Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< February 8 February 10 >

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The result was turned into a redirect and AfD withdrawn by nominator. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago meteorite

edit
Santiago meteorite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del nonverifiable. The only source appears to be an article in a russian newspaper Sobesednik. I ve seen it myself, but its archive is no longer available. It other words, the article does not fit even for the category:Hoaxes. `'mikka 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why you want this removed or what the justification is. Could you explain in some more detail? 81.169.185.225 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, already been merged. Jaranda wat's sup 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Playboy Playmates

edit
Dead Playboy Playmates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly certain this falls into What Wikipedia is not. Interesting, yes. But not what an encyclopedia is for. --- RockMFR 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly both WP:RS and WP:V. The detailed information should be in the articles of the playmates. And if you use WP:NOT, you should specify which point precisely in the rather extensive list you think it fails. If this article should be delete I suppose you'd support deleteing the two I mentioned above to be deleted as well. Else there would be no uniform system to it at all. Rune X2 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content may be slightly encyclopedic, but this is, again, a glorified category listing and the content (namely death and cause of death0 should be included under each subject's page. Also, please read the reason why "It doesn't do any harm" arguments are fallacious. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom Mdcollins1984 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm the one who created the article in the first place. Perhaps the information can be merged into the main Playmate article? Rglovejoy 12:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - only if there is some verifiable reason why being a Playmate makes one more apt to die. Fact is the first Playmates are now in their 60s and 70s; nature is going to take its course eventually anyway; there isn't anything particularly notable about the fact members of a certain group die over time. If this list were of Playmates who were murdered,, that would be a different story, and probably a very short list. 23skidoo 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists serve important indexing functions and partially alleviate one of the major bottlenecks in the operation: the search function. A list of dead Playboy playmates answers questions that readers might be interested in: you have a group of young women famous chiefly for being attractive, but some have come to natural or unexpected deaths; who are they? - Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be assuming too much of people's use of wikipedia - do you really think a lot of people will search for this term? More likely, any traffic this article gets is as a result of a link from a different article that people click out of morbid curiosity.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we ought to pass judgment on peoples' curiosity. The question is, will this list answer their "morbidly" curious questions? - Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem, though, is your reasoning could be used as an argument in favor of every list. "Playboy playmates who didn't graduate high school" or "Actors who own border collies" or any other potentially indiscriminate list could be kept on the grounds that it might satisfy a single person's curiosity.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Actors who own border collies"? I'm going to go start that one right now. Wikipedia should be about everything! — coelacan talk — 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they will all die someday, why document it like this? Booshakla 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sine eventually they'll all be on the list... Philippe Beaudette 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This would be more useful in a "List of playmates", that included such info as the playmates' hometown, age of appearance in the magazine, and then also age/cause of death. I do think it's interesting that many of these women were lost to unusual circumstances, but there needs to be more context to show how the statistics compare with all women who were playmates, many of whom are still alive and healthy. --Elonka 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep my attempt to stop this avalanche revolves around the selection bias for WP:XFD on articles of a sensitive moral nature. Most people are unwilling to say positive things about Playboy related articles, lists, categories and templates. This is true of people who are in fact supportive. They are just unwilling to say so. I have managed to get several pages like Playboy Online undeleted noting this as part of my argument. I realize that my argument is likely to fall on deaf ears, but this is an encyclopedi article. If delete please merge. TonyTheTiger 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I did not nom this article because of the nature of Playboy. I nominated it because a list of dead people is not encyclopedic. Should we have a list of dead xxxxx for every xxxxx classification on Wikipedia? --- RockMFR 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not in a list. If the person is notable enough, we should note their death and reason it occurred in the article of the subjects themselves, but not in a list format. A category of deceased playmates is one thing; a listing is another, and would be unnecessarily redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not unnecessarily redundant, it's potentially useful. See List of United States Presidents by date of death for one easy example. I think that is a convenient and helpful list, so I don't object to this list purely on that subject. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Deceased Playboy Playmates. If not at least merge with related article. Who knows if by an amazing coincidence that somebody on Who Want To Be A Millionaire needed to phone a friend for help on a question on deceased Playboy Playmates and the friend used Wikipedia to search for this article. Jungworld.com 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a trivia information dump or a gameshow question answering service. It'd be really weird for a question about this to turn up on WWTBAM anyway. Bwithh 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete necrophilia fetishcruft. Or, more likely, a great example of what we don't need lists for. "Dead cosmonauts" and "living Cirque du Soleil acrobats" make just as much sense. How about "dead Kennedys"? Well, this article can come back when it's the name of a band. — coelacan talk — 03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too arbitrary. And creepy.-- danntm T C 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please cite Wikipedia guildelines designating 'creepy' and 'necrophiliac' as grounds for deletion. There is a lot of 'we don't need Dead Kennedys, Dead Cosmonauts, or Dead NBA Players here' (and why not?) but nobody saying 'if there are now such lists, or come to be such lists in the future, I will pursue their deletion, as I will now pursue the deletion of Muslim Nobel Prize Winners and Historical Cats, in order to enforce my objections to Dead Playboy Playmates consistently across the board.' Without such a commitment, isn't an objection to Dead Playboy Playmates inconsistent?64.131.165.23 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Xtopher Simpson[reply]
  • You know, your argument isn't very convincing. (Not least because you're not making one as to why it's indiscriminate. Just claiming it is so doesn't really convince me.). Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Death itself is notable, and it's a given that it's going to be included in any article about a person, or group of people. Playboy Playmates also have some degree of notability as well. Thus I don't see any reason why one would have to show in particular that any given group that is notable has to show anything about its deaths to include the information. That said, a quick look has shown me at least 2 movies/tv specials on Playmate deaths. I suspect ANS will spawn at least one as well. Thus I'd say there's enough interest in the subject of some Playmate's deaths to give it at least some coverage. I just wouldn't say this article is the right way to go about it. FrozenPurpleCube 07:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever said that their deaths should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Their deaths should be mentioned in the articles about the individual people. That's obvious. What's not obvious is why there should be a separate article discussing this. There's nothing underneath this article, it's original research to say that there's something important about this intersection between dead people and Playmates. The reason it's indiscriminate is that it's just a list of women in a particular profession who are dead. What on Earth is notable about that? Nothing. Why should it have an article? — coelacan talk — 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any group of reasonable specificity, listing the basic biographical facts of their lives is a given, even if it's just the dates of their birth and death. Adding the cause of death is not an especially large change, and can be found on many pages already. Sometimes it's even a page of its own. See the Presidents page I already mentioned, or this one List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death among others. I'm not saying that is the route I'd go here, but I don't know why you're quibbling about interest, as I said, I found several movies/tv specials about Playmate deaths. Did you miss that part of my reply? I do think mentioning that Dorothy Stratton, Claudia Jennings and any other Playmates whose death has lead to such interest should be covered. Might even include Marilyn Monroe in the list, though she was known for other things so maybe not. Now I'm not saying that this article is the way I'd do it. I would prefer listing their biographical details in a separate page, and covering the interesting/notable deaths in the Playboy Playmates article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, an AFD is an important place to discuss alternative to deletion, which is why I suggested merge earlier. I may not be in favor of keeping this article, but the information in the article isn't a problem in itself. In fact, as I said earlier, it's already in Playboy Playmates. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are categories for this. --Tim1988 talk 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very informative and kind interesting to know, but I think the title should be changed to "Deceased Playboy Playmates" instead of the "harsh" title of "Dead Playboy Playmates" Tazz 17:04 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can understand why this would be interesting. Most of these Playmates died prematurely and tragically. There's a kernel of something that could possibly be kept--perhaps a legend of a "Playmate curse"--but only if such is based on reliable sources. That's not present here, and a mere list of Playmates who happen to be dead is unencyclopedic and as unnecessary as a List of deceased United States presidents. Nick Graves 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually talking about List of United States Presidents by date of death? Hmm, no, I don't think it should be deleted at all. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was enough already, speedy delete as "obviously ridiculous hoax" = vandalism. At least try and use some plausible French city names. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lingeburghe

edit
Lingeburghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article text is entirely identical to [2]. The content is unsourced, and I found less than 100 nonwiki ghits. Fails WP:N and WP:OR by a mile. YechielMan 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:19Z

Music Network

edit
Music Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Music network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

placed AFD by IP but never listed. The organization seems non-notable and there are no sources given.comple MECU≈talk 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be provided. With a name like that it is too hard to try and find them. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Wizardman 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village School Charlottesville Virginia (3rd nomination)

edit
Village School Charlottesville Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A prior no consensus decision was overturned at deletion review, but the discussion was inconclusive as to what to do with the article, so it's back here for more discussion, incl. whether there are non-trivial secondary sources. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reasoning Jaranda wat's sup 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I argue that schools are notable because they have a profound affect on their pupils (this could be several thousand people, depending on the age & size of a school). As such, this makes them notable, not only to their community but to the world at large if former pupils move away. Markb 13:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. 1ne 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's Gamblin Hall and Saloon

edit
Bill's Gamblin Hall and Saloon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Facility does not exist yet, nor is it 100% certain that it will ever exist (WP:NOT a crystal ball). Recommend recreating when (and if) it does. Amnewsboy 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camino Real Middle School

edit
Camino Real Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn middle school. Nothing more than a directory listing. Quick google search indicates nothing remarkable about this school. Prod removed by an anon. Resolute 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I argue that schools are notable because they have a profound affect on their pupils (this could be several thousand people, depending on the age & size of a school). As such, this makes them notable, not only to their community but to the world at large if former pupils move away. Markb 13:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of characters in the Halloween series. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:19Z

List of Deaths in Halloween

edit
List of Deaths in Halloween (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT violation. Wikipedia is not a place for "raw plot summaries," and the exact situations of four charecters' deaths in a movie, if belonging in wikipedia at all, do not deserve an article all to themselves. Thanatosimii 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is two days old... I really don't think it would be too rough on us all if it just dissappeared. There's little content here worth saving, anyhow... Thanatosimii 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The presence of an article about the film itself (one of my favorites, BTW) as well as articles about the individual characters would seem to make this information redundant, unnecessary, and redundant. This list reminds me of similar lists in Fangoria magazine back in the 1980s. They were great for Fangoria, but not so much for Wikipedia. Seventypercent 03:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:18Z

Linux Medical News

edit
Linux Medical News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm a little reluctant to do this. The article makes a good case for the newsletter's notability. Problem is, it's the wrong kind of notability (i.e. fails WP:WEB) and external sources are not given. I found about 700 nonwiki ghits, which is borderline. More to the point, the article writer, User:Ivaldes1, is more than likely the Ignacio Valdes who has been a frequent contributor to LMN, thus creating a conflict of interest. YechielMan 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:17Z

The grady institute

edit
The grady institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notability, both WP:ORG and WP:WEB. Probable WP:COI as well, per Special:Contributions/Lifeshift. — coelacan talk — 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Vicious

edit
Felix Vicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M&A International Inc.

edit
M&A International Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This nomination was begun by User:Rcar. I'm finishing it for him. The subject of the article appears to fail WP:CORP. YechielMan 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Deletion is not the final stage of an article merger. Please finish the merger process properly as described in the step-by-step instructions that the merger notice itself links to. Uncle G 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple C

edit
Triple C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In effect this article has already been merged with Non-medical use of dextromethorphan, as its contents is currently represented and properly referenced there. Proposing deletion of this article and replacing with a redirect to Non-medical use of dextromethorphan. There is no need for a separate article describing one of the many medicines/slang terms used for recreational DXM delivery. Equazcion 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. I have redirected the page, the interested editors may merge content as they deem fit. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netaudio

edit
Netaudio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism that is not asserted as being used except in German. Unless widespread adoption and/or other notability reasons shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:16Z

Who's Your Daddy? (song)

edit
Who's Your Daddy? (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "notability most certainly ascertained; only 6 songs ever became music videos for this band, first Finnish and first rock Eurovision winners, and all were chart successes, too". Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs. — coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The song hit #1 on the Finnish chart. Period. That's notable enough -- Wikipedia has plenty of entries for songs that hit #1 on the international chart but didn't make the American. Rockstar915 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any evidence that this is true, nor would it be sufficient evidence of wp:notability if it were true. There are literally tens of thousands of songs, possibly hundreds of thousands, that have been chart-toppers on some country's chart. That doesn't make any of them automatically notable for a Wikipedia article. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I think that the "only 6 songs made into music videos" needs to be removed. What is with only? 6 seems like a lot. It's biased criteria of notability. Surely similarily famous bands have lest. This song as a chart topper should be kept. Lordi has two internationally notable songs: Hard Rock Hallelujah, and Devil is a Loser (their widely used response to Satanist criticisms).--ZayZayEM 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - if the song being #1 on the Finnish chart can be verified. Otherwise, delete per nom. Black Falcon 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I say above, even if this is true it doesn't automatically make notability. The same would apply to tens of thousands of different otherwise non-notable songs. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not entirely so. While the Notability of Songs proposal is no longer active, making the top 20 in a "large or medium sized country" was part of that proposal. I'd argue that Finland is large enough or medium sized enough to qualify. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that proposal was rejected by the community, so it's a moot point. As WP:N stands, multiple third party WP:reliable sources are needed that discuss the song as their primary topic. That will do it, less won't. — coelacan talk — 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okie dokie. Sources: from ESCToday (perhaps not the most disinterested party, but this is the music world after all). A review of the album, which mentions the song (not about the song itself, but I'll throw it in if you want it). a site mentioning the release of the video. Review of the album, Concert review, in which "the current single" is played, and appearances in the Top 40 of several European states. We can debate "primary topics" now, I'm guessing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It probably would be a good idea to discuss primary topics, since not a single one of those links mentions the song in more than one sentence. Several are blogs, as well, which would not count for notability even if they were primarily about the song. And the top 40 charts! What is the point of bringing this up again? Tens of thousands of songs make top charts! That doesn't mean those songs get to have articles. The german site you came up with for one of the other songs was good, although for that song there's still a need for at least one other reliable source to make it "multiple". That's the sort of coverage we're looking for here. Isn't there anything comparable for this song? — coelacan talk — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • In short, no, there doesn't appear (at least to me) to be anything comparable, which I find interesting. As far as the blogs are concerned, I'll repeat my comments in the other AfD where we've exchanged views, which are that where no other references exist, blogs are all we have. Given that we're talking about singles, which tend not to get reviewed in the music press short of a mention that X has released Y as a single, the fact that this particular single has attracted any mention at all would appear to be an argument for its notability. In terms of the charts issue, in this case my response is two-pronged. Firstly, I'll repeat my question of what else a song can do other than reaching number 1. Yes, lots of songs do this, but it's a considerable achievement to do so regardless of how many do it. Thus, if a song verifiably reached number 1, which this one did, why does that not count either way? Secondly, given that this song appeared not only in the Finnish charts but also those of three other countries, surely that must count for something as well, or does it simply suffer from appearing in the charts of the wrong countries? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What else can a song do besides reach number 1? See Imagine (song) for an example. It can be the topic of media coverage. It can be a subject of artistic criticism. It can be deconstructed. There's a great deal that can happen to make a song repeatedly notable, besides simply being a chart topper and then fading away and apparently never being written about. I wish we could discuss this without making insinuations about geography. I don't care what country it was number 1 in. I've only said repeatedly that number 1 anywhere doesn't matter. Since I have clearly said that, why would you assume that I don't mean it? Why does this have to be about geography? As for blogs, well, the fact simply is that you can't write a verifiable article with blogs. Blogs don't have editorial oversight, so they aren't reliable sources. It may be that many songs' claims to notability comes from blogs. This should be taken as an indication that these songs are not notable enough to have their own article here. — coelacan talk — 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, other things can happen to a song in certain situations. However, not all songs happen to be written by people who are venerated as deities of the songwriter's art. Neither are they necessarily going to be deconstructed and so on just a year after they were released. The fact remains, however, that this particular song has already achieved some kind of notability by reaching number 1 in one country and charting elsewhere. Precedent has been that a song released by a notable band and reaching number 1 is notable of itself, and currently I'm leaning towards the view that the argument to delete is based on a needlessly restrictive reappraisal of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like this should be moved to Who's Your Daddy? (single), but I'm not entirely sure if it was released as a single.--SeizureDog 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If number 1 in Finland can be verified. Finland is a big enough country IMO for a number 1 song there to be notable. Jules1975 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Means very little. The number of songs that have been chart toppers is huge, and this alone doesn't make it possible to write an article about them. The point of asking for multiple independent reliable sources is that without such articles, there's no verifiable content that can ever be added to the article. If the article can't be verified with reliable sources, then the article can't be written on Wikipedia. A graph of chart success does not give us this. — coelacan talk — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete unless a reliable and verifiable source is added to the article by the end of the discussion period to show that the song achieved the claimed chart topping in Finland. If true, it should not be hard to find proof. Per [8] it was #1 in Finland on Sept. 9, 2006. Satisfies WP:MUSIC. I will add the ref to the article if someone else hasn't. I don't agree with WP:MUSIC that all songs by a notable group are notable, but this one makes the grade. It was also top 20 (#14) in Sweden and #21 in Austria. Inkpaduta 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not establish notability for the song to have its own independent article outside of the Lordi article. That is accomplished by actually being the topic of written coverage. Who wrote articles about this song? Where are the reliable sources that some reporter took the time to write? — coelacan talk — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, number 1 single in Finland. Philwelch 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter. See my reply to Jules1975, above. — coelacan talk — 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your reply to Jules above is fallacious. I would also advise you that challenging every vote you disagree with by repeating or citing the same point repeatedly is not very useful. Evidently, most people disagree with your reasoning no matter how many times it is repeated or referred to. Philwelch 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if anyone would actually start answering those points then that would be useful. Disagree with my reasoning? Fine. Then you should be able to explain how an article gets written without third party reliable sources to draw from. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A No. 1 hit single in a significant country is unquestionably notable. The nominator appears to be setting an absurdly high bar for song notability, one that would sweep most existing song articles out of Wikipedia if applied consistently. As for having articles about every other single that topped the charts in a significant country, I have to ask "why not" - as Wikipedia is not paper, the primary limitation is the number of editors who are willing to write such articles and enjoy doing so. A few years ago in Wikipedia, only unknown songs by unknown bands were nominated for deletion. Is Wikipedia now so pushed for space that we have to start deleting Number 1 singles by significant bands? Is this really what the AfD/VfD process was created for? AdorableRuffian 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, AFD really was created fro getting rid of articles that shouldn't exist. There's nothing that can be written about this song beyond a stub, because there are no sources of notabilty and thus verifiability. If an article can never expand beyond a stub, then it must be merged. There's nothing absurdly high about these criteria. I am only asking for what WP:N is asking for: "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." And nobody is presenting those. — coelacan talk — 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe articles about major hit singles by notable artists absolutely should exist on Wikipedia. You have used a strict and subjective interpretation of the WP:N guidelines in judging that the subject is non-notable. Imposing notability criteria which exclude no.1 hit singles by major artists is setting an absurdly high bar for song notability. As per Cpt. Morgan, I do not understand why you feel the need to reply to and individually disparage each "keep" comment. You are entitled to your opinion just as the "keep" contributors are entitled to theirs. AdorableRuffian 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Reply to and individually disparage?" This isn't simply about opinions that aren't to be challenged. We're not talking about tastes in music here. This is a discussion worth having and I intend to give every argument its hearing. I don't think there's anything wrong with letting someone know why I disagree with their argument and trying to engage them further. If I didn't respect anyone's arguments then I wouldn't bother. (I also wouldn't bother if it was clear I was wrong, but I don't see that yet. — coelacan talk — 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the Blood Red Sandman AfD debate. WMMartin 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm cutting and pasting those comments here for the convenience of other editors: "Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin" — coelacan talk — 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Lordi surely is a notable band and because this song is part of what makes Lordi fullfill the notability criteria for music ("Has had a charted hit on any national music chart."), see Wikipedia:Notability (music), the song itself should also have its own article. And one comment: please stop defending this nomination so vigorously with replies to each and every keep vote. People are allowed their opinions and these will all be weighted in by the closing admin, you do not have to explain to the closing admin why you do not agree with some of the votes. Notability is a guideline and never a goal in itself, it serves to help us create an encyclopedia. Common sense should always prevail. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not explaining anything to the closing admin. I am trying to get other !voters to engage in discussion beyond their initial comment. There's nothing wrong with that and I won't be intimidated into stopping. I have every right to ask for further discussion. I understand that the song helps Lordi fulfill their criteria but I ask, without further reliable sources, what article can be written about the song? What is the point of having a stub that never grows? — coelacan talk — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely absurd. A number 1 song isn't "notable?" Come on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; absurd as per badlydrawnjeff. I don't know about the rejected proposal that top 20 songs are notable, but I think I can say with a strong degree of certainty that a song that reaches #1 is notable. Ral315 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per badlydrawnjeff and Ral315. --Epeefleche 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as number one charting songs are notable regardless of what country they charted in. Stub articles are not a crime. (jarbarf) 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect and merge with Lordi. As far as I can see, multiple reliable sources are not available for this song. This fails WP:N, although this article does deserve space on the parent article. The delete comments are very convincing, but I am concluding merge/redirect and the edit-history remains intact, interested users may merge content as they deem fit. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Sandman

edit
Blood Red Sandman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "notability most certainly ascertained; only 6 songs ever became music videos for this band, first Finnish/first rock Eurovision winners, all were chart successes, too. And this wasn't merged w/ Lordi." Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs.— coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Important song by very popular EU band. Rockstar915 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are there multiple non-trivial references about this song, separate from coverage of the album? If not, then there is no reason to have a separate article for the song instead of mentioning it in the article for the album.-MsHyde 03:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There don't seem to be any non-trivial sources for this online. Unless some non-online sources have offered coverage, it's hard to see how it meets WP:N. JulesH 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article by the end of the discussion period for the nomination to show that it was a hit song. Added ref showing it reached #17 on the charts in Finland. The band is notable, and the song achieved notability in that country. Inkpaduta 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it were number 1 in Finland, that wouldn't mean that the song itself is notable to have its own article independent of Lordi. There are tens of thousands of number 1 songs. They don't automatically get to have their own articles, unless they are the primary topic of multiple third party reliable sources. I'm not seeing any indication of this at all. — coelacan talk — 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Keep - The post-AfD external link added by Inkpaduta establishes that this article satisfies criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Seventypercent 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's notability for bands, not songs; that would get Lordi an article. The song itself needs independent sources of its notability, and I haven't yet seen any sources covering it as a primary topic. — coelacan talk — 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I've changed my vote to Abstain to reflect this. Seventypercent 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be applying your own strict criteria here. What parts of the WP:N guidelines suggest that the subject of an article should be the primary topic of any given sources? AdorableRuffian 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has to be non-trivial coverage. ""Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." This is widely regarded to mean the subject of the article is the primary subject of the coverage. That is exactly what WP:BIO says, for example, but only to make it clearer. Specifically, WP:N does say that it must be the subject. In a newspaper piece about Lordi, the band is the subject of the article. It's possible for there to be more than one subject, I'll grant, but that is not the case in any coverage yet presented here. All the coverage has been nothing more than passing mentions of the song. And "a guideline" does not mean "something we can pretend doesn't exist". Notability is required, it is part of policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, non-notability is one of those things that requires deletion. Again, one cannot write a Wikipedia article from a passing sentence or two. In order to be verifiable, the topic must have plenty of third-party reliably-sourced coverage. That's what notability establishes: that enough such material exists. If this article is never going to expand beyond a stub, then it must be merged. If it can expand beyond a stub, that would only be because there are notable verifiable sources to rely on, so let's see them. — coelacan talk — 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly, even if it cannot be expanded beyond a stub, that would not in itself be a reason to delete the article in my view. Even a stub can be a valid article, there is nothing to say it must be merged, and there are some advantages in maintaining a separate article (e.g. categorisation and infoboxes). Nobody is disputing that notability is required, the reason we have AfD at all (instead of having admins just zap every article on sight) is because notability is subjective. As for WP:BIO - that is about people, not songs, so does not apply here. Taken absolutely literally, the phrase "the subject..." in WP:N actually implies that the article subject should be the ONLY subject of a cited work - which is evidently absurd if interpreted as a requirement - I would guess that almost no sources meet this requirement. As the literal interpretation makes no sense, I would be more inclined to interpret it as "a subject" - if "the primary subject" is actually what was meant, then the guideline page should say so. This is actually just a semantic argument over something which isn't cast-iron policy anyway. AdorableRuffian 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major chart hit by notable band. This is a somewhat less clear cut case than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song) - see my comments on that particular AfD for a summary of my views. AdorableRuffian 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter that it was a major hit. That's not enough information to write an article from. Now why, by the way, do you say this is a less clear cut case? What's the difference, exactly? — coelacan talk — 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply because this was a major hit, but not a No.1 hit. It's not that much less clear cut, to be honest. We may well disagree as to whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article from. A relatively simple stub is fine, it does not have to be War and Peace. AdorableRuffian 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep released, charting singles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Charting singles should be notable enough, I would hope. (jarbarf) 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with maintaining a small article when that's all we can get. Philwelch 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles on single songs. (Yes it's a silly and non-consensus reason, but no less so than the keep votes above.) More seriously, song does not have notability independent of the band so it should be deleted. Eluchil404 07:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worried some time about adding my opinion to these AfDs, as not anly did I create the articles, but share a username with one. However, not only are charting singles notable, more importantly, here and here, we've already decided not to merge these articles into Lordi. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil is a Loser

edit
Devil is a Loser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "Notability is most certainly asserted -- one of five songs to be made into a music video by the first Finnish winner of Eurovision, who won with a record number of points." Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs. — coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, although, no I would not love a monsterman. IronGargoyle 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would You Love a Monsterman?

