form of performance. Term is unlikely to recieve anything but a trivial mention in published sources, and thus the article will always be based off heresay and original research. Savidan 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a term primarily used at Princeton University (and perhaps a few other schools in the Ivy League), which renders it too special-purpose for a Wikipedia article at this time. I was going to suggest merging it to Princeton_University#Traditions, but it looks like it's already there. JavaTenor 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Merge Based on evidence presented below, I'm going to instead recommend merging a subset of this article to a section of collegiate a cappella. I don't think we have the sources necessary to support an entire article on this phenomenon at this point, but the term's usage does appear to be more widespread than I had first believed. JavaTenor 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of evidence that Arch Sing is a well-understood event at Brown, Cornell, Duke, and non-collegiate venues as well. No reason to delete this article. Capmango 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide us with some of the evidence you mention, that would be helpful in judging the merits of this article. JavaTenor 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here. I'm not saying these would make great sources for the article, but lots of pages that talk about past or upcoming Arch Sing events that do not seem to find it necessary to explain what an arch sing is, evidence that it is already well understood (mind you, I'm from Arizona so this was all new to me): Capmango 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Cornell: [9]
At Brown: [10]
At Duke: [11]
At Bryn Mawr: [12]

Keep per Capmango. Within its genre the term is quite notable. Here is a reference from Washington University in Saint Louis, and here is another from Smith, in case you need even more evidence of its widespread use. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, here's "arch sing" defined in the published-in-paper-in-the-real-world college guide College Prowler. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last reference would be enough for a Wiktionary entry, but all of the links provided—taken together do not back up any of the statements in the current article, except to define Arch Sing as singing under an arch. If "merging" this article into another entails anything more than that definition, then all we are doing is moving unsourced original research from one article to another. Savidan 02:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Collegiate a cappella and redirect. Stub article is too close to a dictionary definition and a neologism, and unlikely to get much expansion unless it becomes a nationwide trend, but still it is an interesting phenomenon. Redirect to allow future surfers and searchers to find it, since it is credible that new college freshmen at one of the participating universities might be inclined to look for more information if it appeared, say, on a bulletin board or announcements page. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 19:04, 15 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teargas Ginn[edit]

non-notable group, no assertion of notability, no sources. Recreation of previously speedied content. tomasz. 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow, Myspace all over the Google results... all 65 of them. Fails musician notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing of notability from reliable independent sources. Adding lead singer Greg Stanina to this nomination. NawlinWiki 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band article and Greg Stanina article also, per above reasoning. DreamGuy 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also album Martyred, Misconstrued. tomasz. 20:57, 11 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) 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Openshaw Internet statements[edit]

A British judge in a not-so-bright moment made a remark that implied he didn't understand the internet. The press laughed at him for a few days. Notable? Well, yes it deserves a line in his biography, which it has, but what the blazing hell is the point in an article which simply records the press laughing and what they said. Trivial, unimportant, and serves only to humiliate a man for a silly remark. No, I'm not advocating we censor it, we've recorded it in a sentence in his bio and that's enough. -Doc^g 15:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cited, relevant and too bulky for the main article. Pedro | Chat 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: Too bulky for the main article?? The main article is five sentences long, including a precis of this incident. There's nowhere remotely enough content to warrant a separate article for this fellow's bon mot. RGTraynor 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of funny quotations. An encyclopedia does not need to have a separate article about every silly thing every public official ever said which got reported in the news. If there were an article like "The internet in popular culture" this could be merged to it, but I couldn't find one. Ted Stevens comment about it being a bunch of tubes could go there too. Delete per WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "...The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hmm, I'm not sure that Peter Openshaw merits an article, but given the shortness of the one he has now, if he does, this can easily be merged with it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. A long dialogue on one passing remark would unbalance that article. It is already briefly mentioned there.--Doc^g 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to modify the extent of the merge if you feel it's appropriate. Or add more content actually about this person. I think a short line is actually more misleading than giving things in a broader context, but then, I'm not even sure he should have an article. If he does though, then the contents of it are an editing question not best answered on AFD. In fact, that seems to be the problem here, rather than this article being a problem, it's a content issue. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I nominated it as I wish this article deleted. The 'line' in the bio currently is fine.--Doc^g 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be slightly more convinced of that if it weren't for the fact that this article was apparently created as a result of discussion that lead to splitting. Now the splitting is being opposed. But you still accept coverage of the incident as valid. Sorry, but you're in the wrong place. This is a editing dispute. The question here is not whether or not this subject should be covered, but how and where. That's not a deletion question. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me a liar please. I've explained my motives - they are as I have said. If you're not willing to assume good faith thatis not my problem. I've taken no part in any content dispute on another article - so please do your homework before assuming bad faith and patronising me.--Doc^g 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said you were a liar? You can be wrong without being intentionally deceitful. I think you're mistaken in your actions, and choosing the wrong method to resolve this concern. If this offends you, I am sorry if it was because I wrote things in a manner which was unclear, but adopting an increasingly hostile attitude on your part isn't going to be persuasive either. Rather the opposite. I think you've chosen the wrong method to resolve this dispute. Nothing more. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overreacted. Bad day - no excuse. But I explained my motives and you appeared to imply you were 'unconvinced' - and that I was in an 'editing dispute,' which I am not. I am here because I wish this article deleted, as simple as that. I'm not (and never have been) in an editing dispute, because I am content with the content of the other article. I really can't understand your point, this is a deletion debate - I nominated the article for deletion.--Doc^g 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accept that this information can be covered on the judge's individual page. Thus the question is not whether or not this subject is notable, but the extent of the coverage. Since this article doesn't have any false information, there is no reason to delete. Settle this with a discussion as to the content of the judge's article. You may be satisfied with the content of it as now. But many comments in this discussion indicate others do not feel the same. I certainly don't. It's not fine, and if anything, it's lacking in needed substance and context. If you don't agree, well, that's fine, but AFD is not the place to do it. Try WP:DR instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Afd IS precisely the place for me to ask for this ridiculous article to be deleted. You are of course entitled to disagree with the desire to delete it. So, we have a deletion debate, which is what we are doing.--Doc^g 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ridiculous about this article. It's sourced, it's reasonably well-written, and it's not about something of minor importance. There are many ridiculous articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted, but when you even accept that basis for the content is reasonable to include on the person's page, well, I don't see a good case for it being ridiculous. Again, I think it would be better if perhaps you might consider a different method to get the level of coverage to be appropriate than AFD. Otherwise people will just add the content to the original page and you're back where you started. Not what I'd call effective at resolving the dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree about this article. But I can't think of a better way for me to ask for it to be deleted than afd. Let's wait and see if others agree. I'm happy to make my case and abide by consensus here.--Doc^g 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several ways to deal with this issue, such as engaging in a discussion on the talk page, and working on developing consensus for the level of coverage on the main article that everybody agrees with. It does seem that most folks agree that covering this on the person's article is appropriate, but the only concern is balance. Well, my suggested solution is to find more things to write about the judge. Surely there's something more to be said about him? If not, maybe his entire article ought to be deleted. I'm not at all convinced every judge who makes the news once or twice should have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is highly unlikely there will be more information about some random judge. If you want to nominate that for deletion, you'll have my support.--Doc^g 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no immediate desire to do so, given that a discussion was just recently closed and this related discussion is ongoing. Perhaps at some later date if no sources for other information can be found as to his notability. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument was made on the Openshaw article that we should write articles on the notable quote, not the person who made it. Splitting it off was an attempt to make it good with WP:BLP. While he may very well be notable enough for his own article, if we merge this back in, it dominates the whole article and obscures whatever other notability he has (for example, being part of the first husband and wife to be sworn in as High Court Justices on the same day).--SarekOfVulcan 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Why do we need more than a two sentence mention of this? How is are the details of what case he said this in, and in what context relevant? This is just something the media picked up on as an example of Judges being out of touch. Delete this - mention it in his article (as we do) - perhaps mention it in passing in a criticism section on the British Judiciary, or as an example on Internet ignorance - but other than as a passing remark in his bio - or an example elsewhere, the incident is not noteworthy. {{WP:NOT]] a newspaper.--Doc^g 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap. This is not a series of tubes, we have plenty pf material to draw on if we want to write an article on satirical stereotypes of British judges' lack of appreciation of popular culture ("a popular beat combo, m'lud") but this is just a hatchet job. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though Guy beat me to the punchline :/ Nothing here that isn't already in the bio, redundant and nothing more here worth merging. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. It's possible that some of the references could be smerged into the article on the judge, but then again, this is material comprised on "silly season" newspaper articles. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Cornea 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO #10. Deor 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into his article, then expand it so it doesn't seem like such an attack page. Google News shows the story to have been carried in a jaw-dropping 98(!!) news outlets worldwide, and a further search of the archives shows he's been involved with a number of major newsworthy cases in the past, so a decent article on him without undue weight on one dumb statement should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the worst possible outcome - the incident is covered already in the bio and one comment a man made once in his life does not deserve any more mention that that. The rest is media silliness.--Doc^g 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't encyclopedia content. Capmango 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Given that this is nicely sourced, the obvious solution is to merge, because the incident is not covered adequately in the bio. If not possible then Keep. --JJay 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of the larger issue of internet governance and the belief of many that people in power lack sufficient knowledge about the internet to govern it well. Wikipedia works by the incremental addition of sourceable neutral information, which is what the contents of this article are. It is not good for wikipedia to demand that all additions should be finished polished articles or even that they be given the best possible title at first. This information should be kept. It may be best to merge it someday with another article as mentioned by some here; maybe even an article unwritten as yet. Deleting unbiased sourced information on a topic of public importance, even though it only touches on that issue in its last paragraph, is unwarrented. Let wikipedia continue to grow in increments. Deleting the increments by which wikipedia grows hurts wikipedia. WAS 4.250 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this too ridiculously minor to deserve a stand-alone article, it's probably too ridiculously minor to appear in the man's biography. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on the archived WP:NOTNEWS talkpage. It fails the "lasting historical significance" test I use for news events. It does not belong in an encyclopedia, which exists to document things of lasting historical importance. Put the quotes on Wikiquote if they're not there already. Hardly seems to merit a mention on the main bio page either (for me at least). Zun aid ©® 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These remakrs have absolutely no historical significance and do not deserve a page here. Indrian 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially a quoation farm. Maybe it would be better off at wikiquote. -- Whpq 17:14, 12 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 of recreation (avoid salting). Article as it stood offered nothing I could apply WP:MUSIC to. — Ocatecir ^T 01:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick DeMeyer[edit]

This was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer but has been subject to numerous speedy deletions and recreations. Two of the references are broken but, in any case, I still don't see significant secondary sources so Delete view. Bridgeplayer 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Patrick de Mayer was a member of of Technotronic, one of the biggest techno bands of the late 80's early 90's and a pioneer of techno music. He has also been a member of several other notable bands and is a notable composer and has scored the soundtrack to at least one film. Just because the article has been deleted before for not being up to standard does not automatically classify it for deletion as Patrick de Mayer does pass notability. (Note it was restored by the deleting admin). I really don't see your point Bridgeplayer? I think you are just being facitious.128.40.76.3 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the references support these claims. For example note 3, that claims to support the Technotronic membership is broken. Bridgeplayer 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt the Earth: Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Since this has been recreated twice already, it seems like salting is needful. RGTraynor 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that all the links don't work is problematic, but if we assume good faith the guy looks notable to me. I'd like to see a birthdate included, there may be more than one Patrick DeMayer. Capmango 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not that experienced around here but my understanding is that we can't keep an article by assuming good faith but that it is a question that we need reliable sources to substantiate the claims in the article. Bridgeplayer 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is dead on accurate. We take no article on just plain good faith. Reliable sources and verification, yes. RGTraynor 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply sigh. I'll try to clarify what I thought was clear from the context of my remarks: I was not saying we take it on faith that the man is notable. The problem is that the links in this aritcle that would establish notability are broken. I was saying we should assume good faith that those links are not bogus, but rather outdated or mistyped, and we should allow the author a chance to correct the links, rather than just assuming the links must be bogus and deleting the article. Capmango 22:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the 2 bad links.[13] The only problem was that they contained the pipe that should only be in internal wikilinks. PrimeHunter 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it already has been deleted (twice, even). Bring it up on WP:DRV if something new can be found. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a bit of history... it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer, then went through DRV where JzG (talk · contribs) pointed out that the article was missing citations. It was recreated at Patrick DeMeyer with citations. I speedy deleted this as a recreation after it was tagged as such. After a conversation with the creator, it appeared that there was an assertion per WP:MUSIC of meeting the first criteria for composers, sourced to Allmusic.com. Thus I restored the article because speedy deletion was not a valid option in this case. I have no opinion on retention or deletion, but deleting again simply because this is a recreation probably is not a valid rationale. Deletion or retention should be based solely on the determination whether this meets WP:MUSIC and whether or not the assertions of meeting the criteria are adequately sourced.--Isotope23 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm struggling to see where this person passes WP:MUSIC or, for that matter, WP:N. Simply does not appear to be notable. The odd trivial mention, but that's it. Moreschi ^Talk 18:36, 15 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 per WP:SNOW if nothing else. The sources are (barely) enough, and poor quality of writing does not justify deletion. Non-admin closure, permitted because of an uncontroversial result. Yechiel Man 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Ride[edit]

unsourced, can't see anything that makes it notable in the first few lines (which an article should), poorly written Will ^(talk) 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems reasonably notable to me. Does need to be cleaned up and referenced though. cornis 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's 29,000 solid hits on this, with a lot of links to news outlets. The article does need to be properly sourced, but the sources are out there. RGTraynor 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is certainly notable. Queerudite 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Queerudite. 80.41.34.146
Speedy Keep per above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notobility is clearly seen in independent news sources returned upon a such of the topic. The article just needs to have good references added (and accuracy may need work: the article makes it look as if it was first held in spring of 2006, but this Washington Blade article is dated 28 Oct. 2005). Aleta 05:46, 11 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. There may be some merit in the suggestion that underneath the flim-flam lies the nub of a notable subject, but this article will not be of any obvious help in compiling that. Opinion here is pretty clear: the article as written is advancing an agenda and fails to credibly establish the encyclopaedic merit of this term as described. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic seduction[edit]

Unencyclopedic topic (edit), meaning that it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:NOT#OR (end edit); no verifiable references, attracts spamming. Seems to be a made-up concept. Joie de Vivre 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highly dubious about this article. Nothing on Scholar, and the rest of Google shows a whole lot of spamvertising for dodgy books published by equally dodgy publishers. There doesn't appear to be much out there that could actually be used as a reliable source (certainly there are no sources now). I could be wrong, but until proven otherwise delete as unverifiable/unverified. Apart from which, a term made up only in 1999 does not exactly have a natural hold on notability. Moreschi ^Talk 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Umm... yeah... don't really know what to say about that... title really says it all. cornis 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation. Not sure what "reliable sources" means when it comes to magical subjects; for our purposes I think we'd have to call a source reliable if it reliably reports what magical practitioners believe and do. A worthwhile article might be written on the subject - there's an anecdote told in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley that comes to mind, though it's been aeons since I've read that - and as such any deletion should be without prejudice to writing a better one. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term doesn't refer to traditional love potions etc and is utterly separate from Asian concepts such as talisman or wider spread fertility beliefs. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources to show there is such a magic phenomenon. That said, the articles on Flirting and Seduction do not adequately address the importance of having confidence or a positive mental attitude, which this term also addresses on some websites, such as "Psychic Seduction Tips" By Jay Ashley at EzineArticles.com , which is for some reason blacklisted by Wikipedia. Edison 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is the thing: apparently this is not a paranormal concept. There are a few people out there (see Google) marketing this as though you can use this as a genuine technique to persuade members of the gentler sex to divest themselves of their underclothing and hop into bed with you. The problem is that their dubious marketing does not confer encyclopedic notability. Some sort of scholarly, published research would, but there doesn't seem to be any of that. Moreschi ^Talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly research in this field does exist, but it doesn't use this term. The term is pure pop culture. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Magic for sexual or romantic purposes has been a prime use of purported magical techniques, documented for literally millenia. We dont seem to have an article, and probably we should, but , this wouldn't be the title, and there is nothing here which would contribute to a possible article, as there are no sources whatsoever. DGG 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And how... is this topic scientific? Joie de Vivre

Psychology is a science, isn't it? - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, psychology is a science. This is not science. Joie de Vivre 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you get a psychic STD from this kind of thing? ~ Infrangible 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you can clear it up with antipsychotics. Joie de Vivre 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it's very hard to clear up some, like herpes cortex. So don't forget to wear a proper condom. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a real and current pop culture concept tagging along on the coattails of interest in ESP, "think yourself to a better lifestyle" teachings, and new age philosophies (even though it goes against the ideology of the latter). As a subculture element, it's lack of support by the mainstream, and lack of coverage by the mainstream, is 100% irrelevant. - perfectblue 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Unencyclopedic topic", it is a verifiable term that has a history and a presence in popular culture/subculture. By definition this makes it viable topic for an encyclopedia entry. "no verifiable references". Not so. For example Sexual Psychic Seduction;; ISBN 0976386224. "attracts spamming", So does George W. Bush and various pages on sexual techniques, but those pages is still here. "Seems to be a made-up concept" It was made up by a third party, which is what counts. - perfectblue 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does a few people mentioning this term in their self-published books constitute encyclopedic notability? It may well be a real term used by a couple of people. I just don't think it's notable on an encyclopedic level. Wiktionary may want it as a (dubious) dicdef, but I don't think we do. Moreschi ^Talk 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, "no verifiable references" does not mean that none exist, it means that none were provided in the article. Normally I would try to improve it myself before nominating, but I wasn't about to wade through more websites that try to launch malicious software (see Talk:Psychic seduction) in order to find references. Joie de Vivre 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few people mentioning something in a few books is sufficient to WP:V a term as being real, the number of people talking about it on message boards and at self help seminars is enough to make it notable. I should mention that "Unencyclopedic" and WP:Notability are different concepts. Unencyclopedic means that the basic topic is unsuitable for inclusion because it has no encyclopedic merit, while notability means that something is not important enough for inclusion. For example, a page discussing a magazine that has yet to be published but is donating all of its profits to a worthy cause would be notable but unencyclopedic (Wikipedia does not base entries on forecasts of the future), whereas a published magazine with only 100 subscribers would be encyclopedic but not notable - perfectblue 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Notability is not determind by jabber on messsage boards. Notability is determined by this: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Moreschi ^Talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. yes. You can take your quote over to any article about science, society or history and it will stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn't wash with popular culture. Like it or not, popular culture exists independently of the mainstream media, of logic, and of science. A pop culture phenomona can sweep through a generation and hardly even be recorded in mainstream sources. In order to judge it's popularity or notability you need to look at its base and its roots.