edit
Would You Love a Monsterman? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "notability most certainly ascertained; only 6 songs ever became music videos for this band, first Finnish and first rock Eurovision winners, and all were chart successes, too". Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs. — coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Another important song by Lordi. Although they're not a popular American band, they have a very strong international audience. If their songs don't deserve Wikipedia entries, then neither do Jennifer Lopez', Hilary Duff's or any other ultra-popular American group. Rockstar915 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please demonstrate that the song fulfills wp:notability. I'm not questioning the notability of Lordi. They are notable. I'm questioning the notability of this song, and you're not giving citations to demonstrate this. Please read WP:N and WP:RS for guidance on what I'm asking for here. And you may be right that there are Wikipedia articles for non-notable songs by J-Lo, et al. If you give me a llst of those articles you believe are non-notable, on my talk page, I'd be happy to investigate and probably nominate them for deletion too. If you are certain that you can make a case for their non-notability yourself, you are welcome to nominate them for WP:AFD yourself, but be careful that you do not violate WP:POINT. — coelacan talk — 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are there references specifically about the song? It should be mentioned in the article about the band or the album, does not need own article.-MsHyde 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this reference which tells us that the song was a number 1 hit in Finland, as well as (apparently, although I can't quite figure out if this is what it's saying) being in the charts for a long time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That helps, but it doesn't fulfill WP:N yet. Tens of thousands of songs are #1 somewhere. That alone doesn't fulfill our notability requirements. Third party, WP:Reliable Sources are needed that discuss the song as their primary topic. — coelacan talk — 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources-wise, we've got this, which actually suggests it was the band's first single. Then there's a review of the single, which is auf Deutsch unfortunately, but that's the way of these things. Here's a bio of the band which mentions the fact that this song was on the re-jigged American release of their latest album. And finally (because I have a short attention span), we have this Blog post, roughly 50% of which is dedicated to the song. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blogs are not reliable sources for the purposes of notability. The tartareandesire link is not about the song, so it doesn't much help. The rockdetector link isn't about the song either. The metalspheres.de link is good, the language doesn't matter. This is one reliable source for notability. The notability requirements call for multiple sources. Are there any more? — coelacan talk — 09:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree where it comes to blogs. As a general rule, yes they probably don't count. In the case of popular culture, however, particularly where 50% of the post deals with the single in question, I would argue that they are frequently the only source we have for a great many things. In the case of the average single in this day and age, the music press tend to concern themselves with the fact that it has been released, saving a review or whatever for the album, so the fact that this single has generated any publicity in and of itself seems to be a point in its favour. Obviously if there's a bit of policy I'm missing here, I'll be happy to be shown it. The tartareandesire link is included because it demonstrates that the song was a milestone for the band (first single release). Yes, it does this in a sentence and a half, but the point is that it does it. I'd argue that the first instance of something is probably going to be notable more often than not. Likewise, the rockdetector link (which I'll agree is probably the weakest of the bunch) is important because it explains that the song (despite being relatively old) is deemed sufficiently important to be on the American release of a new album. Yes, there's only one source there which talks about the song and nothing else (although there's another source which spends half its time doing the same thing), but what the other sources do is underline the importance of the song as well - the fact that they do so briefly is neither here nor there, when what they actually say is considered. If all they were were tracklistings, I'd agree with you entirely. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I'm happy to give policy. Wikipedia:Notability#The primary notability criterion: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. ... "Reliable", as explained in the reliability guidelines, requires the source to have a certain level of editorial integrity in order to allow for a verifiable evaluation of the topic's notability. ... "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". Blogs aren't acceptable because they aren't editorially reviewed. Passing mentions aren't acceptable because you can probably find hundreds of such mentions for everyhting that is non-notable. One might reasonably expect that a first single by a notable band to be notable, however, if it is notable then it will have multiple independent sources talking primarily about it. This doesn't, yet, although it's halfway there with that German website. — coelacan talk — 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, I think we're only in subtle disagreement. I still maintain that the first single by a notable band is a notable event. The lack of coverage is due to the relative recent vintage of the band. Additionally, I would draw your attention to the word "largely" in all of this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added refs to the article showing it was a number 1 song in Finland and will be on the U.S. release of their album 'Arockalypse' next month. Song appears to meet WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Inkpaduta 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the chart listing doesn't mean anything as far as WP:N is concerned, the tracklisting is not notability and the rockdetector link you added does not focus on this song as its primary topic. I see no evidence of WP:N or WP:MUSIC being fulfilled. Please explain specifically how you believe it is fulfilled. — coelacan talk — 09:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is a number 1 single not automatically notable? It's not like it can do much more than reaching the top of the charts. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you can't write an article from this. The point of gathering reliable sources is so that you can write a verifiable article. You can't write an article from raw data. "'Would You Love a Monsterman?' was a number 1 song in Finland" would be all the article could ever say. A stub that can never be expanded must be merged back into its parent article. If the song is notable enough to pass our notability requirements using multiple third party repliable sources, then that gives us sources to work from to write the article such that it will satisfy WP:V as well. But without the sources for WP:N, there's never even a hope of fulfilling WP:V. That's why "number 1 single" means nothing. It would allow as much content as could be written about any other number 1 single in history... nothing at all, without further sources. — coelacan talk — 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A fair point in the abstract, however it slightly mis-states the situation. What we know about the song is the following: It is by a particular band, it is to be found on a particular album, it was released as a single (the first single the band ever released, as a matter of fact), it achieved a certain place in the Finnish charts and may well have achieved other placings elsewhere (my guess is that it didn't, but I didn't look particularly hard), it has a video which consists of various things occurring, it either will be or is on the American release of the band's latest album (I'm unclear whether the album's out in the States yet), and the lyrics are about certain things. Every single one of those things can be verified, and at least two of them (being the first single the band released and achieving the distinction of topping the charts) are pretty impressive achievements. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That it's by Lordi and was on a particular album is already communicated by the article Get Heavy, that it was the single off that album can be communicated at that article and that it was the first single can be communicated at Lordi, all very trivially. No reason yet for a wp:content fork. That it reached a certain place on the charts seems better suited to the Lordi article, since this is notability directly for the band, the video can be on the album page and it is already on the band page, still no reason to content fork. That the lyrics are about "certain things" is actually a violation of wp:no original research unless a third party source is cited saying the lyrics are actually about those things... such a source is likely to be a source that demonstrates notability, but without it, the article can't include this information. So you see, WP:N really is necessary for WP:V. — coelacan talk — 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That the lyrics are about "certain things" is actually a violation of wp:no original research unless a third party source is cited saying the lyrics are actually about those things: Nonsense. All one needs is a copy of the lyrics to establish what the song's about. If the songwriter's been interviewed and has gone on record as saying there's a deeper meaning as well, then all the better, but not all songs have deeper meanings and neither do all songwriters say as much. I also think you're putting the cart before the horse on this one. Something must be verifiable in order to be notable, not the other way around. There's verifiability (whether you believe that the information is better positioned in the band's article or not, personally I think a number 1 single gets its own article), and from that verifiability comes notability. To use the old hackneyed analogy, I verifiably exist, but from that verifiability comes no notability (yet). A head of state, on the other hand, verifiably exists and from that verifiability comes his or her notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • If a songwriter has been interviewed and explained what the song was about, then that quote can be included. But art is way too subjective for us to be deciding that here. Wikipedia is not for artistic criticism, and deciding the meaning of lyrics is always original research. We would absolutely have to have reliable sources for that. Regarding your example of a head of state, why are they verifiable? Because much has been written about them. Why was so much written? Because they are notable. If something is notable, it will become verifiable, usually quite quickly. But anyway, it's not me who demands notability for verifiability. This is Wikipedia's stance: Wikipedia:Notability#Rationale for requiring a level of notability says "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." I don't think that's putting the cart before the horse at all, I think it's quite sensible. But you may disagree, so I'm just making clear that it's not a requirement that I made up. — coelacan talk — 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ...art is way too subjective for us to be deciding that here. Wikipedia is not for artistic criticism, and deciding the meaning of lyrics is always original research: No. Not always. There are two levels to any song or text that can be talked about. The first level is the simple question of "what do the lyrics say?" For that, all we need is a copy of them. The second level is the question of "what else might it all mean?" For that, we need interviews with the songwriter, academic analysis and whathaveyou. If we were talking about Bob Dylan or someone like that, I'd grant that we'd have problems in figuring out anything about it. As it is, we don't. It won't be as strong an analysis as it could be, but it'll be something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We can't just repeat the lyrics without breaking copyright law. The only way to bring the lyrics into this is to go under Wikipedia:Fair use, but to do that we need to subject the lyrics to critical analysis. Any critical analysis strong enough to support fair use would inevitably be a violation of wp:original research without reliable sources such as the band talking about the meaning of the song. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I didn't say we would just repeat the lyrics, did I? What we do is we link to them as an external link or a reference (depending on how picky people want to be with "fact" templates). Having done that, one can then write sentences such as "The lyrics deal with XYZ" with something approaching impunity. Without having the lyrics in front of me, I can't say what they're about, but it could potentially be that the lyrics are clearly full of references to "Beauty and the Beast" (they may not be, I'm just blue-skying here), in which case we can say as much. If Mr Lordi later goes on record as saying that the lyrics were inspired by his experiences being bullied at school, that's well and good, but the simplest and most basic level of "what the song is about" can be answered just by looking at the lyrics. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Number 1 hit singles by notable bands are unquestionably notable, even if the available sources warrant only a stub article. See my comments on this user's other Lordi nominations - deleting articles about no. 1 singles by major bands is very clearly not what AfD should be about, even if the notability guidelines can somehow be interpreted to say otherwise (so change the guidelines!) Fortunately, I do not need to mention WP:POINT here as the nominator has already done so, neatly side-stepping any WP:AGF concerns. AdorableRuffian 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually one of the requirements of stubs is that they need to be able to grow. If there's not enough reliable sources out there to grow an article beyond a stub, then the stub cannot be kept and it must be merged elsewhere. Your accusation that I am making a point is a violation of WP:CIVIL unless you can demonstrate it to be true. You can't. What "point" would I be making? What exactly do you think I'm up to, here? I just found some flimsy articles that were unsourced and non-notable, so I nominated them for deletion. My only "point" is that non-notable articles should be deleted. — coelacan talk — 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was simply replying to your invocation of WP:POINT earlier, which I felt was bordering on uncivil in itself. I accept that these were good faith nominations, however I do not know why you insist on pushing strict and subjective interpretations of guidelines (as if they were immutable and set in stone) and then replying back and disparaging the views of every single editor who disagrees with your opinion. AfD should not be a one-man show - we all have our views as to whether articles like this should be on the wiki, and all such opinions are equally valid (the more the merrier). Even if stubs need to be able to grow (something I don't necessarily agree with - many stub articles are valid and useful as they are) they do not need to grow right now - more sources may be found at a later date by someone who has read the article and wishes to expand it. One of the many good things about Wikipedia is that articles can start off as stubs and grow at their own pace. (A deleted article, of course, cannot grow at all.) AdorableRuffian 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I offered to assist in deletions of other songs and gave that user a genuine warning: someone who recently said "If their songs don't deserve Wikipedia entries, then neither do Jennifer Lopez', Hilary Duff's or any other ultra-popular American group" and then began nominating those performers' songs for deletion very likely would be accused of making a point. I thought that user should be apprised of this ahead of time. How is that incivil? Your point about stubs is a good one. They do need to be able to grow, but if there's a reasonable expectation that they will grow later, that would be a good argument for keeping them. I haven't seen indication that this is likely to grow, though. If we're already past its peak of popularity, there probably isn't going to be much else written about it in the future. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the Blood Red Sandman AfD debate. WMMartin 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm cutting and pasting those comments here for ease of other editors: "Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin" — coelacan talk — 13:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that the song helps Lordi fulfill their criteria but I ask, without further reliable sources, what article can be written about the song? What is the point of having a stub that never grows? — coelacan talk — 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the song was released in Finland in 2002 and may only have been released more widely in the last few months (and given that the band only achieved worldwide fame less than a year ago), is it possible that calling this "a stub that never grows" is slightly premature? There've been a lot of songs in history which flopped initially and later went on to bigger and better things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the point of starting an AfD DISCUSSION if you're not going to keep an open mind about the subject. It's an open discussion, and each and every viewpoint opposite of yours does not need to be responded to. Just my 2 cents. Rockstar915 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the point of complaining like I've been eating babies here. It's an open discussion, which is why I'd prefer to give every replier the respect of taking their argument seriously enough to engage with. If I disagree, should I ignore them? Why? It's a discussion. It's worthwhile to ask for more input when someone hasn't answered the questions I've already put forward. What's not worthwhile, however, is to simply complain that I'm asking too many questions. As for an open mind, I think this song is halfway to being notable. It just needs one more source. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep released, charting singles, especially #1 singles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worried some time about adding my opinion to these AfDs, as not only did I create the articles, but share a username with one. However, not only are charting singles notable, more importantly, here and here, we've already decided not to merge these articles into Lordi. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep #1 single, thus notable for inclusion. Also, pretty much every Pink Floyd song has an article, whether or not it was released as a single. I suppose we might as well delete those. --D-Day 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, POV-fork of Udi people. Intrestingly, interesting article is not a valid keep contention. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Udi

edit
Albanian-Udi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article "Albanian-Udi" lacks references and contains unsupported and POV claims and barely gets any results from notable sites throughout search engines. Nareklm 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nomination for deletion, fact-checking and search for references are different things. Here we discuss deletion. Colchicum 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless Colchicum, you request to keep it and rename it, there already is an article on the Udi people, or requested it to be at least merge to Religion in Azerbaijan, all the content of this article word by word is on Religion in Azerbaijan. So, its content word by word is already in an article, and there already is an article on the Udi. So, there still is no rational for this article. Fad (ix) 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Udi people is about a people, not a religion. If you insist that this article has to be deleted, could you please explain why Wikipedians keep e.g. Old Order River Brethren? Nothing personal. Colchicum 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Albanian Udi is a religion? Before assuming bad faith and accusing voters of things, please visit both articles I have cited, more particularly the one on Religions in Azerbaijan. The only reason this article talk about religion is because it was created by copypasting from another article. Its content word by word exist in another article, and its subject also has its own article. Albanian Udi and Udi people is the same thing. Fad (ix) 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am not accusing, I am guessing. Please, assume good faith yourself. I have read all the articles you had mentioned, but my point of view is different from yours. I don't see anything wrong in creating an aricle by copypasting from some part of another article, expecting that the new article will be expanded by someone. Many WP articles have emerged from parts of other articles. That's all. I am not going to spend my time discussing this anymore. Bye. Colchicum 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Search indicates only that the article is improperly called. Udi Christians yield many hits: [12] Colchicum 15:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude are you reading what I am saying? They already have an article, and they are included word by word in another. It is like creating two article, one titled "Armenian people" and another "Armenians" Fad (ix) 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that many of those who support the deletion (User:Fadix, User:ROOB323, User:Eupator, User:Mardavich, User:Nareklm) indicate on their pages that they belong to the Armenian Apostolic Christians or are otherwise linked to Armenia. As according to the article Udi Christians have conflicted with the Armenian Apostolic Christians, there is a possibility for some bias. Nothing personal. Colchicum 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth are you talking about? I am neither Armenian nor belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Please read WP:AGF. --Mardavich 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Colchicum, this might help you to know, that I am born as Catholic and not Apostolic, and rejected every religious beliefs. Also, was not born, nor ever visited Armenia. So which link you're talking about. I am Armenian true, but my ethnicity is of no relevency here so I expect an apology from your part. Fad (ix) 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want my apology, I hereby apologize, although I have not stated that you are AAC. I wrote: that they belong to the Armenian Apostolic Christians or are otherwise linked to Armenia. If it is irrelevant here that you guys are linked to Armenia, excuse me. I just guessed that it could be relevant. Certainly, it could be irrelevant as well. Nobody knows. Again, nothing personal, but as to Wikipedia, I am an inclusionist, and I can hardly understand people who strive to eradicate such harmless articles. They may be not very interesting as of now, but certainly they are not hoaxes and there is a chance that they will be improved. Colchicum 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does it matter anyway? stop posting irrelevant crap in here. Nareklm 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it should be kept, as it shows very vauable historic and related information, has attracted attention from the famous Norwegian researcher Thor Heyerdahl, and the Udin people, as the keepers of the Caucasian Alban apostolic and autocephalous Church's heritage have been thanked by Pope John Paul II during his visit to Azerbaijan: "Praise to you, Christians, who have given so much, especially through the ancient Church of the Albans, in shaping the identity of this land." [13]. Many more sources will be brought to this page in a few weeks, that will undoubtedly enrich this article. By the way, I've been to Kish village and have seen the Church both before and after its reconstruction by the Norwegian and British experts, and made several photos, which I can also upload and release copyright. --AdilBaguirov 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article appears to be a less credible version of Udi people. The bulk of its information is uncited and unverified. -- Aivazovsky 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article on a people is relevent, and POV does not justify deletion. What justify deletion is when there is already an article about Udi people, the copypasted material from the religion article could have been pasted on that article, but another article was created insteed. Fad (ix) 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fadix comment. Jamaana 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And following the logic of deletion supporters: Why then have Nagorno-Karabakh and Artsakh pages?-- Atabek 07:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a stupid comparaison sorry. Artsakh is a historic geographic place when Udi people and Albanian Udi are just synonimous. Artsakh and NK could be compared with Constantinople and Istanbul, while Udi-people and Albanian-Udi could be compared with 'Amenian people' and 'Armenians.' They're both a redirect of the same thing. Requesting keep just because Armenians happened to vote delete, without even bothering to understand the arguments amuses me, really. Fad (ix) 13:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page was started by non-Azeri user - check history page. It is you and other users who brought ethnic dimension to this article. And now you claims that we vote 'yes' because you vote 'no'.--Dacy69 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was There's a Whole Lotta Nonsense (Chosen). Guy (Help!) 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen (Television series)

edit
Chosen (Television series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extremely hoax-like. Please consider that although the article seems well-edited and long full of data, it has only two links, one for an "official site" that is down, the other is for a highly speculative fanforum. It was created and edited by only one editor. IMDb has no results for it, nor has for the producer, creator or cast. And it has already a February 2009 DVD release date before filming and airing are set. Looks like a children joke Lajbi Holla @ me 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are sub-articles of the main one nominated here:

List of Chosen episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something Wicca Begins (Chosen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wanna-Be-Witches (Chosen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a Whole Lotta Evil (Chosen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gabriëlla Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Halliwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kyra Halliwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexia Halliwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sydney Ashford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry, multi-nomination was made on 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC).Lajbi Holla @ me


My further investigation came up with a funny testimony. Here's the picture link of the main logo. The Summary says :"© 2007 by Chosen. All Rights Served This is the logo of my self-made series called Chosen.". I've bolded the important part. Lajbi Holla @ me 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep for now. The article has some issues, but now is not the time to kill it. There are various sources available on the subject, the interested users might want to work upon it to move it towards WP:NPOV. A page move to a more appropriate title wouldn't hurt either. Make sure you are following consensus, either way. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and response in parapsychology

edit
Criticism and response in parapsychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See the comments on the talk page of the article, that opened with this comment by the nominator:

This reads more like a blog or discussion page than a proper encyclopedic entry. The use of the "one crit. one rebuttal" format is potentially misleading, and the tendency on this page to make blanket generalizations about what one or the other side believes is dangerously close to the kind of straw-man arguments commonly used by TV pundits. I would recommend deletion, because the topic of the page is presented in a non-Wikipedian way (Wikipedia is not a blog, or a site to respond to criticism). Noclevername 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion that followed was quite long - too long to repeat here, and I'm not about to misrepresent anyone by paraphrasing it. I am assisting the nominator of this article with the posting of this AfD, as it is the editor's first time doing so, so no opinion from me on the nomination. itself Agent 86 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also moving the nomination from the February 8 log to the February 9 log, given that it spent the first day of the discussion mal-formed. Agent 86 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. The article, consisting as it does as a debate between two parties, reads like an apology for parapsychology. — BillC talk 01:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BillC. Certain types of criticism articles have a place on Wikipedia, including responses, but this is not that sort of article. It's very much a piece of apologetics. — coelacan talk — 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rewrite per WP:NOT#SOAP. The point/counterpoint "rebuttal of criticism" format is inappropriate and reads like a personal editorial page. --- LuckyLouie 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reasons under the rules indicate deletion; how it reads is not a reason. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm almost embarrassed by this vote since I have some underlying issues with paranormal subjects being addressed seriously on Wikipedia, but my own POV aside this is a well cited article which I presume was split off from a main article on parapsychology for space. As such, it's logically laid out and strongly footnoted. It could use a strong re-write, it could benefit from a more objective tone in the introduction, it could certainly do a better job of introducing and discussing each subsection -- but all of that can be addressed by editors, no reason for AfD in my opinion. -Markeer 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article's temporary content is not a reason to delete it; the article has good potential even though it is a bit soapy. All ya gotta do is take out the soap! Lots of people (like myself) who don't know a lot about parapsychology are going to wonder what is so controversial about a lot of it, and what specific arguments have been made for or against it. This article is where they will find this information. V-Man737 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The way it has been framed is original research. The title is POV. Most of these references can or should be used in an article about ESP. For and against arguments for ESP extended into a debate about parapsychology is synthetic argument.-MsHyde 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said on the talk page, the topic is a good one for an article but the chosen format needs to be changed as does the focus. i believe the editor who created the article is perfectly capable of reformatting it and changing the focus to the topics I outlined in my discussion on the talk page here: Talk:Criticism and response in parapsychology - Lisapollison 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markeer. Perfectly acceptable topic. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is a valid topic for an article. The parapsychology article should discuss the field of parapsychology itself with a summary of the criticism, but the criticism itself has a great deal of WP:Notability and source material of its own. It has its own history, its own key players, and so on. I strongly recommend a re-write, however, and a title change to Criticism of parapsychology. The re-write should change it from a criticism and response format, and soon, for several reasons. One, it really does seem like it's leading the reader towards one intepretation. Two, it suffers from stylistic problems where it looks like a forum, blog, or a collection of notes, and doesn't read like a fluid article. All of these things aren't a reason for deletion however. They're reasons for a re-write. That seems to be the general consensus thus far, even among the delete votes. The calls for delete (from what I read) are all based on style and content, not topic. The article itself shouldn't be deleted. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markeer. Being badly written is not a reason to delete. The article, IMO, needs a title change and a complete rewrite for the reasons others have suggested here but that should be discussed by the editors on the article's talk page not at AfD.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the style in which the article is written is not suitable for a Wikipage, and there are more than a few weasel words, the topic is notable, the pro-parapsychology text is accompanied by citations and is mostly evidently not WP:OR, and there is a good coverage of the issues at hand which is not POV pushing. Keep it, but re-word it. perfectblue 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Readers should note that parapsychology is an official branch of science, so the normal rules and guidelines about taking a skeptical approaches and reporting as a pseudoscience should not be applied.
Perplexity: Pray, what does "official branch of science" mean? Is there an approved directory of sciences and branches of science? --Goochelaar 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... the AAAS] has one such directory, and it has included Ps for the last 40 years. Wikipedia. Is that good enough? perfectblue 15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find this directory. Would you be so kind as to point it out to me? The nearest I found is the directory of sections in which the AAAS is divided, and none of them looks like parapsychology. Thanks, Goochelaar 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AAAS is an umbrella organization, its recognition of Ps is done through a group called the "Parapsychological Association". See the list of affiliates for details. [14] perfectblue 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a perfectly reasonable early version of the article, it does need reformatting and cleaning up, so I would make more sense to add it to the articles for clean up list rather than AfD. I also agree with the note about parapsychology above. - Solar 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The theme, the title, the format (with the "last word" almost always on a single side) all very POV. --Goochelaar 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's question and answer format. Of course the last word will be on a single side. As for "The Theme", parapsychology is a valid and recognized branch of science. perfectblue 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "branch of science" phrase, please check my "Perplexity" above. As for the logic of an argument of the form "It's X: of course Y happens", with the same way of reasoning you could write untrue statements justifying them "They are false. Of course they are not true." --Goochelaar 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Goochelaar meant that the last word is always on the same side. If s/he didn't, let me make that point. — BillC talk 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the question and answer format is a thinly-disguised vehicle for the promotion of a point of view and is therefore completely at odds with a core Wikipedia policy. If kept, it would create a disastrous precedent, encouraging the creation of POV-packed 'Criticism and response' articles on every controversial subject on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt it will be rewritten in a timely manner, and it is not a good idea to preserve grossly POV pieces in the hope that they will be fixed in the future.--Nydas(Talk) 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia guidelines state that recognized sciences should be follow the perspective of the scientific mainstream. At present the consensus is that parapsychology is a valid field of research, but its outcomes are disputed. As this is exactly what the page is saying, the page cannot be a fork. perfectblue 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have, and should not have, 'Criticism and response' sections for other sciences or anything else. The main parapsychology article is not particularly long once you get past the unnecessary lists, quotes and external links. There's no justification for spin-off articles, especially POV pushing ones like this.--Nydas(Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying "rename it to "Criticism of.....", in order to fit in with all of the other entries like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the War on Terrorism and of course Criticism of Wikipedia, yes? perfectblue 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such an article is unnecessary, since parapsychology isn't a long article, once the unnecessary quotes, lists and links are removed. 'Criticism of' articles aren't very good anyway and should only be created when there is a clear need.--Nydas(Talk) 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace I can see that Martinphi put a lot of work into this article, and reading it I found it to be very interesting; but before I even looked at the talk page or this AFD I knew why it was up for deletion. It does not read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a college essay. It is a well written, well sourced essay, but an essay non-the-less. Don't get me wrong; I like this article. But I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia; certianly not in a criticism/response format. I'm suprised that no one arguing for the deletion of this article has yet pointed out the relevant page from the Manual of Style, the one that says that Pro & con lists are considered harmful. With that in mind, there is a lot of material here which could conceviably be used to craft a break-away article from the main parapsychology article, so I don't want to argue for blanket deletion. Rather I think the solution in this instance is to userfy it to Martinphi's userspace for a rewrite. It needs to be rewritten so it's not in a criticism-response format and so that it's less essay like and more encyclopedia like. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup - Useful discussion and should be kept, but is very essayish, and the conclusion is POV. It needs work, but so do many other articles. Perhaps WikiProject:Paranormal could take it on as a group project? Totnesmartin 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge relevant criticism into main article. It's basically a list of "answers" to strawman arguments, a POV fork which violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight and gives the impression that the critcism (which is made up of strawmen to begin with) has been decisively rebutted. Criticism/controversy should be incorporated into the main parapsychology article. Charles Kinbote 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has some problems with conflation. There are 3 fields of Parapsychology: ESP, Telekinesis, and "ghosts". There are three things that are being criticized: whether parapsychology is a valid field of study, whether the results are valid, and whether the results prove anything. Following these divisions would help eliminate the "blog feeling" that a lot of deleters have noticed. It might also help this article come a little closer to the truth: some parasycholgists (mostly esp researchers) have used good methods, others clearly lack understanding of the scientific method (I saw some EVP researchers on TV who were hilarious) -- Some "skeptics suffer from scientism and are therefore easy strawmen, but there are some legitimate qualms some scientists have. The article also lacks a historical perspective which is a flaw that the main parapsychology article also has. It needs attention from an expert, but it is not OR nor is it really NPOV. It should prtobably be merged with The skeptical view of parapsychology, Maybe some of the project Paranormal people can agree to help this article.
  • Delete this is an POV fork essay that results in a screed favoring one view, in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP.-- danntm T C 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can be resolved by editing the last few paragraphs in order to remove the "conclusion" as per Manual of Style guidelines for page format. Deletion would then be unnecessary. perfectblue 08:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markeer. This article is not a POV or Content Fork, it is instead a “spinout” article that falls under article spinouts, summary style. The main parapsychology article is currently 42KB long and growing - larger than the Wikipedia recommended size of 32KB, the main body of prose is slightly smaller in size, but still in range for spinoffs. Criticism of parapsychology is a notable and relevant subject. I agree that the article needs a rewrite and should be renamed, but it should not be deleted. Dreadstar ☥ 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has, I believe, argued that the topic 'criticism of parapsychology' is neither notable nor relevant. The main arguments against retention have been whether the article, as written, constitutes a valid, neutral article, or that it exists and has been formatted to be a defence of a position. Deletion does not preclude re-creation under the same or a different title; the issue is whether the article is valid now, and if not, it is salvageable in its current form. — BillC talk 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Thanks BillC, I guess my response wasn't clear in that regard. I do believe the article is salvageable and can be fixed in short order. The current contents are interesting, and I do not believe it is sufficiently "bad" enough to warrant deletion while being re-written. Until then, we can add the {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag to it. If we all put in as much effort there as we did here, it would be done already... :) I mentioned notability and relevancy because, first, they are a key focus in AfD discussions; and second, there seemed to me to be some question in a few of the above comments as to whether or not the subject needed its own article or was a sufficient topic to warrant an article - perhaps I was reading a bit too much between the lines. Dreadstar ☥ 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In reviewing the Deletion Policy section "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, this seems to me to fall under number six: "Article needs improvement" and number eight "Article is biased", rather than What Wikipedia is not. It is not currently a soap box, nor a blog, nor is it a response to criticism, it just needs to be rewritten and improved. Dreadstar ☥ 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobyah

edit
Bobyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax, the phrase is Booyah as the urban dictionary link on this page clearly shows Daniel J. Leivick 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:15Z

Beetlejuice (Card Game) and Beetlejuice Card Game

edit
Beetlejuice (Card Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Beetlejuice Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Article is about a new card game, contains no assertion of notability or popularity. No cites that it actually exists. Article states first game was played within past 6 weeks, and WP:NFT. Article had a clone—that was just as deletable—with a slightly different edit history that is now a redirect. DMacks 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:14Z

Covenant carbine

edit
Covenant carbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability JakeParker 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I don't think this topic is notable enough for its own article. Apparently its not notable enough to be in the main Halo 2 article (according to the talk page) Delete[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:13Z

Otupa

edit
Otupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Jamesmartin.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Fails WP:V and WP:COI - two of the sources are generic, and the other links to the the creator's webpage, which doesn't even discuss the company. Google search reveals only clones. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otupa Flow

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

The result was Deleted, costs outweigh benefits for this subject at this time. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trialga

edit
Trialga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written like an advertisement about a non-notable MMORPG, and it has conflict of interest with the user who contributes to it, Trialga (talk · contribs), who claims he created the MMORPG on his userpage. Also doesn't really meet WP:FICT (or I guess WP:WEB) and reads like a press release. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentActually, I want this deleted because it's constantly plagued by vandals, and I don't want to have to worry about it. I didn't even create the wiki, so please do delete it by all means.

Trialga 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:12Z

Saxetism

edit
Saxetism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Saxpic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not meet any of the notability guidelines, seems to be a conflict of interest (the article's creator has the same name as the article itself), as well as possibly being made up, as there is no reliable source that I could locate with which to verify the contents of the article. Kyra~(talk) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadownoel 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"Not verifiable?' "Possibly made up?" like that doesn't sound like 2 or 3 major religions i know. Christianity, give me one reliable source other than a 2000 year old book. Same with Islam/Judaisms. Before you go bashing my religion, think for a sec. Your just saying that your better than me. And this is the first post on the internet, so there is no source online with which to verify it. If you don't like that, just go away. If you delete this, you MUST delete those pages as well.[reply]
  • Delete user Shadownoel, please read Wikipedia policy WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT they contain all the

information you need to know about why this article is not acceptable. If you have any questions about any of this just ask. No one is trying to demean you or censor you. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't care what those rules say, the truth of the matter is that there is not verifiable truth to ANY religion whatsoever other than a 3,000 year old book and a long time spent with it. Your censoring me, plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadownoel (talk • contribs) 03:00, February 9, 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. The issue of verifiability doesn't apply to the content of the religion but to that of the article. For example, the following statement would be acceptable in an article on Christianity: "Christians believe that Christ was ressurected." The following statement would not be: "Christ was ressurected." In the case of this article, the statements in it cannot be verified, but the statement "Christians believe that Christ was ressurected" can be. --N Shar 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I assure you, I am not trying to censor you at all. To quote from the primary notability guideline, and as such expand on my nomination, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (emphasis maintained). Christianity, Buddhism, and the like have been the subject of such works. As for the verifiability, it is one of the three core content policies, the other two being no original research, and writing from a neutral point of view. Additionally, the threshold for inclusion within Wikipedia (from Wikipedia:Verifiability) is "verifiability, not truth" (emphasis maintained). That means since the material within the respective religion articles can be verified by editors using reliable sources, the respective articles merit inclusion. Additionally, N Shar really sums it up. It's the verifiability of the content of the article, not the religion. Have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. The existence of this religion is not verifiable. --N Shar 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet wp:notability requirements. Probably can't be made to meet those requirements, with 0 google hits. Saxetists are strongly encouraged to try Invisible Pink Unicornism instead. If you please the IPU, she may teleport you to the moon with a twinkle of her iridescent invisible horn. — coelacan talk — 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 ghits==hoax Josh Parris 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His Noodliness is not amused. John Vandenberg 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not even an attempt at participating in what we do here. Shadownoel says "I don't care what those rules say." Well, I don't care that this rude person wants this lunacy on Wikipedia. It's not going to be. -- Shaundakulbara 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't your mother ever tell you it's not polite to WP:POINT? While we're at it, let's throw in WP:OR, WP:V, WP:HOAX, and WP:NFT.


66.109.112.18 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)You're just like the ancient romans at the start of christianity. You bigots are the reason that only christianity reigns in the US. Take your bigotist opinions elsewhere, and leave us to ourself. If you don't like it, leave.[reply]

    • If this were AD 1, then Christianity probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article. But it's not AD 1. Sorry, try again. And where's the logic if someone coming into a community and telling others to leave if they don't like them? --UsaSatsui 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.109.112.18 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) if you don't think that this is verifiable, its only because we haven't published online before. We are, however, a very true religion. Do NOT delete this page. We are trying to spread our message.[reply]


  • Shadownoel 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)I have now added a disclaimer to the beginning of this page. Stop bothering our beliefs now. Thank you.[reply]
  • I am personally offended that this sight is being considered for deletion. I truely believe that the almighty SCOPULUS is the lord and Savior/Creator of this world. If this sight is terminated all sight with any relation to Christianity, Judism, Budism, Islam, or any other religions should be terminated as well. Thank you and come again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halter410 (talk • contribs) 18:33, February 9, 2007 (UTC)
  • Halter410 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)I am personally offended that this sight is being considered for deletion. I truely believe that the almighty SCOPULUS is the lord and Savior/Creator of this world. If this sight is terminated all sight with any relation to Christianity, Judism, Budism, Islam, or any other religions should be terminated as well. Thank you and come again.[reply]
    • Why do I get the feeling there's a couple of 10-year olds snickering at this? I'm going to try this one more time, then I'm going to stop feeding the trolls. If you want to keep the article, you need reliable, third party sources. Whether the subject of the article is real or not is irrelevant, what you or anyone else personally believes is irrelevant, all that matters here is that someone, somewhere, published something about it. The merits of Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion, or even any other topic, are not in the discussion. We don't discriminate here: Find a source, or it's gone. If you want free webspace, Wikidia is not the place for it. --UsaSatsui 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadownoel 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)And about that community thing...this is online. You dont have to see me. So just dont come to this page, and i wont annoy you. simple as that.[reply]

I think you may be missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web space provider (there are plenty of free providers though). It has content standards that have been well explained, unless you can assert notability (more than existence) you can't have a page it is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with religion, Christianity et al get pages not because we believe they are fact, but because they are major religions with millions of followers and more importantly countless pieces of literature from which to source an article. No one is bigoted here, no one is trying to stop you from spreading your message, the only thing people are trying to do is insure the quality of Wikipedia, not looking at a particular page as you suggest we do is not a solution. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halter410 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I dont see how u can say that any religion has a reliable source to "back it up". And if you really think that a 2000 year old book suppsedly written about the son of god is a verible source you need to get your old faculties checked.[reply]

72.134.152.244 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Here bigots, a site. http://www.geocities.com/calfour267/Saxetism.html Our source is there, now stop bothering us because of our religion![reply]

Boy, can members of Saxetism read? If you want to game the system by creating sources at least read some of the policies so you can create a source that meets requirements, I am not going to mention the policies but they are listed ad nauseum above. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadownoel 04:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)All of those requirements have been met. It would be very cool if you didn't just assume that whoever made that page was wrong, but actually read the posted rules above.[reply]

Shadownoel 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) btw, this page is very cluttered...but off topic. About the tone being not encyclopedic: What, so we have to use a ton of "thy" and "thines" and "shall" and "smiteth" for a religion to be true. Please.[reply]

WP:RS is all I have to say, geocities sites aren't reliable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.74.101.230 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) good thats all you have to say? Then keep the rest of your coments to your self and leave us alone.[reply]

and ok, yes, the bible is older than 2,000 years, but the part thats pertinent to Christianity is 2007 years old or less. Shadownoel 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great; then just as soon as Saxetism achieves such a history, it will undoubtedly be notable enough to include in Wikipedia4K. In fact, we can even be charitable and include it before that as soon as it publishes a book, develops a detailed website that is referenced by a third party, or has one of its members interviewed in printed media. And that's just the bare minimum to avoid WP:SNOW. Until then, it is unverifiable, and should not be included on this site. Deleting the entry is not a judgment upon the beliefs of individuals, so enough with the soapboxing; even if the editors took the information seriously, their discussion here reflects their desire to simply uphold the policies of this website. ◄Zahakiel► 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:09Z

Professor John Smiley

edit
Professor John Smiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible non notable professor, contested speedy. Let's see what you all think. No opinion at this time Daniel J. Leivick 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Reverted back to it's original form - Peripitus (Talk) 08:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls

edit
Rolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game came up by a couple of college students. Fails WP:V and Wikipedia is not for things thought up of in college one day. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:08Z

Organiq

edit
Organiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncommon term. Violation of WP:NEO. I googled, while there were a fair number of results, I saw nothing that satisfied WP:RS Wehwalt 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:06Z

Coco Bongo

edit
Coco Bongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cocobongo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Coco bongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Not notable pair of Mexican nightclubs. I really don't see any assertion of notability in article, or anything on the Web which could make it notable. Wehwalt 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to DualShock. Yuser31415 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation controller

edit
Playstation controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article info is trivial and doesn't add much that's not in the PlayStation entry. No inbound links to this page, multiple outbound links to disambiguation pages. B Pete 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:05Z

Bolivar Ramirez

edit
Bolivar Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Instructor at a single martial arts club. Non-notable. Also fails withrespect to WP:OR and WP:COI Peter Rehse 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Yun

edit
Reagan Yun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - she may not pass WP:PORNBIO which requires that the person be a Playmate. It does note that "other similar titles in other major magazines" qualifies but it's unclear to me that being Co-ed of the Month meets that criterion. We have deleted a category for Coeds of the Week but Coed of the Month doesn't appear to have come up. Otto4711 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket4one

edit
Ticket4one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dating website which claims to be "Largest and most popular English-language Singles Events website in the world", which is why I bumped this from speedy A7. However this claim is unsourced and may be original research per the talk page. Kimchi.sg 03:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This research is original as i am writting a paper for my university on singles events and speed dating. you will note that i have also edited a couple of other pages on wiki in relation to the origins and legal complications of speed dating and singles events.

My research has led me to search through msn, yahoo and google the three major search engines on the internet all of which have confirmed that ticket4one is the largest online both in bandwidth / indexed pages and viewable members.

i have spent a lot of time researching this industry so far and have found no other website to contradict my research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs)

Be aware that using original research to make articles is forbidden here. If no other sources state the same claims as in this article it will have to be deleted. Kimchi.sg 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok so i have removed the title "largest in the world" to comprimise with wiki standards. However i have left the stats on the article for further researchers to establish their own conclusion.

Is this sufficiant ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky4885 (talk • contribs)

If you remove that part then the article doesn't assert the notability of the website, which makes it delete-worthy as well. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh but ticket4one is not a dating site or they would be listed with DATING SITES. This is relation to Singles Events! PLEASE NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN SPELLING

Either way it's a website. A non-notable one. Changing the description doesn't change the fact it's a website. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it may not be notable to you, But clearly the amount of members in the first nine months makes it notable for someone else.Compared to the numbers indicated for members in the social networking website list Dont you think ?

As for it being a website "a non notable one" does that mean seeing as though you want to compare numbers that we should go and delete sites such as advogato, babbello, consumating, studybreakers,vietspace and zaadz from wikipedia ?

After all the term " social networking site" is searched 50 -60 times greater then that of the term " Singles Events yet the memberships of these sites is as you like to put it "death"

PLEASE NOTE ARTICLE HAS BEEN ALTERED SINCE THIS ISSUE TO COMPLY WITH WIKI In relation to being a personal issue i believe all researchers, strive to have their work published. Otherwise our work is rendered useless

Google Search " Ticket4one articles " i have 2280 results found

Unfortunately this seems to have become a bullying war.... The only content that has been recreated has been to adhere to wikipedia guidlines / requests

Well then I request that you read our Wikipedia:Notability guideline (actually a policy, non-negotiable) and demonstrate how your website meets the notability requirements, using WP:Reliable Sources. Google hits are not reliable sources, and just for the record, 2280 google hits is a very small number anyway. — coelacan talk — 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for a start it is NOT my website. secondly it is not "2280 hits" they are press releaase/news articles.As i mentioned earlier to compare these results to our social networking list the following can be seen. ticket4one 2280 articles babbello 974 articles studybreakers 918 vietspace 1040

I believe 2280 is no longer a "very" small number when compared to other wikipedia content.

You need to fulfill WP:N using third party WP:RS, cited within the article, or your article will be deleted. I'm just explaining this to you. I've explained it enough. I'm done. Your article will be deleted in five days. — coelacan talk — 07:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I already deleted it once as spam. It gets fewer Google hits than I do. It has not been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources provided, and googling finds onliny links, and press releases. -- Whpq 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's compare Alexa traffic rankings here: 8minutedating.com - #203,367; hurrydate.com - #141,397; offlinespeeddating.com (a service for Jewish singles) - #1,181,375; ticket4one.com - #1,792,272. Admittedly, it used to be higher - their traffic has dropped 43% in the last 3 months, according to Alexa. Basically, this is NO WAY the largest or most popular speed dating site. OUT!!! --Brianyoumans 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May i point out that the article does state " it may not have the highest amount of unique visitors.

In regards to 8minutedating, hurrydate, offlinespeeddating only one of these websites seems to have members profiles being hurrydate, To which anyone of you can compare the search results to ticket4one. It seems Ticket4one actually has approx 3 times the amount of members. (which is what the article is stating)

wow sounds like rocky4885 has rubbed some people the wrong way. or do you just have invested interests within that industry?

i have read ALL the facts submitted by rocky4885 " (which i strongly suggest some of you do) in discussion and talks all of which i cannot help but find the exact results to which this article proclaims are true. Perhaps all we need here is an edit of this article. For if we delete this article, then i can without a doubt see room for deletion on numerous websites contained within our own social networking website list— Rattlenhum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:03Z

Ed Nahhat

edit
Ed Nahhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not significant enough for an article NorthernThunder 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:02Z

Otupa Flow

edit
Otupa Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Voyager-Flow-Logo-Web.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Otupa Voyager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable crystal ball article, "a state-of-the-art watercraft currently being built for James Martin, which will go on a mission of discovery and exploration." Sounds neat, but it's not for Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otupa. — coelacan talk — 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep the list and delete the independent product pages. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hewlett-Packard products

edit
List of Hewlett-Packard products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

HPcruft, listcruft; unencyclopedaic. Yes, HP is a great company, but we don't need to list their products in microscopic detail. I will also be nominating some of the less notable product pages as part of this AFD. Brianyoumans 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included HP LaserJet 1300, HP LaserJet 4250, HP LaserJet 4350, HP LaserJet 5200, HP Photosmart 2610, HP Officejet 6110, HP Officejet 6210, HP Officejet 7110, HP Officejet 7310, HP Officejet 7410, HP Designjet 5500, HP Designjet 70, HP Deskjet D4160, HP Deskjet 3930, HP Deskjet 5650, HP Photosmart 320, HP Scanjet 5550c, and HP Pavilion dv6000t --Brianyoumans 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that (a) As far as I can see, none of the above product pages asserts any notability (b) most of them read like copyvios of the HP website, which they may be (c) even those that aren't, are basically just statements of the technical specs of the printer (or scanner or camera or computer) and its present state of availability. --Brianyoumans 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list, delete the others. I read through some of the articles and agreed with the nominator's assessment. Then, for comparison, I wanted to see how competitors of HP had their products listed. Sure enough, List of Canon products is long and full of cruft and redlinks, but it's not as bad as the HP list. Although inclusion is not an indicator of notability, I'm willing to keep the list itself, provided that the redlinks be cut down. YechielMan 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where did the idea come from that we needed lists of any company's products? Isn't that what the company's website is for? Notable products is another matter, but how many of these products are actually significant in some way? Obviously, someone needs to AFD some of the Canon product articles as well. --Brianyoumans 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list, aggressively prune product articles. Not every company's products need a list, but HP is a major manufacturer with thousands of products, a fair number of which have articles. There's a basic utility argument here per WP:LIST. As for the product articles, we don't need them on every model; that's like having articles like Ford Taurus 2007½. But we do have Ford Taurus, so why not HP LaserJet; and arguably even HP LaserJet II deserves its own as a standard-setting product that dominated corporate offices for roughly a decade . The DeskJet certainly deserves a family article, the ScanJet, though I'm less certain the others are individually notable products. The Pavilion is now a longstanding HP brand of PC. But yes, individual product editions down to four numbers is something we can never keep up with. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these articles are about lines of products or make any attempt to discuss market impact, social/cultural value, etc. - they give the specs, what product it replaced, what toner it uses. I agree that an article on "HP LaserJet" would be notable... but none of these articles attempt to do that. If you look at HP Pavilion dv6000t, it is about only that particular model.--Brianyoumans 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see your objection? I offered up a "should be" state. By inference, I don't like the "as is". --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was responding to the difference between "aggressive pruning" and "slay them all!" I don't think any of the ones that I AFDed contain much useful info towards the general articles that we both think would be useful. And I think that "aggressive pruning" is not something that a closing admin is going to adopt; they generally want a clearer directive. AND, the next comment below is someone who "seconded" your "pruning" comment - but they seem to have a bias towards retaining articles, not deleting them. --Brianyoumans 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pruned list, as per Dhartung. A product list or an article about a single product may be valuable if it contains not (just) the details given by the producer, but information about past products, products for different countries, criticism etc., as is partially the case for McDonald's menu items. --Goochelaar 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge product articles to main articles HP LaserJet, HP DeskJet, etc. Delete the list, replacing with links to the main product line pages from [[Hewlett Packard]. JulesH 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any value in providing a list of a company's products. HP may be a large company, but that in itself does not warrant a list such as this •CHILLDOUBT• 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list and cleanup (e.g., replace redlinks with regular black-white text). Merge the individual product articles into HP LaserJet, HP DeskJet, etc. and then delete. Black Falcon 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Keep the list. It's not a problem to list HP products, any more than it is to list Ford or General Motors ones. I do agree that most of the models don't warrant articles, but they should at least be redirects to the product line itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with people that articles on the various product lines might be good - company history, technological history, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think that merging, say, the five Officejet articles together will get you an Officejet overview - these articles are just sets of technical specs, basically. I still advise just throwing out all these "model" articles and starting over. For what it is worth, there already seems to be a Laserjet article; the other lines don't seem to have articles yet. --Brianyoumans 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no, but a redirect will serve just as well, and I don't see a need to delete the history. FrozenPurpleCube 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire blast

edit
Fire blast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. Big time. This is an article for a single Pokemon attack (might I add, an overrated one) that has no major impact on the series aside from battling. You Can't See Me! 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, though from the discussion it sounds like a disambiguation page or redirect to something else should be created. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:00Z

Singles Events

edit
Singles Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertising fork of speed dating. Created by same user who made Ticket4one and Rabbi Yaacov Deyo, also under AFD. — coelacan talk — 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the redirect is appropriate. There are lots and lots of different sorts of "singles events" that aren't "speed dating". If such a disambiguation page were created, that would be helpful, but this is just a spam page, and the redirect will never be used, and if it were used I doubt anyone using it would expect to arrive at "speed dating" any more than any other potential "singles event". Why not Ladies' night, instead, among other possibilities? But nobody's using this before the article creator made it, so a redirect is just going to sit around anyway. — coelacan talk — 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right about it not being specific to speed dating, but I bet people have searched for this before (hoping to find events in their areas or something silly like that). We could redirect to Courtship instead (for some reason Dating redirects there). --N Shar 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because it has a "commercial dating services" subsection. I'm not strongly against either redirect, but I still think it ought to be a redlink, to encourage some ambitious editor to come along and write a good singles' events article that would actually include the various phenomena, or at least a good dab page. But, hey, I could go either way on this. — coelacan talk — 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yuser31415 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaacov Deyo

edit
Yaacov Deyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion that this meets our WP:Notability requirements, article is part of a package made by the author of Singles Events and Ticket4one, also under AFD. — coelacan talk — 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry if i am not a professional writer or an english grad. but where on wiki would you place the information regarding the evolution from speeddating to singles events because of the rabi's ownership of the word speeddating ?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nonsense, trollvertisement (vandalvertisement?). - Mike Rosoft 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipwnia

edit
Wikipwnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely troll article which violates WP:NEO, WP:SELF. Prod contested by an anon editor. Caknuck 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:58Z

Not!

edit
Not! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been transwikied and I really don't see any point for it stick around on Wikipedia. And guys, really fight the urge to be "witty" when voting on this one ok? SeizureDog 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above don't really seem to have wikipedia guidelines in mind; "frequently used" is sort of meaningless, wikipedia is not a dictionary. As for this dubious claim that it has important cultural connotations, if there's no attempt to communicate that in the article, then there's not much use for the article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:57Z

Dylan Garcia

edit
Dylan Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was created by a WP:SPA six months ago. A claim for notability is made, but no sources are provided and after a quick wade through the google results that are mostly for other people with the same name, I consider this gent not-notable. John Vandenberg 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana d'Harcourt

edit
Oksana d'Harcourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

Possible vanity page about a non-notible pornography actress. Keep .... or no Keep? (a funny take on a DOND phrase) BuickCenturyDriver 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The filmography listed in the article indicates a film using her name in the title. If this film is not a compilation and it's verifiable then she passes WP:PORNBIO and should be kept. If it's a compilation or if it's unverifiable then she doesn't and the article should be deleted. Otto4711 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable independent references. I don't see how having her name on a porn film makes her in any way more notable than if some other title were on the film, whatever the creators of WP:PORNBIO may have written into their proposed guideline. Inkpaduta 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: French interwiki page exists for almost year. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Non-notible (sic)? If she's in the French wikipédia, then maybe she's known by more people than only myself. Anyway, keep or delete, someone else will probably repeat the entry soon. Her being a porn actress first doesn't make her any less worthy and respectable: wiki's for those who want to know... AnPrionsaBeag 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) AnPrionsaBeag[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superosity

edit
Superosity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superosity. Re-created article has identical content. No third party sources (WP:V and WP:OR issues. /Blaxthos 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it meets the requirements of speedy deletion or not, I still maintain this article doesn't meet the requirements of inclusion. It's nice that sources have been added, but real sources other than Comixpedia.com, the comic's own website, and the site that hosts it must be found. Remove these and there are little to no reliable sources; well, unless you count a Google.com group site, a blog, and some fan sites. auburnpilot talk 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. The claim of notability through hosting on Keenspot doesn't apply in this instance. WP:WEB states The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators. As the author of this comic is the founder of Keenspot, it's not independent. However, it is in print and it seems notable enough for Amazon.com to carry it. The sales rank isn't too high, but it's enough to meet the independent distribution clause. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't only a Keenspot-hosted comic, this is the first Keenspot comic. Created by a co-founder of Keenspot. Daily for almost eight years now (closing in on 3,000 episodes). Seven comic book issues in print. Substantial press coverage. "Hugely influential" according to Schlock Mercenary creator Howard Tayler. CG animated series spin-off in the works. etc etc etc. Egunthry 07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been updated, and you guys are asserting notability... half of the article is summarizing web spinoff minifilms. If all this notability exists, then get some third party reliable sources. I'm willing to change my vote if the notability claims are verifiable and sourced within the article. If something is truely notable, sources exist and can solve all three problems (V, RS, N) all at once.  :-) /Blaxthos 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember though, only offline sources are valid for determining notability on an online webcomic for an online encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.8.147 (talk)
You're not helping. --Kizor 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia's editors and admins have such frail egos that they can't handle having their ridiculous policies rightfully lampooned, then perhaps they need to revisit those policies so that there's nothing to make fun of.
We can. I'm just saying that you're not helping the situation. --Kizor 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, trim to stub if necessary. There seem to be some third party sources. More importantly, I’d like to remind everybody that opining on AFD carries the responsibility of actually checking your facts. The article has been deleted exactly once, by the A7 criterion. It has been undeleted, not reposted. Regardless of that, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under G4, since that is only for items deleted by an XFD process and the first nomination of this article was closed not by consensus but because the article had been deleted in a different way. So, will the ‘speedy delete’ people please refresh their memory of WP:CSD and reconsider? —xyzzyn 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. --Fang Aili talk 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The logs and archives seem to agree with xyzzy, and anyway the article as it is now is different enough to not be a repost. The now-added references section reaches more than a bit, but comes up with enough good ones. --Kizor 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed completely since I nominated for AfD. My problem is still that there are no published sources... although the article is better than where we started (by a long shot), it's still essentially unverifiable by anything other than the blogosphere/interweb. Just because it's notable within the world of webcomic fanbase doesn't make it actually notable in the "big picture". /Blaxthos 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having several collections in print isn't good enough for you? [18] --Fang Aili talk 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources aren’t very good. Ideally, we would replace some. However, I think most of them actually pass the reliability test, even if only at its lowest setting. Since the article is about pop culture and not not astrophysics, the sources, weighted by their reliability, do, in my opinion, substantiate the article well enough to have it kept. (It goes without saying that the Websnark search page should be replaced by something more tangible and everything else should be cited properly, but that’s a style issue.) —xyzzyn 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the "no published sources" comment, as references clearly include Comics Buyers Guide, Editor & Publisher, and Daily Variety. Do these national printed magazines not count as "published sources" of notability? Egunthry 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing primary and secondary sources. Every source under the references section is a self-published webpage/blog/comicfansite (be it comixpedia, etc.). The strip itself may have been published in print, but this doesn't mean that these are sources discussing the strip (a secondary source). I'm not saying they don't exist, but right now the article is lacking anything but online citations (generally a no-no). See WP:RS. /Blaxthos 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren’t Campbell’s Comixpedia article and the review in Comics Buyer’s Guide reliable? Also, I can’t find anything in WP:RS about having only online citations being a ‘no-no’. Printed sources are obviously more valuable, but that doesn’t mean online ones are useless. —xyzzyn 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors seem to willingly overlook our most basic policy on Wikipedia, especially when they like a certain topic. As I often quote in AfD discussions (emphasis added):

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

— WP:V
So yes, I would continue to assert that an article that can only cite online sources from very niche-specific sites will continue to have WP:V problems. /Blaxthos 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comics Buyers Guide is a well-respected, long-running print magazine, as are Daily Variety and Editor and Publisher. All are cited as sources here.Egunthry 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except Campbell’s book isn’t self-published and Comixpedia is neither his homepage nor a blog but is a magazine about webcomics where Campbell has contributed some material. Furthermore, neither Campbell nor Comixpedia seem to have any close affiliation with Superosity. So I don’t see how that quote applies. —xyzzyn 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to a basic invalid WP:ILIKEIT argument, the strip seems notable. I kind of like a guy who wears a cape for no reason though. TonyTheTiger 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original speedy deletion was on the basis of "no assertion of notability". If "will have a TV show based on it" isn't an assertion of notability, I don't know what is. --Carnildo 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to have tenuous links to notability; perhaps when it has a TV show (on a national network) it might deserve notability. Hawker Typhoon 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While I am no fan of webcomics and their lack of notability and worth in general, this one may need to be kept, and I will be fair in that regard. If this is to stay, then those familiar with it really should help better establish notability, and expand the article in that regard. The article mentions that it was the first series in a rater large website featuring webcomics - did the site expand rapidly because of this series's popularity? It is mentioned that this webcomic existed in print form - how many copies were printed, by whom, and how widely were they distributed? This may be one of the few notable webcomics, and thus, I am hesitant to condemn it without allowing a chance for certain ambiguities to be first cleared up. Should the needed facts fail to appear, my opinion will be that of a solid delete. NetOracle 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here have LexisNexis access? I know Superosity has been referenced by many newspaper and magazine articles, but it's impossible to find them all through Google search.66.35.99.183 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by author's request (WP:CSD#G7). — coelacan talk — 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramaterialism

edit
Ultramaterialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally {prod}ded, might need actual AfD discussion (more attention) before deletion V-Man737 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with physicalism materialism. as it is very similar, but has tiny yet notable differences, such as "the universe consists exclusively of matter (UM)" versus "everything which exists has a physical property" and "The essential objects of physicalism ultimately include whatever is described by physics (P)." It appears that although in Physicalism everything can be ascribed to and described by physics, ultramaterialism limits existence to that which is matter, including energy and spacetime. It does merit mention in the Physicalism article. Should have mention at materialism, as the word can describe materialism to a higher extent (Google search brings up 410 hits). V-Man737 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But can it, really? I mean, can one be more materialist than materialist? It's already at the end of a spectrum. If you're a little less-than-materialist, you're not a materialist at all. — coelacan talk — 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake confusing between materialism and physicalism. But if materialism is monist, then it can't and doesn't say mostly matter; rather it says everything is matter or reduces to matter, doesn't it? Pomte 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excuse me for it. I did a search the other day and found that Ultramaterialism is the same as Materialism. So I'll agree with you; it must be deleted. --Orthologist 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An honest mistake and quite understandable, considering that it seems some people are using the term neologistically, usually as hyperbole as V-Man pointed out. If you want, you can add the {{db-author}} tag to the article and it will be speedy-deleted. — coelacan talk — 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jawa Pesisir Lor

edit
Jawa Pesisir Lor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Jawa Pesisir Lor is not an ethnic group within Indonesia recognized by anyone except a bunch of Christian mission websites. Despite the claim by these sites that there are 18.6 million people in the ethnic group, there are no academic references at all mentioning this group and even no Indonesian websites. They are not mentioned at Ethnologue: [21]. It's essentially a hoax. Caniago 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pesisir lor means north coast, so I'm sure you'll find many references. It doesn't necessarily mean that a Jawa Pesisir Lor ethnic group exists and has been recognized by academics. (Caniago 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see. Well, as I said, I'm neutral. I don't know anything about this, so I'm certainly not saying keep, without references. — coelacan talk — 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We've already been discussing at the Indonesia wikiproject, so there will be some other people adding their comments soon. (Caniago 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I have personally met with someone while I was living in Java 95/96 who was either with the project or was thinking on exactly the same line. I believe the project needs an article ( I havent checked) because of the spread and many of the astonishing assumptions made by the project - but this particular article is a construct that has been made by the project needs to be incorporated into the project article - or an article about the projects assumptions about ethnic groupings in the indonesian region. I am impressed by the time and labour taken by editors above - but would only encourage deletion if I knew there was either an article about the Project - or at least the intention there - as this issues arising from the assumptions of the project need to be addressed somewhere or somehow in wikipedia SatuSuro 09:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ethnologue entry for Javanese (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=jav) lists a number of dialects, including one they call Pasisir. If there are academicly defined ethnic subgroups of Javanese, I would suggest that a subsection of the Javanese article would be the first place to add content, and then maybe a single article describing all subgroups in further detail if there is enough content to fill it. I think an article on the Joshua Project could be notable enough, though I'm not sure that going into the level of explaining each of their definitions is worth the effort. (Caniago 09:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A language dialect does not define an ethnic subgroup. I agree, that if it is only a dialect, then it is appropriate as one section in the Javanese language, as Javanese language observes different hierarchy (from halus (soft) to kasar (hard)). — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about dialects vs ethnic subgroups, just using it as a hypothetical example. (Caniago 10:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - this is an Afd vote - parts of the conversation above are more suited at the Indonesia Project talk page! Pasisir is not necessarily accepted as a dialect or ethnic group - regardless of ethnologue or joshua project I thought -thats why we are voting...SatuSuro 12:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the comments here are correct. THis is a region not an ethnic group. Lor means north and pasisir is 'coast' in Javanese. This is a region NOT an ethnic group, and although there are indeed differences between the people of the central javanese interior and the north coast, they are ALL Javanese. This article should be re-written or deleted. I'd suggest re-write. Merbabu 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Horowitz Freedom Center

edit
David Horowitz Freedom Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The above Template is wrong and perhaps should be removed. According to policy, these decisions are made according to consensus, which does have a lot to do with numbers. A minority cannot form a "consensus", except in an oligarchy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I am commenting on the procedure here, as is my right. PLEASE DO NOT CENSOR MY COMMENTS HERE AGAIN. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikitionary: "Censorship: the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated." Not the case here. I removed a comment based on my right in an open source forum to do so, and based on my experiences with wikipedia and the cautionary use of the above template. Nothing more. You replaced your comment, which again is your right to do so. As the comment below points out, the template wording may have changed. I was reacting to what I thought was an unnecessary addition/comment to the template which seeks to remind all users that this isn't a poll. You see it a different way. That's fine, and I won't remove your comment this time around. But let's keep things in perspective when it comes to rights on this forum. Freshacconci 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have, unless blocked, an ability to remove comments. Temporarily. Subject to 3RR. Wiktionary: "censor ... Verb: to censor ... 2. (transitive) To remove objectionable content".[22] You did remove it [23], apparently because it was objectionable, to you, so Codex Sinaiticus is right that he was censored. From where did you acquire a right to be so discourteous? Andyvphil 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Andy but I doubt it is worth pursuing, and I don't want to keep any grudges or hard feelings. In fact I can see how this thread is distracting from the actual AFD, so if anyone else would want to move the whole thing to the discussion page, go ahead, that would be fine with me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trolling for another fight, but I thought you should get some support. Being right is better when you get some validation. Anyway, as an gesture promoting AGF, I've asked chimneybrown (Cbrown1023), the admin who deleted DTN over my objections, to look at this AfD with a view to closing it. It's turned into such a rout that the gesture has been somewhat devalued, but better late than never. I think that'll put everything on the Discussion page. Andyvphil 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, what that template does is invite the closing admin to IGNORE the consensus majority and susbstitute his own whim, since clearly there are two different opinions here as to whether or not this is notable; it will come down to only one person's opinion. This makes everything below to establish consensus meaningless. I vehemently object to that template. If you are going to gag my speech here, remove the template also. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did the template change? I thought it used to say "This is not a vote", when did the word majority get added? That seems to be the problem no? L0b0t 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#Background "Finally, it's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia consensus decisions) the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing." Don't get excited. We've got both the "votes" AND the arguments. And we win no-decisions. WP:DEL#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates "If in doubt, don't delete." Andyvphil 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.
.
.
.
Be WP:bold. Do it. Andyvphil 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will add them this weekend if the result is keep. I am just stuck at work and looked that up before I left. I am sure there is plenty more to add considering that is the result of 5 minutes. --NuclearZer0 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should be a keep unless an unreasonable admin does a drive-by delete. My first AfD was DTN, and an admin did just that: no explanation of why he thought there was a consensus, no cleanup of the dead links, no retention of history so that material could be merged... Left a bad taste, and me less willing to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. Hipocrite's nomination is typical of what he's been doing. No effort involved on his part, just involves everone else in a lot of wasted effort dealing with his messes. He's not the only one. On the other ideological side Common Dreams AfD was an more-than-equal waste of time. Andyvphil 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, links supplied so far are trivial/fluff/nonnotable themselves. Recommend delete. - Denny 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Absurd nomination. Andyvphil 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep Bad faith nom. This is notable and encyclopedic. Note that nom. has also taken it upon himself to trawl the wiki mass-deleting all citations to this site wheresoever they may appear, declaring them "unreliable". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey, I don't like the guy, but so what? Wikipedia is supposed to be an apolitical encyclopedia, and the Center itself is notable. Neutral information is necessary, especially with politically charged topics and institutions. I would like to see some more neutral sources, but as it stands, this is notable. (And no, I'm not a neocon pretending to be liberal, I am a liberal/social democrat who believes this sort of attempt to "delete" the enemy is harmful for all). Freshacconci 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, heh, for the most extreme example of the tactic you are describing, check out the 2 Stalin pics in damnatio memoriae! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to happen a lot under Stalin... Freshacconci 17:16, 9 February 2007(UTC)
Change to Merge with David Horowitz. My comments still stand. Freshacconci 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominator appears to have a personal issue with Horowitz, has been removing every reference to him or his work he can find on Wikipedia. Man and org are notable. - Crockspot 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent reliable sources, so fails WP:N and WP:RS. Put a paragraph or 2 about it in article on Horowitz. Inkpaduta 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I hate freedom lacks enough independent reliable sources for its own article; mention the org at David Horowitz per Inkpaduta above. MastCell 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Inkpaduta. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - The following is the entire amount of information I was able to find about the Center from WP:RS - The Center for the Study of Popular Culture was renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center in July 2006 and publishes the online magazine Front Page. The David Horowitz Freedom Center subsequently merged with the Liberty Film Festival in August 2006. They had a capacity crowd, "Restoration Weekend" event in Palm Beach, Fla. in November 2006 and honored Medal of Honor winner Leo Thorsness at a gathering in South Florida in November 2006. With so little WP:RS information, the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:N. The Center information is better suited for the David Horowitz article rather than having its own article. -- Jreferee 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I did an additional search on the Center for the Study of Popular Culture that revealed more information about the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Since the David Horowitz Freedom Center topic has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, David Horowitz Freedom Center meets WP:N. -- Jreferee 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the sources above, I just havent had time to add them, they are all WP:RS sources. Please read the other comments before casting yuor vote in the future. Also WP:RS includes their own site which you seem to have ignored any information coming from them. A source is WP:RS for itself. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems we are now being encouraged to continue the argument here rather than simply demonstrate a consensus, let me address the RS question here. The people who claim that DHFC is not a reliable source (for itself, or anything else) have yet to provide even ONE instance where information on that site has proved to be unreliable or erroneous. They provide their sources and footnotes for all their information better than wikipedia does, and every statement they have made so far has indeed been corroborated as far as I know. Claiming it is "uncorroborated" etc. is a merely part of a non-neutral political ploy designed to tilt the balance of wikipedia in general over to one side. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
judging the opinion here should discount the opinions of those who could give no reason. This is a discussion, not a poll. DGG 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't initiate the discussion, User:Hipocrite did, but that now appears underneath my comment about the Template. And yes, there is only one way the ??? can be "fixed". All you have to do is put the correct font, gfzemen.ttf, into your font folder, if you want to see what it is supposed to look like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I was mistaken. What font is gfzemen.ttf? I will try to locate it. (jarbarf) 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I've relocated the template. I think this is the first AfD I've seen when it wasn't on the page, so I added it. The [expletive deleted] hasn't come back after his shit-disturbance, but some editors have actually changed their minds, which gives one hope for the process. Andyvphil 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:55Z

Alliance Wrestling Federation

edit
Alliance Wrestling Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Alliance wrestling federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Trevor Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Herman Carrizosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Herman carrizosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Where to start with this one? Article is entirely unsourced, and makes huge amounts of hoax claims. Firstly the company has 19 unique Ghits. There is an alleged TV show about to premiere, called Brute Force. A search for AWF Brute Force and Alliance Wrestling Federation Brute Force return 1 Ghit and 2 Ghits respectively. Apparently there's an annual pay-per-view each year as well, that I can find no details of. Apparently their shows attact a "usual attendance ranging from 6,000 to 10,000", which is about the same as the average WWE show. Strange then I can find so little information about this promotion isn't it? There probably is a small independent promotion called Alliance Wrestling Federation, but it isn't the one described in the article. Delete as hoax One Night In Hackney 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and oh yeah, bless Qarnos. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neill Sea Odyssey

edit
O'Neill Sea Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertising for a youth program. The fact that the organization is non-profit and the program is free doesn't change the fact that this article is basically non-neutral boosterism, extolling what a great thing it is. The only third-party source indicating that anyone outside the organization is even aware of its existence is an award granted by Barbara Boxer. That's nice, but it's not enough to build an encyclopedia article around. —Angr 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - I think there is potential for an article on this subject. A google search returns quite a few hits, and a lot of them seem to be non-affiliated sites. But, as it stands, the article is terrible (eg: talking about the subject in first-person). It essentially needs to be blanked and given a complete re-write. I can't commit to anything right now, but if I can find some time this weekend I will take a crack at coming up with an alternative. -- Qarnos 07:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to strong keep after Qarnos' re-write. Well done.--Kubigula (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish given names

edit
List of Spanish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Spanish given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Spanish given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwikied and deleted. Aksi_great (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish given names

edit
List of Swedish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Swedish given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Swedish given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Modern Greek given names

edit
List of Modern Greek given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Modern Greek given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Greek given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latvian given names

edit
List of Latvian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Latvian given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Latvian given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian given names

edit
List of Romanian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Romanian given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Romanian given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish given names

edit
List of Irish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Irish given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Irish given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman praenomina

edit
List of Roman praenomina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Roman praenomina}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Roman praenomina. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwikied and deleted. Aksi_great (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian given names

edit
List of Italian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Italian given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Italian given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwikied and deleted. Aksi_great (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kurdish given names

edit
List of Kurdish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)List of Kurdish given names}}|View log]])</noinclude>

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. It is now at wikt:Appendix:Kurdish given names. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yuser31415 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Curtis

edit
Joey Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Boxing referee who refereed a couple of famous fights, which does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. Only ref is obituary, which is not multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Few Google hits except for Wikipedia and sites which mirror Wikipedia. Inkpaduta 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep more because I can't really decide and one should err on the side of not making permanent decisions (such as deletion) lightly. Yes, the article in its current form fails WP:BIO for lack of citations of notability, but just a quick google search shows (on page 1) a New York Times profile on him and an article on his most memorable event from a reputable boxing news website. Keep in mind WP:BIO states "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." as a valid criteria. It seems from a quick glance that he had at least one particularly notable effect on the sport of boxing, distinguishing him in his field. Article needs more citations, but I say it should be given a chance. -Markeer 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Add some good inline refs and it will be a far better article. It seems to be based only on an obit so far. Inkpaduta 04:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep while the person could pass WP:BIO the article does not include any references that could substantiate this, causing a problem with WP:V. Sources should be included if the article survives this AfD to avoid a second or third nomination Alf photoman 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will add the NY Times profile to the article, giving him as references 1)an obit and a 2) a2 paragraph article in the New York Times. Is that enough to satisfy WP:N? The Ringsidereport website is about a fighter and only gives Curtis a 1 sentence passing reference. Not being a "primary subject" and not being substantial coverage, it does not support notability. As nominator I would still call it a weak delete. The obituary claims he was an inductee in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, but their website [32] does not list him. Perhaps some other hall of fame? Are there more sources? Was he notable during his boxing career? Is he in boxing reference books? Inkpaduta 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Theissen

edit
Bennett Theissen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN internet DJ/actor/production manager/musician. Article is unsourced and I had trouble finding any reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. At this time, fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:52Z