For example, you can have a music genre that is taking every top club in the country by storm, yet isn't even mentioned in the mainstream music press. perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, definitely no. At least, that's not what the rules for notability say. If you wish to change them, good luck. Moreschi ^Talk 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, this article fails to assert the subject's notability, so it may be deleted. Joie de Vivre 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall disagreeing with that. What it do disagree with is that the topic is unencyclopedic and that it can't be verified. - perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the reason I gave may have been unclear to some readers. See slight clarification in nomination. Joie de Vivre 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my brainwaves are signaling to do so. RFerreira 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content The article and the subject have been confused here. The subject is almost certainly notable, though better known as "love magic", for which there's at least a 2 millennium documented history going back to Roman era magic charms--there is a WP article as Binding spell which could be renamed and expanded. There's an immense amount from other cultures, & some might be hidden somewhere in WP as well. I could do the rename and start the expand. Modern content can then be added; there isn't actually any content in the present article to merge--there is considerably. more in this discussion, but calling it a merge sounds right. DGG 03:34, 14 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. — Ocatecir ^T 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light (song)[edit]

These Beyonce articles are like weeds. This one's back again, and the only reference that it will be a single is a rumor at a forum. Disputed prod. ShadowHalo 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So use your editing tools and fix it, like you did the last time and the time before. Don't forget this this time around. AFD and an administrator using a delete button are not required here, as you yourself have demonstrated. Uncle G 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for the AfD is for the whole slew of articles, though I forgot to include that. Either Green Light or Greenlight or Green light should be the disambiguation page, and Green Light (song) should probably be deleted. Whatever the disambiguation page becomes should then link to B'Day. ShadowHalo 23:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How about now? The article is at Green Light (song) now, where it should have been all along. The redirects point back to the proper Greenlight page. DarkAudit 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It will be rewritten in two months anyway, but what the heck - WP:CRYSTAL. Yechiel Man 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:24, 9 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. — Ocatecir ^T 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Steinbrueck[edit]

NN bio. Prod was removed by anon with the comment "you can verify biographic details and check license status very easily. Agree he is unimportant though" so I'm not even sure the annon disagrees with the idea that the subject fails WP:BIO. Also, there has been an ongoing WP:BLP issue with the article and a WP:OTRS complaint. A deletion would happily wrap up all the loose ends. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm no longer supporting deletion. I'm not withdrawing since there are still supporters for deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person who's just a member of the City Counsel of a city. That doesn't satisfy inclusion in Wiki w/o any notable works --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass the WP:BIO bar for politicians, BLP/OTRS issues or otherwise. RGTraynor 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Capmango 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prominent councilman of a major city who meets WP:BIO politician criterion #2: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (where the Seattle Times describes him as "one of Seattle's most popular politicians") - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd feel a lot better about those links if they weren't almost all blogs or websites, as opposed to reprints from reliable sources. RGTraynor 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a scanner or a collection of backissues, but represented therein (and a few now on the article page) are The Stranger, the Seattle Times, KUOW, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, not merely blogs, but websites showing articles from major Seattle publications. I would really find it arduous to have to establish for you the notability of those publications to the Seattle area. The argument so far against this article, aside from the unexplained OTRS issue which history suggests has already been resolved, and the BLP issue which is likewise not explained, sounds a lot like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. It'd be ideal for the purposes of well-informed AFD if those two unmentioned issues were mentioned instead of vaguely alluded to. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain any more about the WP:OTRS/WP:BLP issues other then to say that problems have happened previously and there is concern that they will reappear. If that doesn't matter to you then don't take it into consideration. I just threw it out there because it's one of the reasons why this popped up on my radar.

In light if your sources and improvements to the article I'm no longer supporting deletion. However, I would like to say that only about half of the sources you listed are valid in establishing notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable Seattle politician who meets WP:BIO. BLP/OTRS issues can be handled by simply keeping a close watch on the article. JoshuaZ 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:36, 14 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: lack of reliable sources. Moreschi ^Talk 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diggory Press[edit]

Marketing promotional piece. Doesn't seem to have much if any independent coverage and hence doesn't seem notable. Also, the creator of the page (Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs)) appears to be an employee of the organization. Flex (talk/contribs) 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has it's problems with flowery language but I think the topic of the article is "worthy" of an article. The business is associated with a number of authors who are notable in their own rights. (according to the article that is). For now I recommend 'stubbing and not deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the authors you are referring to the long dead ones (John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, etc.)? Their works are in the public domain, many are also available online (e.g., at Project Gutenberg, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, etc.), and many are in print by any number of other (dare I say, more notable?) publishers (e.g., Yale University Press, Banner of Truth Trust, Ligonier Ministries, etc.). Hence, Diggory Press is not unique or notable because of its association with these authors. I would say we need some independent coverage of this org, or at least some reliable stats on its distribution volumes or something. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can see Diggory's worldwide distribution volumes via places like amazon.com. It is notable in that many of the books published are NOT available anywhere including online (although some of course are). Also books published by Banner of Truth and other Christian publishers are not always as available as Diggory Press. Diggory is unique too in that the prices for Jonathan Edwards books etc are considerably lower than the university presses et al (eg 9.99 instead of 99.99 fo theological tomes). It also publishes many other lesser-known authors (over 600 of them which are not available anywhere else), including a book by the member of UK Parliament, Bill Wiggin, it has just included the most famous authors on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalindfranklin (talk • contribs)
    - I mean statistics on how many books you actually sell. As for pricing, having a lower price than, say, Yale's critical editions of Edwards does not seem to me to be a factor for notability, and moreover there are a number of other publishers of many of the same volumes at lower cost than Yale (e.g., [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]), not to mention the two two-volume Works that are available relatively inexpensively ([29] and [30]) or his Works on CD ([31]). So still, you don't seem to have a unique relation to any of the older Christian authors that would establish notability. Moreover, publishing any number of lesser-known authors does not seem to be an argument in favor of notability. Yours seems to me more like a micropublisher — not that that's a bad thing, just that it's not necessarily encyclopedic. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that we produce effectively mass-market editions of (usually) very expensive important and often very hard to find theological books does establish a degree of notability for us as a publishers. That along with the other factors that make us up as a press should be considered. eg - Our imprint Exposure Publishing is the fastest growing UK publisher, with sales around four times more in one single year than other print on demand publishers in their whole lives. That is notable in itself as well as the fact we offer the best royalties in the self publishing industry at the lowest cost. Our sales outstip lulu.com whom you list. We also have several important authors on our books including MPS, charities and a Procol Harem band member and was the first British publisher to publish a book in Punjabi.

The Diggory Press side do publish rare works that you cannot get anywhere else for love nor money, whether in book form, CD or e-format. Furthermore a lot of the Jonathan Edawrds or John Bunyan books have not been available as single editions for many years - and not all Christians wish to purchase their whole collections of their extensive works from Banner of Truth et al who we acknowledge nonetheless, do a great job. We do not just publish dead theologians, but also world war one titles, nursing history books etc that are also important. I cannot obviously disclose exact sales figures but we are a key figure and sell a lot of books each month worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalindfranklin (talk • contribs)

If these things make your company notable, they should appear in the article. But also note that the article should be verifiable, and claims like "fastest growing", "best royalties", "four times more than", etc. should be footnoted with a reliable source. As for rarity, let's take a test case: Which specific books do you publish by Edwards that can't be had elsewhere? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Rosalindfranklin, if you could provide a list of news articles about your business this might help resolve this issue. If the answer is "none" then that helps resolve this too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Jonathan Edwards in concerned, I believe all his work is available online as well as in a complete collection from Banner of Truth Trust. However very few of his works are available in print singularly at any price. If we go by amazon, there are no other editions of 'The Apocalypse and Final Judgment' available, or the highly important works 'The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners' or 'Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God'. Ditto with some of John Bunyan's works. G A Studdert Kennedy, the famous war poet, his book the Unutterable Beauty was completely out of print and not on the net or CD or anywhere else. Ditto with 'Una and Her Paupers' which we paid a fortune for as a rare antique book to scanned to be made available as well as Linda Richards, the famous nurse's pioneers' life story. We have also published other very rare books not available anywhere else. Our books are regularly reviewed in newspaper, magazines or TV and radio. Media events include The Richard and Judy show (2006) and a host of radio shows. In recognition of our success, we were invited to the Galaxy British Book Awards hosted by Richard and Judy Finnegan in London in March 2007.

At least three of our books have been nominated for awards - 2006 Emme Award for Astronautical Literature, The Lulu Blooker Prize 2007 and The Holyer an Gof Trophy 2007.

We were in the Sunday Times on June 3rd 2007, Writers Forum Magazine, March 2007 and Writers Forum Magazine, February 2007 as well as a host of other smaller newspapers and magazines. I am not always aware of all the publicity as I do not have time to look it up. Everything I said is verifiable (eg we have the sale stats in writing from our distrubutors) but I am not sure whether I can get it from 'published sources' easily for you so will therefore remove those 'unverified' to your standards claims. Rosalindfranklin 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources call those two Edwards books "highly important works"? Moreover, if the works are widely available online and in print from multiple publishers, I don't think printing them as stand-alone volumes qualifies as a notable attribute for your company. I can't speak to the books from other areas, but I must admit I'm dubious. The reviews in various outlets and nomination of your books for minor prizes may mean the books themselves have some notability, but I don't see that that notability thereby transfers to the publisher. As for your company's appearance in various media outlets, are any of these substantial (more than a few sentences paragraphs)? The one from the most significant source, The Sunday Times, is naught but a passing mention of you as a self-publishing outlet. Can you provide links or, failing that, scans of the others if they are more substantial? As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interestingly enough, Diggory Press has published a number of books by Ms. Franklin herself. I pulled her up on the UK Amazon, and she's got respectable sales rankings [32], enough to support notability in her own right. Whether her publisher is thereby notable is another matter, and certainly we've a large WP:COI issue here. Right now I'm neutral on the subject. Ravenswing 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pamphlets would be a more appropriate term than books. I would strongly oppose an article on someone publishing such unsubstantial material, if it were based only on amazon sales rank--in fact, i would oppose any article based solely upon amazon sales rank. Back to the press, that amazon lists the material is not relevant a a criterion of notability, for they will list anything if they get their commission--it has about the same evidential value as a listing on eBay. That proper scholarly editions are available at high prices, does not make selling reprints of PD versions at lower prices notable. DGG 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Article looks okay to me, doesn't read like an ad, etc. Author should read WP:CORP and provide references to independent sources writing about the company (press releases don't count). My shallow google search didn't turn up anything promising, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. Capmango 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may look better than my description above because I tried to improve it a bit. Still, I am in favor of its deletion as non-notable. But I'm open to hearing evidence to the contrary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Which reliable sources call those two Edwards books "highly important works"?"

Oh come on, Flex, every protestant theological student knows how important these books are. Don't make me jump through hoops to prove something that is really, really obvious already. They are not in print anywhere else apart from as a complete and volumnous collection of Jonathan Edwards works. Fine if you are studying at Princeton but not for Joe Public. By splitting these books up, not only do we make these more available and affordable, but also we make the public more aware of what he did and did not write and make them more likely to read any of his works. For example, I personally, although interested in theology, would never for leisure buy a complete works of any Christian author, apart from possibly one by James Hudson Taylor, my 'hero'...but then he did not write nearly as much as Bunyan, Owen or Edwards et al. A single edition is a good chance of dipping one's toe in the water to discover whether you like the author or not. A lot of Christians struggle with the idea of eternal damnation, and many are not aware of this book 'The Justice of God etc' because it is hidden in a vast collection with lots of, dare I say, drier material. We have made it readily available and 'out there' for those wishing to research this subject as we have done equally with the apocalypse etc etc. Theology should be more avilable to the 'man on the street'. Anyway, I repeat, that is not the only thing that makes us 'notable', it is just a contributing factor with lots of others. And of course, if you were going to maintain your current argument, then it disqualifies a lot of other publishers listed on Wikipedia.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that, IMHO, you're overstating your case by using the qualifier "highly important". Calvin's Institutes is highly important; Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is highly important; Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is highly important -- their continued appearance in the Western cannon and being continually in print since they were written, their being widely analyzed, studied, and referenced, is evidence enough of this. The same cannot be said of all of Edwards's (or Buynan's or Calvin's or anyone's) other works. They may be highly important in some limited context (e.g., the history of the First Great Awakening, the development of the writer's thought, etc.), but that doesn't make them highly important in general. If you think I am wrong in my assessment of these particular works, provide a reliable source. The burden of proof is on you. But this is all rather secondary to my main point: even if these works were notable, that notability does not automatically transfer to a reprinter of them, particularly when they're widely available in other formats. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia

Do you do this to other publishers too?! Sales figures are rarely published except possibly in places like Publishers Weekly etc by the main players such as Random House and Penguin, and even then you do not get the whole story. As we as a press publish aiming mainly to a niche market we are unlikely ever to make it to rankings page on Publishers Weekly (one day though maybe!), just as Banner of Truth and most other Christian publishers will never make it in there. For example we know a lot of the Samuel Zwemer books will not sell huge amounts (I publish them more as a service than anything else as I have an interest in training and mobiling more Christian missionaries to Islamic countries.) and equally there is not a huge demand for John Owen's books nowadays. However as I feel they should be in print, I make it so. And before you say his collection is already out there, the 16 volume set published by Banner of Truth is US398 dollars on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-John-Owen-Set/dp/0851513921/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3468277-5156716?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181481647&sr=1-1), which let's face it unless you really love Owen you are never going to purchase. However, just because our sales figures do not get onto Publishers Weekly best-seller lists does not make our titles or our sales insignificant. There are lots of other important 'small' to 'medium sized' presses out there equally who keep literature alive whose sales figures are never published. If we all aimed just for the mass-market, then God help us, most classics or academic books would never get published. Here is a link to the Feb. article in Writers Forum, this is not an advert, we do not advertise anywhere as we are too busy as it is - [[33]] I have a scan of a March article in Writers Forum from another author which I do not know how to attach. Both were two to three page articles. I also have a photo of me at the 2007 Galaxy British Book Awards with the soccer player Sir Bobby Charlton who presented one of the awards. I was invited out of only 10 UK publishers (NB the only woman publisher) because of our significant clout in the market place. I have not kept every media article. We were also on Richard and Judy show in 2006 and lots of radio shows which is hard to prove in retrospect. I don't think we should be penalised as being unnoteworthy because we don't have a PR machine feeding out lots of information about us to the press, or collecting all the articles on us that are out there. We are too busy publishing and selling books to bother feeding the media. The only amazon reports you can access (which does not show all our titles but it will do) is for the Diggory Press titles on amazon.com - [[34]] for the Exposure Publishing titles on amazon.com [[35]] and a similar thing can be done on a host of other websites including amazon.co.uk and barnes and noble etc. Note that despite what some think, amazon is not the main player for booksales, we make many more sales to bookshops and libaries.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures aren't a requirement, but they would help substantiate that Diggory is a significant player in the marketplace. If that's not true or can't be substantiated, Diggory could still be notable for some other reason. In any case, all claims to notability must be verifiable from reliable sources. Please see your target at WP:CORP#Primary_criterion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published material kept in real libraries[36]; it certainly doesnt hurt to keep a record of the publishers. John Vandenberg 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you're employing Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_doesn't_do_any_harm, which is generally not an acceptable argument. I'm proposing deletion on grounds of the notability guidelines in WP:CORP. What say you about that specific complaint? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, CORP is insufficient for companies whose legacy will continue after the company dies. CORP is intended to keep companies of little lasting value out of the encyclopedia, whereas keeping stubs for even minor publishers is feasible on Wikipedia. At the risk of putting my own contributions on the line, consider W. Metcalfe and Son; this publisher would not have been considered notable at the time, but it published a few unique works. Piecing together the history of minor publishers is not easy. John Vandenberg 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not persuaded that either of these entries belong, so I nominated that one for deletion also. If I'm wrong, I'll trust the community to set me straight, but in all fairness to this entry, that one fails on the same criteria -- lack of secondary sources asserting that it is notable. (BTW, if you think WP:CORP is wrong, you should lobby for changes to it.) If it's any comfort to you, I feel like a louse for nominating that one after you mentioned it here, but I also can't help but feel that nomination is appropriate. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pamphlets would be a more appropriate term than books"

That is highly unfair. These are properly bound books of a high print quality often of a larger than usual paperback size (eg 6 by 9 inch, some bigger). Therefore the same word count can be got into a 108 page than other publishers stretch out into 250 pages. Furthermore, how can you possibly call a book such as [[37]] a pamphlet??? I am sure Edwards and Bunyan and many other Christians would argue with you about their works 'substantiality' which WERE usually originally published as single works. And also this is not about being based solely on whether we are on amazon or respective sales ranks on amazon, the amazon mention is proof that we are out there and that our books are widely available but it is only one factor along with many others.Rosalindfranklin 14:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware how these were published. Before and during the rise of magazines & newspapers in the 18th century, material that would now be of article length was inevitably published separately, in what would be considered today as pamphlets--a commonly-used name at the time was tracts, and such formats for works of religious outreach continued through the 19th century. They were many of them republished as larger collected volumes, & many religious figures also wrote substantial single books; I recognize some members of of each class in the Diggory line. Almost all of these have also been reprinted in other formats--the most accessible is the free online formats, and the most reliable the collected library editions. It is a worthy business enterprise to provide them in convenient printed editions as well. But the notability of the authors and the works does not necessarily transfer to reprinters. There are a few notable reprinters; Pocket Books for example has an article--they republished many thousands of titles during a span of half a century; Diggory has published 150, and existed for only a few years.

Neither is Diggory entirely a specialist publisher: from the article, it has a subsidiary that engages in what the article calls "self-publishing", its line of 800 books would more objectively be called vanity press productions. Vanity presses are not generally notable. That it has published a book for a MP makes neither the book nor Diggory/ Exposure Press notable.