Trexlertown Mall

edit
Trexlertown Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MALL. YechielMan 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted. Steve (Slf67) talk 05:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropolinguistics

edit
Anthropolinguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Science Article OverlordQ 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trifecta -- copyvio OR spam. Burninate. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yuser31415 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matmice

edit
Matmice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn website (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice) Xokien 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the claim to have 1.6 million members constitutes an assertion of notability, but it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. More evidence of non-trivial independent coverage also needed (per WP:WEB). I would vote Weak Delete, but the author deserves the chance to improve this article (per the comment above) and to add sources to verify the claims. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show how this meets our criteria for notability of web sites. The author's block has expired so he is able to improve the article. Note also this could be speedied under WP:CSD:G4 since it is reposted material previously deleted by an AfD. Gwernol 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the reasons for putting up for deletion were due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy, that is, if an article lacks sufficient reason to be notable, then it would require improvement. The article is of notability, both relevant and now up to date, make the article one that is of value to wikipedia and should be kept. While the article could do with a bit of work, I have since improved it and added many cources verfying its notability. Eedo Bee 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, we do delete articles that are not notable, so the original nomination was quite proper and not a misunderstanding of policy. Thanks for finding the additional references that show the article's notability. Gwernol 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - external links clearly show notability. I do wish, however, that the article was expanded, and the external links used as footnotes, per WP:V. Jeffpw 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cogim

edit
Cogim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable companies Xokien 07:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Star Wars starfighters. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K-wing

edit
K-wing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:FICT. ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kept by Mailer diablo [34]. Majorly (o rly?) 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Fiesel

edit
Marcus Fiesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - reads like a memorial to the victim of a tragic but otherwise non-Wikipedic death. Otto4711 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - large number of references testify to the existence of multiple non-trivial news coverage of this death. Murder victims aren't inherently notable, but it looks like this one is. Walton monarchist89 11:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this murder case has attracted wide media attention and is hence much more notable than many articles in Wikipedia. Rosemary Amey 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The tone is a bit memorial-ish, but since this has garnered attention outside of the local sphere, thus multiple coverages, thus a weak keep. SkierRMH 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable person. What's a non-Wikipedic death? --Majorly (o rly?) 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources establish notability. If indeed it's too memorial-like, that can be improved. Not a reason to delete, IMHO. Heimstern Läufer 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the section at the bottom that establishes notability ("Effects on child care") gets proper sources. At the moment, it has no citations. Doczilla 06:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources establish notability. I personally think this sort of "nobody will care about this in 5 years" stuff belongs at Wikinews, but that's just a pipe dream. --- RockMFR 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started the article and I don't take it personally that the article was nominated for deletion, but the trial of Marcus' foster mom is about to begin. They're taking care of the jury selection today in her case so media attention is bound to increase. His foster father's trial is supposed to begin next month too. The last time I worked on the article I only had the basics and I don't believe it read like a memorial, because I purposely did a lot of research including court documents to make sure I was dotting my "i"s and crossing my "t"s. Anywho, if there's a problem with the article, in the way it reads, why not just fix it? Peace. -- Sapphire 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the sources given establish notabilitySlideAndSlip 21:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Feel free to try again shortly if you think it still isn't notable; however, at this stage, this debate has yielded no reasonable concensus either way. - Daniel.Bryant 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auchinawa

edit
Auchinawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Convention only started last year and had less than 500 people. With that, I seem to be able to determine that this convention is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't yet decided on this one. However, I do want to say that attendance figures aren't the sole measure of notability. Since this is the first and only convention in Scotland, it is notable. But the biggest problem I have with the article is lack of references to reliable third-party sources. If I do decide for delete, it would be for that reason alone. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there any established guideline for what counts as a "reliable" source for anime conventions? It's not like many of them are covered by the New York Times or anything, and most news outlets are amateur websites, especially in the UK. It's also rare that any established American news sites (like AnimeNewsNetwork.com, for instance) covers conventions on this side of the Atlantic. --aniki21 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The guidelines for what qualifies as a reliable source is found at WP:RS. As for lack of anime convention coverage in the UK, well that's something that Wikipedia can't do anything about, nor make exceptions for. --Farix (Talk) 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to this issue, the fact that a given topic is so specialized or under-the-radar that third party sources are exceedingly difficult to find indicates that it should not be on wikipedia. Editors often forget that wikipedia is not actually meant to be a compendium of ALL human knowledge and experience. It is an encyclopedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Farix. There's a fair amount of info (more than a lot of cons) here. I don't think the lack of references alone is a reason to kill it off. If that were true, we'd have like 2 anime con articles left on Wikipedia. We just need people to start putting references in. It shouldn't be hard to find them, but it takes time. --PatrickD 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about.. Give deadline for more references, then delete if none? I also agree with the idea that attendance shouldn't be the only thing we look at, but without references it becomes a WP:V issue. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references to establish notability. A quich search and the fact that none have been forthcoming in the year the article has existed leads me to believe there are none. However, I'm willing to change my opinion if proven wrong by the deadline of the the end of this AfD. Nuttah68 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I utterly disagree with the nominator's suggestion that attendance is the only measure of notability for an anime convention. As the first anime convention in Scotland, Auchinawa is notable. The lack of references is an issue, but I don't believe it's reason for deletion on its own. --aniki21 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the first Anime and J-Culture convention in Scotland, I also believe that this is notable. The references need updating and adding, but I feel I can have these done by the end of the day. Mystcb 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the points raised above, attendance should not be a criteria used to define notability, especially with regards to conventions in the UK, where attendance is on average far below the likes of conventions across the Atlantic. Ninja Steve 18.21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --- RockMFR 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Carroll, accused of murder

edit
David Carroll, accused of murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - no one in the history of ever is going to type "David Carroll, accused of murder" as a search term. Otto4711 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn and relisted at RfD, I didn't know there was a separate process for redirects. Otto4711 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:49Z

Trogdor (sport)

edit
Trogdor (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Trogdor field.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Service Trogdor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Bowlingpin championship.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. There is no assertion of notability as well. Wintermut3 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of murdered people

edit
List of murdered people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - thoroughly indiscriminate list of people who have absolutely nothing in common other than being murdered. Otto4711 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not indiscriminate. You can't get on the list unless you're murdered. That's almost as difficult as some private clubs. Seriously, nothing wrong with this list. It's not in violation of any policy. — coelacan talk — 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not indiscriminate or subjective, clear factual criterion for inclusion. However, might be necessary to spin off into more precise lists (it's too long at present). Walton monarchist89 11:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gigantic list of unrelated names. WP is not an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too big? I don't think so. It can easily be split alphabetically if that becomes necessary. The information here may be useful to researchers and that's reason enough to keep it. We're not an online database, indeed, but this list has a very specific criterion for entry and there's been no policy-based argument yet for getting rid of it. — coelacan talk — 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specific? It seems to include Janelle Patton (Philippa McDonald (2007-02-09). "Norfolk murder trial worries tourism industry". ABC News.), Michael Dosunmu ("Four bailed over Peckham murder". InTheNews. 2007-02-09.), and Nina Courtepatte (Dean Bennett (2007-02-09). "Witness at Alta teen's rape-murder trial says accomplices broke mall-rat code". Canadian Press.). How, exactly, is a criterion that encompasses such a diverse set of people across three continents "specific"? And how is a list that contains all of the murdered people that have ever been recorded an encyclopaedia article, rather than a database? Uncle G 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too general a list. Ok there is a clear factual criterion for inclusion, i.e. being murdered, but that is far to broad and wide-ranging a criterion for a list like this. Wikipedia is not a list of everything/everyone.If you have this list you'd have to allow "list of people killed in car accidents" etc. Jules1975 11:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way, way, way too broad a list. This could conceivably contain millions of names. There's no guarantee a list of "people murdered by *method*" or "list of *occupation* who were murdered" would be any better, but it certainly wouldn't be as overly broad as this list. 23skidoo 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too broad, and even if narrowed better as a category-Docg 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, put these people in the appropriate category instead. Rosemary Amey 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know to what extent this list qualifies for deletion under WP:NOT#IINFO--there is a discriminating criterion (i.e., being murdered). However, this discriminating criterion is quite broad. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people are murdered each year across the world. If this list is intended to include only people whose deaths/murders are notable, then it should state so (that would, however, be List of notable murders, and I don't think this list can be converted into that one). Black Falcon 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As cool as it is to see that Dimebag Darrell and Pythagoras have something in common, the topic is too indiscriminate and fails WP:NOT. Charles Kinbote 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per [35] over 16,000 people a year are murdered in the U.S. alone. That makes this an arbitrary list of items, and necessarily incomplete. It mixes famous persons who were murdered, with persons famous ONLY because they were murdered, and mixes history with being a memorial site for sympathetic victims, which Wikipedia is not. It does not appear to have a good criterion for who makes the list and who does not. Inkpaduta 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable" and "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" are contributing factors for deletion from WP:LC. There are daily reports of murders that make the news, and I don't think anyone coming to Wikipedia for information on a notable person who was murdered would first look through a long list of homicide victims. ◄Zahakiel► 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not a policy or guideline. That being said murder is not that unusual a way to die, statistically speaking, so I'm not voting keep in this case.--T. Anthony 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it is an essay, which is why I said contributing factors, and not reasons. As you pointed out, murder is a fairly common way to die, and I believe that this renders the list, if not indiscriminate, an exercise in futility for proper maintenance. Common sense would indicate the problems here, as most commenting editors have pointed out. ◄Zahakiel► 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator's decision for this afd has been submitted for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15. Golden Wattle talk 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous only in death

edit
List of people who became famous only in death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - an indiscriminate and highly subjective list with no standardized criteria for inclusion. What constitutes becoming "famous" after death? Otto4711 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. List particularly fails to discriminate between people who became famous because of their deaths (notable victims of hate crimes, those who had laws named after them) and those who became famous after their deaths but because of what they did during life (Nick Drake being a prime example). Don't even get me started on the fact that some of these famous figures are people I wouldn't know from a bar of soap. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. It separates those who became famous by the nature of their death from those who became famous for other reasons, Nick Drake is in the "not because of cause of death" type section.--T. Anthony 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite the way I meant. As it currently stands, the list includes (but divides between) people whose manner of death made them notable and people who simply became famous after they died. In other words, it's indiscriminate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:NOT#IINFO - there is a discriminating criterion (people who became notable because of the manner of or otherwise due to their death).
  2. "Some of these famous figures are people I wouldn't know from a bar of soap" - WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason for deletion (a lot of people don't know who the head of government of their country is; WP gives them a chance to find out).
  3. "Famous" is a subjective term - granted, replace with the objective term "notable"
  4. "Listcruft" -- what the hell does that even mean?? Lists are allowed on WP if they serve a purpose. The purpose of this list is to bring together all those persons who are notable only (or largely) due to the circumstances of their death.
  1. WP:NOR - firstly, it's usually a reason for cleanup, not deletion; secondly, "soft" verification through hyperlinks is possible; thirdly, it doesn't really fit with any of the 7 things noted at WP:NOR. Black Falcon 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without responding to the rest of your reasons for keeping other than to say that I don't find them compelling, the seven things listed at WP:NOR are the things for which consensus has been reached. Those seven things are not the only things that can be indiscriminate. Otto4711 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjectivity makes this WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very, very fascinating and informative list. It isn't nearly as subjective as many people have stated. It is just the type of page Wikipedia needs. — Jordangg40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep If changing famous to notable, the criterion for inclusion becomes perfectly objective: being the subject of an article in the Wikipedia. Of course it must be cleaned up (the different sections overlap, for instance), but this is what editing is for, not deletion. --Goochelaar 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point here is not entirely over the definition of "notable", it's over the entirely subjective and dubious judgment of who and who didn't "become famous only in death." This can not be established simply by changing the article title, and this is why it doesn't belong here.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The idea behind changing "famous" to "notable" is not primarily that it include only people in WP (although that is implied)--rather it is to list people who are notable (by WP standards) only or largely because of the circumstances of their death. Black Falcon 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the entirety of the section entitled People whose achievements were only posthumously recognized would seem to lie outside the ambit of the list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That should be deleted or turned into a separate list (including, I assume, mostly writers, musicians, painters, etc.). Posthumous recongition for achievements is separate from notability gained to the circumstances of their death (e.g., unusual deaths, killed by a famous person, first person killed by etc.). I have deleted the section in question, would you agree to let the article remain and be cleaned up? Cheers, Black Falcon 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not totally convinced - I feel there's a better title even than one which replaces "famous" with "notable", and a couple of the remaining names still don't quite sit too well - but I'll have a closer look and see what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title List of people who became notable only in death is somewhat problematic (and quite long). I'm thinking List of people notable for their death might be an alternative (it's two words shorter), but it may be less descriptive. I would appreciate your suggestions, if you have any. My feeling is that this information (cleaned up, of course) should be present on WP, but I'm just not sure how to incorporate it. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly the kind of thing which is very interesting and would be nice to have somewhere (particularly if "interesting" were the only criterion for inclusion here - a lot of those "Miscellany"-style books have lists like this). The suggested alternate title, though, doesn't fill me with great joy because not all the list does what it says on the tin. Those who are notable because of what happened to their corpse, for example, aren't really notable "for their death" so much as "for what happened next". There was an AfD ages ago for something like "List of Notable Deaths", which would be interesting as a comparative point, but I can't remember the title of the article to find it here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Perhaps "in death" is better after all. However, even if the title is not perfect, I think that as long as the introduction clearly spells out what the article is about, there should not be too much of a problem (or rather, there should, but it should be consigned to the article's talk page where multiple people can try to come up with a better title over time). Cheers, Black Falcon 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep As one of the main editors of this list, but not it's originator, I found the list had potential but at the time I found it, it was totally pointless, subjective, & filled with original research & POV entries. I developed some guidelines to help make a "cutoff point" for fame to make it more objective & also debated the word "in". The aspects which came out of it are:

Credentials for making the list were:
  • Lasting fame (must be dead by 3 years at least)
  • National or international fame (no local fame)
  • Victims are grouped if of the same event or chain of events
  • Reason for their lasting fame is noted with their entry

The debate over the word "in" is also in the discussion area. "In" could mean "because of" & it could simply mean "in the state of", which covers both those who's means death was the reason for fame as well as those who were only posthumously famous.
I had every itent of making this a meaningful list after coming upon it in it's horrible state. Those were attempts to put guides on it to make sure it was a useful & consice list. I do think it has a meaningful purpose & I found it because it partially filled the thing I was looking for. So please, this is not a list for deletion but cleanup & refinement. Some greater objective criteria needs to be put up. The originator refused any attempts to write out criteria, but I really think it needs some. My proposed criteria are right there for scrutiny & discussion. --Duemellon 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Palty

edit
Sharon Palty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO; does not warrant wikipedia entry Renstimpyxfiles 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. McLain

edit
Robert N. McLain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Instructor at a single martial arts club. Non-notable. Also fails withrespect to WP:OR and WP:COI Peter Rehse 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, and nominate the other article as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Paranormal Investigators

edit
Asia Paranormal Investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:API group photo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What appears to be another non-notable paranormal investigative society, this time based in Singapore. The only references to their notability are on a "apperances in media" page of their website. Unless there are other mentions of API in non-trivial works, this should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 links to independent sources and newspapers article in the references provided Firet 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the founder, Charles Goh, is apparently only notable due to his founding of this organization, so his article should be nominated if this is deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:47Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied per G10. W.marsh 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poxy Music

edit
Poxy Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The band is named "Roxy Music" and this is just a stupid joke... Pie.er 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Haigh

edit
Rupert Haigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author of legal training books for non-native speakers of English. Multiple books published but fails WP:BIO because he's not "a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". No evidence of reviews or awards for his books. Tagged for notability since Dec. Mereda 10:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:44Z

The Death Valley Blues Band

edit
The Death Valley Blues Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apart from the problems with NPOV and style, which could be corrected), this band seem not notable. The only reference to it (not by themselves) is two lines in a review of a whole festival. Goochelaar 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yuser31415 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Todd Carroll

edit
Robert Todd Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is he notable enough for his own article? Skeptic's Dictionary already exists and is a notable website, but beyond that he seems to be an ordinary college professor (at a city college) with nothing else to assert notability. metaspheres 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Children's Book Writer's and Illustrators

edit
Society of Children's Book Writer's and Illustrators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a membership organization that exists, but it fails the notability guideline of WP:CORP because it isn't "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent". Large numbers of Google hits come from SCBWI sources. And that's it. Mereda 10:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Change of mind - keep Two book sources now added to the article. Thanks, guys. --Mereda 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unsourced, no current evidence of external coverage by independent sources. Some of its members, however, may be notable, and this may give the organisation itself a claim to notability. Walton monarchist89 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the easy-to-find citations for the SCBWI are found by searching for "Golden Kite", the organization's top annual prize. That returns coverage at about.com,[43] freelancewriting.com,[44] libraries,[45] [46] Youngstown State University,[47] the Random House website,[48] Through The Looking Glass Children’s Book Review,[49] and baynews.org.[50]
Besides the Golden Kite (all of those pages explicitly begin with the SCBWI), there are generic sources as well. The Department of English at the University of North Dakota cosponsors a conference with the SCBWI.[51] They are the primary subject of an article about grants and funding,[52] by Lynne Remick who has published independently elsewhere such as January Magazine.[53] They are the primary subject of this article (subscription required, I didn't).[54] A writer for the government of West Virginia recommends joining, on a WV govt website.[55] These references are buried much deeper, because so many of the first results on google are for local chapters, because (cf WP:ORG by the way) "the scope of activities are national ... in scale". An organization around since the 1970s, with dozens or perhaps hundreds of local chapters, is obviously going to have citations, probably going back into the 1970s.
Now, finding these citations was time-consuming, but it was not difficult. You could have asked at WP:BOOKS for someone to look for sources; I'm sure someone there would have been able to help. This article has been tagged for a while, but it has had very few editors and wasn't on very many watchlists. So a trip to WP:BOOKS would have served well. It's not helpful to take articles directly to AFD when the subject has 61000 google hits. The citations are out there, and there could never have been any doubt that the article can be shown to be notable. But this five-day window to find sources is a last resort, not a first choice. Please explore other routes in the future. — coelacan talk — 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per Coelacan. I don't agree with the "subject of multiple non-trivial sources" criteria being used as the only criteria for nominating for AFD. Clearly there are other ways of demonstrating notability, as indicated above. 23skidoo 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, my apologies for not thinking of friends at WP:BOOK as a stage in the journey. Second, there's already an article on Golden Kite Award, and that's not the subject of this debate. Checking through Coelacan's links hasn't convinced me to change my mind yet. (Is the Remick article a reliable source?) Mereda 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source unless you have reason to believe otherwise (e.g. she's lying, or she was paid by the SCBWI to write it). All the Golden Kite Award sources are both about the award and the organization, and demonstrate notability for both, imho. And since the University of North Dakota cite is probably the strongest cite here, what's your opinion on that one? — coelacan talk — 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't see a single sentence about SCBWI as the primary subject in that North Dakota link. And I don't believe that notability automatically flows both ways between a corporation/organization and a named award: my reading of WP:N is that each named subject stands on its own. Meanwhile, the Remick article isn't that strong against WP:RS and I think that's the most depth of published material we've seen so far. But I'm always trying to be open-minded and better sources would quickly convince me. Mereda 16:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The North Dakota thing is a "27th Annual Writers Conference in Children's Literature", presented by the "Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators and the Department of English, UND". That means the organization is notable enough that the department cosponsors an annual conference with them. It doesn't have to be the primary subject of the page; their notability is demonstrated by the collaboration itself. And I'm afraid you're completely wrong about the Golden Kite Award. The Award is notable because the SCBWI presents it. If the Award is notable because of the SCBWI then the SCBWI has to be notable to lend its notability to the Award. As for Remick, I wish you'd actually be specific about what you think the problem is. As I've demonstrated, she's independently published elsewhere (January Magazine for example), and the Writing-World site where this is published is independent of both her and SCBWI. It's not even indiscriminate free hosting, or something you can pay to have your article hosted on, Writing-World paid Remick for that piece, 5¢ per word, to be exact.[56] — coelacan talk — 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in many books about the process of publishing children's books (e.g. H. Underwood. Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Children's Books. ISBN 1-592-571433.) and not just on the subject of their awards. An important publishing industry group. JulesH 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added JulesH's information to the article. Is there another source like this?? Mereda 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I've added another book now from searching Amazon and changed my "vote" above. (The book's from a major publisher and I feel that's stronger than the Writing-World article against the pecking order of non-scholarly stuff in WP:RS.) --Mereda 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTUS self defense

edit
LOTUS self defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No case made for notability. Appears to be a small grouping of martial art clubs. Peter Rehse 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, A7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario gravem borges

edit
Mario gravem borges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted once as WP:CSD#A7 but immediately re-created by the same user, who has no other contributions. I can't see evidence of notability, and the article looks like spam (and a probable copyvio) but that may just be that it's poorly written. Note: Geogre's First Law. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Block recreation. Non encyclopedic, nn person, no evidence of notability. --MaNeMeBasat 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'd say that the solo show(s) are at least a claim to notability. Also if the reviews include full page by American prize-winning author and critic Sol Biderman, in BRAZIL HERALD and LATIN AMERICAN DAILY POST and full paragraph by critic (late) Flavio de Aquino in Bloch Editores’s FATOS E FOTOS weekly magazine; can be found they would go a pretty long way to meeting WP:BIO. On the other hand, we don't actually have cites to the sources, just claims that they exist, and the general tone is so unencyclopedic as to be almost useless for the creation of a new article. So, on balance, delete. Eluchil404 07:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:43Z

Executioner (EVE)

edit
Executioner (EVE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are nearly 200 player-flyable starships in EVE Online. We already have a very detailed (possibly a bit too much) article on the topic of these ships. There is not enough verifiable, NPOV information on the use of every ship to split each out into its own article, nor is this the EVE Wiki. —Dark•Shikari[T] 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - zero assertion of real world significance whatsoever. No assertion of real world significance, or for that matter, notability. Unsourced. Merely a plot summary. There's a few more bits of crap here, but I'm not in the mood to play the deletion game. MER-C 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus seemed to decide in some earlier AfDs and DRVs that the 5 races of the game were notable enough to be split off from the main article to allow a more detailed discussion of backstory. The Weapons of EVE Online article, a complete mess, was deleted though. —Dark•Shikari[T] 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image development (visual arts)

edit
Image development (visual arts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, the definition here contradicts sources and the meaning ascribed to the phrase is Original Research. The identification of the word-paring as a 'phrase' with a specific meaning is doubtful, and not notable. Davémon 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As also discussed on the talk page the 'references' don't stand up to scrutiny, and the Google-test mostly showed up scraper sites, not reliable sources. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your sole opinion. Oicumayberight 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the references given are primary sources, this is a fact, not an opinion, as anyone bothering to check your references would soon discover. --Davémon 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a graphic designer and this is an important topic. It is a process not a dictionary definition. If it is not correctly reflecting what image development is, then just edit it a bit. Goldenrowley 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective for guidance on 'importance'. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am a graphic designer, and this phrase isn't used in the industry or academic circles in any way that requires more definition than could be gleaned from reading a dictionary definition of the separate words image and development, and subsequently this entry does not belong in wikipedia. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your real problem? Just because you've never heard it used, doesn't mean it isn't. And now you seem to have a problem with the consensus to keep the article. If you are a graphic designer, you shouldn't have a problem with graphic designers developing a common vocabulary for what is an obviously useful umbrella term. Oicumayberight 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to "develop a common vocabulary", it's a place to put verifiable information. As such this article is out of scope for wikipedia, perhaps see if it fits better in wikisource? or wiki-dictionary? --Davémon 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term did not originate on the wikipedia. This has been verified. You just refuse to accept that. Oicumayberight 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'term', just an frequent word-pairing which you have synthesized a specific meaning for (this is WP:OR). Rather than stating 'this has been verified' it might be more productive to produce the material which verifies your claims - with reference to WP:V and WP:RS. The burden of evidence does not lay with me to prove your assertions are unverifiable, but on you to provide verifiable sources for your claim. --Davémon 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the final say of what is proof. So far the consensus is that it's been proven. Oicumayberight 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in proof. I'm interested in verifiability. I can see a lot of consensus being created here, which is great, but none of it is actually in regards WP:OR or WP:V - which is why the AFD was put in the first place. If consensus is achieved for reasons outside of that, then I'm free to challenge it again.--Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many times you challenge it. It doesn't matter how many people you dispute. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your accusations. Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less obvious. Those two words have clearly defined factual meaning in printed dictionaries. When the words are combined, the meaning is clear in the referenced context of how they are used. It's like denying that 2.13 + 2.17 = 4.30 because you haven't seen the equation in print. Unless you can get the words "image" and "development" removed from every dictionary, It's your opinion versus common sense. Oicumayberight 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have achieved some consensus: "Those two words have clearly defined factual meaning in printed dictionaries". I agree 100%. Any further 'explanation' of the words is obviously erronous in that it precludes the obvious meaning and narrows the definition. This makes the article entirely misleading and there's certainly no need to have an encyclopedia entry about it, unless of course, there is verifiable evidence to the contrary? --Davémon 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are cleverly trying to make it like the article is defining the term. It's not. The sources define the term by using the term in context. Just because you expect to see it word-for-word as stated in the article, doesn't mean the article is the primary source of the term. The article does not narrow the definition, because the article is not defining it. The article is citing usage, how it may be used, and contrasting it from terms less broad or the homonym uses of the term. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No body is saying the article is the primary source for the term, but that the article only references primary sources, and that there are no reliable secondary sources for the term. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a merge to a better umbrella term if there were one. Visual communication includes typography, page layout and graphic design, which isn't exactly image development, unless you consider the whole page an image. I'm sure that the reason the word emerged was to set page layout apart from the skills required to develop images used in the page. How many times have you met a good illustrator or photographer who didn't know page layout, or a person who could layout pages only if clipart and stock photography were provided? Oicumayberight 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is Image development (visual arts) used in relation to three dimensional creation, or is it only used in the context of bringing into existence two dimensional entities? Web pages I consider two dimensional, because the computer screen is two dimensional. Is the term used to refer to the bringing into existence of three dimensional items too? Bus stop 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm the authority for all uses of the term, I would say that any method of creating or editing images is image development. If you are talking about scanning or modeling images, it wouldn't be a stretch to call 3-D modeling image development. If you are talking about hand sculpting, I would call that image development, but I'm not sure if anyone else would. Oicumayberight 02:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: It sounds like a useful term. I can agree that an umbrella term is called for, or so it seems to me. I just don't know if the term has gained real use. Do you know the origin of the term? Did it arise naturally? Or, was it coined in some type of academic setting? Is there perhaps a textbook, or an online teaching program, that makes use of the term? Bus stop 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where it originated. The first time I saw it was back in 2000 on a poster for a creative advertising awards event. It showed symbols for each category. The "image development" symbol was a camera and a paintbrush. I wish I could remember the sponsor. I remembered the term because I was putting together a talk on art specialties and was conflicted about calling photographers "illustrators." I don't know if anyone has ever officially defined it in print word-for-word, seeing as how the meaning is obvious when used in context. The wikipedia is full of these umbrella terms and loosely defined terms. I don't see a problem with visual arts having a few. Oicumayberight 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there are no verifiable secondary sources for the article and therefore it should be deleted. --Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of references on the page in which the term is used in context in print. But since we all know that the world wide web gets updated faster than even the fastest printer (the web fed printing press) can print a single color on a page, there is a list of links on the discussion page as well. A number of those links point to academic uses. Oicumayberight 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the references are primary sources, and so contravene WP:OR and WP:V. More tellingly most of these are do not use the phrase in the way defined in the article. ie. they cover traditional media and the obvious meaning of 'image development', not a specific meaning to do with computers, therefore making the entire article misleading and redundant. --Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not state that image development is specific to computers. It says mainly but not exclusively computers because most of the sources referenced refer to computer graphics. The term would probably not have emerged if it were not for computer graphics making it easier to combine techniques and blurring the distinction between the techniques. Oicumayberight 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"would probably not" doesn't sound like you have any reliable, secondary sources for that opinion. Many of the references given do not refer to computer graphics at all. --Davémon 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davemon, now you are trying to make it like everything anyone says on the wikipedia, including discussion pages, needs to be sourced. Wikipedia policy allows for people to have opinions. You seem to be stuck on the computer graphics aspect. Again, image development does not exclusively apply to computer graphics. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply offering opinions doesn't help progress a debate which is fundamentally about verification. As an aside, if image development isn't about computer graphics, then you must admit that the article is heavily skewed in that direction - and has mislead the anonymous user below. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what all this resistance and denying common sense is about? Are you a neo-luddite? Are you a technophobe? These are not personal attacks. These are serious questions you should ask yourself. There must be a reason why nobody but you has resisted this after all this time.
I'll ignore the remarks addressing me personally. I think the reason nobody has questioned before it is because the few people who have seen the article assumed the information is correct rather than actually checking the sources, or perhaps they don't think WP:V is important. --Davémon 09:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not skewed. It's not saying that image development requires computer use. The computer made the term "image development" a necessity just like it made "user interface" a necessity. just because user-interface originated with computers doesn't mean that it's exclusive to computers; but it is mainly used in computing. The same goes for image development. Oicumayberight 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For the final time: this definition is not verifiable through secondary sources.
" The computer made the term 'image development' a necessity " - is this according to you, or a reliable secondary source? --Davémon 09:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you again, it's a talk page. Opinions are especially allowed in at talk page. Every common sense statement doesn't have to be sources especially on talk pages. Oicumayberight 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While browsing around Wikipedia in attempts to learn more about graphic design, desktop publishing, illustration, etc. various topics, I saw 'image development' and a link to this article more than just once or twice. I found it to be a useful and interesting article (I'm already aware of your 'notability is not subjective' point, no need to remind me), and it clarified my previous hunch on what it basically was (mostly stuff like computer graphics, photo editting, etc.). The way I see it, if I already thought subconsciously that 'image development' had to do primarily with a generalization of computer graphics rather than, say, development of images such as paintings or sketches and such, then the term must be used in that context enough for a general amount of people to view the term in that way. There is such a thing as slang terms and jargon, which Wikipedia holds a plethora of articles on, I can assure you (I like to look up slang terms and such that I find interesting here when bored, they've got much smaller-scale, less-widely-used term definition/articles than 'image development', trust me). I also found the article was a good generalizer so that I could find something that linked or referenced to various other related articles, which I, and probably others that are attempting to learn more on the various related subjects, was interested in. I find no 'good' reason to delete this article outright, and the reasons cited to delete it seem highly exaggerated or untrue, especially that last note, with '...doubtful, and not notable'. What do you mean by 'notable'? Many different sites, scraper sites or no, and articles in Wikipedia itself seem to find it notable enough to apply the terms in themselves and link to this 'unnotable identification of the word-pairing as a phrase'. At the very most, maybe a clean-up tag or something of the like, but full-on deletion is somewhat ungrounded and a tad on the ridiculous side. I've seen much worse articles that still have plenty of chance to be altered, merged, or improved rather than deleted outright.
Hi, could you sign your comment please? I note this is the only edit to come from this users IP address. With regards to not notable - I mean that it hasn't been written about by reliable secondary sources, i.e. if you looked it up in a "Dictionary of Art" or a "Dictionary of Design" it would not appear - it simply doesn't have status as a term any more than 'sandwich making' does - it doesn't matter how many people use those two words together, if no reliable source has written about the use of the term, then it's not notable (i'm basing that on WP:NEO - and am aware that whilst the words are not new - the idea that they carry a specific meaning is new). Scraper sites are just robot-sites that copy wikipedias content and add advertising to it - so don't help establish the terms use or notability. Secondly, your assumption about "image development" having to do with computer graphics isn't actually borne out by the references given in the article - 'image development' is generally used in it's broadest, most obvious sense - to mean anything to do with the process of making an image (there are examples of this misappropriation of references on the talk page, two of them specifically use the term with reference to sketching, painting etc.) - so your previous hunch wasn't clarified - so much as you have been mislead by this article. If it were to be cleaned up to reflect the reality of the use of the 'phrase' it would just be one line: See image development. As for a 'good' reason to delete it, nothing stated in the article is verifiable - it contravenes WP:V WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:NEO, Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, and it will not only mislead people as to the actual nature of the word-pairing but also lowers wikipedias standards as an encyclopedia.--Davémon 14:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article states why the term is used and contrasts it from corporate image development. According to Davemon logic, there doesn't need to be an article for any term that includes more than one word if the words are individually defined. So Davemon must not think terms like "computer science" and "graphic design" need articles as well. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, both "graphic design" and "computer science" have significance, historic and cultural currency beyond a simple dictionary definition, which can be established through verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. Also, please see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:42Z

Queen of All Saints elementary school

edit
Queen of All Saints elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prodded because the school is not notable. No claims to notability added after the prod was removed (two months ago). 132 distinct Google hits[57], none of them indicating importance in WP:RS except for a visit by the British Columbia minister of Education, as reported in one newspaper[58] (no idea how important, independent, reliable this weekly newspaper is though: it has a staff of nine, including only two reporters / photographers[59]) Fram 12:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I argue that schools are notable because they have a profound affect on their pupils (this could be several thousand people, depending on the age & size of a school). As such, this makes them notable, not only to their community but to the world at large if former pupils move away. Markb 13:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:41Z

Our Lady of Fatima elementary school

edit
Our Lady of Fatima elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod removed, only change is the addition of a church with the same name next to the school (which doesn't give the school any more notability, and is hardly relevant for an article with the subject "... elementary school"). 280 distinct Google hits[60], but none from WP:RS indicating any notability or importance beyond being a school. Fails WP:NOTE Fram 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no other delete votes. WjBscribe 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lennon

edit
Sean Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only notable because of his father, therefore I suggest we merge with John Lennon. I'd do it myself except I think this will probably cause some debate Dave 12:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per WP:SNOW. Dave 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouveau Classical Evolution

edit
Nouveau Classical Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a single-artist art "movement" with no notability or references beyond the artist's own website. The language used is convoluted and nonsensical. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional purposes. Freshacconci 12:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Gordon Purvis

edit
John Gordon Purvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy on the righteous grounds that it is completely and utterly opinionated and POV. Is it wirth rewriting? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I admit I was a bit hasty with the Speedy tag, but as you say, it's not worth re-writing. It's not an article with a few POV bits, instead it appears that the majority of text on the article is POV-orientated. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be re-written. I presented the facts on Purvis' life briefly and the facts on the Hamwi murder and its results. If it sounds amateurish, make it professional.

Perhaps you could change the article to THE HAMWI MURDERS or something. I based the article on the book THE WRONG MAN: A TRUE STORY by Kevin Davis, a non-fiction book documenting the Susan Hamwi-Shane Hamwi murders. It is unfortunate that Johnny Purvis was merely coerced into a confession by threatening police officers when there was no evidence of his being on the scene of the crime. I think it miraculous that they caught the real killers, when they discovered that Paul Hamwi had paid $14,000 to Robert Wayne Beckett and Paul Serio to kill his ex-wife to get out of paying child support. I don't think the article should be taken down. I think it just needs someone to present it more professionally.Corey Bryant 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The point of view of the article, that John Gordon Purvis was unjustly convicted, appears to be correct. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Being written about in the New York Times is a strong hint that somebody might be notable. -- Eastmain 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The NY Times article and the federal appeals court case cited as well as the book cited indicate he was innocent, his mental condition made it easy to obtain a bogus confession, he was convicted despite exonerating evidence withheld from the defense, and he was imprisoned for 9 years of a life sentence. What is in the article that is POV, given the facts? If the facts are referred to in words that seem pov, well, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," WP:SOFIXIT. Polish those words into the very epitome of NPOV. Inkpaduta 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Case is notable. And interesting. Article is loaded with subjective, "fictional" style, which is possibly why it was mistaken for POV throughout by some members. There are enough factual sources to enable thorough re-write in appropriate objective register. Could be entered as example with other cases on Miscarriage of justice

High Heels on Wet Pavement 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Alex Bakharev 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asthenization

edit

Not notable neologism Alex Bakharev 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:40Z

Meshback

edit
Meshback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. My prod rationale was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In any case, no sign that this term is in wide use so should be deleted per WP:NEO." The tag was removed with the explanation "21000" Google hits which, of course, is true but only because "meshback" is a common description of baseball caps. However the definition used in this article is not in common use. Pascal.Tesson 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect. Merged articles do not (and cannot) be deleted as we must maintain the edit history. --- RockMFR 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas hydrate

edit
Gas hydrate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I anounced this page for merging with the Clathrate hydrate article some time ago. The merging is now complete and the useful and correct information from this article has been encorporated in the destination article, Clathrate hydrate.
GGenov 13:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Alex Jones (radio) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:35Z

Terror Storm

edit
Terror Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - speedied once already (so here we are), non-notable, unsourced, unverified, conspiracy theory. Likely adverSPAMcruftVERTisment - as the article hypes the author of an as-yet unpublished book. Created by an apparent vandal account. Rklawton 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note - actually, that only applies to material deleted though AfD or the like. Recreation of speedy deletes constitues a challenge to the SD and is permitted. Deletions thus challenged may go to AfD (as this one has). An admin, however, can opt for WP:SNOW and close the discussion early - or not. Rklawton 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerrorStorm. --Aude (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere this got deleted and turned into a redirect to Alex Jones (radio). I can't find it, but might have been an alternative spelling or something. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TerrorStorm_(2nd_Nomination). --Aude (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G4 only applies to replications of deleted content. This is different content about the same subject, so G4 doesn't apply. There's no Speedy rationale, and I think every admin here knows that these conspiracy discussions are never SNOW. I'm looking for refs. This needs to run five days. — coelacan talk — 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to B-Real. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:32Z

Kush (band)

edit
Kush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Side project band which has not released a EP or CD. No assertion of notability, such as signing to a record label. The members' main bands are certainly notable, but their side project is not. Maybe someday, but for now delete. Wehwalt 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worley Thorne

edit
Worley Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. I would be amazed if the author, user:Flyingw was not the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of those entries are for a couple of episodes in a long-running series. Where are the reliable secondary sources of which he has been primary subject? Oh, Flyingw acknowledges he is Thorne. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps for listing someone's body of work (but the trivia pages shouldn't be used as a reference), but it's just directory information. There doesn't seem to be coverage beyond listing what he's worked on, so I don't see how he's been a primary subject of a source. Trebor 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete seems like he's had rather minor roles, and is just inflating them. Possibly notable, but if he is, it's right on the line -- febtalk 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm not sure how to interpret WP:BIO on this one. On the one hand, it says "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." On the other hand, this person was a screenwriter, not an actor. On the third hand, WP:BIO doesn't really provide much direction that pertains to screenwriters (nor should we expect it to). I think that this person's work is probably notable and that we should err on the side of inclusion with this one. That having been said, the article has definite POV issues ("long successful career" and whatnot) that should be cleaned up in any event. Seventypercent 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. See the lists on the pages, she is one among a lot of writers for certain series. -- MaNeMeBasat 14:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete roles played are minorSlideAndSlip 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:30Z

Kovoism

edit
Kovoism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Kovo888.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Contested prod. No notability, no verification. This article basically describes a religious organization (or an anti-religious organization) and its philosophy. However, it doesn't even mention an organization. It says that Kovoism is "a new way of thinking" about certain things. Also, it gives no inclination at all as to how many members it has. I say delete. Diez2 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Check Google hits]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Puff

edit
Mrs. Puff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Speedy keep by a non-admin overturned by deletion review, objections there are enough reason to relist, and the sooner the better. Listed on today's AFD page to allow full run. GRBerry 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep PeaceNT 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update explanation:Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and invalid points raised for nomination. Major character, no violation of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia, lack of sources isn't a reason to delete. (I might add that the article now properly cite its references) PeaceNT 11:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary fictional character (SpongeBob's driving instructor). No significance outside the SpongeBob universe (violating Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). No references to independent sources saying why the character is relevant to the world. No out-of-universe perspective (or sources) so it might fit with one of the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters or List of major SpongeBob SquarePants characters (I'm not sure what criteria is being used to differentiate these). 650l2520 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more odd is that this person's userpage is exclusively Spongebob stuff. Something just doesn't add up here... JPG-GR 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment - speedy keep overturned by deletion review. Relisting on today's AFD page. GRBerry 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There are zero sources outside of the show, which, per the nom, fails to establish any sort of notability outside of it. Articles on characters only notable within the show don't get seperate articles. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge She appears in neither of the lists in the nomination, which is just weird. She isn't in the major character list, yet the other one treats her as major. Since I know nothing about this topic, I don't know which list she belongs in. But with no evidence of individual notability from independent sources about her, at this time the article should not exist on a stand alone basis. And that lack of evidence is an argument that the major list is probably incorrect. GRBerry 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm somewhat neutral on this article. On the one hand, the fictional elements of the character appear to be properly referenced with episode footnotes (so an editor can just watch that episode or look up other plot information elsewhere to verify the info). However, one could also argue that per WP:NOT#IINFO, articles should not include only plot summary information, but should also have some real world context and analysis. It's not clear that this article meets that standard, since the entire thing appears to be a summary of the various plot elements involving this character.
The question of whether or not a plot-element-only character article is "encyclopedic" by WP:NOT and WP:FICT standards would seem to me to be a fairly broad question covering virtually any article about fictional characters on Wikipedia. So it might make more sense to bring it up as a topic on the talk pages for those policies/guidelines, and perhaps look at a way of maybe clarifying the language of WP:FICT regarding plot-element only character summaries. For my part, I could go either way, so long as character articles are handled somewhat consistently. Just some thoughts to consider while deciding what to do with Mrs. Puff's article. Dugwiki 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to reply to Peace's specific comments at the top of the afd, I'll mention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) specifically says, in bold print, that "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." It goes on to explain the differences between in-universe and out-of-universe perspective, and that out-of-universe perspective includes things like critical reception, sales figures, real world factors influencing the design, and "a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional." This could be taken as further indication that while a fictional character article can include plot elements, it should also include information that isn't taken directly from the plots. Dugwiki 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:27Z

Michael Everson

edit
Michael Everson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not really seem to be too notable, failing WP:N. All the sourcing is done from sites that may not be meeting WP:RS, or otherwise is made up entirely from primary sources. So WP:V. Gets one lone WP:RS New York Times article, but being mentioned once in one article isn't notable, its <15 minutes of fame... and has passing references in an ISO publication and one PDF, and his own site/blog. Also, WP:COI and WP:VAIN apply. Looks like the subject of the article is heavily WP:OWNing the article as User:Evertype. Recommending delete, in the end, simply not notable and fails notability criteria as defined on the guidelines... - Denny 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDIT: Previously nominated 30 Apr 2005, no concensus and 25 July 2006, no concensus, - Denny 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New York Times and NPR,[61] which was already in the article. That's multiple third party reliable sources, notability established. — coelacan talk — 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This article has always bugged me a bit. IIRC, it was created as an autobiography. I'm pretty sure Evertype has admitted to this and claimed ignorance of WP:AUTO at the time of creation...but I'm a little doubtful, given the number of red WP links with the same (or higher) level of notability, that it would have been created otherwise. That said, it's been around since 2004 and deleting it now seems pointlessly punitive. Notability has been established, and he correctly points out that he is allowed to correct factual errors in his own entry. Dppowell 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some of the sources cited are not independent or reliable, but there seem to be several among them which do add up to multiple reliable independent sources. NY Times, Unesco, NPR. Inkpaduta 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfy notability criteria.Biophys 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Michael Everson is certainly very well known as a major behind-the-scenes driving force in the world of computer character sets. I have heard about him many years before I have heard about Wikipedia. The Unicode Standard lists him as one of the principal authors. Compared to that, it is rather irrelevant how often a New York Times journalist has interviewed him so far. His celebrity status among the users of ISO 8859-14 and the many other character-set related standards that he fathered is mostly limited by the fact that the International Organization for Standardization sadly keeps the authorship of its standards a rather well-guarded secret. Notability to a notable specialist community should be perfectly adequate to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Markus Kuhn 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit: The article could get a good edit, like citing sources for the various claims in the article like him being a Buddhist, living in Lecanvet, becoming a neutralized Irish citizen in 2000, Tengwar and Cirth being under consideration by Unicode, Everson Mono being the third Unicode-encoded font that contains many characters (what does that mean, really?), etc, etc. There are also so many links on the page, which I think is much higher than Wikipedia's other pages. This can be reduced perhaps by listing scripts already in Unicode that Michael has not worked on! roozbeh 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improveSlideAndSlip 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian fashion models

edit
Canadian fashion models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic mess, blatantly POV, possibly spam. Yamla 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The models who are notable enough for their own articles should have them. But we have no need of this play-by-play. — coelacan talk — 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the individual models are notable, they should have their own pages, otherwise this is not necessary. Plus isn't there already a Canadian models category? Isn't that enough for a list? Freshacconci 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree, the article is a drafting mess, but it would be more appropriate to {{cleanup}} the article, and rename it to Modelling in Canada or something more appropriate. Agent 86 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be more appropriate to simply start over when or if anyone actually wants to work on such an article. This article has existed in essentially this form since July 2006, and no one has cleaned it up. I don't want to bother, do you? If no one is going to work on it, it's better that it just be deleted. Someone who actually wants to write such an article in the future would probably not want to bother starting from this draft anyway. — coelacan talk — 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are tons of articles in bad shape that haven't been touched in forever; however, poor (or sometimes downright awful) writing is not a basis for deletion - just look in Category:All pages needing to be wikified and Category:Cleanup by month. If there are any POV problems with the article, etc., I can't see how hard they would be to remove (and it appears the {{POV}} tag was never applied to the article). I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but that should only be done if it fails to meet the content policies and guidelines. Agent 86 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't think there are serious POV problems with the article. The problem is notability and verifiability. A lot of these women don't seem to have Wikipedia articles. Are they notable? I don't know, because there't no reliable sources in the article. It reads like a bunch of original research. I don't know if any of this happened, and without evidence of notability, I don't even know if the reader should care. There's a strong possibility of spam, too, since the one external link has been here since the beginning. — coelacan talk — 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might be a case where it would be cleaner to just nuke this mess and let anyone who wishes to create something coherent start fresh (preferably with a new name like List of Canadian fashion models). The article is a complete mess, reads like an essay, suffers horribly from POV, follows no chronological order, contains several models of dubious notability, and depending on how I look at it, reads like spam or a copy/paste job from somewhere I cannot determine. Resolute 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gilmour

edit
Raymond Gilmour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable. Not a single quote, source or external link. Subjective tone. Dearth of info as to his entire life or what caused him to allegedly become an informer. This snippet of a page was created with contempt and out of expediency. Inthegloaming 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Concerns addressed.--Jackyd101 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now expanded the article with sources. I suggest people have a look at the updated version before judging whether to delete the article [63].

Jdorney 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to presence of links to two non-trivial articles entirely about this subject in mainstream publications. The Belfast newspaper refers to him as the "most notorious" of the supergrasses, which also sounds like a third party's argument that he's notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse me, but what exactly is not objective here? The Diplock Courts were special anti-terrorist courts with no juries. Under the supergrass scheme, the only evidence was the testimony of the informer. For this reason, most of the cases brought before it were thrown out by Lord Lowry, who did not find the witnessses to be credible. Where is the bias in what I wrote? Please explain. I edited this article in good faith and resent the allegationof bias. Gilmour is notable, aside from his role in the supergrass trials, because he is the subject of a high selling book and numerous newspaper articles. The Independent article here [66]
Jdorney 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have altered the article so that it now includes a reference to the Diplock courts: [[67]]. You can hardly blame me for commenting on the article as written rather than your subsequent revision! I have made no allegation of bias.--Major Bonkers 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only alteration I made was including the term 'Diplock courts'. So I don't see where you got the "(very) doubtful objectivity" from. It's ok though, I accept your retraction. Jdorney 16:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you think I have retracted, but I stand by all my comments above. If you read the article from the viewpoint of someone coming to it without any specialist knowledge they would get entirely different impressions between reading the first draft and the revision. Excluding the reference to Diplock courts makes it read as though a kangaroo court was involved; including the reference makes it slightly clearer that, despite extraordinary circumstances, legal principles were adhered to. Not putting events into context equates to a lack of objectivity.--Major Bonkers 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if so it was not intentional.You could of course have made the minor alteration yourself instead of alleging bias on my part. Or suggesting deleting the article.Jdorney 17:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not alleged any bias on your part.--Major Bonkers 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything remiss in Jdorney's edits. "Non juried" is the key qualification.Tyrenius 06:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major Bonkers, you called this person "non-notable." However, the person clearly meets the standard for notability provided by WP:BIO (restated in the keep vote below). How do you reconcile these two points? | Mr. Darcy talk 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is my job is it? Anyway, I don't believe in Hegelian dialectic. --Major Bonkers 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of your opinion is being questioned with good cause. You are under no obligation to justify it, but failing to do so as you have may well result in it being given less weight or even discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Bass