Some publishers are famous, as publishing houses and as individuals, but it generally takes more than 150 published reprints to get there. The usual WP criterion of secondary sources applies: the major publishers have not only scholarly articles but whole books written about them individually: some of the older university presses have multi-volume treatises devoted to their activities over the span of centuries. Some individual editors also have been the subjects of full biographies. Such firms and people are appropriate for WP articles. Even many less important historically known ones have significant mentions in comprehensive works. The study of publishing includes books both academic and of more general interest, and a number of specialist journals--I'm even on the editorial board of one. Diggory can't be expected to be treated in this way yet, and of course it isn't. Optimistically, perhaps you will, and then there will be an appropriate article. You won't have to write it yourself--I'll do it gladly.DGG 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reprints are often substantial reprints of well over 250 pages at 6 by 9 inch size. That is far from a pocket book or a pamphlet or tract. Some of our books have NEVER been reprinted since their first publication and were extremely rare and NOT online anywhere. We do more than publish 'reprint's too, publishing original and novel works. There have been two full length articles this year in Writers News about us (Feb and March). There is also a full length article here: [[38]]. We are far more notable than many other publishers and individuals you have listed here but frankly, do what you want, I have had enough and am out of this discussion.Rosalindfranklin 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your books: I will reiterate, a publisher of notable books is not necessarily notable itself. Can you supply links (or email scans) of the Writers News articles? I'll investigate the Write Words article (UPDATE: I read it, and it is not independent coverage. It is you giving an interview about your book publishing, and you do all the talking. Again, there's nothing in your efforts that's not commendable; it's just that this can't yet be substantiated as notable from reliable sources and is therefore not encyclopedic.) As for other junk, that's not a good argument in your favor (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the same thing as an open directory. There is no reason for someone to create an article about themselves, or their company. If their company is notable enough, it will one day get an article written by a third party. The fact that the creator of this article not only is so involved in trying to keep this article, but also that she has a vested interest in this article, is a big conflict of interest. There are no sources cited. This article was listed for deletion 3 days ago, yet there has not been a single source added to the article, even though many editors raised this concern days ago. We must have multiple non-trivial third party sourced discussing this press, or we need a full length feature from a reliable source, per out notability guidelines. This request has not been met yet. The article also reads a bit like a promotion (i.e. It also has a self-publishing arm to make book publishing and ebook publishing an option for authors from all over the world.). -Andrew c 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 14 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 – no verifiable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. - KrakatoaKatie 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merge and Refresh Worship Toronto ministries[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:BAND. This seems to be about a worship band in a church- does not need its own article. Also, it is written in an unencyclopaedic tone, and has a "promotional" feel to it. Article is long, and a lot of effort seems to have gone into it, but the subject does not seem to merit its own Wikipedia article Lurker 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that perhaps a small amount of information from the article could be merged into the article on the parent church, though I have concerns about the notability and tone of that article too Lurker 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator - I see no indication that they pass even the generic guidelines. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are professional bands that have wikipedia pages that also seem to have a promotional feel to it. There are even pages based for fiction like Batman and Superman comics. Though this may have a "promotional feel" towards it, it is interesting to know about this band. That people may want to check them out. I see in the page that the band members are volunteers which is wonderful since they are budgeting much of their time to do this. It must have been a band member who felt connected to his/her team that led him/her to do this, so maybe it is best we cut them some slack. Though it is written in an "unencyclopaedic tone", it is still easy to read and follow suit. I'll say, personally, that I like the page, and it stressed that it is a volunteering band, not a professional band. So maybe the page can be left on - it is not hurting anyone is it? --- dr 11:12, 8 June 2007

Delete no indication of notability, no independent sources. And as to the above comment, see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. NawlinWiki 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really unclear as to whether the article is trying to be about the band or about the ministry. As a band, they do not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, but notability standards for outreach ministries have not been set (so we fall back to the generic independent sources test). If their ministry really was responsible for 2,000 conversions in Ghana, then that's notable, but It was reported... won't do, we need to know who reported it. If it is rewritten to focus on the ministry, what it is for and what it has done and why this is notable, and add references to independent sources, then I think the article could stay. Capmango 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be written about the ministry. Under the umbrella of the ministry comes the band. The 2,000 conversions in Ghana was testified in a church service, if I read it carefully, not documented. The article should stay, since it tells us a lot of what is going on out there. This band may be a "religious" band, but it is outstanding to see young people voluntarily spending lots of their energy into music. It can be a boost of confidence for new upcoming musicians. Even then, the professional bands that made their way into wikipedia must have started off as this Merge Band. Suffice it to say that maybe this wikipedia page must have been made by a member of the band, and with a band, many members may consider each other as family. I'd say it is best that the page stays up and that it focuses on ministry - it takes people to make a ministry (of any kind) to function, so with this, it took this band. Let's give some time for the article to get organised, and it should be good in the near future. Part of being an electronic encyclopaedia is that one should be able to find almost anything for information. First we see non-fiction, but when you type a fictional work, say, Spider-Man, an article shows up! Maybe it's best that if such articles are allowed to stay, this one can too! There must have been many people who have heard about this Merge Ministry and would have taken an interest to know who some of the members are, as well as learn more about the Ministry. I believe Wikipedia is fulfilling its purpose in this department. :-) --- dr 23:47, 8 June 2007
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Narrowly Fails WP:MUSIC. I think the 2000 conversions needs to be put past the WP:V test. ~ Infrangible 02:01, 9 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. Sr 13 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kakistocracy[edit]

Because it's bollocks. cornis 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and WP:SALT. Page was tranwikied to wiktionary, and keeps being recreated. Lurker 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Neologism, dictionary def, and a rather poor attempt to make a joke about George W. Bush. Wildthing61476 13:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be "Kakocracy" anyway. Bastardised Greek.--Doc^g 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drivel. Nick mallory 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is NOT a neologism, Chambers Dictionary, 1983, has "'kakistocracy', noun, government by the worst. From the Greek 'kakistos', superlative of 'kakos', bad, and 'kratos', power." The OED has examples back to 1829. The joke about GWB is weak though. No objection to deleting on grounds that it is a dictionary definition, but please check your facts before claiming neologism or bollocks. DuncanHill 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I could remove the comment regarding GWB, but then the page is still just a dictionary definition at that point, which might merit a merge into Wiktionary. Wildthing61476 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as first presented was just another attack George Bush page. That material has been edited out to leave a dictionary definition of a word. Nick mallory 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note- There already is a definition at Wiktionary. The page was transwikied before and recreated. Which is why I think it should be protected against recreation Lurker 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that actually regarding Wiktionary, delete and slat at this point. Wildthing61476 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George W. Bush. Delete unless significantly expanded. More a term of abuse than a notable concept, really, to the best of my knowledge. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or send over to Wiktionary if not already there. I agree with DuncanHill that it's not a neologism as I've seen it in lists in encyclopedias and strange word books but there is not enough here for an article. Keresaspa 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A5, it has been transwikied Sala Skan 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Lurker in first entry in this discussion. Deor 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the kaka, by the kaka and for the kaka ~ Infrangible 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What have parrots got to do with it? Grutness...wha? 03:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a defn. JJL 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and drop it in a salt marsh. RFerreira 06:35, 12 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. Tyrenius 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Umowski[edit]

Orphan article about a living person. Sources merely confirm that she won a scholarship from the Hellenic Times Foundation. If there isn't anything else verifable to write about her, I suggest that we delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the first American female practitioner of the previously male-dominated profession of Byzantine Iconography, in the United States" - Ok, great, but who cares? Did it make the news? At the very most this would justify a line in Byzantine Iconography. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete absent a demonstration of the importance of the awards she has received. There are a lot of prizes given out by various groups. Few are of the level of the Heisman trophy or Nobel Prizes. Those may be the high-water marks, but if the award receives a fraction of a percent of them, it may not be notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I note that Eternal Portraits, to which she has conrbuted, is a publication of the International Library of Poetry, a vanity press. Victoriagirl 20:41, 10 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. Sr 13 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barossa German[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism. There are sources cited but none of them mention the term "Barossa German". Username nought 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term has been around for some time and just because a source can't be found doesn't make it a neologism. While a quick google search didn't bring up a reliable source, I suspect a trip to the library would be fruitful. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a neologism as per the source[39], which states that Colin Thiele referred often to "Barossa Deutsch", ie, Barossa German. As this is the English-language wiki, it is appropriate to name in English.--Yeti Hunter 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yeti Hunter - more information on Australian regional dialects needs to be included in WP as well. JRG 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barossa German[40] is a well known regional dialect of German related to Silesian. Ozdaren 01:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If you think an article name is a neologism, suggest moving it, on the talk page — not deleting it. Anyway, it had an appropriate reference for the name when the AfD was put up and it is even better referenced now. Also, the page cited by Ozdaren above mentions: "Peter Paul ... in July 1965 presented his M.A. thesis (a descriptive study of Barossa German)." Grant | Talk 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an identified dialect. I don't think having the english name of a foreign dialect is a problem, if it is move it to Barossa Deutsch. This is an english language site: if one redirects to the other, the redirect should be from the foreign phrase to the english one.Ga rr ie 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly doesn't read like a hoax, and as Ozdaren notes, it can be verified under a slightly different name. Fully agree that in the English language Wikipedia, articles ought to appear under English language names unless that causes ambiguity. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anyone who has travelled to the Barossa Valley, or lived there for that matter, could verify this. Certainly a trip to a local library or heritage site in the Barossa could confirm the notability of this - will do next time I'm home! ABVS1936 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete per all of above reasoning, plus my own understanding of it as a somewhat colloquial dialect of German spoken within a clear and distinct community. Might need to move to Barossa Deutsch in order to satisfy relevant WP:RS concerns, as "Barossa German" isn't the most obvious search term to use. Orderinchaos 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable and unusual dialect of German. Support creation of a redirect from Barossa Deutsch to improve searchability. Lankiveil 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the comments above, notable German dialect worthy of encyclopedic note. RFerreira 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been here for 5 days, as per the Guidelines. The majority of users who have contributed to the debate have indicated it should be kept. It is now time to close this AfD page and make a decision. Could an Admin please do this so the AfD template can be removed from the article page? Thankls Ozdaren 15:23, 12 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 per apparent bad faith nom. Also, seems notable to me. Non admin closure. Whs itc hy 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia's Children's Hospital[edit]

Violates Notability Policy. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. ObsequiosityFYM 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Speedy Keep'~~. Comment: Yes independent sources are needed but this is possible bad faith nomination related to nom's vandalism of User:Agent 86 page. Also see user's nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Fringe Festival, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Boy (Restaurant Chain). Full Disclosure: I am employed in public relations for this hospital. Canuckle 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look at what links here, the fact that the corporation is a monopoly crown corporation from which it is mandatory that every driver in BC purchase insurance from and that the company is a Crown corporation make this company worthy of note. --KenWalker | Talk 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it satisfies WP:CORP. --Evb-wiki 12:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the country's major children's hospitals. --Charlene 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I'll go further than Canuckle- this clearly a bad faith nomination by a known vandal Lurker 13:17, 8 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. Sr 13 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hewitt[edit]

Largely self-authored and self-promoting to the point of gross exaggeration RandomHumanoid 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert have a comparable number of articles to Hewitt on Google Scholar.--171.66.49.141 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to even compare them...

Reasons to delete As far as I can tell, Carl Hewitt meets neither the criteria for WP:BIO nor Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). That his article is largely self-authored is an embarrassment and this kind of self-promotion should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I want to add that I have nothing against Carl personally. If he is indeed someday included here, someone else should write the biographical article. I suggest Carl read and respect WP:Autobiography. RandomHumanoid 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for Planner and Actors. The article needs to be rewritten, though. Janm67 10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Article can be cut of the self-prom parts. Tizio 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnn, Wikipedia:twinkle must not complete the AfD process properly.RandomHumanoid 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The nonmination reason is inadquate, as it doesn't speak to notability. I do question notability, but only weakly so. (It seems to me that someone with that many publications must be notable, if only as a crank.) I also question whether the article can be kept encyclopedic, due to the multiple sock puppets adding non-notable information. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of deleting an article because the subject keeps making inappropriate edits — the policies seem to forbid that reasoning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most faculty, particularly in Computer Science have far more publications. That he has published is indicative of nothing.--RandomHumanoid 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's unfortunate that it is self-authored, but he is notable for Planner. I remember his work being discussed in my AI class and sure enough, it's in my survey textbook (Artificial Intelligence by Patrick Winston). Clarityfiend 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. subject is notable. rewrite would be nice. Capmango 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At least there's an attempt to establish notability and to source this claim. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart I suggest that if the consensus is to keep/rewrite the article, that Carl Hewitt be expressly forbidden from editing it, given his track record. It's likely his contributions can be summed up in one, brief paragraph. You'll notice he has a single, perfunctory reference in Russell and Norvig, the defacto standard for introductory AI texts. (And I further point out that there are many people with more references there, who have been far, far more influential, and they no articles on wikipedia.) User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I seriously question the nominator's understanding of Wikipedia policy. Carl Hewitt is notable, I have a book on his Actor programming model on my shelf. The rest of the reasons listed are grasping at straws. It is true that Hewitt is a jerk and his self-promotion on Wikipedia is an embarrassment, but that has nothing to do with his notability. And it's just pathetic to hear that same old "but we don't have other articles that should be here" argument, how many times does it have to be said that what is or isn't included elsewhere in Wikipedia has no relevance to any deletion debate. This is the wrong way to deal with your irritation at the article's tone. --Ideogram 11:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about toning it down a notch? E.g., calling him a "jerk" certainly doesn't belong here. WP:Civility --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes notability test. May need some rewrite, but that is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hewitt is notable, as several of the references I've added to the article indicate. Not only is he known for Planner, but his Actor model was influential in concurrency theory (see Milner's Turing Award lecture), and in the development of the Scheme programming language (itself an important influence in CS). That said, I agree that the article is a mess of self-promotion, and in serious need of a rewrite. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would dispute the non-notable claim, as per arguments already made. I would agree, however, that it's in need of a serious rewrite (not only is it self-authored, which is a no-no, but the English is dodgy at times). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important pioneer of Artificial Intelligence. —David Eppstein 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His name is mentioned in any complete history of artificial intelligence and he is therefore notable. —Ruud 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable for his early work. The article needs to be cleaned up by removing non-notable achievements and inappropriate external links. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, pioneer in his field, notability is virtually uncontested. RFerreira 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Associate professor in CS at the top ranked CS department in America with many contributions. It may be a bit self-promoting, but it is backed up by reliable sources. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:07, 13 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 Obvious speedy keep, Canuckle seems to be right in suggestion of bad faith. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia[edit]

Violates Notability policy ObsequiosityFYM 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is possible bad faith nomination related to nom's vandalism of User:Agent 86 page. Also see user's noms for other articles edited by User:Agent 86: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Fringe Festival, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Columbia's Children's Hospital and his failed defence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Boy (Restaurant Chain). Canuckle 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article and What Link's Here establish notability. --KenWalker | Talk 04:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it satisfies WP:CORP. --Evb-wiki 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally crown corporations are notable, if not simply because they are one step up from a government department then because of the public/private sectors dichotomy. May not be attributed at the moment, but is easily attributable. 399 Google Scholar hits; 83,000 Ghits; the Fraser Institute published a book on it 20 years ago [41]. --Charlene 13:09, 8 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. Sr 13 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sickels[edit]

Hard one to assess, this page has been speedied twice, the guy has done many things but none are supported by substantial references and there are no significant achievements. Bridgeplayer 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It hints of WP:AUTOism, but there are plenty of WP:RSs out there. --Evb-wiki 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fine now. Assuming the comments in the article are true I think this guy passes our guidlines in WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs an external reference. DGG 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:19, 9 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. Sr 13 03:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)[edit]

I propose that this article is deleted because there is no evidence of notability for this subject. Regular contributors to the article believe current sources listed in the article give evidence of notability. However, the only source that meets the requirements for proving notability is Walkley (1985). Username nought 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) New information: Walkley (1985) actually does not meet the requirements for proving notability. The book was published by the college's council and Walkley was a previous member and chairman of the council. Therefore it is not an independent source, therefore there are no sources cited in the article that meet the requirements for proving notability. I will discuss this more in the debate section of this page. Username nought 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of School-related deletions. -- Miss Mondegreen talk 21:52, June 9 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Extensively written, clear notability, referenced (although perhaps some more third part sources are needed). Recurring dreams 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was brought to AfD in its very early days. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St marks college adelaide. The conclusion was keep and rename. It now a much better article and should be kept per Recurring dreams. --Bduke 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recurring dreams. Notability asserted. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced, notable, encyclopedic and generally well written - though I cannot take a neutral stance on this topic (see Talk: St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) for my contribs on the topic) ABVS1936 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Recurring dreams (interest declaration: I also am a regular contributor to the page)--Yeti Hunter 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written, extensive referencing. Ozdaren 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to side with the nominator here. While I don't deny the fact the content is very well written and attempts have been made to source and site the information contained therein, the majority of the references are from self-published sources, and there is no real claim to notability other than that by association due to some of it's residents becoming successful in later life (None of which is sourced). It's a real piece of borderline Schoolcruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to this, there seems to be a few weasel words that have crept in from people boasting if you will about the article's subject. Does someone else have a few spare minutes to deal with them? Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just thought I'd point out that the page in question commits none of the sins listed as "How to spot Schoolcruft". I have removed a few of the POV wordings as well.--Yeti Hunter 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Excessive citation of the school's student diary as a purported reliable source should be expanded to Excessive citation of the school's student diary or website... Ga rr ie 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As GarrieIrons said, can't get any better than that. And as I said, borderline schoolcruft. And it's a good call on expansion of the essay, will look into it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Are you kidding? This is what you consider schoolcruft? First off, citing the school website a lot is not necessarily a bad thing. If you're using the school website to site things like activities and buildings etc. Many of these things aren't notable themselves, and therefore won't have outside citations, but it's necessary information for a school article. Not citing the school website means that the material is unsourced. Generally, school websites and newspapers are reliable sources about general school facts. So you can either not have that basic information, you can have it completely unsourced (quite possible OR), or you can source it with the school website and newspaper and other minor sources. That's NOT a sign of a problem. The only problem with the article is that it's slightly informal, it's braggish in areas, and there are a couple things that sound like quotes but aren't specified as quotes. While these problems are not insignificant, they are relatively minor ones. Miss Mondegreen talk 07:24, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Comment Further to the accusation that the article has too much cruft, WP:CRUFT does in fact stipulate that containing cruft is not in and of itself a reason for deletion; rather, cruft articles tend to be poorly written and lacking sources. Whether or not you think this article is an example of cruft, you can't say it lacks sources or is poorly written.--Yeti Hunter 13:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walkley reference establishes notability, while self published sources should be reduced and other references sort. :: maelgwn :: talk 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, one significant work is enough for notability; more RS can be used to further develop the subject. John Vandenberg 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the cruft. Excessive use of the colleges own website as a reference indicates that a lot of the material isn't worth including in an encyclopedia.Ga rr ie 04:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with University of Adelaide. - ElbridgeGerry t c block

By that logic, St. Ann's College (University of Adelaide), Lincoln College (University of Adelaide) and Aquinas College, Adelaide should also be deleted and merged with University of Adelaide, wouldn't you agree? ABVS1936 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I would. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sarcasm in the above comment was a little too subtle... I was merely stating an argumentum ad absurdum. You would claim, by that logic, that ALL residential college pages be deleted and merged with their respective university pages, as they themselves are not notable in their own right. When, in reality, most if not all of those colleges are only by the minutest detail affiliated with their "parent" universities (in Australia, I cannot speak for the rest of the world), and are certainly notable in their own right, providing that suitable references and sources can be found. ABVS1936 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UofA is inappropriate, as the college is independent of the University and a good proportion of its residents attend other universities.--Yeti Hunter 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is well referenced, encyclopaedic and notable. I agree with ABVS1936; might I ask why this article has been first to have its notability questioned out of any of these? It's one of the most well written and cruftless of the lot! Ryan Oceros 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a note for this comment to the nomination for deletion at the top of this page. Walkley (1985) actually does not meet the requirements for proving notability. The book was published by the college's council and Walkley was a previous member and chairman of the council (see the Foreword on page 3). Therefore it is not an independent source, therefore there are no sources cited in the article that meet the requirements for proving notability. Considering there is no suitable evidence in the article to prove notability the article should definitely be deleted. Username nought 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, username nought, you have only given half the story. If you'd care to take a look here, you'll note that Walkley (1985) actually does satisfy the requirements for a reliable source, as it is relevant to the notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. So, learn. Ryan Oceros 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a reliable source but it is definitely not an independent source, which is required to provide evidence of notability. From the Wikipedia notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Username nought 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touche on that point, for now. However, the first paragraph on the page you have cited states that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense", which, sadly, you do not seem to have exercised since you first defaced the article. Ryan Oceros 05:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added another reference for the article: http://www.history.sa.gov.au/history/06HistoryWeekProgram.pdf. Apparently the History Society of South Australia thinks some of the buildings of St Mark's are of note. Ryan Oceros 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another: John La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972).Ryan Oceros 09:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another: C. Kerr, Archie, the Biography of Sir Archibald Grenfell Price (Melb, 1983)Ryan Oceros 10:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good to see that something productive has come of this--adding extra sources, etc. I'm more than a little confused as to why this was nominated. I believe not only that people really misunderstand the notability guidelines, but I agree with dreftymac's comments (Wikipedia talk:Notability#Wikipedia:Notability *Abolish It*) that there's absolutely no need for it. All of the reasons people say that the guideline is important are in fact covered elsewhere, in other policies and guidelines. And, something else that people misunderstand, it's a GUIDELINE. Do you realize how silly this is?? It's because of idiocy like this that IAR is policy. And I don't like IAR but which scenario here improves the encylopedia? By the way, those alumni ALL need sources. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:52, June 9 2007 (UTC)