edit
Pinky Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not notable Tom 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - article asserts that this artist has displayed works at a number of major exhibitions. External links may constitute multiple non-trivial external coverage per WP:BIO, although ideally more sources are needed. Nominator's rationale is too vague and should have been explained better (i.e. with specific references to the article and/or to specific WP policies). Walton monarchist89 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I read some back and forth on this topic between user:hoary and user:artsojourner last month. I tried to find references and sources for this artist but was unable to find much substance. I am not a big proponent of deleting anythng from Wikipedia but after doing some due diligence on this one, believe it merits deletion. If someone can change the article to show Ms. Bass' notability I'm all for keeping the article (edited signature as I didn't realize that I wasn't logged on) --Tom 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bass was covered in a documentary produced by the Alabama State Council on the Arts, called Coat of Many Colors.[68] Her work was one of the features in a magazine called Pinhole Journal Vol 19 #1. The Enchanted Mishap.[69] Carolyn DeMeritt produced a 1993 "video production on the artistic collaboration of Kitty Couch and Pinky Bass".[70] Work by Bass was included in an exhibition called Voices Rising: Alabama Women at the Millennium by the Alabama State Committee of the National Museum of Women in the Arts (NMWA) at the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts.[71] This exhibition was made into a video presentation (also called Voices Rising) that ran on Alabama Public Television,[72] and they still have a page for her on their website.[73] She had her own exclusive exhibition called BodyWorks at the University of Montevallo Bloch Hall Gallery in Spring 2006.[74] I'd say all this is enough to demonstrate notability. — coelacan talk — 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but this sounds thin to me. For Voices Rising, she's one of twelve people. The text in the page about her runs to just three sentences. Et cetera. -- Hoary 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Before the article was 'torn apart by some editors and actually had parts deleted altogether instead of trying to find info it is easier just to delete it for some unscrupulous editors on here. it was much more informative before all the mess. Bass is a notable person especially in Pinhole camera work. Artsojourner 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would have to be delusional not to note Bass vast accomplishments. I never understood why someone deleted the (id) exhibition that included only a few artists among them Robert Maplethorpe unless it was just as a slight. For Bass to even begin to deconstruct and sew and utilize photography in such a manner and then to be applauded for it is a very high honor indeed. With work in Ashville Art Museum, Birmingham Museum of Art, Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, the Montgomery Museum of Art, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art plus a couple of films with her work what else would a person need for an article on here. Artsojourner 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, don't over-sauce the dinner: One would have to be delusional not to note Bass vast accomplishments... Whatever Bass has done, "vast accomplishments" is putting it way too strongly for your own case. Furthermore, leave out the dangling slur, unscrupulous editors. I don't much care one way or the other whether Pinky remains a Wikipedia article, but your tone has put me off enough that I would like to vote delete, especially as the article is quite wretched at the moment. Still, I'm willing to be convinced that there is some merit in a short sketch of Bass's career, assuming the quotations don't continue to outweigh the other sections in the article. Pinkville 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: With work in Ashville Art Museum, Birmingham Museum of Art, Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, the Montgomery Museum of Art, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art plus a couple of films with her work what else would a person need for an article on here. Since you ask... She has had one solo exhibition. Has it verifiably generated critical comment? Has there been a single book of her work? Despite working in a populous, affluent English-speaking nation and thus having a great advantage in the (admittedly often absurd or repellent) struggle for recognition, Bass doesn't appear in the long index of the capacious Oxford Companion to the Photograph. (She's also not mentioned in any other photography book in which I looked her up.) She may indeed be very significant: I'm open to persuasion. So far, I'm underwhelmed. -- Hoary 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coelacan. Mangojuicetalk 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still wondering. Notability (people) tells us that notable photographers are those who "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". I don't see multiple independent reviews, and I see no awards other than those of two grants: no award of a kind that is, or might reasonably be, included in Category:Photography awards or similar. This guideline continues: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I wholeheartedly agree with this: without it, Pierre Rossier and many other articles would be wrongly deleted. However, Rossier (like many others) has obvious alternative notability, and I have trouble seeing this in Bass. She's mentioned in some books, occasional photos by her appear in some books, she teaches. The only possible plus is that her work has, we are told, been exhibited (by itself? within group shows?) in some prestigious places. However, there seems to be no evidence provided for most of these exhibitions. She verifiably (link) had a solo exhibition at a university. Fine, but the university I went to had/has a little exhibition space that (perhaps unjustly) was/is largely ignored by the outside world and indeed by the huge majority of the university's own staff and students: I wouldn't take an exhibition there as proof of notability and until I see external reviews of the Montevallo show I wonder about that too. -- Hoary 09:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bass is also listed in the Women in Photography, International Archive now housed at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University. also for those who would like to know more before weighing in on Bass work please read the article after I have updated numerous sources. It is important to realize that photographers, as a general rule, are exhibited in more group shows more than say painters or printmakers. Please consider the achievements of Bass when casting a vote. How many other photographers on WP have far fewer achievements and still have posted articles? Artsojourner 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is really poor. The alleged notability of Bass is all very thin and the primary author only makes it worse by repeatedly trying to puff up her qualifications. For example, the honor of being named a "Georgia Women in the Visual Arts" is a title that the Ga. legislature bestowed on at least 150 other women that year. Its great that she made the list, but we can't hardly have articles on each of those people, so it doesn't make her notable. The same holds true of these exhibits that she has been included in -- she was one of many artists so included. A second example is the Women in Photography, International Archive listing (which we are thoughtfully told is "now housed at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University"). Bass has a one line reference to a 24 page catalog of an exhibit. Imogen Cunningham has 13 listings, many of which are major books about her. This article is so full of this puffed up information that on more than one occasion I tried to edit it down to its provable, notable points to see what we have. I was harshly accused of "hacking up" the article, but my point then and now is that including a phone book's worth of information tells the reader nothing. These laundry list articles merely leads a discriminating reader to wonder why all this unnecessary information is listed. Have a look at a truly notable photographer's article -- Cartier-Bresson or Edward Weston -- and you will not find a listing for every group exhibit in which the photographer was included. Now look at this article's reference or external link list -- most of these references contain a single line for Bass out of a much larger publication. And now Artsojourner makes his last chance argument that many other photographers listed on Wiki are less notable -- please list these articles and we can start an AfD process on them. No, this article does not demonstrate Bass's notability and should be deleted. TheMindsEye 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMindsEye is in places undeservedly harsh, I think: most photographers who rightly get an article in WP aren't as notable/celebrated as Cartier-Bresson or (grandpa) Weston. (Only half a dozen or so could be.) Better to compare Bass with less celebrated but yet deservedly respected north American photographers as different from each other as, say, Robert Polidori or Bill Owens (neither of whom has half as good an article as he deserves, incidentally). It's here that we see how weak Bass's claim to notability is. And I fear that TheMindsEye is right: the article on Bass has recently suffered from an infusion of ho-hum material. -- Hoary 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weighing in Seeing that I pulled this article together, how many Southern Women photographers are as notable as Bass? Maybe just a handfull. Editors please make your decision based on the relative facts as anything else here is not useful. When I was asked for more information to try to win over support for this article I felt compelled to find what I could find not necessarily weighing it against what is already there nor did I try to puff it up. I stated what I thought to be correct information to the best of my knowledge and I have never vandalized an article by including misrepresentation or by deleting whole areas from someone elses articles for any reason. Artsojourner 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a tough one: being neither in nor from north America, I tend to confuse Canadians and Youessians, let alone northerners and southerners within the US. (I'm also not well up on very recent US photography, as a lot of what I've glanced at is "me" and "my friends" stuff that doesn't interest me.) Sally Mann? Eudora Welty? -- Hoary 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner

edit
Sedat Laciner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, self-promotional material Tumbleweedtumbles 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a (now modified) auto-biography. A search on Sedat Laciner on some of the main ressources for social science: Jstor, containing more than 143.000 journal issues; ProQuest more than 6.000 periodicals, and SAGE Publications/CSA Illumina with +1,200 resources gives 0 hit, neither as author nor as reference! Not having published anything or being used as reference in any respected journal nulifies IMHO any claim of notability. Please also see WP:AUTO, the combination of lack of notability and being an autobiography effectively makes the article unverifiable. Bertilvidet 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is even not a professor, but an associate professor. Bertilvidet 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. he is not notable in the language he writes, no SSCI indexed contribution, no reference given to him in the academic databases, Clearly a vanity-seeker more than an academic.cs 10:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Slaciner, and the above comment should thus be seen as sarcastic. Bertilvidet 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:25Z

The Suite Life Of Zack and Cody (album)

edit
The Suite Life Of Zack and Cody (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Suite Life Of Zack and Cody Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:260px-The Suite Life Cover.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Strong Delete. No references, checked Amazon.com and this album didn't come up. Didn't hear anything about this album prior to it's release date. QuasyBoy 1:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:23Z

WWE Legends

edit
WWE Legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced list that has been a constant source of vandalis and POV. The list itself really isn't that notable. -- Scorpion 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "legends contract" is mentioned in the text. If such a specific contract exists, then the article would some value. --Soman 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the list is based on wrestlers who have signed "legends contracts" which basically means they can appear on WWE programming whenever they want and action figures of them are made. But, there is no source. -- Scorpion 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Delete unless a source for this can be found. Since there's hard-and-fast criteria to get on this list (signing a "legends" contract), it's not "indiscriminate". All of these wrestlers are notable and indeed legends in the business. However, all this is true only if there's a source, and I couldn't find one. I did find the WWE Hall of Fame, but that already has an article. --UsaSatsui 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, these contracts are not promoted at all, and it's really just something known to the IWC. They really aren't notable and without a source, it's just a spam magnet. -- Scorpion 16:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, and I'd love to debate it, but I'm not going to yet because we do agree on one thing: It's unsourced. If it gets a verifiable source, then I'll make my case, but until it does, it can't be kept and I support deletion. With no source the criteria is entirely subjective. (I've changed my vote to better reflect my feelings on this) --UsaSatsui 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's not totally verifiable, and just a retread list of those in the WWE Hall Of Fame and who have action figures made. Put a section about the Legends program in the main WWE page, but delete this list. Booshakla 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See this edit. Over two dozen "legends" were added by a random IP user with no sources whatsoever. -- Scorpion 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least 1/4 (if not more) of the list are not verifiably signed to "legend contracts", which is an actual thing and the basis for the defense of this article, except that the list has no basis in reality and can be just as easily covered in the WWE Hall of Fame article. This just seems like a piece of excess baggage. Wayman975 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:21Z

Scott Waddell

edit
Scott Waddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:ScottWaddellPortrait.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable young artist with no references or significant exhibition record. He may become notable some day, but he is not at this point. This is self-promotional and inappropriate for wikipedia. Freshacconci 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default keep. Nishkid64 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Next One

edit
The Next One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Looks awfully like a minor piece of hockey fan trivia to me. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with hockey, Wayne Gretzky was dubbed "The Great One", which prompted many to speculate about who would be "The Next One". This is what makes the article more legit than "The Next Michael Jordan". Just to solidify the connection between Gretzky's nickname and "The Next One", here are two sources which mention the link:
    • So you think you can turn those links into an article? Has anyone written about the "The Next One" phenomenon, rather than just apply it to the one or other player? ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could at the very least be a short disambig page- The Next One is certainly a nickname that has been applied to several players. It is sourcable, verifiable, and not as minor a piece of fan trivia as people would think. I don't know how easy it would be to find sources on the history of the term (which would flesh it out in terms of an article), but like I've mentioned, it is a nickname that has been applied to several players already and would be a fairly useful disambig page at the very least. --Wafulz 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:21Z

Warbucket

edit
Warbucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable webcomic. Was speedy deleted in the previous AfD long before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warbucket), but I have no way of knowing if this is the same article after more than a year, so I thought having a full-length AfD may stop it once and for all. Looking for Warbucket plus Alyusuf (one of the two authors) gives only 12 distinct google hits[75], none of them about a webcomic, and none of them from WP:RS anyway. Warbucket plus Waldne only gets 23 Google hits either[76]. No claims to any notability or importance are made, none are found, so let's just delete it and be done with it. Fram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:20Z

Katrina refrigerator

edit
Katrina refrigerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only linked from one other article. Possibly original research. Previous nomintion. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is an excellent example of why wikipedia demands multiple sources. The Times might publish a human interest story about a poor woman who needs surgery, as part of a larger theme of health care costs and poverty etc. This doesn't mean that specific woman should be the topic of a wikipedia article. That's essentially what the source for Katrina refrigerator is.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at the previous nomination, most of the comments didn't say simply "it's interesting"; one contributor happened to say "it's an interesting and verifiable phenomenon" (my bold text), which doesn't constitute a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The large collection of external links is testament to multiple non-trivial news coverage - not just a single human-interest article - and a book about the topic is even cited. As such, the phrase doesn't fail WP:NEO, nor does the article fail WP:V. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if those external links could be used as references. I don't consider external links as such unless they're cited in the text, although I guess that might not be a common feeling.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete IronGargoyle 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Morse

edit
Brent Morse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual, based on google search and failure by article creator to provide sources establishing notability, after being requested to do so -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 11:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan musicians

edit
List of Sri Lankan musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity-filled, unmaintained, unmaintainable, and heavily utilized for spamming purposes. There is no way to redeem this list, I don't think. Delete (see below). --Nlu (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted (db-bio). -- JLaTondre 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TCWBBall

edit
TCWBBall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete A vanity page, unverifiable, non-notable (a player who's good at Halo, wow, very notable), no reliable sources, Author admits to conflict of interest on the discussion page. The Kinslayer 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Church of St Theodore

edit
Anglican Church of St Theodore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prodded as "non-notable - fails WP:CHURCH. prod replaced by {{hangon}}, so here it is. As well as being written as an ad, the article doesn't really suggest that the church is notable, so I agree it should be deleted. JPD (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting it I was considering doing it. "No assertion of notability" is enough to qualify for speedy: if there is ANY assertion of notability it comes here. See WP:CSD.--BozMo talk 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Pilotguy (G11). --- RockMFR 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhumanthuruthu Pravasikal

edit
Ezhumanthuruthu Pravasikal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

advert for nn webforum Soman 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:16Z

Sonic the Hedgehog (2009 film)

edit
Sonic the Hedgehog (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Utter nonsense, started out as as something of a joke in response to unfounded rumors. Endaso 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:13Z

Vancouver Furious George

edit
Vancouver Furious George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

disputed PROD for ultimate frisbee team. not notable nationally, these are local sports clubs, or college club sports and do not pass WP:ORG. Also, please see AfD:Cheveron Action Flash. Also nominating for deletion several other ultimate teams with articles, see below Cornell Rockey 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene DarkStar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seattle Riot (Ultimate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fingers 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brownian Motion Ultimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seattle Sockeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Disc Northwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep most especially DiscNW, it is not a team, but one of the model regional organizations in Ultimate. Also keep Seattle Sockeye, Furious George and Eugene Darkstar as they are men's teams playing at the highest level of Ultimate in the USA. The others I'll go a weak keep on. We definitely need to find sources establishing notability in all of the articles. --Liface 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources showing that the clubs or the sport played with a Frisbee is notable. Inkpaduta 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but Fingers 6, as they don't appear to be very notable. It looks like their biggest achievement was "7th in the UK's Indoor Nationals", and "a host of Trophies from various competitive events over the years." I should also point out that Furious George already survived a previous AfD. Rawr 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:13Z

Just North of Nowhere

edit
Just North of Nowhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional article created by author (whose WP autobiography was recently deleted) in violation of WP:NOT. The book described appears to be a non-notable release from a micropress. Can't find an ISBN for it, and the title doesn't appear in any common online catalogs, e.g., Amazon or B&N. First two pages of Google hits go to Wikipedia, WP scrapers, author's blogs, author's posts/profile on a web forum, or are completely unrelated uses of the title phrase. Only interwiki link is from Fantasy world, a reference added via anonymous IP on November 16 (which I am about to remove). Dppowell 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, though if there were an article University of Minnesota student housing, that would be a good place to merge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:12Z

Middlebrook Hall

edit
Middlebrook Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod with the edit summary 'Edited to demonstrate significance'. It's a hall of residence does not make any claim of notability or provide any sources Nuttah68 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found while doing Categories for speedy deletion. The deletion reason was "Not notable content form of this. Insufficient content to create a good article.". I'm neutral here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:07Z

Element TD

edit
Element TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Element td (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Eletd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

I question if this is really notable and worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Does look Verifiable, but I think this has some notability issues. What do you all think? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to RTÉ Radio 1 in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:06Z

Rattlebag

edit
Rattlebag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content/context-free, does not assert notability. Radio show has since been cancelled (see the references I added to the article). Propose deletion as non-notable, now-defunct radio show. Charles Kinbote 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:05Z

Jyte

edit
Jyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. Veinor (talk to me) 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I haven't edited here for a while, so I'm not sure if I'm eligible to vote. If I am, I'll have to say keep. 1942 claims have been made on the site in a couple weeks after it was launched. Though the user community is small, it is pretty active. See the article's talk page for a bit more information. — Bcat (talk • email) 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertation of notability, article is unclear anyway ffm yes? 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Been seeing it mentioned in a ton of places lately. Since it's relatively new, probably not a bad thing to have it be a stub for a while. Ubernostrum 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs work, but it's a stub. If OpenID is notable, and if you believe Jyte to be one of the more interesting early experiments in its use, then Jyte is notable. I have no affiliation with janrain, the company behind Jyte, but I am an active user, FWIW. Ojcit 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:03Z

Marathoners

edit
Marathoners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable short film. Article created by the film's producer whose article we just deleted on notability concerns. Delete per WP:COI and the proposed WP:FILM. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:02Z

Suzy Gorman

edit
Suzy Gorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found while browsing Canidates for deletion, the deletion reason was "{{db-spam}}". I'm failing to see how this is spam. I might be missing something here, but this is not blatant advertising as far as I can see.... ideas? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:58Z

Edem Afemeku

edit
Edem Afemeku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another hoax page from the folks at Princeton Day School that brought you Jake Felton (author). Not notable, likely more fiction/fanstasy Steve.Moulding 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Nv1027 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Its not notable. Period. Steve.Moulding 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that? You are not God, you have no right to censor something that is not untrue. I don't care if you think that it isn't notable, but the people of Togo and the people of Princeton do think it is notable. I'm sorry for your Ignorance Mr. Moulding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nv1027 (talk • contribs)
— Nv1027 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:49Z

Dennis V. Chornenky

edit
Dennis V. Chornenky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

subject is nn, article is bordering on vanity. After removing information that was not verified via the sources claimed, all that remains is his research, which is not peer-reviewed. Of the six articles on the site listed, three are merely talks, and only one remotely comes close to being cited to a reasonable conference level. He has received no awards for his work, has published no books, and is only mentioned by organizations in which he has heavy personal involvement (such as the Masonic Restoration Foundation). MSJapan 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHIMMER Women Athletes

edit
SHIMMER Women Athletes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A possibly non notable wrestling promotion article which mainly contains fan/listcruft involving match results and rosters. The article is not referenced and has no third party sources Paulley 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per my nom, unless article improvements occur -- Paulley
Comment: With the recent removal of Listcruft info and with editors seemingly willing to rewrite and reference the article i am prepared to change my vote. --- Paulley 10:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no references in the actual article to support any claims.. and unless their is vast improvement in the actual article being notable wont be enough -- Paulley
  • Keep: Here is an article on a respected Canadian wrestling news site about the Shimmer promotion [80] --CheapTee
  • Keep and rewrite: A notable wrestling promotion, but the article needs to be completely rewritten, and results need to be taken out. Arguably the most popular all women promotion in the U.S. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this page needs to be referenced and expanded, but I know there are third-party references out there (eg. the Figure Four Newsletter citation in the current article). If this is not enough, maybe the information should be Merged with the articles about Ring of Honor, Dave Prazak, or Allison Danger. - Geoffg 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus but was leaning towards keep. —Doug Bell talk 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Spartacus!

edit
I'm Spartacus! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is an unreferenced indiscriminate collection, not of times when the phrase "I'm Spartacus" was used outside the film, but of times when something happened in another movie or TV show that kind of sounded like the "I'm Spartacus" scene. Absent confirmed sources that the writers of the various listed scenes intended to reference the film, this list violates WP:OR. Otto4711 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The solution would be to recognize that collections of every mention of a particular catchphrase, character, book, TV show, film, etc. in another film, book, TV show or whatever (whether contained within an article on a topic or in a separate article) are not encyclopedic and shouldn't be created or maintained. Otto4711 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be the ideal. In practice it is impossible to stop people adding this kind of trivia. Leaf pages "... in popular culture" are able to keep this away from the main text. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, "people are gonna do it anyway" strikes me as a really poor reason to want to keep this article. If you object to this article then !vote to delete it. If the stuff gets added to the article, remove it. Otto4711 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole section on "Uses in Popular Culture", I was referring to these as "references"--Boris Allen 10:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But those "references" are unreferenced, which is in large measure the point of the nomination. 13 of the 23 items listed are not instances of the phrase "I'm Spartacus" or a reasonable facsimile (i.e. "I'm Sportacus") and there is no sourcing that the examples that do not repeat the phrase were intended as parodies or references to the original. Otto4711 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or conversely, 10 do. Dave 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they were obviously intended as parodies/references in that way--Boris Allen 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obviously" according to who? I've seen "In and Out" and "To Wong Foo" several times and it's never occurred to me that the scenes in question were intended as parodies or pastiches or references to "I'm Spartacus." Including them on the list constitutes original research unless there is a source that states the writers of those scenes intended to reference Spartacus. The examples that do specifically use the word "Spartacus" or something close to it are also unsourced. But even if there were documented evidence for each of these items that confirmed they were all 100% intended to reference "I'm Spartacus", the list is still an indiscriminate list of every usage of a two-word phrase from one work in another work. It is unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to new article Sony camcorders. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:40Z

Sony HDR-FX7

edit
Sony HDR-FX7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable product; the only claim to notability that I see is a statement that this is "the first camcorder below $3,000 to offer full 1080 HD resolution with a three-chip sensor." Is that exciting enough to warrant an article? Personally, I don't think so. Brianyoumans 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Weak Keep, on the verge of No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out

edit
Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Why do we have an entire article on some random, faked youtube video? This _might_ be worthy of a 3-line mention in some other article about viral marketing or youtube... but not an article. This is even less relevant to an encyclopedia than most of the fancruft... Bushytails 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (Make my vote "Summarize and use to start 'List of internet viral advertisements'" Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Considering that you just opened your account last week, and presently have nothing more than "So this is Wikipedia. Huh?" on your user page, I am not taking any argument from you about what does and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia seriously, not when policies like WP:WEB are something everyone who decides to tromp off to AFD as much as you have this first week are something you should have committed to memory.

What you like and dislike is not a criterion for deletion and never will be. This is Wikipedia. Yeah! Daniel Case 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is what you like and dislike criteria for inclusion. Bushytails 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I put this up because I like it? I wrote and researched this article because I thought it belonged here on Wikipedia, that if I didn't do it properly someone else would not. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bushytail said "use to start 'List of internet viral advertisements" and several of us wanted to merge as per him (or her, I don't want to be gendernormative) so that's where we want to merge to. Makgraf 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, sorry about that. I didn't see that the nominator had wanted to merge somewhere. Nishkid64 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a perfectly legitimate article. I have no idea why it's being considered for deletion here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Speedy Keep, close debate and block nominator. A clear example of a bad-faith nomination, judging by the nominator's obvious unfamiliarity with WP:WEB and implied unwillingness to bother learning. I have nominated many articles for deletion ... I wouldn't have created this one to begin with if I wasn't incredibly familiar with WP:WEB, and the meaning of "multiple non-trivial news coverage." I included references to reliable sources for precisely that reason.

    That some people seem to be embarrassed that this made the Main Page shows that we need better deletionists than what we've been getting lately. As recently as six months ago this nomination would have been laughed off AfD.

    As for merging it, no. Unless you want to merge everything else in this vein, like Ellen Feiss, Bus Uncle, and even lonelygirl15 back into List of Internet phenomena, which is long enough as it is. I found enough out there doing research to justify a stand-alone article and created it. It passed newpage patrol, which is where most of the real cruft gets deleted (believe me, I know). I'm really dismayed (can you tell?) that I have to go here and take the time to restate what should be obvious to anyone who knows policy reasonably well. The merge arguments are good-faith; the deletion ones are not. Daniel Case 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not appreciated. I do happen to be familiar with the web notability guidelines, and there may indeed be a way of twisting the (disputed) wording to count random youtube videos as notable... But that doesn't mean the article should exist. It's a youtube video. Not even a real one at that. There are many millions of youtube videos. Should there be an article on every one that gets a mention in the press? Should we include all advertisements, youtube, TV, radio, etc as well? It's just another random video, that no one will even remember a week from now.
My personal solution would be a "List of notable internet viral advertisements" or similar, where things like this can have a one-paragraph summary and some analysis (effects, aftermath, etc). As to the other articles you list, Ellen Feiss is a bonafide actor with appearances in a french short film and televised commercials, The Bus Uncle was an actual event (and not a pr stunt) involving a criminal act resulting in long-term effects, social changes, and so forth, and even Lonelygirl15 is a series of videos, corresponding websites and blogs, a commercial entity, profitable game, the actor appearing in other productions, and so forth. This isn't any of that. It's some random faked video that a couple news outlets mentioned, with no bearing on reality.
I generally count myself as an inclusionest... I don't even mind the 27 trillion or so imaginary pokemon creature pages. But giving youtube videos their own pages is too far. Bushytails 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so it's still a categorical matter. If I read you right, the article should be deleted not because it isn't a notable subject, but because YouTube videos shouldn't have their own articles. I tend to agree that things that have never received news coverage, such as that wedding party doing the dance from Michael Jackson's "Thriller"[81] will never merit their own articles despite widespread linkage.

But it isn't just a YouTube video; it was part of a marketing campaign. And even before it was revealed as such, it was the subject of a good deal of news coverage devoted specifically to it. I don't know how you can argue, based on existing policy, that that doesn't merit a separate article. Based on the amount of information out there, I don't see how a list could hold all these things. Eventually, if this becomes common (which I'm not sure it will), this will still have been one of the first.

You might want to consider also that the Ellen Feiss article was created long before her appearance in the short film (short film? What's the difference between that and a video?) and that the commercials she has appeared in are what made her notable enough for inclusion and a separate article. That lonelygirl15 was originally deleted, restored after deletion review and then speedy kept.

What of that favorite of everybody who sees their vanity article going down in flames here, Star Wars kid? Twice nominated for deletion, twice kept.

A "couple" of news outlets here includes Canada's major newspaper (The Globe and Mail) and TV networks, coverage echoed south of the border (I would leave it to Canadian editors to point out that, had the video been filmed in the U.S. by Americans and first covered by The New York Times and CNN, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation). Your use of disparaging terms that do not accord with the facts but suggest an emotional reaction to the subject of the article ("random faked video") again is contraindicative to your pleas that this nomination is based on a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy.