- I tend to disagree - notability is a good way of deciding whether or not a subject should have an article, there are many things that simply should not - in this case the guideline is reflecting common sense. Anyway, another discussion for another time and place. Orderinchaos 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are still no significant independent sources cited. Trivial mentions of the college in a couple of books is not suitable grounds for claiming notability. The fact that a decent independent source cannot be found when the notability of the subject is being questioned, indicates the college is not worthy of its own article. Username nought 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... which is not the definition of notability. It is obvious from the many comments on this page that St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) is a notable entity/subject, and thus worthy of it's own article. These "trivial mentions" of the College in a number of books completely debunk your claim that this subject is not notable: the mere fact that it is mention by a number reliable sources and published materials from independant sources certify the notability of the subject. Ryan Oceros' contributed references are at the very crux of notability: a book about the creation of the Australian Constitution isn't notable nor reliable?!? Give it a rest! If, like John Vandenberg, you had taken any notice of WP:Good faith or even WP:Citing sources, you may have found many references in popular media referring to the college in one way or another - mostly from reliable and independant sources - and confirm, once again, the subject's notability. ABVS1936 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Nought, dude, did you read the book?? (if so, well done, it's only been a day or so since it was added as a ref). The cover of Archie is the portrait of Grenfell Price that hangs above the college High Table. It has significant coverage of the college, hardly trivial. Apparently some want it to be featured on the front page of The Australian before considering it notable.--Yeti Hunter 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though they would then probably argue that The Australian was not an independant, reliable, unbiased and NPOV source... (I kid) ABVS1936 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alot of cruft and agree on incorrect referencing and sources. Notable bias perceived. DaveyChapman

Comment - The above user has six contributions to his name, five of them today, four of which are related to Flinders University Hall. I particularly like the complaint about ABVS1936 removing cruft from the flinders article. Bias? Certainly. Sock Puppet? Very probably.--Yeti Hunter 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply regarding that comment on the Flinders Uni Hall talk page. Meanwhile, I have made an effort (prior to that comment being made) to remove much of the biased information and "cruft", however as I am not and independant contributor I can only go so far. Could someone with perhaps a little more wik-perience and a lot more independance have a crack at it? I'd be most grateful if someone would. ABVS1936 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So this page has been here for 5 days, as per the Guidelines, and should be kept, as indicated by the majority of users who have comtributed here. Hence, I assume it's time to close this AfD page and make a decision. Could an Admin please do the honors and close this AfD so the ugly AfD template can be removed from the article page? Cheers, ABVS1936 12:09, 12 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 that the repeated copyright violation has been expunged from the article's history, leaving the original non-infringing version of the article. Uncle G 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY. Should be speedy but struck down Javit 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads like an advertisement. G.A.S 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, recreate, redirect to Ukraine and full-protect the page. That way the history is clean. G.A.S 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ukraine and full-protect the page, so this stuff doesn't get recreated.--Atlan (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with redirect, which I've now noticed was the original content of the article upon creation. --Javit 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I created the article. But it was to create a redirect. I don't really care what you do so long as the text on that page right now goes away. --mav 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio; so tagged. Redirect can be created and protected after deletion. Deor 14:41, 8 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. Sr 13 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Desktop[edit]

Stub on non-notable, quite clearly dead Linux distribution. Chealer 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability, unless Pacman is somehow super special. Someguy1221 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NicM 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Stub since March 2005 and last release was 2006-10-14. The official site are dead. [42] [43] Carlosguitar 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another Linux distribution -- nothing to set it substantively apart. -- Mikeblas 19:11, 9 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 per apparent bad faith nom. Please note Canuckle's concerns though, they are valid. Non admin closure. Whs itc hy 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Fringe Festival[edit]

Violates Notability Policy ObsequiosityFYM 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Yes independent sources are needed but this is possible bad faith nomination related to nom's vandalism of User:Agent 86 page. Also see user's nom on pages edited by User:Agent 86: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Columbia's Children's Hospital, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Boy (Restaurant Chain).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google News archives search did turn up what look to be reliable sources, including at least two where the festival seems to be the primary subject. I'd like to see this sourced better, but it doesn't appear to be a deletion candidate at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I'm concerned per Canuckle that this nomination and the others by ObsequiosityFYM may be bad-faith nominations proceeding from his or her anger over a pet article being deleted. I suggest that these nominations be closed for now because of this possibility. --Charlene 13:13, 8 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 (seems it meets standards, plus nom withdrawn) Orderinchaos 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Ghost Train[edit]

~~unsourced, no assertion of notability. contested speedy. tomasz. 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn per the reasoning of YechielMan below.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has been deleted twice before, once through a PROD, once through CSD. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've done some digging, and found some sources the verify both the band's existence but also that they've released two albums and an EP. They've toured three continents (and it seems they've pretty popular in Germany!). I'm sure there's more out there with over 57,000 ghits without including Wikipedia mirrors. The previous versions of this page have been pretty lacklustre, one was a copyvio, though no-one noticed that, the other was speedied for notability though it was unsourced. Malla nox 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multitude of overseas tours mean that they pass WP:MUSIC easily. Lankiveil 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. John Vandenberg 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil also Recurring dreams 04:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest early closure Normally I would do this myself, but I'm trying to maintain good behavior. Thanks to the work of Mallanox, the article now looks nothing like the version that was sent here for AFD. I think it would be reasonable to close this as a withdrawn nomination, and if anyone still wants to delete it, start over. Just my opinion. YechielMan 07:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So withdrawn. tomasz. 19:49, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leeuwenhoek Times[edit]

Non-notable student publication, only recently established and yet to establish its notability Tito Pao 12:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've said it many times before: a student newspaper or zine would have to be really special to get an article of its own, and there's no evidence that's the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet a notable student publication unlike say, the Philippine Collegian --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lenticel. John Vandenberg 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't Leeuwenhoek Dutch? ~ Infrangible 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes he is. But I think the reason this publication was named such because...well, the publisher/company's named Leeuwenhoek. As to why it's named Leeuwnhoek...I have no idea :) --- Tito Pao 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I think student publications can certainly be notable enough for articles of their own, even without the "really special" criteria mentioned above, this article is not it. Maybe in a few years, but probably not then either. DreamGuy 20:52, 11 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. "An Afro Lusitanic American is an inhabitant of Brazil who is of African ancestry..." - this clearly describes an Afro-Brazilian, for which there is already an article. Lusitanic is apparently a neologism; the adjective actually used is "Portugese". Herostratus 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Lusitanic American[edit]

Already Lusitanic seems to be a neologism, but this term is hardly used by anyone and the article is an unnecessary fork of Afro-Brazilian Tikiwont 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lusitanic is a very, very old word which was once used to describe items or people coming from the ancient Roman province of Lusitania. I don't see any references to it being used in the above senses today, though. --Charlene 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was referring mostly to Lusitanic as now used in an English context, but in any case this nomination is not about the Lusitanic artcile, but about the further derivates. --Tikiwont 11:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an Hispanic American is defined as a Spanish speaking resident of the Americas or someone originating from Spain, then there is no way to logically avoid the fact that a Lusitanic American is a Portuguese speaking resident of the Americas or someone originating from Portugal. That is why these two articles are needed--in order to emphasize that fact. Keraunos 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should not have an article about people just to emphasize an argument about their possible name nor confuse logic and fact. Even if Afro Lusitanic American was a common name for Brazilian citizens who are black or part-black, we would mention it at the artciel in question, redriect and possibly dispute the best name according to WP:NAME. What counts is the verifiable fact of the name actually being used, not whether wikipedians find it logical or not. And I am not aware of any such sources. Moreover, your logical argument extends at most to Luso-American, which is as ambiguous as Hispanic American (The latter is actually currently a disambiguation page offering a sligtly different take than yours) as it either may refer to someone from the U.S. or not. If you add a third term, things get complicated and the term Afro Hispanic American isn't very common either nor do we have an article. As far as sourcable, both could be mentioend e.g. in Afro-Latin American, but all of this is no reason to have a content fork.--Tikiwont 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete per nom as cumbersome unsourced neologism, or redirect to Afro-Brazilian and Euro-Brazilian. Other X-American articles use the term as the adjectives for the United States, not the western hemisphere. Chris 00:48, 11 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. Sr 13 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slodonia[edit]

Appears to be a hoax: apparently "an island off the coast of Dalmatia" but nothing on Google [44] apart from a link to an RPG and the name of a children's story. No incoming links either. Bencherlite 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a nation in the nationstates game. Lurker 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No evidence of non-simulation game existance. --Oakshade 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - hoax. Yechiel Man 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not real. NawlinWiki 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not of this world. ~ Infrangible 02:15, 9 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. Sr 13 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Walsh (Candian Politician)[edit]

As a fellow Candian, I was going to clean this up and give it its missing vowel, but upon inspection the subject is not notable. Local politician of a town of some 2,000 on the Rock who clearly fails the guidelines for politicians laid out at WP:BIO; this article should be deleted. Eusebeus 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and nothing to merge.--Doc^g 12:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:BIO or WP:LOCAL. She might pass were she the mayor of St. John's, but of Massey Drive - the community just isn't that notable. --Charlene 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but place the material in the Massey Drive, Newfoundland article before deletion with a fact tag or some equivalent. --Stormbay 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the fact that I've always wanted to visit Candia, I say that this could even be speedy deleted for lacking content. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly merits a mention in the town's article, but Google doesn't have much to suggest that she's notable enough to merit her own separate article. The town's infobox already includes her name in it, which means there's nothing left to merge from her article. So just delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation if she becomes more notable at a later date. Bearcat 07:22, 9 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 – fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Nathan Ernest Morris[edit]

Removed prod. I see no real evidence of notability here. All of this person's claims to notability appear to be one-off appearances on very minor radio shows; there is no evidence of any sustained notability. DWaterson 11:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails my reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is borderline, but there are mutliple secondary sources and that's all that's required. However, current article reads like a resume and should be rewritten in encyclopaedic style. Capmango 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has made a widely recognized contribution to their feild. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. User:Grounds 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Grounds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me and is not clear in the article itself - as far as I can see, this person is a 16 year old school kid who has appeared on a few radio programmes and in a couple of local magazines. Could you substantiate your claims in a bit more specific detail, with reference to reliable sources which give non-trivial coverage, moreso than the brief trivial references in the current sources? Cheers, DWaterson 19:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator. Cheers, DWaterson 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, 15 minutes of fame does not make you notable unless it is a hell of a bright 15 minutes. Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced he even meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 17:20, 13 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. Natalie 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Panicles[edit]

Non-notable student publication of a Philippine high school. Tito Pao 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rather speedily, not even a hunch of notability, so tagged also as db. --Tikiwont 11:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete looks like it's already tagged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 8 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 Sr 13 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megalith Nu Sigma Phi[edit]

Non-notable fraternity based on a Philippine university or college. Tito Pao 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some reliable sources virtualize. --Tikiwont 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant sources to justify this organization having an article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are so many fraternities and sororities in existence that this one requires evidence to distinguish itself from the others. Yechiel Man 07:03, 10 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. Sr 13 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Albans Anglican Community Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable church per WP:ORG; has been tagged with notability since October 2006. The article was included inside a large multi-article AfD with the result "trainwrecked". Given that there appears to be no substantial progress on the page since then, bringing it to AfD vote seems appropriate. The article doesn't even give the church's location, although nom believes it is likely to be somewhere in Australia. Article is not categorised and has no pages linking to it. Paddles ^T_C 10:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article indicates that it passes any guideline for notability. Just being a church is not enough. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN local church. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and not even its continent is specified. Is it the one in York, Pennsylvania, the one in Largs Bay, South Australia, the one in Tokyo, the one in Ottawa, Canada etc? This could be the start of a new space saving trend: have a generic promotional article for all churches called "St. Mary's," one for all churches called "Redeemer" etc without specifying which one the article is about. Edison 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you'll be doing the same thing for The Royal#Hotel, The Royal#Theater, The Royal#Cafe next... ;) Ga rr ie 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be description of a modest sized and very ordinary church. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron 22:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Maybe someone should start a Wikichurch project for things like this. Capmango 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recurring dreams 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N Orderinchaos 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as having no RS. news sources show a few useful results, but I'm not sure its worth the effort for a 100 person church. Does anyone know when the church building was constructed? John Vandenberg 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, your average garden variety suburban church, by the looks of it. No indication of notability. Lankiveil 04:57, 10 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. David Eppstein 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Like Me (1987)[edit]

Article had an expired prod with concern "notability tagged for some time, we have no idea what sort of textbook this is: what grade level, what country/countries used in, if it is widely used, etc. In abscence of evidence to the contrary, I am assuming not wiki worthy". However, the article was previously prodded and the prod challenged, so cannot be deleted by that process. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was required reading at my high school (in the USA) so it's not just a UK thing. I realize that this is hearsay and not evidence, but I think it's a good indicator that it's the article that is the problem and not the topic. The fact that the book is sold in "School & Library Binding"[45] indicates that there is a market for it in schools and libraries. Maybe the fact that it was turned into a movie[46] means something? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I confused myself with the better known 1961 book by the same name. I withdraw my comments and I have no opinion in this debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Even in the best of cases, I can hardly see a full article arising about a "series of educational workbooks" ten years old. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Notability (books) is the guideline here, and it looks like it does not pass. ~ Infrangible 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Infrangible. Valrith 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing as how it's not even available on Amazon.co.uk, [47] I don't see how it could possibly be notable. nadav (talk) 02:02, 13 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 non-notable team, fails relevant portions of WP:CORP. - KrakatoaKatie 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewkesbury Town F.C.[edit]

This football team has never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system, which is required by WP:CORP. Prod tag was removed by major contributor to the article (who is also the team's manager) without explanation, so here it is at AfD ChrisTheDude 09:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - membership of the Cheltenham League is not high enough by a mile. That about does it really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - ish Fails WP:CORP and at glance WP:COI applies. Surely a one or two liner in Tewkesbury is the answer ?Pedro | Chat 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge is not appropriate, as a consensus at Tewkesbury seem to believe this article worthy of a "See also" internal link in that article. I do not believe that a Merge would assuage the Tewkesbury editors. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the editors of Tewkesbury should refer to WP:OWN if they have an issue. Pedro | Chat 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Pedro, regardless of what the existing editors of the Tewkesbury article think. - fchd 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP by a long way. Any mention in the article Tewkesbury should be in passing and not of the detail given here, so no need to merge at all. Qwghlm 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being at the level of competitive football accepted as notable, and providing no evidence for notability by any other means. The issue of whether to include a passing mention in the Tewkesbury article is up to people editing that article - at any rate, it would not appropriate to insert something of the length of this article, so I would not go for a merge. Robotforaday 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No further Merge required, in view of my edit to the aforementioned article, removing the link to Tewkesbury Town F.C. and replacing it with as much passing info as you would need. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears this is the third of four Tewkesbury teams in Cheltenham League. PrimeHunter 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and sits in Division Four of five divisions, to boot. So not even at the top tier of this lowly league. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the description in the Tewkesbury article is quite sufficient for such a NN local club. Peterkingiron 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the former standard of the top 10 levels has been removed from WP:CORP, so unless it goes back it can no longer be cited and the discussion has to go back to each team's notability. TerriersFan 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Cheltenham League is described as level 14, so the article up for deletion is still way outside the frame on notability. Note also my previous comment re: Division Four of five divisions. They can't even contend for the prime Cheltenham League championship as things stand. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not arguing that this team is notable. The point that I am making, from an amin perspective, is that no admin will have regard to the level that the team plays at unless the Football project decides to press the inclusion of the agreed standard in WP:Corp. Failing that the only consideration is if there are multiple, reliable secondary sources . TerriersFan 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just cite overwhelming longstanding precedent and consensus amongst WP:FOOTBALL editors.......? ChrisTheDude 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, it looks like it won't be a problem but the issue will arise when someone defends a team with multiple references from the local paper. AfDs are never closed with regard to precedent. The only safe way forward would be for the football project to re-establish the standard in WP:Corp or, as an alternative, write a guideline page WP:Football (soccer). TerriersFan 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love the spirit of teams like these, however it fails WP:CORP. --Angelo 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did you not read the comments about WP:CORP being uncitable for this (above)? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, WP:CORP can still be quoted, only not in the definite clear guideline of must be at level 1-10. Other bits of that policy/guideline may still apply, i.e. lack of multiple secondary sources etc. - fchd 16:30, 12 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. Tyrenius 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Bajena[edit]

Article had an expired prod with the concern "Having a single six-page article about oneself -- or perhaps just appearing within a single six-page article -- isn't a bad achievement for an eighteen-year-old but it hardly constitutes encyclopedic notability." However, the article was already prodded once and the prod was removed by the article author, so the article cannot be deleted that way. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, there was indeed an earlier prod. Delete, for the reason quoted by the (NB just procedural!) nominator. -- Hoary 09:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable. Freshacconci 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Hoary 09:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Procedural - WP:NOTE applies.Pedro | Chat 10:34, 8 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 Merge into Turkish-Kurdish conflict. - KrakatoaKatie 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Turkish incursion in Iraq[edit]

The reported incursion was reportedly fake. Perhaps rather than a delete a merge to Kurdistan Workers Party would be better. -- Cat ^chi? 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Turkish-Kurdish conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, but some of it should be retained; I doubt that the Turkish incursion was a fake. If it turns out to be true, as I suspect, then it should be at 2007 Iraqi Kurdistan War similar to 1997 Iraqi Kurdistan War and 1995 Iraqi Kurdistan War. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The background section is well referenced but consists of the majority of the article and the subject matter isn't sourced at all. User:Nightstallion has the best solution, I feel. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm the guy who wrote the article and I'm sorry if it's not up to snuff. This was actaly the first article I wrote for wikipedia. Anyways I have sources for the timelene but when I went to add them the next day I saw the don't edit until the deletion debate is resolved thing so i didn't touch it. Anyways at this point all media sources agree that there is a Turkish presence in Iraqi Kurdistan and that there are 11 confirmed Turkish millitary casualties. I personaly say it should stay because it appears very likely that this conflict could escilate. If not it could be renamed the Turkish-Iraqi Kurdistan Crises of 2007.

Merge Some of the information is relevant, and since it did make a bit of huff it is probably notable enough for a section in an article or larger scope such as the Turkish-Kurdish conflict article as was said previously. Since this was essentially debunked as an actual entry onto Iraqi soil and does not have any serious implications as a result of that, The article itself is not notable or encyclopedic enough to stand.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turkish-Kurdish conflict - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid topic, however it needs a cleanup. IP198 20:08, 15 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. Sr 13 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Dell[edit]

A teenager (it would seem) who takes skateboarding photos. He seems pretty good and may well go far (and I hope he does). Once we disregard his age, however, his achievements seem minor: an article seems premature. Previously prodded; the prod template was removed. Hoary 09:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance looked like there was some TV work but it's web based. Fails a google search and looks like WP:NOTE applies. I can't seem any merge benefits to the linked articles from this one. Pedro | Chat 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I also checked the links, and there's nothing to suggest notability. Yechiel Man 07:07, 10 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 Scrin. Sr 13 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rift generator[edit]

Awfully crufty and unsourced article on a non-notable element of a video game. Contested prod. MER-C 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No independent coverage of this topic outside of the context of "Command and Conquer" means this makes a very poor topic for an article. I am strongly in favor of deleting this. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I suppose a redirect to Scrin would be acceptable to me. At least, absent the creation of a real rift generator. :) FrozenPurpleCube 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to either Scrin or Wormholes in fiction. --Exarion 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, since it only has been used in that game, and there aren't any outside mentinos of it.--Kylohk 17:09, 11 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. While there are more keeps than deletes, AfD is not a strict vote count, and I agree with Marasmusine's assessment of the sources; there aren't enough to meet the notability criteria. Unfounded allegations of corruption don't exempt the article from it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way (game series)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Amateur game made with RPG Maker. Doesn't meet notability requirements, or has verifiable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion, this game has enough merit to earn its own page, if given sources. Bakazuki 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this game series is notable enough to merit its own article, and sources ARE available. aeymxq 06:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because none of the citations for this article are reliable, fact-checked sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have merit, better to improve it than delete it?--Arthana 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no reliable sources. All the citations in the article are either community fansites, user-submitted reviews, or non-notable awards; none of these fit the requirements at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason The Way shall never be mentioned at IGN and the like is because they aren't being bribed to cover it, the sad truth is that nearly all officially notable magazines write what they are told to. The closest you will get to something of this level is reviews from some of the decade old RM2K communities, I agree that without any sources there is no point in keeping the article but the community can bring more then enough sources who's word is considered law within the community. the problem is that they will remain unnotable compared to sellouts like Gamespy, therefore the only way to save The Way is to make an exception and consider such sources satisfying. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)
    - There are no exceptions to meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Attribution. Either this game's position as "an important game in RM2K history" has to be supported by such fact-checked sources, or this article has to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Wikipedia article about sources and notability presented them as guidelines and not policies, now English is not my first language but I figured that this means that while these rules should be generaly followed there can be exceptions, hence them being Guidlines and not Laws. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)
        WP:N is a guideline (which I think this article may meet, see below), but WP:V is policy. Marasmusine 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've never questioned the second article, only notability, thank you for confirming my assumption converning it -Anonymous {{unsigned|89.139.91.101
Keep - Wikipedia says that a site with a moderation policy can be considered reliable if there is not much coverage in print. MusashiExtra 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — MusashiExtra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does here.--MusashiExtra 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it is. But under your cited example, there is also the following:
      In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity.
      From what I can tell, none of the cited sources seem to do any fact-checking; they take in user reviews, maybe check that the submission isn't blantant spam and just postit on the website without doing any fact-checking. It's rigourous fact-checking and reviewing of material that makes a source reliable, and from what I remember of the RPG Maker community, very few, if any, of the sites in the community do that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Way is an important game in the RM2K history, while it has little meaning to the industry as a whole it is frequently refereed to in the RM2K community, it is very meaningful within a small circle, but then again, so is RM2K itself -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)

Keep - I fail to see the problem with the article. Most of the things in it are in fact facts, because they are simply things in the game. You could say the source is the game itself. The game itself is fairly popular, and deserves its own page. The problems with it don't really warrant deletion, though some editing and better sources could be helpful. ~~Validator 11:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)~~ — No such user exists; actually added by 88.153.82.104 (talk · contribs)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the above. And i dont agree with you calling it a "amateur" game. Have you even played it? If you have, its obvious it wasn't "amateur", it must have taken a lot of skill and a lot of effort to create. If you If you haven't, i dont really see how you can pass judgement on such a thing, unless you have REALLY reliable, non-biased sources, who dont automatically think "this is made with RM2K, so it must be crap".Hudabigbadwolf 16:27, 11 June 2007 (GMT) — Hudabigbadwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I will use WP:V policy, WP:Reliable sources and WP:N guidelines to address the provided references::

Gaming World is a 'write your own review' site; the reviews are user submitted therefore not reliable.
Kobra's Corner shows no sign of editorial control, it's a blog-type website, again not reliable per WP:Reliable sources
Phalanx Games; Don't know about this site's history or if it is reliable, but hero bash doesn't appear to be a staff member, so I assume a user-submitted review.
The Misao Game awards; I will give the benefit of the doubt here, as a gsearch for 'misao awards' brings a large number of hits.
RPG Maker wiki, not reliable per WP:EL etc.
Reviews Workshop; forum, not reliable per WP:EL
Crestfallen Studios; not an independent source.

So, whilst I accept the Misao Game award as possibly a claim to notability, there aren't enough independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to back it up. Marasmusine 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There are no reliable sources given, and, since it's not a commercial game (or even one made without the aid of game design tools), they are automatically less likely to exist. If you want to save this article find some reliable sources--"I like it"-style pleading won't save this article. Garrett^Talk 08:36, 12 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. Sr 13 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cell Research by Biswajit mandal,Department of Chemical, Engg, Haldia Institute of Technology,West Bengal,India[edit]

The page is an WP:OR violation, written by the subject of the article, in an essay-like tone. A few shreds of information might be include-able into extant articles on fuel cells, though I doubt it. Agamemnon2 08:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. BTLizard 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main author of article is Biswajit Mandal himself. Wikipedia is not a file storage site. Also, he has uploaded several images relating to himself and his article. --Lmblackjack21 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy delete. --Itub 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:OR is not a speedy deletio criteria though. Nor is obscene long titles in articles, though it should be. Mind you, I did nominate another similar submission of his with speedy earlier, but that was procedurally incorrect since it didn't fulfill any of WP:CSD--Agamemnon2 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the criteria of {{db-spam}} IMO. --Itub 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has some WP:COI problems, but there does appear to be a core of useful and important info in it which has been published in sources whose "reliability" I am not able to judge. Perhaps if it gets deleted the article creator could add the info (with references) to appropriate articles on biomass and fuel cells. Edison 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, since he is evidently an expert in the field, I'm sure there are articles that would benefit from his experience. --Agamemnon2 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inform the contributor of how article and content-generation on Wikipedia work. If he so desires, perhaps this could be sent to Wikisource or somewhere, but even that I'm not sure about. Then Delete these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This theory hasn't been talked about widely around the world by journalists and such. It's original research. Also, it is written in an unencyclopedic tone, as if it's copied directly from some paper.--Kylohk 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and/or possibly a copyvio. *Cremepuff 222* 21:12, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't satisfy notability requirements of WP:WEB. Minor edit 08:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last AfD contained assertions that it was notable in its field: Alexa rank for site is 6,100+. --SarekOfVulcan 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Well known guide, discussed on thousands of sites (among others this one at univ. of Colorade) [48] Is it a habit on the English wikipedia to nominate articles again and keep pushing and pushing until it might get removed because its nominated unnoticed at some moment ? --LimoWreck 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Noticed that, have you?--SarekOfVulcan 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [49] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LimoWreck was a participant in the previous Afd; notifying LimoWreck of another Afd is reasonable, especially when the previous Afd was a unanimous keep. John Vandenberg 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that characterization. I specifically asked for good references to its notability.--SarekOfVulcan 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per here, here, here, here and so on. Take administrative measures against the persistent deletist user. --ssr 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website is notable, though sometimes controversial; the article is appropriate. There are some biased elements to the website and the article mentions those in keeping with NPOV. No reason to remove the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources are there for an article on this? Recury 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google brings up around 50,000 hits for the website; many are blogs (which for a website can satisfy notability), but here's one that's a secondary reference in a published book summarizing a scholarly seminar in Vienna in 2005, a very solid WP:RS:

Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries: 9th European Conference, Ecdl 2005 ... By Andreas Rauber, page 37 (Hierarchical Organization and Description of Music Collections at the Artist Level) --Parzival418 _Hello 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an example of organizing music by classifying it into genres and subgenres, but not as information source, ie it does not confirm the importance of the Ishkur's Guide. --Minor edit 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the book does not say Ishkur's is "important". But that was not my intention. I was providing the reference merely to show that there is a reliable secondary source that mentions Ishkur's guide in print. This goes to notability and reliable source, which are not the same thing as importance. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added the above reference to the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability needs to be written into an encyclopedic manner, but the guide is hosted by Digitally Imported radio, which is a major website for electronica music. I'd say at least half the crowd that's into the genres knows of this guide. I'll try to write it in myself next time I'm awake enough. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [50] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a spam canvas for him to inform me that the DRV which promted this relisted closed and resulted in, well, this relisting. Further, it is probably a good thing for him to ask for somebody he recognizes as being knowledgeable about the topic in question to review the AfD. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Thanks for coming up with that phrasing, Auto.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ssr; nominator failed to provide a specific reason why the previous Afd and deletion review need to be revisited. John Vandenberg 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in the dance community. 58.110.61.191 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ishkur's Guide does meet WP:WEB; is "the content distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators"? yes. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep — per numerous reasons given above
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Love this website, but there aren't any indepedent, secondary reliable sources to base an article on. Wickethewok 21:26, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster and Raynor[edit]

linked from one page, title refers to two people, no useful information Ohwell32 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two for the price of one. Apparently, neither person is notable enough for an article (or a first name) on their own, but somehow, together they merit a page...not. Clarityfiend 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Google test comprehensively (links back to WP) - If their work was that notable then I'd expect something from the turn of the last century to be better represented and detailed. Pedro | Chat 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject they began is documented by tens of thousands of articles (if it was them--the discovery is usually ascribed to Morgan.) L. Doncaster seems from WebofScience to have been an important entomologist & geneticist, and is probably notable; however, I don't have any bio information at hand to start an article. It's GH Raynor, but I see fewer papers. But this pairing is odd, and is best deleted.

However, doing a ghit test on a 1906 paper is even sillier. DGG 03:24, 14 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 to redirect it to Homogenic. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (song)[edit]

I don't think this Bjork song is notable according to the guidelines established at WP:MUSIC. It's a good song and all, but it was not released as a single and is not particularly talked about in third-party sources. Should probably be deleted and/or redirected to the album which it is on, Homogenic. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge OR Redirect to the article of the album the song first appeared on. -- saberwyn 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album. If it was relased as a single it might just stand up, bu the main album article is not excesively long so doesn't need this split out. Pedro | Chat 12:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homogenic. Material in article is not suitable for a merge, in my opinion. Deor 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deor. Not really anything worth keeping. Awesome song though! Recury 20:39, 8 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. Sr 13 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great works of science fiction[edit]

This list doesn't delineate its inclusion criteria other than to cite the single reference from which it was originally copied. If the inclusion criterion is being listed at the citation website, this is then a copyright violation. If that is not the inclusion criterion, then this list is an opinion piece and is original research- novels that are not in the original citation have already been added and I can only see more being added in the future. I cannot think of a way to improve this list to eliminate these problems, so I'm bringing it here. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter WP:OR. It isn't even the entirety of the source, it's a selection. I could almost see a List of science fiction firsts (although the list-deletionists wouldn't), but this is little better than one editor's opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if no copyvio...quite a good list IMHO Rhinoracer 07:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that it's a great list, I've even bookmarked the web page that's cited for my own future reference. However, just because something's useful or interesting doesn't qualify it for inclusion. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clearcut criterion for inclusion. Clarityfiend 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any list of "great works" is inevitably POV on its own terms. BTLizard 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and quite possibly WP:COPYVIO, as detailed by other users above. (although the copyright status of an unadorned list is an interesting legal question).-- Visviva 08:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually have a problem with the concept of a "Works of science fiction considered influential" but it would need to be up to date (this one is based on a ten year old source) and it would need to be a conglomeration of sources and not just this one. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list might be useful as a reference in a section of Science fiction discussing some of the works, or just as a general reference for things to include in that page. It might even be useful to say whether or not a given work should have an article, but it's really not a good article on its own. The Hugo Award for Best Novel or John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer is a specific honor, this is just a one time list. Even the AFI 100 Years... series is at least a specific and discreet concept. FrozenPurpleCube 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the list being based on a poll, I can't see how it could ever become anything other than a POV list. (Although I did mentally check off all the ones I had read.) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective, omits everything but the US scifi, name, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- Wait a minute, where's the copyvio? None of the linked outside lists are precisely like this one. I'm changing my vote from Weak Keep to Keep, on condition that the article be renamed and expanded. Remember the list of famous operas that made it to feature status? This could have that potential. Rhinoracer 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well sure it's different. Editors have been adding items per their own points of view, which makes it original research per the other side of my rationale. The List of important operas#References gives a pretty stringent entry criterion; I wouldn't object to a similar criterion being applied to this list... if enough reliable sources can be found.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, POV, copyright violation... triple threat! Even the article's title rubs me the wrong way. "Great"? María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure POV (as one may have assumed by the title). Carlossuarez46 21:04, 11 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 that there was no consensus, and the article was kept. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Schwimmer[edit]

Unnotable person RandomHumanoid 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteworthy This person does not satisfy WP:BIO --RandomHumanoid 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schwimmer is the winner of multiple national championship titles. She was also just named today as a top-20 finalist (out of thousands auditioned) on Season Three of the American television program So You Think You Can Dance. If her only notability were being a finalist on the television show, I don't think that that would satisfy WP:BIO, but her multiple national titles certainly do. --El on ka 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you document any of these awards? --RandomHumanoid 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, doing that now (I just created the stub a couple days ago). For example, check here: [51][52] --El on ka 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not impressed. Funny how we don't have math olympiad winners here but the national youth latin dance champion (?) merits an entry. Very bizarre to me but I'm an elitist, so what can you expect? --RandomHumanoid 08:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well. She is on a high rated dance tv show. And she's the sister of a past champ of said program. Lots of circumstantial evidence that she's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) 10:43, June 8, 2007

She's high rated on a TV dance show? You must be kidding. (Please, tell me you are kidding.)--RandomHumanoid 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't notable, and just because an article subject isn't popular with young white Western men doesn't mean it deserves scorn. --Charlene 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I neither like nor dislike it. I simply think it is irrelevant and certainly not notable. You are free to disagree or point out alternative viewpoints, which is why this page exists. But why on earth would you bring my race and gender into this discussion? --RandomHumanoid 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are questionable but why split hairs? The person is noticed thus notable by WP standards. In the context of what WP really has become, this is no greater sin than many, and certainly not the worst. --Kevin Murray 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose because I think wikipedia's standards are increasingly disappointingly low. IMHO, unnotable TV game show contestants are not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia and do not even remotely satisfy WP:BIO. This dumbing-down of wikipedia needs to stop. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, particularly the long-term historic notability criterion. This girl certainly does not yet have that. --RandomHumanoid 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets notability guidelines. Capmango 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited so her family connections, while interesting, do not establish her independent notability. If she actually wins the show she's on, then she can have an article. Otto4711 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure if I'm actually supposed to vote, given I nominated the article. Nonetheless, I thought I'd make my opinion simply unambiguous.--RandomHumanoid 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; google news and google news archives makes the subject notable. A merge to Buddy Schwimmer should be considered if she doesnt do well in the TV show. John Vandenberg 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fame, importance and popularity are not synonyms for notability. Neither are Google hits. Of course she's going to get a lot of Google hits as one of twenty contestants on a reality show. That does not automatically translate into notability. Slews of reality show contestants have been deleted despite having a bunch of Google hits. Otto4711 02:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News does not measure "Google hits." It shows secondary sources, thus establishing notability as defined by the first standard set in WP:BIO. Mal Bad 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you take "fame, importance and popularity" out of the equation, what have you got left? --JJay 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AS a national champion, this individual immediately qualifies for inclusion. --JJay 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the competition in which she won the national youth championship? Is the competition itself noteworthy? I don't think it necessarily provides an obvious metric for measuring her fame. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that RandomHumanoid has some issue here. Seems everyone else is pretty much in agreement. --Mje112 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing the nominator of having "some issue" is not WP:CIVIL and it does not address the concern raised by the nomination, which is that the article's subject does not pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 19:26, 14 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) 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Vaughan[edit]

Seemingly non-notable professor who fails WP:PROF. Gives no assertion of notability, and his published works aren't too prevalent in a simple Google test. fuzzy510 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided He's not notable in terms of research as judged by professional researcher scholars, having published one good book and a few articles. ~~,This is more than most professors at community colleges do.,~~ however, and it is possible he should be judged by that. I'm not at all sure--just suggesting the idea. DGG 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources attesting to notability in his field. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is more than one Academic with this name.[53] John Vandenberg 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a matter for more research rather than deletion. It's mentioned above that he is a comm. college teacher, but it seems that where he teaches is more than that and offers post graduate degrees. I see a book and a review of the book. It seems that deletion is premature. --Kevin Murray 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is associate professor (hence tenured) at a branch campus of a state university, not a community college. He has a book and several good publications. A solid beginning to a career, and higher in the pecking order than many college teachers. To be an easy keep I would expect more publications, more awards, more citations of his work, etc. Edison 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As he is indeed a professor at a state college--my mistake--I point out that the publication record is rather weak for that. From WebofScience, neither of his two articles has been cited by the journals included there, but they are not complete for social science. The book apparently gives many GS hits, but it turns out they are all artifacts due to inclusion of the book in the single book review listed, which also listed 30 other recent books. Also cited in 1 PhD thesis. Two miscellaneous items listed at the bottom of the article I have been unable to verify. DGG 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editors should realize that a sentence such as "Vaughan has gained respect from all corridors of the UMBC campus" does not a claim for notability make. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical-looking professorial career at a midrank school; nothing stands out. I didn't see anything standing out in his publications on Hobbes, either. —David Eppstein 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with all of the deletion rationale above.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:15, 14 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 as failure to assert notability of any form, and promotional. Keegan^talk 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"East Troy Bible Church"[edit]

This is a non-notable church. number29^(Talk) 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As our entry follows the same presentation style as numerous local, independent churches already found in Wikipedia I must respectfully request your explanation as to why our entry is proposed for deletion. There is no copyright violation as was alleged. The references are verifiable. The information presented demonstrates in certain ways how ETBC is unique.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chummy (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to proselytize your religiion. Your "What We Believe" section has no notability and no place here. Upon closer inspection, this article is largely spam for your church.

--RandomHumanoid 03:46, 8 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 there isnt enough information/WP:RS to sustain an article but in this case most likely outcome is a merge but to what still unresolved. I have commenced a discussion section on the article talk page to adress this issue, please comment there. Gnan garra 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern District Times[edit]

The paper is a small community newspaper with a limited area of circulation. It is not a notable statewide or national daily, nor is it a paper of record. Circulation information comes from a self-published source, being the company that owns the paper. Does not meet WP:CORP and lacks WP:RS. It also is not linked to other than in a limited number of references from three articles. I'm split on the nomination of this one given it's a well-structured stub, so i'll open the floor to see what the community makes of it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit: comments removed - I'm not going to take any further part in this debate.) JRG 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment And how do you justify the claim of bad faith in this AfD nomination? The fact is there is no basis or information you can use to justify that claim, and saying that they did so is in itself bad faith. In respect to consultation, this is what AfD is for. Additionally, as the key contributor to the article you are exhibiting tendencies as documented in WP:OWN. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Comment no longer relevant as what it was in response to was withdrawn. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find a reputable third party source on this subject (as opposed to a source that mentions it in passing) and came up empty handed. There's nothing in the State Library of New South Wales on it, for example. If a source can be found, I'll reverse my position. Hesperian 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and lack of WP:RS. With no disrespect whatsoever to the creator (after a conversation on our talk pages this morning), local newspapers, while excellent sources for local-level news that would not make a larger publication but is still relevant in articles with a local focus (eg suburbs, train stations or systems, local councils, local identities, etc), are not *themselves* notable, especially if simply part of a cookie-cutter chain such as News Ltd's stable. I gave the example earlier of the Stirling Times, a very useful paper for articles in Perth's northern suburbs but for most points and purposes simply non-notable in the sense that one could not obtain non-self-published information about the paper itself. Incidentally, the Northern District Times even has the same *logo* as our one at the other side of the country [54]. This suggests to me a future article List of local newspapers in Sydney (or similar) with a list of such papers with their stable identified. Such an article could even be taken to the status of a featured list, and I'd strongly suggest the creator focus their attention in that direction if the consensus here remains delete. Orderinchaos 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If [55]is anything to go by - there is an historical aspect of the particular publishing venture related to the newspaper that no one seems to have picked up on.bah humbug as always Satu Suro 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - as to the average afd comment here seems to illustrate more here about the processes involved, the information tendered seems to be irrelevent - the business appears to either in their current form or in the earlier form have been a significant business as printer for a number of organisations and groups in the history of the north shore - back to the 1940s Satu Suro 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (four edit conflicts) the original version looks good for a first cut. I agree it is bad faith to so quickly nominate an article written by someone you see around the traps regularly. Article talk or User talk should be used first. This article was recently speedied by Orderinchaos despite having incoming links. John Vandenberg 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more to it than that, John. The article had been up for quite a while, but were speedily deleted. JRG recreated, with the assertion if someone wants it deleted they should take it through AfD. Shortly afterwards TheWinchester did so. I make no comment on whether the original speedy deletions were correct, nor on whether JRG's recreation was appropriate. But it is fair to say that TheWinchester knew this context and should not be accused of acting in bad faith. Hesperian 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole original discussion was on my talk page and JRG's a few hours ago, so anyone reading either would have been appraised of the context (other than that the article sat as a substub since 15 August 2006). I had no opinion at the time after the discussion, but as the AfD has since arisen I thought it was only right to share my opinion. Orderinchaos 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - JRG's recreation should have been given the benefit of the doubt, tagged and discussed on the talk page, like the good book tells us to do. John Vandenberg 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with North Shore Times and any others to become News Limited Community Newspapers. Individually, none of these papers are notable. Collectively, they reach a vast proportion of the Australian population, free of charge which provides News Limited with a huge opportunity to push a corporate agenda under the visage of "news coverage".Garrie 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not free - the NDT costs money now. JRG 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well mate your getting scammed them. I still get mine for free. ExtraDry 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually quite a fair compromise and along the lines I was suggesting, although I think by region rather than by printer is more useful as people reading about Perth ones wouldn't want or need to read about Sydney ones (even if they do have the same name and logo), and there's more than enough to hold the fort anyway at either end. Orderinchaos 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with Orderinchaos that a merge `by region' sounds appropriate if the consensus is that this newspaper isnt notable enough. As an aside, I am really keen on having a article/redirect for every secondary source used on Wikipedia, so the reader can quickly find accurate/maintained information about the source, to judge the data being source; in the vein, perhaps a guideline improvement (WP:LOCAL?) is desirable that if a local newspaper is not notable enough to meet WP:ORG/CORP, the article should be merged into the appropriate geographical region's article. John Vandenberg 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment having recently started a regional newspaper stub in wa I would stongly support this form as a way around the issue Satu Suro 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree that not all local papers in Sydney are notable, but this, along with some other community papers (the North Shore Times and Inner-West Weekly (which has never had an article) are notable papers that have been around for a very long time in Sydney. I note that there are no guidelines that state that a paper has to be a national daily paper before it can have an article; and as for the sources, the information is drawn from Roy Morgan research, which is merely quoted on the News Limited page - it is not as if News Limited drew up the information itself. The newspaper draws on the federal electorate of Bennelong, the consituency of John Howard, and has had produced significant comment and publicity on regional issues in this part of Sydney such as the North West Rail Link, the Epping to Chatswood Line, the M2 widening and Lane Cove Tunnel issues, heritage funding, and the upcoming 2007 election battle between Maxine McKew and John Howard. ExtraDry 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To a list of regional newspapers. Collectively notable. If any then gain sufficient references and text to be a syandalone article they can do so. Edison 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N and WP:RS: As a subsidiary of News Ltd of which any number of almost identical titles exist in the Sydney region, this paper has a more minor status than a more independent newspaper and hence reliable sources independent of the paper reporting on it are very unlikely to be found as external sources are more likely to speak for a region's News Ltd papers than for any individual one. Zivko85 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only on rather technical (WP:RS) grounds. Support re-creation if independent sources can be found. Lankiveil 04:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Can someone let me know if this is to be merged, what we are merging - Cumberland Newspaper Group seems to be a good candidate (homepage) as being the NSW arm of News Limited community newspapers. (the others being [http://www.questnews.com.au/ Quest, Leader, Messenger, Sun, Community and tassie misses out). I think it would easily meet WP:CORP.Ga rr ie 05:55, 13 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 for failure to meet CSD A7. Dsmdgold 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Otani[edit]

As a courtesy, I am nominating this page at the request of an IP posting at the village pump (see "music teacher?"). The editor is concerned that the teacher is not notable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For process' sake, I agree with that conclusion, so my vote would be delete. The accomplishments outlined in the article are only pertinent to the school, and those references or links given don't extend too far beyond primary sources. Without more third-party sources, I'm afraid this teacher is just one of many hired at schools around the country. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 64 GHits, 2 GNews archive hits. Don't feel that the 1997 profile of him in the Star-Bulletin back when he was a high school kid really supports his notability [56], and that's the only non-trivial independent coverage of him in a WP:RS. Nice to see that back in 1997, he said his future career was "music teacher", and now that's precisely what he's doing, but there's doesn't seem to be any larger significance here. cab 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the bar for being a notable music teacher is rather higher than this article asserts. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 68.4.22.10 removed the afd templet from the article and I warned them and replaced the templet. --Banana 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A high school bandleader who is utterly non-notable. An "exchange concert" a month or so ago doesn't cut it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Probably Speedy). There's no real assertion that he's notable. nadav (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think I created a good article. I'm just a student and a newbie Wikipedian. I think about deleting this article, too. Duane Otani 21:06, 9 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 snowball keep. Keep in mind that WP:GHITS isn't a real valid deletion reason. Attack page concerns should be noted though. Non-admin Closure. Whs itc hy 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing white woman syndrome[edit]

Utterly fails notability test. Citations are all nonsense and do not mention appear to mention term except for a few blogs. Totally fails "google test" with around 600 mentions of this term, none of them on reputable sites, just blogs, etc. Appears to be POV pushing and attempt to assist in fabrication of a new expression. Fourdee 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As an attack article for a start. I'll abstain from tagging as speedy, as it's better this goes through AfD so it then can be CSD'd in event of recreation. The google test is not good to use in AfD's. The entire article is loaded with POV, fails WP:N and seems to be entirely original research. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of discussion. LILVOKA 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though used for humorous effect in at least one or two things I can think of, in the end it's better off as a note in some relevant controversy article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article itself lists several valid references, and this [57] search gets plenty of results for the specific phrase. If that's not enough notability, I don't know what is. Or is CNN not a reputable source? NPR? The Independent? I'm also going to say this isn't an attack page. Criticism is real, it does happen, removal of criticism that can be validly sourced is censorship. Sorry, but there does have to be coverage of negative information on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known bias. John Vandenberg 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all the OR, including all the unsourced information in the "Examples" section. There are sources from the Washington Post, USA Today , MSNBC discussing this phenomenon described in this article. I found a transcript of an interview on CNN where "Missing White Women Syndrome" is discussed. It exists, though once all the OR is removed the article will be much smaller. Masaruemoto 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing White Women Syndrome. Masaruemoto 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable and highly-discussed concept, though we should definitely remove the examples that haven't been explicitely referred to as examples by reliable sources. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources have devoted substantial coverage to this media habit of 24/7 coverage of photogenic white women and girls who are missing, while largely ignoring minorities and males. Examples of criticism of the phenomenon include CNN [58] and [59], The Independent (London) [60], and the Washington Post [61]. Satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Contrary to what the nominator says, a search on Google for "missing white woman" exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors yields over 10,000 hits and "missing white girl" yields over 13,000. Many article have been written about this in addition to those included as external links or references. Every day yields more examples, and the phenomenon is frequently a subject of complaint in relation to each new instance. Edison 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. Those who wish to delete this generally are "Hilaries" (ie, White-wealthy-feminists). For reference, please search Wikipedia for the strife that currently exists between White and African-American feminist organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but arguments about the people proposing the deletion that are of this nature are not appropriate. It is far better to comment on the content and not the contributors whenever possible. This sort of statement is simply inflammatory and hurtful. FrozenPurpleCube 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some valid media sources covering this phenomena, this article need cleanup not deletion. --MichaelLinnear 05:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have pointed out above, this is a very real phenomenon that is the subject of plenty of reliable independent sources. The article as-is is full of unsourced info and listcruft and needs to be pruned big time, but there's definitely potential for an encyclopedic article on this notable topic. Krimpet (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, or rename to Missing young pretty thin middle-class American white woman syndrome. --Charlene 10:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known bias, especially recently. (Kelsey Smith and Madeleine McCann come to mind. Article could use some rewriting so it isn't made up mainly of lists. --Lmblackjack21 10:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelLinner. Needs serious pruning of examples though. --Lou.weird 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've heard a few other, similar names, for this phenomenon, but it's an important issue in media bias and in the knee-jerk legislation that results in laws named after victims. Article links to several reliable sources; article just needs cleanup and external links turned into inline cites. Squidfryerchef 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. suggest merging Missing White Women Syndrome into the article Squidfryerchef 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well-known phenomenon, although I'm not 100% sure about the title. --Itub 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do some massive cleanup work. There's a lot of OR in this article, and the vast majority of the "examples" seem only to be an attempt to prove a point. The only "examples" that should be kept are ones with accompanying reliable sources documenting the disproportionate media attention (or lack thereof) and not stack them in an attempt to push a point. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many examples of notability above. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 16:12, 8 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.

Keep - it is a well known "trend" in american news --Philip Laurence 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist). — Ocatecir ^T 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Land[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Propose Delete, since this article is not noteworthy as is basically an ad for a website that sells ads, why should it be in Wiki? Look at the cites, one or two words in a cite and some do not mention this site at all. This is just a website that gets paid for advertising.Akc9000 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ - This news site is considered one of the leadings sources of news about the search engine marketing industry, as shown by its numerous citations in the traditional press. This source was deemed reliable by consensus during the successful featured article nomination of search engine optimization . [62] Jehochman ^Talk 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no third-party sources about the subject. If you could improve the article with some industry news from reliable sources that discuss the set-up or the work of the company then it would be more acceptable. As is said above, a few minor citations in other news articles is not sufficient, and the Finance Visor article is basically a redistributed press release from the Company. If this site was important enough then someone would have written about it independently. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not particularly noteworthy, smacks of advertising. cornis 13:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist), until such time as this article can be more than a stub. I've copied over the content already. For the sake of developing a consensus, I have changed my position. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reuters cited it as 'search engine land blog' so....for now the best place for it would be on Danny Sullivan's page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep - It's already the most authoritative website in its industry and deserves a spot on Wikipedia. The article could use a bit more detail, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryzbilla (talk • contribs)
- If you feel that way, you can help by adding details. The subject has posted a list of sources here and here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note to closing admin: This discussion was mentioned in an article at Search Engine Land. [63]. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes, the current article is stubby. But site itself is widely known and respected in its industry. A significant article could be written about it based on industry sources Seth Finkelstein 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The site is a regular and authority reference that I personally use for professional training, industry news, and as an educational reference to others. It is one of the foremost leading portals that industry insiders can turn to for up-to-date and accurate news about search engines, internet marketing, and social media. Jasonmurphy 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)— Jasonmurphy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. Jasonmurphy 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's assume good faith. I have no problem whatsoever with Akc9000. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ad. bogdan 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A bogus claim. What's it an ad for then? It has a few small ads on the right side, so that might make it an "ad supported site" but not an ad itself. Having ads to support the time and research needed to report news about an industry doesn't lower a site's credibility in any way. Please include more details bogdan, just saying it is an ad without supporting your statement is very lame. Jasonmurphy 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny Jasonmurphy, you should use the word bogus. I see no edits by you, you have no User or Talk page but you defend Search Engine Land's listing. All that you say should be stricken from the record. I say it is an Ad, as well and or SPAM. It is not noteable. Cite #1 has no reference to this site. Cite #2 is about the Yahoo Panama project, which deals with a new PPC method of advertising, and the only ref on this site (seaech engine land) is a reference that this was announced on seach engine land. So, If I put up a page and announce an event, does it make my site noteable? NO! It makes the news event so. Please, be realistic here! Cite 3 is about a lawsuit between AFP and Google news. Once again there is a oneliner that says Danny Sullivan makes a comment about it on search engine land. Great, wonderful, but this is not how cites are suppose to be written are they? The are suppose to be about a secondary source writing about the 'thing' the article is talking about not news events about other things. Show me books, that I can buy in a bookstore that is from a secondary source that talks about search engine land. Dont show me website that I can pay a fee to the holder to, so that they will post an article about me or my site. Come on people, look at this! The last time this other user posted anything (Pryzbilla) was a year ago. --Akc9000 23:44, 15 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 Video art. Sr 13 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Art[edit]

I don't think this meets WP:COMPANY. The title could be redirected to Video Arts 650l2520 03:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As far as I see, this article is about one console application (toy) of the company LJN which has its own article. If its deleted, a redirect might better go to Video art. --Tikiwont 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect If the company has its own article, then this should be redirected to Video art. A company shouldn't be the hit for "Video Art", an art term.
Delete and redirect per above. Doczilla 06:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Tikiwont recommends. There are other options, but I think he's got the best one. Yechiel Man 07:11, 10 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. Sr 13 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular social networking platforms by country[edit]

AfD was originally stared by User:Mikecraig at 09:44, June 8, 2007(diff) but relevant templates were not included when starting the AfD entry. Article is entirely based on original research, does not meet WP:V nor are any reliable sources provided to substantiate the information. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. John Vandenberg 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous reasons cited and above reasons by Thewinchester --Mikecraig 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and only includes two countries. --Lmblackjack21 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unattributed article, maybe WP:NOT. Carlosguitar 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment weasely & WP:V quagmire. ~ Infrangible 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Useful nontheless, if it was more complete. It's interesting the way Orkut has the stranglehold in Brazil, Bebo in Ireland etc. Would be nicer if it were auto generated somehow. Max sang 17:15, 12 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 as A7. — brighterorange (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hashi[edit]

Non-notable page about a player on World of Warcraft. It is most likely a vanity page, in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. CA387 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete MMORPG player. Even the WoW-specific wiki doesn't allow these. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 8 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 original research without enough reliable sources. - KrakatoaKatie 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread in the cuisine of Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous nomination for this page ended with a merge decision, but the closing admin admitted that it was hard to find what was worth merging from this piece. A month has passed and the merge has still not been performed, so I am renominating. The reasons to delete are the same as last time: This is basically a personal essay that violates WP:OR. Perhaps the references in the bottom somehow relate to the article text, but if they do, it is still obviously WP:SYN. It would require a total and complete rewrite of this article for it to be acceptable, and the relevant material is in Cuisine of Singapore anyway. nadav (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not be bold and do the merge yourself, rather than running this through AfD again? Sanpete Slim 02:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the template on the page said to renominate if the merge is not promptly completed, and I personally believe there is no non-OR content that can be merged. nadav (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge. The previous Afd was fine; someone needs to do the merge. John Vandenberg 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there is nothing worth merging. And there is no justification for a speedy keep. nadav (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of the previous merge decision, nobody seemed interested in actually merging any of this content and it's just been left to linger. I agree with the nom that there is no sourced information in this article worth merging anywhere. Just delete it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the fact that it is a basically a personal essay. Kyriakos 22:44, 8 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 merge and delete. Merged cultural impact with main Prisoner article, deleted the rest as indsicriminate collection of information. — Ocatecir ^T 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Overseas[edit]

Delete - the bulk of the article is the syndicated broadcast schedule of the show. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and numerous similar articles for shows from The Simpsons to Desperate Housewives have been deleted. The rest of the article is tidbits relating to the broadcast internationally, which is pretty trivial, and a few mentions of fan activities and reunion appearances of the various cast members. Not encyclopedic in the slightest. Otto4711 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a an indiscriminate collection of information. Sanpete Slim 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what fansites are for, and there are enough of them for this show. Masaruemoto 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA lot of Prisoner fans aren't aware of the fansites around and will use Wikipedia as there first point of contact. A lot of people took a lot of time and trouble to research all the dates and times included in the article, myself included User:Javalather 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT is not IMHO a valid argument for keeping. Otto4711 14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article has to go why is there List of Falcon Crest episodes as a page which gives (similarly) meaningless airdates and episode titles. Falcon Crest and Prisoner are two shows from the same era. In fact the whole of Lists of soap opera episodes is meaningless as it does not contain Melrose Place which is a soap opera. In the UK, Australia and Sweden (in all three where Prisoner has become an enduring popular programme) soap operas do not have a 22 episode run per year. They have episodes in virtually every week of the year. In Sweden the show was screened for the first time nationally. The UK airdates here are not for syndicated or repeated episodes. they are for the first showings which varied enormously throughout the UK due to the policies of the ITV network concerning acquired programmes. There is probably nowhere else in the world which would have had a programme run in two towns two miles apoart where one town would see episodes eight years after the first town. When the show finished in one area, some fans even moved to different parts of the UK to continue to watch their favourite show. The Australian dates given are for the first ever worldwide airing as on ATV0/10 in Melbourne. Maybe this whole article should be on a fansite elsewhere however wikipedia is often the first port of call for many visitors. The series is currently being released on DVD with around 30 episodes released each month. These dates allow people to know when it was shown in their own areas too. It also HAS helped a couple of the shows performers understand why they got fanletters from UK fans at different times, allowing the performer to understand the strange scheduling pattern of the show. User:Topps248
Comment/Neutral Some of this information is worthy of a daughter article (cultural impact and comments about censorship). The main Prisoner article is huge so in theory this article is worthy: however, as much as I hate to say it, the scheduling info is fancruft. As long as it exists elsewhere on the web, those who want it will find it. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ The article was originally on the main page for the programme, however the article for the whole programme then became too long. It was HUGE, yes. The foreign success of the show was the most suitable part to separate and has had quite a bit of input. There is not anywhere else on the web which gives the scheduling info though. User:Topps248
  - One vote per user, please, though you are allowed to comment as many times as is productive. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article can definately do with being tidied up and scaled down, I think it would be a real loss if it was deleted completely. I don't agree that it is a 'TV Guide'; it just so happens that in the UK, due to the (sometimes bizarre) regional variations, there is a lot of relevant notes. The article became far too long for the main article, and was given a daughter article accordingly. If this article is to be deleted, then 99% of television / film articles should be deleted or at very least very heavily edited accordingly. Personally I think it is a very good, comprehensive article, one which I often look at for reference, and as I say would be a very great loss if it was completely deleted. (Just in case, I have saved a copy of the article to maybe donate to a fan site in case it is (unjustly) deleted). Jay Firestorm 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, the series was the first real Austrailian hit in the UK (and some other countries), so far from being just a 'TV Guide', it is a reflection of the cultural impact overseas. Jay Firestorm 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral The article rightly states that many sources claim the show started airing in the UK in 1987. As the details in this article show, the other sources are wrong. This is the only source which correctly details the actual UK premier airdate. User:Topps248

Wikipedia is not a primary source. If there is no reliable source to document what the Wikipedia article asserts then the article can't remain. Otto4711 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guides/newspapers can act as the primary source. Thus the article could be verified by a trip to the British Library. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:53, 13 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 wasKeep question raised in the nomination were addresses, and concerns of copyright violations rectified. Gnan garra 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanora State High School[edit]

This is either non-noatable person, a non-notable school, a hoax or just silly Grahamec 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [64]. It's a real high school in Australia with 1200 students. The article is all copyvio, but the subject is notable. - Richfife 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article is a copyvio then it needs to be speedily deleted as such. Otto4711 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [65] and so tagged. (Regardless, no notability shown or asserted). EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - copyvio should be removed without prejudice from the article, deletion addresses the subject or purpose of an article, not its content. (I note Richfife has stubbed the article, which I was just about to do - so G12 is now addressed) Orderinchaos 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I pulled the copyvio text and stubbed it. - Richfife 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V as it cites no sources and WP:N as it fails to even assert notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Butseriouslyfolks, as not meeting WP:V, WP:N, having no links to it of substance, and a very minor stubby example of Schoolcruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm quite happy to stand up against schoolcruft where it appears, this isn't an example of it - the subject, being a major state high school in the Gold Coast with 27 years of existence, would satisfy WP:N as a subject as the chances of finding reliable information about it, its construction, its notable ex-students and its participation in the community are very high. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With the text cleaned up and sources such as this one available to document notability, and several dozen sources found on Google News Archive, there seems to be enough to available to satisfy WP:N. Alansohn 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The school that the Google News Archive refers to is in Queensland whereas the one referred to in the article appears to be in NSW. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The Gold Coast is in the southern part of Queensland. Elanora is in the northern part of New South Wales. These two areas border each other. The article lists Roslyn Wilson as principal. This link shows Roslyn Wilson as principal of Elanora State High School. The home page of this same Elanora State High School states "Welcome to Elanora State High School in cyberspace. In real space we are situated just three kilometres from the surf on Queensland's famous Gold Coast." It seems rather hard to argue that there are two different Elanora State High Schools being confused with each other. Alansohn 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Elanora, New South Wales is in Sydney, 800 kilometres from the Gold Coast. I suspect two schools are mixed up. The original article was about the Gold Coast school. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanora, New South Wales does not have a high school, Elanora, Queensland (postcode 4221) on the Gold Coast does not have an article. Suggest the school article be corrected. Google Maps shows Elanora near the border with NSW but distinctly in. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NSW does not have "state high schools" - the "State School/State High School" is a peculiarly QLD thing (even though *everyone* I know uses "state schools" to refer to public schools, they're generally Senior High Schools here in WA, and High Schools in SA and NSW. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. - Created an article for the suburb. Orderinchaos 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable school. Lankiveil 09:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nn school with apparent WP:V issues exacerbating the affair. But even were those to be resolved, the school fails to assert notability. Eusebeus 11:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It's great that you're throwing in some references to Wikipedia policy, but what are the WP:V issues you're referring to? The article is on the short side, so it's hard to see how someone can miss the claim of notability in the second sentence. Is this just a fancy way to say "No schools are notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources?" Alansohn 11:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty much, Alan. I believe you now get to tell me my opinion is invalid. C'mon, go for it... Eusebeus 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooo!!! Ooo!!! Let me!!! - Richfife 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has nationwide achievements in both arts and sports, judging by the references in the article. That should be sufficient notability.--Kylohk 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - after the usual good work by Alansohn this passes the notability threshold with flying colours. What somewhat depresses me is that nominators do not carry out such research before nominating. TerriersFan 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original article when listed was a copyvio without a good version to revert to and could have been speedied. The nominator showed good faith in listing it for AfD. I would suggest that you assume similar good faith as well. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no "notability threshold"--notability is irrelevant. Kurt Weber 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While I believe *this* article pertains to a notable subject and have voted Keep accordingly, saying that notability is irrelevant is a debate that should be occurring elsewhere, not on an AfD - consensus holds that notability is important, regardless of its absolute status in policy terms. Otherwise there is a serious risk of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Orderinchaos 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lots of things exist, not all of them are suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. That is what WP:N is for. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, the mere fact of something's existence is sufficient reason for it to have a Wikipedia article. Notability is not policy; it is irrelevant. People need to forget about it. Kurt Weber 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several positive changes made since afd, looks notable to me. Capmango 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - being a finallist at a competition repeatedly and having students doing very well at another one would seem to make the school notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N now, likely to be other sources available to allow improvement. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are inherently notable, and this one has other sourced claims as well. --Elonka 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where does it say that schools are inherently notable? I agree this one should be kept, but schools, like everything else should meet WP:N -- Mattinbgn/^talk 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Matt I'm generally opposed to the notion to notability by class - i.e. that anything is inherently or non-inherently notable. A large state high school in a metropolitan area with considerable catchment is *far more likely* to be notable and reliably and independently sourceable than a primary school in a remote country town. However in some cases a large state high school may not be notable, and in some cases that primary school might just be notable for individual circumstances or reasons. Orderinchaos 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee Elonka, strange from an editor that wanted to delete every WP:MALL off the project.Garrie 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep notable with references, yada yada--nice to see afd editors do the work necessary to clean-up an article rather than trash it. In re the general notability of schools--yes...schools are generally inherently notable institutions. Schools get significant coverage in local news when students win various competitions or the school does well in some aspect, and schools generally eventually get at least a couple notable alumni--the longer the school is around, the more alumni they rack up. Schools that do poorly and have various problems get press coverage for those reasons. This is different from malls. There will be coverage if there's controversy, or something particular notable about the mall, but other than that, most press is promotional press. Miss Mondegreen talk 07:59, June 13 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, now that it has improved.--Grahamec 03:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not great, but I'll accept that the awards make it notable enough for a separate article. If not, merging to the location Elanora would be an option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep. The article satisfies Wikipedia policy ... it contains valid references that establish it as being notable. In fact, this is one of the better high school articles, and there are hundreds. Sure, it could benefit from some improvement (what article wouldn't) and I'm sure it will be improved over time. Let's keep it. Truthanado 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not sure I agree that this is one of the better articles (!), it's got nothing contestable and the school is clearly notable, and reliable sources for some things have been found, while others undoubtedly will be. Zivko85 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, school is notable with multiple non-trivial sources to show for it. RFerreira 06:31, 10 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 per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. - KrakatoaKatie 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jeu[edit]

WP:BLP violation. Unsourced from proper sources, and unnotable. -N 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've sourced it so it is no longer a violation of BLP. No strong opinion on whether to keep it. This seems like a decent example of why we might not need an article on every single sourceable event. If anyone can give sources showing that this in fact had a major impact on animal rights laws in china then change this opinion to a keep. JoshuaZ 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there is a violation of WP:BLP and the references[66] are a proper assertion of notability. Note to AfD closing admin: I have a COI with the subject matter, I'm disgusted by the actions depicted --Javit 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Gross and awful, but does appear to have made international news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an archive of people commiting animal snuffing stunts to get their 15 minutes of internet fame via a video. Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: ...The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 05:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable person (Wang Jeu) who caused a notable ruckes. Since this is an article about the non-notable person I say delete it... however, I think an article about the event can and should be written. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The second quotation in Edison's opinion above supplies my rationale. Deor 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Animal mistreatment does not make you notable. Sure, newspapers may catch it and write about it, but it remains a news story of a fairly minor event, not one of lasting encyclopedic interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite how notable she may or may not be, this event is referenced moderately on several discussion/image boards, the names of which are bound not to be shared by rules 1 and 2. If this article is to be deleted because it's "not of lasting encyclopedic interest", you may as well delete all music from Wikipedia that didn't sell over 1,000,000 copies, any movies that grossed very little, TV shows that got cancelled. In short, it's illogical to do such a thing.
- You might want to read WP:ILIKEIT. Zun aid ©® 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on the archived WP:NOTNEWS talkpage. This is a one-shot news event which belongs in Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. Zun aid ©® 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a newspapper. - Nabla 14:34, 15 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. Sr 13 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Episodes[edit]

Delete - The artcle is a list of what episode numbers aired in what year. It's utterly pointless. Otto4711 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And yet, it's strangely hypnotic. - Richfife 02:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a lot more that can be said. WP:NOT#IINFO is the only thing I can think of. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am not a number! I am...a different show entirely? Clarityfiend 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And in the meantime make clear this is not the excellent 1967 series The Prisoner which only had 17 episodes. Edison 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By hook or by crook, this blasphemy has got to go. ~ Infrangible 18:22, 9 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. Sr 13 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matériel blanc[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article was recreated after being deleted following WP:PROD. Rick Block (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Why not db-nocontext? --Evb-wiki 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was already prodded and re-created, so I'm treating it like a contested prod. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Evb-wiki, CSD A1. The nominator was correct to bring it here, and the next admin who sees this will be equally correct to send it back to oblivion. Yechiel Man 07:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, CSD A1 does not apply. There's plenty enough context to establish what the article is about, there's even a reference. The question is whether this stub about a future film is worthy of being an article (the proposed guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (films) say no). I've brought up the general issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ("normal") - there is no IMDB or AMG listing for this film as of yet, and with only one solid reference, isn't really verifiable. Once it starts filming & more information available, then bring it back. SkierRMH 02:35, 11 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 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agency of record[edit]

Dicdef. Apparently just created so the deceptively titled What is an "agency of record"? spam link for creative-manager.com could be included, then this article linked to other related articles. Masaruemoto 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but nuke that "source" as link spam. --Evb-wiki 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. User:Rayth is making an attempt at astroturfing. Spam links are being removed. DarkAudit 01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did attempt to despam the article, but couldn't (apparently) salvage it - Tiswas^(t) 09:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:05, 9 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. — Ocatecir ^T 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Information Economics[edit]

Declined this as a spam speedy, but I do not see any real sources that assert notability. Author has a conflict of interest, and has added links to this article to multiple economics articles, but COI is not a reason for deletion Steve _(Stephen)^talk 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the claim that it is blatant advertisment:

Apparently the only reason this is seen as a "blantant advertisement" is the citation of my book. I'm fine with the removal of that. However, you will find that Applied Information Economics is taught in more than one university and used in several government agencies if you google the phrase. The term is not trademarked and the process is public domain. If you think it makes it "less blatant" then feel free to remove reference to Douglas W. Hubbard. But why not apply the same rules to the Balanced Scorecard article? Or the Analytic Hierarchy Process article?

Also, note that AIE is an alternative to Balanced Scorecard. Both are public domain methods although they were largely initiated by a single book or set of authors. Neither term is a trademark nor has either method been patented. In both cases, multiple firms exist that provide services in that area. One difference I see is that there are apparently no courses actually named "balanced scorecard" in the ciriculum of major universities. I agree that the AIE article should be just as neutral as the balanced scorecard article. If the AIE article must be deleted, then the Balanced Scorecard articles (and many others, no doubt) would have to be deleted if the same rules applied

Regarding the neologism accusaion, usually, a 10-12 year old term used in other publications by those other than the person who coined it, used as the title of a class in a university, and in the public domain (not trademarked) would not be a neologism. Or someone may need to define how long a term must be used before it is no long a "neo"-logism.Hubbardaie 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Again, regarding the claim this is blatant advertising, a close read of the blatant advertising rule in speedy delete rules does not seem to include this. This rule includes the sentence "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." Perhaps "blatant" and "inappropriate" are the key subjective terms, here. But, again, if balanced scorecard passes this criterion, I'm not sure how this article wouldn't.Hubbardaie 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Article needs a second point of view. Badly. I can see major problems in the theory straight away. But it's been around a while and sort of stumbles up to the notability requirements finish line based on the handful of articles here and there that mention it when you do a search. We're not here to judge anything but verifiability and notability. Note to Hubbardaie: Putting this article on Wikipedia means that you have given them the right to add content you may not like. That's about to happen. - Richfife 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richfife comments: I recognize the exposure to criticism and, of course, invite all comments. I'm curious what "major problems" you see in the theory. But the additional reference I added includes a lengthy US government research report on AIE. It should give you much more to respond to. I would have included all of that detail about how to execute the method but then I would have only risked having even more effort deleted.Hubbardaie 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm just a little paranoid after a recent temper tantrum by another editor that added info about himself to Wikipedia. Stand by. p.s. Please sign your remarks with 4 uh, thingies like so ~~~~. It is automatically replaced with a name and date, which makes these discussions much easier to follow. - Richfife 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - thank you about the signature protocol, I'm still getting the hang of this.Hubbardaie 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if verifiable references are shown citing the subject matter, otherwise delete. I don't think WP:SPAM is an issue here. --Javit 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more verifiable references. The Wharton class of that name and the research report done by the Federal CIO council.Hubbardaie 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's much better Hubbardaie. The more references the better. I think the article is salvageable if the issues raised are addressed --Javit 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to Weak Keep, see below. this is a representative of the articles where a theme or catch-phrase or title in an individual book is used as a subject for an article' almost always, there is no such subject, or the author invented it himself, or it is the use of common words as if they had some special; significance. This is primarily the second, for the author admits inventing the method and the phrase. I consider this spam, i consider it advertising for the author's method and by implication the book. Whether the theory makes sense is irrelevant--it becomes a subject only when other people use it as a specific theory. The same rules apply to invented business methods as invented anything.
- The references are meaningless. One is a general textbook of statistical methods as background, one is a course in the economics of information which happens to use the same words, without any indication whatsoever that it deals with the ideas presented in the article, and the other is the author's book. Obviously, if references can be presented using the term as a term to describe a subject as described here, then there might be an article. But the article describes "a specific decision analysis method developed by Douglas W. Hubbard.", and the course is about using "tools in the economics of uncertainty and information in order to conduct rigorous model-based research in the applied social sciences on topics involving the use of information." - the author's work isn't even on the reading list. The Wharton course was obviously added by searching for a course whose name happened to match. Academic spam is spam. DGG 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No the references are not "meaningless". The "general textbook" you refer to applies only to the point about calibration - an entirely separate topic that was researched for decades by others (and on which I plan to write a topic to fill that void in wikipedia). Another reference just added shows the results of an Information week survey about AIE and other methods. Searches on AIE in that same periodical and CIO magazine make it clear they are all talking about the same method (I've written articles in both). The Wharton reading list was made before my book was released, so it would not be on the reading list. The book is listed on Amazon but not available until July 20. One of these professors specifically asked me for detailed information which, until the book comes out, was only available in unpublished form. Other links have been added which you may have missed in your last reading including a lengthy study by the Federal CIO Council on the topic.Hubbardaie 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Okay let's be careful here. Hubberdaie I recommend you carefully review this official policy WP:NOR. Articles must be referenced by secondary, verifiable sources. Please bear that in mind when editing in case you weren't aware of it --Javit 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate your point and thank you for the policy. I'm new to wikipedia but, on careful reading it doesn't appear I violate this rule. The links and articles I present - especially the federal study - contain all this and much more. Nothing here is original. Of course, the "How to Measure Anything" book is the most complete reference, but that appears to raise the COI concerns. Previous commentors here have indicated that COI alone is not sufficient basis for deletion so I guess thats a productive tradeoff between COI and NOR. But I'm certainly open to comments that would make this more compliant. Thanks for the rigourous intro to wikipedia!Hubbardaie 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fix a typo in the 1998 InformationWeek reader survey about IT metrics methods (which included AIE)Hubbardaie 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one of the original objections to this article was "internal spam". When I first posted the article, a header appeared saying it was an "orphan" and needed links from other articles. I went out and started to make links wherever it looked appropriate only to find out that this is called "internal spam". Which of these guidelines do I follow?Hubbardaie 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I put the original orphan tag, since this article had nothing else linking to it. This makes an article hard to find unless somebody is explicitly looking for that exact topic. Of course, these should be appropriate links. I don't think there are guidelines on any of this, and neither being an orphan nor "internal spamming" are deletion criteria. -- MisterHand 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point and that is why I then searched out relevant articles to link to. I found about a dozen that were relevant and many of these were very closely related concepts (eg. business case and cost-benefit analysis). As you said, there aren't any guidelines but apparently that was enough to trip the "internal spam" alarm for some people. I'm sure real spam is a lot more than a dozen links. If this somehow crosses the line, then I think we need a lot more clarity on what "internal spam" means. I was inititially adding back links to Applied Information Economics that were removed by others but I suppose I might as well defer that until its detemined that the AIE article should be kept.Hubbardaie 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at other AFD discussions where a COI issue was brought up. I saw some that appear to be much less neutral than the AIE article and even more of a COI, but apparently passed muster. Having seen some of these other articles, I'm not sure how this article was even remotely suggested for speedy delete. I'm happy to oblige by whatever rules articles should comply with, but I think the rules need to at least be consistently applied.Hubbardaie 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents do not apply and are not considered in AFD discussions. Sorry. - Richfife 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that slightly: You can point out specific arguments that took place in other AFDs in order to save time and retyping, but the arguments should be reconsidered every time. - Richfife

I understand your point. But I wasn't really making the point that precident was the consideration as if once a decision is made, you are stuck with those rules for all future decisions. I was simply saying that, if we were consistent, it would be odd to accept some of the articles that have been accepted (like the one you referenced as a temper tantrum) and - applying the same rules - delete this article.Hubbardaie 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the Information Week article as showing some notability, for it does seem to be about the subject of the article & I consider their surveys on things like this to be RSs., and therefore changed my !vote above to Weak Keep. DGG 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, credible review makes this a notable subject. John Vandenberg 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to section in Information economics and redirect topic to that section I'm the editor who originally put the speedy-delete tag on this article. On Thursday night, Hubbardaie misunderstood the meaning of the Wikipedia orphan tag and did a lot of inappropriate wikilinking very quickly. He'd only just created the article on Wednesday. Thursday night, his actions looked like intentional internal spamming to me. We've got over 12,000 stub-level articles in business and econ, according to the rating system that WikiProjects use. I don't know how many are orphans or near-orphans, but if other inexperienced editors interpret an orphan tag in the way Hubbardaie did, it's a problem. Hubbardaie has a business to run and a book due for release in August. I haven't been able to find any references to add to this Wikipedia article that he hasn't already added. He knows now that he cannot use an unpublished book as a reference for a Wikipedia article. If I came across this article while reviewing stubs, I'd suggest a merge, so I'm suggesting that now. Down the road, when more references are available, this topic might become an independent article. But I don't think it's there yet. --SueHay 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- First, I've read the Information Economics article a few days ago and these are entirely different topics and they could not be merged in a way that would make any sense. A couple of days ago I suggested renaming that article or disambiguation. The topic of the information economics article seems to lump together some very different topics under one name but emphasizes a set of methods about asymetric information in markets and how information affects market behavior, which is the topic of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics. However, the authors of this theory don't actually call it "information economics" but, more often "economics of information" or even more specifically "asymetric information markets" or "theory of asymetric information". Further confusing the use of that term is that there is also a completely different, and much older use of the term "information economics" that is again a third completely different animal (I discuss the differences in the discussion page of the Information Economics article). The term "applied information economics", on the other hand, predates the wide recognition of asymetric information in markets and the two are related only tangentially in one small component of each (both use the same method to compute the expected value of perfect information). Unlike the Nobel Prize winning method, AIE is not about explaining the behavior of markets. It is simply a particular procedure for analyzing a specific uncertaint investment. Furthermore, since the reader survey I refer to in InformationWeek says that 12% of respondants use AIE for performance metrics in IT and since it is highly unlikely that the IT management readers in 1998 would have any familiarity with the 2001 economics Nobel work and since the topics are so different, it is clear that AIE in that context is not what the current Information Economics article is about. The other topics that were claimed to be under the title Information economics were all just stubs, so we don't know what is actually meant by them.Hubbardaie 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Second, if the main obstacle SueHay presents is the publication of the book, then that would be solved by reposting this article when the book is out in 2 months. It would cause massive incoherence and confusion to merge this method with the Nobel prize winning method. As I said, that article should be renamed, anyway, to reflect the more common term the Nobel prize winners actually use for it. But the other references should suffice even without the book and, if not, SueHay's comment about finding more citations notwithstanding, I could add more (there are more government studies with about about AIE that I will post if I need to). Also, the two articles currently have an equal number of citations. Granted, the AIE citations don't have Nobel prize-winning articles among them, but it is a management consulting method, not an academic theory. So how many citations would suffice if six is not enough?Hubbardaie 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Third, I don't think one could say I "misunderstood" the orphan tag. I did exactly as it clearly suggested. But it may be that the orphan tag mistates what you intend it to be. I agree with SueHay that you might consider addressing this.Hubbardaie 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some additional comments in the discussion of the "Information Economics" article to better clarify the various topics this term has been used for. It should probably just direct people to other specific articles like a disambiguation would.Hubbardaie 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — given improvements made since nominated, Notability is just about there.--Arthana 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the discussion in the Information economics article. I added a detailed explaination of the different (and very muddled) concepts introduced in the article. This should clear up how the article is talking about several different highly unrelated concepts that should simply be in different articles.Hubbardaie 12:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how long does the delete tag stay? There hasn't been any new comment for a few days and the emerging concensus seems to be a keep.Hubbardaie 02:42, 15 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 both. Sr 13 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Linux[edit]

Dead non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following page because it treats an equally non-notable product:[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:VERIFY --Javit 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable distribution, also fails WP:RS and WP:V. Carlosguitar 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each article's significance seems dependent on that of the other, and no other notability is asserted. Someguy1221 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have they come up with Hello Kitty linux yet? ~ Infrangible 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the Pokemon Linux test. RFerreira 06:36, 12 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 copvio Malla nox 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Industry[edit]

It is an essay type article that was created on May 2. It can also be found here http://open-site.org/Business/Arts,_Entertainment,_and_Recreation/Media_Production/ which claims a " Copyright © Open Site" but I don't know if it came from Wikipedia first or if their copyright allows this sharing. 650l2520 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unformatted text, single purpose account, stolid voice... Looks like another term paper pasted onto Wikipedia. I hope he got a good grade. - Richfife 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reading the paper, I hope he didn't get a good grade. - Richfife 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a place to post your term paper, regardless of the grade you received. Horologium t-c 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is definitely a copyright violation. Google's cache indicates the webpage existed on April 16: [67], whereas this article was created on the second of May: [68]. nadav (talk)
Speedy delete as a copyvio and per Wikipedia not being a publisher of original research. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:54, 8 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBLS[edit]

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Conflict of interest. Chealer 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS on the article. John Vandenberg 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I even vaguely remember this project as a spin-off of DSL. 'Itty Bitty Linux Server' was an attempt to run production-level services off of a live cd. The thing never took off, their webserver appears to be down, as well as their project listing on Freshmeat and I can't really find anything recent about them. So, yes, the project looks like it's dead and I don't see how it's notable. There certainly isn't any assertion of notability. So, yes, delete. --Seed 2.0 10:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable distribution that seems dead, also fails WP:RS and WP:V. Carlosguitar 13:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:04, 9 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. Sr 13 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moosylvania Marketing[edit]

Spamvertisment for a marketing agency of questionable notability. Article claims it's "currently the largest independently-owned agency in the United States"; Googling "Moosylvania Marketing" gives around 60 unique Google results, mostly business directories. Masaruemoto 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently this slipped back through the timestream from the 2012 edition of Wikipedia. We should send it back. - Richfife 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. User:Rayth is making an attempt at astroturfing. Spam links are being removed. DarkAudit 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete its all spam to me. BH (T|C) 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - Tried & failed to make the article worthwhile - Tiswas^(t) 09:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

comment - (I'm slightly ambivalent about this) - there is mention (and verification of awards). Just because an article is about a company, it does not make it spam. It isn't overtly promotional, but could do with a POV check - Tiswas^(t) 09:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Well, it seems really to pass WP:CORP with 2 awards. Carlosguitar 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised, but upon review, it looks like awards are not mentioned as criteria in WP:CORP. ~ Infrangible 02:43, 9

Reply comment: it is true, but can be these awards the "secondary sources" in the criterion? According to WP:CORP: "include reliable published works in all forms", and awards are not in the except list. Carlosguitar 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beleive there are awards for everything. Even if the award itself is notable, then the awardees may not be. And even more so the other way around. Each source needs to be judged by itself but to me two awards from the same source isn't "sources". Still if it can be properly expanded it may live. Maybe a statement from Bacardi (unreferenced fact) or facts about what made the agency Notable enough to be awarded could help. JAGulin 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's spam. Acalamari 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain specifically why you believe it to be spam? Rayth 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the facts in the original suggestion by Masaruemoto. It's not Notable as is. I wouldn't call it spam at it seems to fall into "good faith" (see comment). If the article is made more interesting and show notability I instead withdraw my vote. JAGulin 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. JJL 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spam by a non-notable organization which profits from more spam. RFerreira 06:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, and definitely non-notable. *Cremepuff 222* 21:14, 12 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 Speedily deleted as hoax --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernemike[edit]

Is this a hoax? or does someone know what it is referring to? 650l2520 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, see this cached google hit Click DuncanHill 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without the interesting Ghit, it's pretty obviously hoaxalicious. --Charlene 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, calling vandalism (G3) as per the above google cache link. Good one, Duncan. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - outrageous how some slip through like that. Nice one with the google cache Duncan --Javit 01:10, 8 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneko Mino[edit]

This article has lacked sources since inception, and has been tagged as needing sources for about 8 months. The subject, if a real historical figure at all, obviously lacks any notability, both based on his "life" as written, and the fact that the title of the article isn't even a given name, it is an honorary title. It appears most likely to have come from the "Samurai Warriors" video game. History articles lacking verifiable sources are inherently worthless, and this one additionally lacks any apparent notability whatsoever or Verifiable Sources. Kuuzo 00:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right, Kuuzo. I hate to pull the C word, but I'm calling "fancruft". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: WP:VERIFY --Javit 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the story could be verified, I doubt he would be notable. --Evb-wiki 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The city government website for Numata, Gunma mentions him briefly in their history section under Muromachi period; see [69]. Says he was the maternal grandfather of someone named Heihachirou (平八郎) who was the last heir of the Numata clan. So the fact that this guy existed and was connected to Numata is at least verifiable, though I'm not really sure about notability yet. I'd say redirect to Numata Castle or Numata Kageyoshi, except we don't have an article about either in enwiki; Kaneko is mentioned on the equivalent page ja:沼田城. cab 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we have one aspect of this - this person evidently existed some time prior in history. Is there anything else you can find that basically negates my fancruft comment above? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Simple "existence" does not indicate notability - particularly when the source of the information here is undocumented and can't seem to be found. I still don't see any indication that this person was notable. Most likely a video game added some fiction to make him seem heroic and interesting for the video game. Regardless, this article is unverified, and seems unverifiable. --Kuuzo 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm aware of the existence thing. I had to pull this in the AFD for Chesskers. =^_^= My vote stands thusly, but I'm wondering if cab (above) can get more information out on this. That he exists is a start, but not the defining factor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree - although on a required closer reading due to the poor grammar, there is actually only one sentence about "Kaneko Mino" in this article, the rest of the article refers to his grandson. It seems his grandson is more notable than he is (which isn't saying much) - it appears his only claim to fame is his own grandson. --Kuuzo 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...in which case my !vote ain't changing. =/ Ah, well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable relative of a somewhat-notable assassin. I don't see anything substantial written about him (though Google Books doesn't have nearly the depth of coverage of with Japanese books as it does of English books, so there could be sources out there that we can't see). cab 01:56, 13 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 – fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Platt[edit]

The article fails WP:BIO. He's very non-notable Delete GreenJoe 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This author is known to a majority of the roleplaying MUD community throughout several popular forums including TopMudSites and Mud Connector which get tens of thousands of hits, and has created games that have involved thousands of people. I fail to understand how this is a notability issue if the category of MUSH still stands. Carduus 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is new. GreenJoe 04:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been here for almost a year. How long before one is no longer new? Carduus 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have 7 edits and only one was a year ago... also thats the only edit not relating to Wes Platt. See WP:SPA. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I see how you can think I'm an SPA. Carduus 22:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep. One edit followed by 11 months of nothing looks like you created spare names once upon a time and now pulled one out for this AfD. Doczilla 06:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person seems to fail WP:BIO. Notability would require coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. But none are given; the only secondary source is an interview published on a blog-like platform (not reliable). Unless someone comes up with other significant sources (I didn't find any), the person is not notable by the guidelines. --B. Wolterding 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person could be considered notable if some non-trivial secondary sources can be found. Right now non exist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It now lists at least two non-trivial, verifiable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.203.202 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me, which two sources are you referring to, specifically? Browsing through the list of links (which has indeed grown), I found a number of blogs and online communities (not reliable), trivial mentioning, and articles written by Wes Platt (not independent), but maybe I missed these two? --B. Wolterding 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tampa Tribune profile (800 words, not exactly trivial) from 2004 and the 1991 article in the Times that confirms his involvement with the Oracle (neither of which were written by Wes Platt). The links to articles in the Times by Wes Platt merely confirm his contributions as a professional journalist. There was also a profile of him in the St. Petersburg Times Floridian section in 1991 after the Oracle achieved best student daily in the nation, but that doesn't appear to be available in the newspaper's online archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.203.202 (talk • contribs)

OK, I see. But the 1991 St Petersburg Times article is about a student newspaper that won an award, and Platt is named as the chief editor (there's actually no more information about him). That might be worth a side note in The Oracle (University of South Florida), but does not warrant an article about the editor, in my point of view. For the Tampa Tribune article (which seems to be longer actually, I can only access the abstract): Is this not an article about the game, rather than about the person? All in all, I do not see substantial coverage. --B. Wolterding 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune article is indeed longer (they charge more to see the full version), but it is about Wes Platt and his projects. His background and his involvement of those projects were the point of the article, not just the games themselves. The Times article about him from the Floridian section might be available in their hardcopy archives - and that was most certainly about *him*. It was reported by Anne V. Hull, a staff writer at the Times (at the time. She's now at the Washington Post). I certainly don't have personal access to those archives, though. He was also interviewed on Orlando's Radio Sci-Fi about his projects. Not sure if there's an archived audio file available, but I can research it.

Delete. The Tribune article looks OK, but I agree with B.Wolterding about the St. Petersburg Times story. I spent some time looking for another source, but couldn't find anything - which seems odd for someone whose assertion of notability is internet related. So, at this point it seems to me that he doesn't meet N or BIO, though I will watch to see if anything new pops up.--Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Reading this log is like reading the transcript of a court hearing. What an amazingly trivial topic, and yet both sides are researching and battling. If only you'd expend that much energy helping your fellow man, this might be a better world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.148.138 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 04:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy[edit]

Recreation of article on the same topic that was speedy deleted in June of last year. Subject is a non-notable concept from the writings of Michael E. Arth. All references are either to Arth's websites or books that make no mention of the article's subject. Much of the content merely summarizes sections of the article Technological singularity, and the entire "External links" section is cut-and-pasted from there. Schaefer (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arth notable but this only notable because of Arth. Ttiotsw 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if meets notability - Seems to meet notability. --R e m i 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arth is clearly notable, and his ideas about a universe wide network of intelligent conscious energy are also notable, having first appeared in a book published 24 years ago: Michael E. Arth: Introspective 1972-1982. The subject should not be censored just because Arth has not widely promoted the idea during the intervening years. His ideas are of current interest and extremely relevant to discussions about the future, and this site at least deserves a link from Transhumanism and Technological Singularity. Arth is also working on two documentaries, one of which will include a section about UNICE and another that will be exclusively about UNICE and the Technological Singularity. It seems pointless to censor this now, only to bring it back in a year when there are more web hits. Shouldn't Wiki lead instead of follow? elikqitie 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arth is a graphic artist, and Introspective is an art book. UNICE is a subject whose only treatment in published sources is one mention of a similar-sounding idea in an obscure 1984 art book. The fact he got some of his graphic art published doesn't extend notability to ideas about consciousness he decides to write about online 23 years later. The article makes no reference to any published sources not by Arth that have considered his UNICE idea notable. Also, please note that "elikqitie" is User:Lynndunn, the author of the article in question, and that all of Lynndunn's contributions have been either to create or link to articles about Michael E. Arth and his ideas. Lynndunn is also responsible for all non-trivial contributions to the article on Michael E. Arth himself, and was its sole supporter when it was placed on AfD last year. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Technological singularity. This lacks its own independent reliable sources to show it is notable, while the target article is notable. Notability is not contagious such that it spreads from one notable aspect of an author's life to all other concepts and writings. Edison 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It's agreed that Arth is notable, and it appears that the subject of UNICE will grow in terms of notability (even though hypothesized future notability is not a Wikipedia criteria for non-deletion). This article does seem marginally notable in a technical sense, but it's still a keeper because it follows the spirit of Wikipedia, which is also one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. The UNICE article contains some of the same references and links as the indisputably notable transhumanism and technological singularity articles becuase it is closely related, and flows from the same assumptions. But this article still expresses its own novel point of view ("modern transhumanist myth" dressed up in a communal, infintely-faceted persona). UNICE gives an interesting and generalized perspective to a complex field and is a good handle to grab onto. The article could do away with some of the shared references with transhumanism and it would still be a good article. Or this article could be merged with technological singularity. In either case, Wikipedia should keep this information.

Even under the strictly technical Wikipedia guidelines of general notability the article seems to qualify on at least 3 our of 5 points, with the other 2 points hanging by a thread.

1. (qualifies) The sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content.

2. (qualifies) Sources should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multipe sources are generally preferred.

3. (qualifies) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all form and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

4. (barely qualifies, but only because of Arth's book published in the early '80s.) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

5. (barely qualifies, but gives support for merging with other articles)Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merge with another article.

Conclusion: Keep or Merge with Technological Singularity

Note: The above keep vote is the very first edit of the user AlexH20, and thus should not be considered. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex has brought up some good points to discuss no matter who he or she is, so I'm quoting Alex here:

[Redundant paste of AlexH20's above comment removed by Schaefer]

-- elikqitie 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quoted is still here and legible if anyone wants to read it. That's why I put it in strikethrough instead of deleting it. It doesn't need repeated twice. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments indicates that either the editor himself has reconsidered or that he agreed that this comment is obsolete or redundant. Mentioning that the editor has no other contributions is usually done without striking, so I'll reinstate the comment. Additionally, that it is the very first edit doesn't automatically mean it is a bad-faith edit. Malc82 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is, however, still the user's only edit 12 days later. Sci girl 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject WP:NN. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean all of his ideas and/or theories are notable. If the topic must be kept merge it into Michael E. Arth and/or Technological singularity. --Evb-wiki 01:32, 8 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, IronGargoyle 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't science, it's just speculative myth making bollocks and unless the article points that out it should go. There's lots of interesting stuff about the future of humanity, virtual intelligence, the 'singularity' and so forth on Wikipedia and it's an incredibly interesting subject but this is just an ad for a book. Nobody talks about a 'universe wide network of intelligent conscious energy' when discussing these ideas, it's just not notable. Nick mallory 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arth. Not notable enough to support an article by itself. It's just not (U)NICE enough to keep. Clarityfiend 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Speculative Myth combined with some speculative science is all we can say about something that might happen in a few decades. This point can be added to the article to make it even more clear that this is a modern myth. No one, not even Ray Kurzweil, knows what will really happen when AI arrives on the scene. UNICE, as Arth says, is only one of innumerable names for this thing that will probably happen. It makes sense to start talking and writing about it now. UNICE (in the references at least) makes something clear out of a lot of nebulosity. elikqitie 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

elikqitie, please be aware that voting more than once is generally discouraged. Comments are always welcome, of course, but repeating the bolded "keep" marker is a bit misleading. Thanks. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Merge with arth/singularity there's nothing particularly new, or notable here. It could just as well be a small entry in the 'popular culture' section of tech. singularity. cornis 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP As a serious student of religion, with a strong interest in eschatology, having recently read the adaptation from his book, The Future, I have to say that UNICE is an important new concept, appearing at a time when I was groping for some way to understand what seems to be an impending convergence of science and religion--which will leave science the winner, but will replace the mystery with something accessible while still as remarkable as the wildest promises of religion. I think Arth has been very level-headed in not making extravagant claims for UNICE, but rather trying to collect the loose ends of scientific speculation with mythology, religion, and flat out gee whiz "where is all this leading us to???!!!!"Astarte9 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign. The previous comments were mine. My conclusion is that UNICE deserves it's own article and links from various related articles.Astarte9 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Astarte9's account was registered June 8 and has only two edits prior to this vote, both to talk pages. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, verging on OR. "Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy" gets a grand total of 7 Altavista hits. Doczilla 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does that lady's wild afro give her extra cosmic powers? ~ Infrangible 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, don't mess with Mother Nature!elikqitie 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael E. Arth. No evidence of notability. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge some of it with the artist's article. There's virtually no info on it on the web; all but 8 of the hits for UNICE are for a European business organization. I get 8 hits on Google for the concept when I filter it, and 4 of those are no Wikipedia. I can't find anything about this in journal sources either. Sci girl 03:32, 12 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.