Forgotten after a week? Sounds more like a hope on your part to me. One could have said that about all the other Internet phenomena. And even if the public does forget about them after a week, that doesn't change any notability the subject may have earned through news coverage.

Personal attacks? I apologize for the tone of my remarks, but I would consider that, had a new editor created this article, the way you have phrased your arguments for its deletion and counterarguments to me arguably would open you up to charges of violating WP:BITE. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say no youtube videos should have articles... just not ones with no lasting effects or other notable characteristics. Nor does being in the news (canadian, american, or otherwise) make something encyclopedia-worthy... Should every cat fetched from a tree by the fire department have an article, since it was reported in the odds-and-ends section of a few newspapers? Being part of a marketing campaign _really_ doesn't make something encyclopedia-worthy... an article for every advertising campaign would be absurd, would it not? And just because an article doesn't blatantly violate policy doesn't automatically merit its inclusion ("... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.") As to having too much information to put in a list-article... most of that information is really not needed. Hell, more than half the article is just a blow-by-blow description of the video! Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this won't have lasting effects? It could launch one of the actress's careers. And I think it will certainly be discussed anytime and anywhere viral video marketing comes up. It will have an effect on that field, to be sure. In any event, the future's possible lack of interest is not a reason to delete, or we'd be without a lot of one-hit wonders.

You confuse major and minor news coverage. No, every cat rescued from a tree is not notable. But my argument was not that this was covered per se, but that this received serious coverage from major newspapers and TV networks. (See how I applied this distinction from the opposite position here. I'm quite aware of that difference; I wouldn't have created the article if I weren't.

Yes, there's too much info for a list article. I have that synopsis in there because it's essentially a short film (see the categories), so I followed part of the WP:FILM template, which includes a synopsis and character list.

I also think it's just better having separate articles than a list ... List of Internet phenomena pretty much covers that already, and list articles, as such, have softer boundaries. Believe me, they require someone pay constant attention to them and rigorously evaluate new submissions to keep them from getting crufty (the best require that any new submission be discussed on the talk page first). I think it would be too likely to get bogged down with marginal cases (if you produce a series of viral videos to promote your garage sale, should they be on that list? Probably not, unless they get lots of eyeballs). If you have separate articles, it makes it harder to try to pick up some notability by adding it to a list here.

I also think it likely that such a list would be vulnerable to spamming by anons trying to get their videos legitimized. More headache for a maintainer.

In the area of detail, you might also take a look at Bus Uncle having a full transcript of the video (to me, completely unnecessary), which is much more detailed than that synopsis I wrote. Daniel Case 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't demand the nominator be blocked; it's just a suggestion and one I now withdraw. Still, I think that if something has been effectively researched by an editor willing to take the time to do it, passed newpage patrol and been accepted for DYK, it has already been vetted properly and reasonable deletion arguments are moot. I cannot help but suspect that someone had an emotional reaction to the idea of this being linked from the Main Page purely because of the subject and chose this as a way of retaliating à la KaDee Strickland's turn as the Main Page featured article ... I see many similarities between the tone, if not the arguments, of those arguing for deletion here and the people who got mad about it being on the Main Page, then tried to tried to defeature it for purely emotional reasons (that article's creator, too, followed existing policy and procedures and seems to have been punished for it).

I argue for its retention on the grounds that existing WP:WEB standards, as quite a few other voters correctly note, could not justify its deletion. As I so often say when the shoe's on the other foot, a deletion discussion is not the place to argue for a change in policy, anymore than you'd use a traffic trial to argue for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If the nominator does want to seriously consider what sort of notability standards we should apply to individual video clips, I would happily set up such a policy proposal page if he withdrew the nomination. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many unencyclopedic articles make it through the new page patrollers... an understaffed department at best, almost as bad as the recent changes patrol.
Oh, well, if you do say so. Thank God Wikipedia has people like you. If you think NPP and RCP are understaffed, you should drop what you're doing here and go help out. (I, having done both, have a different impression. I have gone through many a log page of fifty new pages or edits and found the most delete- or revertable have already been dealt with (although it's important when doing both to go completely through the list no matter how little work you find to do. That's when stuff gets away).

And it had several days as a nomination on DYK for someone to say, hey, maybe this shouldn't be here? What about those people (who also see a lot of ridiculous new articles)? Are they a bunch of incompetents too?

You argue some voters support it... but ignore the ones voting to delete it. And many policies, in spirit if not in word, do not suggest this is a topic worthy of an article
Are you trying out for BBJAODN? Seriously, this sounds like the same logic you hear from every garage band trying to get its vanity article kept.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (says something about half the article being a plot summary, too).
That's not in WP:NOT. (The part in parentheses, anyway).
Or "Notable ... means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'. ... It is not 'newsworthiness.'" Or the WP:WEB you like so much... "... offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." What achievements did this accomplish, other than a few parodies?
I would think that getting a seven-digit hit figure at YouTube would count as an achievement (and how does one, exactly, accomplish an achievement? But I digress). Judging from occasional looks at the site's main page, it's rather unusual for a video to be seen that many different times, especially within a two-week period. I don't if there are any rankings somewhere; but I'm sure that would be on them.
Impact... zero. Historical significance... if there were a number less than zero that could be applied, this would be it.
Those are purely subjective judgements. Even if they weren't, I'd argue the same is true of Mr. Blobby and yet it's there.
This article mentions none of that, likely because none exists. All the articles you used as examples of ones not deleted, however, do contain a subject with impact or historical significance.
What was the historical significance of Ellen Feiss? Does the article document how many more people bought Macs because of her saying "Beepbeepbeepbeepbeep"? Does it need to? I'm missing something here. It was just an unintentionally funny ad that a lot of people remembered, which is why there's an article on her and her subsequent doings of note.

And when Star Wars kid was kept, his parents hadn't filed suit against the school and there weren't yet a million parodies to document in established media.

If a month from now, this video is shown to have had some effect on the planet, it may be worthy of inclusion...
If "some effect on the planet" (and what, exactly, does that mean, anyway). were the standard for keeping articles, we'd have a very small Wikipedia. What about all those fictional characters and webcomics? I don't think they've got much "impact on the planet", but we've kept quite a few.

And why bother recreating the article a month from now? Why not just keep it now and delete it later if it "doesn't have an impact on the planet" (Perhaps it will raise the average temperature a tenth of a degree?)

but as of now, it's just another forgettable, non-notable fad. As I said and quoted above, not violating policy doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic.
And not having a policy-based reason to augment WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you can have it deleted, either.
I'm all for any encyclopedia-worthy article being on the main page... it's not about the main page, it's about whether this should have its own article at all. Perhaps as your next project, you should condense the article's content into one or two paragraphs (deleting the huge plot summary would almost get it there), and start a "List of internet viral advertisements" page? This article would appear to be notable enough for a mention on a list, and the list would certainly be DYK-worthy if written well...
We generally don't use lists on DYK all that much. As for your other arguments, see my other counterarguments.
As to withdrawing the nomination... only 4 people have voted keep, with 9 delete or merge.
This is why I ignore all the delete votes. Most don't state a real reason, and one that goes into most depth is by a week-old account who seems to go around AFD basically saying "Delete this! Delete this! I don't think it belongs!" Any closing administrator would note that the keep votes are based on more sound arguments and perhaps discount most of the delete votes.
Withdrawing it would not agree with community consensus.
You're the nominator. You can withdraw even if everyone else agrees with you. Community consensus is not binding on a nominator. At least not in my experience.
Were they all keeps, it might be an option, but they're not.
See above.
In any case, you've heard my opinion, and now it's time to hear from the rest of the community. Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've heard from everyone we're going to hear from, and the result will be no consensus, which defaults to keep. Daniel Case 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came on Wikipedia to see if this video was a fake or not and I am guessing that a lot of other people do too, considering the massive number of views the video received. Tlynhen 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly why I created it, and why Wikipedia exists. Thanks! Daniel Case 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing early due to the article creator agreement. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA whores

edit
RIAA whores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism that gets under 100 g-hits. Wikipedia is not a message board. BigDT 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to School District 43 Coquitlam. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:31Z

Eagle Ridge Elementary School

edit
Eagle Ridge Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Completely non-notable elementary school. For an elementary school to warrant inclusion there needs to be something far more compelling that "it exists." Soltak | Talk 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probable that someone will turn to Wikipedia for information about an unremarkable elementary school? Forgive me for disagreeing. Soltak | Talk 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for forgiveness, you are allowed to disagree. It would be nice if Wikipedia published unique hit counts somewhere for this reason, although I'm sure it would just lead to some sort of abuse. (jarbarf) 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to School District 43 Coquitlam. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:30Z

Walton Elementary School

edit
Walton Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Completely non-notable elementary school. For an elementary school to warrant inclusion there needs to be something far more compelling that "it exists." Soltak | Talk 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Do you feel that elementary schools are inherently notable? Soltak | Talk 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to School District 43 Coquitlam in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:30Z

Westwood Elementary School (Coquitlam)

edit
Westwood Elementary School (Coquitlam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Completely non-notable elementary school. For an elementary school to warrant inclusion there needs to be something far more compelling that "it exists." Soltak | Talk 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Elementary schools in Coquitlam unless there is Signiigant notability (Which I doubt) to any of them.Corporal Punishment 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3.Inkpaduta 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In the absence of topic-specific guidelines, go with the standard ones. If someting is potentially notable but doesn't explain how it is notable now, it's not notable now. Remember that deleting now doesn't forbid future creation of an article that contains references to support notability, if and when it becomes notable. Why aren't these noms bundled into one? I'd support deleting all that do not claim (with support) notability. Wish I could find the recent AfD that led to deletion of a huge chunk of localcruft. DMacks 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) DMacks 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; notability of school not established. Schools are not inherently notable (or "potentially notable", whatever that means), and of the dozens or even hundreds of articles on Wikipedia considered for deletion (AFD, speedy or otherwise) every day because they don't assert the notability of their subjects, I don't see why this one (or any other article about a questionably notable school) should be kept. Extraordinary Machine 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. No assertion of notability. Resolute 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. GreenJoe 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created in June 2006, and last edited ( before this AfD debate ) in July 2006. Nobody has bothered about the article since then, for one simple reason: the school is not notable. There's no claim of notability, no evidence to suggest notability, and notability certainly isn't self-evident. Delete. WMMartin 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:29Z

The Church of Google

edit
The Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Article is about non-notable, satirical website. Created within the last month and clearly intended to promote a personal website. The article was also previously endorsed for deletion on 12/20/2006. Why it came back, is anybody's guess. Dr. Cash 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Famine#Famine_in_Africa. - Daniel.Bryant 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Saharan African Food Crisis

edit
Sub-Saharan African Food Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short, no sources given. Title is too vague, there have been many food crises in Sub-Saharan Africa. Jvhertum 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan

edit
Bruce McMahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This individual is not a public figure. The information is defamatory and inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nole7 (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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:28Z

VEGAS.com

edit
VEGAS.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources given, no notability established. Despite some cleanup efforts it still qualifies as self-promotory spam. Jvhertum 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Cholmes75 per CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wrenn

edit
Dave Wrenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant first-person autobiography. -- RHaworth 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedied as lacking content; no prejudice against proper recreation. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic size swimming pools in the United States

edit
List of Olympic size swimming pools in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This page is currently a collection of links (exactly 1) or a directory. Even if it ever gets any of the content it says it will, which is unlikely as it has existed nearly two months with no addition of content, it will still be deletable under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Grand Slam 7 | Talk 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:27Z

Isabel Ice

edit
Isabel Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Information

1 All of the information for this item came from the subject. You can verify this by sending a message to her MySpace account if you need verification.

2 Arguing against the AVN award is semantics. It's like saying it isn't notable that you were a lead actor in a film that won a Best Film Oscar.

Non-notable porn star. Article claims she won an AVN Award, but the claim is false. A movie she appeared in won an award, but that does not make her notable. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO, and appears to be unverifiable via reliable sources. Valrith 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:25Z

Clockwork punk

edit
Clockwork punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Clockwork Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Delete - May violate WP:NEO, despite the term apparently being around for a while I'm not finding any 3rd party sources about the term, only things that use the term descriptively. That issue aside, the article has no sources, reliable or otherwise, for the inclusion of any band or song on the list. Indeed, the article notes that some of the listed bands may not consider themselves part of the sub-genre but are included based on the subject matter or lyrics of some of their songs or their manner of dress, which constitutes original research. Otto4711 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by IronGargoyle with edit summary, CSD #7, user req, content was: '{{db-g7}}'. Agent 86 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien vassort

edit
Sebastien vassort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically a resume. Prod tag removed by author. Hawaiian717 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Speedy delete per CSD-G7, blanked by author. -- Hawaiian717 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve.Moulding 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to In Cold Blood (book). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:22Z

Herbert Clutter

edit
Herbert Clutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nancy Clutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonnie Clutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kenyon Clutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of their individual notabiliity, nor is anything said in these biographical stubs that isn't already included in the articles about the murderers, Perry Smith and Richard Hickock. Natalie 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:21Z

International Outback Wrestling

edit
International Outback Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Iow.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This is a backyard fed and the article contains completely unverified statements (that can proven as flagrant lies) Mal Case 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to I Ought to Be in Pictures. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:19Z

I Ought to be in Pictures

edit
I Ought to be in Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Had the title of this article been punctuated correctly, I would have found it and not created a new one at I Ought to Be in Pictures. As it stands, the one I created is far more complete and includes the few facts mentioned here. SFTVLGUY2 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:18Z

Arbjarb

edit
Arbjarb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a dictionary definition of an unsourced neologism. None of the few Google hits for this word appear to be using it in the sense described here. [82] This was originally submitted to WP:PROD but the original author removed the prod tag; it may qualify for speedy deletion but I'm not sure under which criterion. At any rate, I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, as a disruptive nomination (second criterion in Wikipedia:Speedy_keep). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group)

edit
Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable criminal gang- no real evidence of existence. So called acts include assualt and armed robery, though no cites or referneces given to back this up. Basic criminal activity is not enough to become a notable terrorist organisation. Astrotrain 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to Continuity IRA. They have the same Irish name as the Irish Defence Force Óglaigh na hÉireann, so they'll have to change it, if they haven't already, to avoid confusion. Totnesmartin 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Independent Monitoring Commission is the source of all the claims in the article, and they are sourced. Please actually read the article before making claims about it. The IMC considers them notable enough to list in their regular reports (they give reports about every three months, I believe). They have been mentioned in every IMC report since February of 2006, which is just about a year now. The group emerged from the Continuity IRA, but are distinct, and thus should not be kept within the CIRA article. The modern Irish Defence Forces started out as the original Irish Republican Army, but so did all of the modern terrorist organizations. Should we just group the IDF with the Provisionals in the same article, simply because they evolved from the same group if you go back far enough? No. That would be asinine. This is how new IRA groups are started, and we have articles on most of them. As for changing the name: You can go ahead and try to convince the group that they need to change their name, but as it stands, this is the only name we have to refer to them by. Every IRA group to ever exist has claimed the name of Oglaigh ne hEireann at one point or another, as well as the IDF. This is because they all tend to see themselves as the legitimate successors of the Irish Volunteers. It is not for us to decide the world; we are here to describe it. This article should be kept, just like every other IRA group we have. Erin Go Braghtalk 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent Monitoring Commission is reliable source enough. Nomination not based in policy, since these sources were already in the article. — coelacan talk — 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are several news articles which reference the group (see [83], [84], [85], [86]) as well as, I assume, entries at the Gaelic Wikipedia (see either [87] or [88]). Unfortunatly, as far as I can tell, there is more then one groups using the title besides the Irish Defence Forces and the splinter group which makes searching a bit difficult. However, in my own opinion, the article certainly provides enough references to establish its notability. MadMax 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is unfortunate that the name of the group (Óglaigh na hÉireann - Volunteers of Ireland) has been used not only by the Irish Defence Force but also by the Provisional IRA, it makes it difficult to search for sources that make reference to this group in particular. However, the IMC reports are reliable enough sources. The group's activities appear to include assault and robbery, but their notability is asserted by the statement that the group had made and planted IEDs, and referenced by the IMC. --Canley 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading through Wikipedia:Notability, I see the first sentence of the first section is as follows:
One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Assuming that the IMC's multiple reports constitute "non-trivial reliable published works, whose sourves are independent of the subject itself", which is true if the IMC is doing it's job, the topic is notable according to established Wikipedia guideline. Erin Go Braghtalk 08:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of transport museums

edit

This article is not notable enough to appear on wikipedia, and should be deleted or possibly merged. Delete (my nomination). Robin99 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Jersey Devil 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement

edit
List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been tagged with {{Original research}} since October, and requests for verification on the talk page have not resulted in any verifiable material being presented. (In fact one user even stated that "finding referencies might be tricky".)

How does several states recognising that Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard make it sui generis? Will you be adding references to the claims made in the list/article? Dagnabit 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what does it mean to be a "special entity" and a "political entity" with a "special position" which is "recognized" by "international treaty or agreement"? Dagnabit 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a list, it's a bit short. As essentially it summarizes other articles, I added {{main}} links to the relevant articles. These make it clear, why articles are listed. -- User:Docu
No, none of the articles you have linked to explain any of the claims made on the "list".
How do the areas listed differ from say Germany, the Panama Canal Zone, Gdańsk, Saar, the Free City of Danzig, the EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg, the United Arab Republic or the Indian reservations in the US? What about the Red Cross, which is mentioned several times in the Geneva Conventions? And the UN, it has its own Charter, isn't the United Nations special and recognized by a treaty?
Can you cite any authority on say international public law or political science which explains what a "special entity" is? Or is it new term coined by a Wikipedia editor?
There is no Wikipedia article on special entity or special entities to explain what the term means. And also none on special position. Dagnabit 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:16Z

Porn Metal

edit
Porn Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable genre; lots of name-dropping and has nothing to do with metal - it's punk. Also a terrible article Spearhead 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. Canderson7 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrf

edit
Barrf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suggest delete. WP:NFT which seems to cover something made up by a band and nobody else knows what it is. {{prod}} removed by author. Hawaiian717 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *lol*  :-) Dppowell 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to The Underdwellers. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:16Z

The Sewer King

edit
The Sewer King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor fictional character who was the subject of one episode of Batman:The Animated Series. Not notable in any way. Any usable content should be put in the article on the series, this article should be deleted. Wehwalt 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Top Fifty Singles of 2003

edit
New Zealand Top Fifty Singles of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of the top [arbitrary number] or [arbitrary entertainment genre] in [arbitrary country] for [arbitrary year]. Listcruft. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simtropolis

edit
Simtropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion in July 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis). The verdict was no consensus, despite all bar 2 of the keeps being from first time visitors to Wikipedia. I believe that nowadays we actually do require an article to assert why it is notable (this does not), to contain multiple independant reliable sources to back that up (this does not). The article also fails our guideline to notability for websites, which can be found here. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT = Delete. Proto::► 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand a need to improve this article, possibly adjusting the format and style to better conform to Wiki guidelines (the addition of citations is very much desired). Deletion, however, would be an extreme and unnecessary action. The content seems quite valid. That being said, I believe this article would be much more practical if put into context. Simply merge it with SimCity4. Kugelmass 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved. There is now no reason to keep this article- all necessary content has been moved to SimCity 4. Kugelmass 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done previously. Consensus seems to be that the information does not belong in that article. Chris cheese whine 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that a merge was previously discussed. As someone who has never played SimCity 4, I found the Simtropolis content very supportive and pertinent to the subject. Where can I find an archived discussion page? Among other things, I am very curious as to why it was not deleted during the previous nomination. Kugelmass 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that the nominator included a handly link to the previous nomination at the top of this discussion. Chris cheese whine 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has information about a site that I'd rather find here then digging through a website. Why are we so into deleting articles like this? --69.242.227.133 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Woops. Wasn't logged in. --Strawberry Island 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that this was a valid reason to keep an article. Chris cheese whine 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Proto::► 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 21:11Z

Margret Heater

edit
Margret Heater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Margretheateruherocover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Rush in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rewritten version of external source [96] already cited in Rush (band), not an encyclopedia article, merely a list of Rush t-shirt and poster sightings on TV and movies and so forth. The last AFD had an overwhelming consensus to merge, but the closing admin was of the opinion that "merge" was outside the scope of AFD and confusingly closed it as "no consensus". I merged it according to consensus some time ago, but a couple people strongly object due to the previous, confusing AFD result, which brings us here. Philwelch 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The existing form of the article is certainly not in optimal form and needs pruning and rewriting. On the other hand, I reverted an edit that overrode the entire article content with a mere redirect to Rush: there is too much content here to simply throw away, either. Hopefully some middle ground can be found. N.B.: The personal conflict that has existed regarding this article should be completely absent from this discussion. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- [[98]] Demonstrates consensus to merge based on PhilWelch's assessment of the previous AfD. Circumventing Merge intent with a second AfD Nom by the same editor. Contradicting PhilWelch is that during the Rush page's FA review, it was the recommendation to split the Popular Culture into it's own page, and this was done[99]. Now Phil suggests that it's plagarised from a website, (the website may well have cribbed from wikipedia), and should be merged. I ask that PhilWelch on the article's talk page substantiate his allegation of plagarism, or rescind the allegation, and the resultant AfD, as it's clear from the relevant talk pages [Rush in popular culture], and [Rush], that editors are aware of the need for a merge, but all efforts appeared to stop after 11 Dec, when PhilWelch turned the entire page into a redirect. ThuranX 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website didn't take it from Wikipedia. The "in popular culture" used Power Windows as a reference from the point the list really began. Besides, even if it was, that further strengthens the reason to delete, because there would be no reliable sources. Not to metion Power Windows isn't technically a reliable source to begin with. And not to mention the site uses direct quotes and other cites that this Wikipedia article does not. — Deckiller 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evidence thereof? ThuranX 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here, direct quotes and cites are being used. But that's not the problem - the problem is that these are not sourced, so there is no reliability there. Moreover, some entries on this article are not taken from that site; they are just dropped by people noticing them on TV or whatever. That is not what Wikipedia is about. — Deckiller 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing thee seems to readily display when that page was written. As we've seen,there are numerous Mirrors of Wikipedia. can you demonstrate indubitably that PW came first, and then WP? ThuranX 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wayback Machine shows an early 2002 version of the Power Windows page: [100]. [101], four years before the first revision to this page [102]. At the time the Power Windows page was first posted, Rush (band), the article this was split out of, looked like this: [103]. Philwelch 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought I made it clear that it was an obsolete point, because the article's reliability would be weaker if it was a mirror. But if you insist, this was when the initial trivia section was added by User:Wisdom89. This was the first time such information was included. The popular culture section was then added by Wisdom here. Several days later, while going through and sourcing his additions, Wisdom89 added the power windows ref: [104]. Furthermore, the Power Windows site has been operational since 1997, as Phil has explained above. But like I said, it's a moot point; either way, the source is unreliable, because Power Windows is a fansite, and the alternative - no sources (which has been essensially proven otherwise) - means excessive OR and lack of any sourcing for months. — Deckiller 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — list of trivia trying to show that Rush is common in popular culture. It's plauged by WP:OR and reliance on one fan site for reference. The mention that Rush has been influenced in popular culture on the main page is fine, becuase virtually all this information comes from that one site, which is already linked to and mentioned in the main article. Redirect is unnecessary, because nothing is merged and most of the edit history we'd be preserving is edit warring and info thrown out. Besides, to quote the usuals: WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information, violates the various offshoots of the Manual of Style, which state (on WP:AVTRIV based on a larger consensus than a group of editors on the Rush talkpage), that articles that are lists of trivia or isolated facts are to be avoided. And like I said, they're all from one source, which fails WP:RS to begin with. Once again, Delete.— Deckiller 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is now about the community consensus as a whole, not just the Rush talkpage consensus. PhilWelch felt the need to bring the entire community into this issue, and I agree with that decision. — Deckiller 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 there was a general agreement to merge after the last AfD, but nothing ever happened. And now that I've been around longer, I see how obsolete it is to have a list of trivia, because it encourages expansion and OR and so on, especially when only one unreliable source is given. — Deckiller 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the emerging consensus in this debate is..."comment"!? Philwelch 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it needs to be made clear that we cannot "merge" this information without merging the entire thing. Otherwise, we'd be inviting POV. Let's remember that most Movie and band featured articles don't have long lists of "in popular culture" sections. There is a whole fan site devoted to that; we make a cite, and we provide the link. That's our job. That's it. I don't see how a few points can be merged, because then the issue is...what points to merge, and how do we prevent people from including more or their own OR? I'm no deletionist, I lawywer the "preserve the edit history", I'm a mergist to the core, and even I see no way to merge this information logically, based on how Wikipedia is now. — Deckiller 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. This is not PhilWelch's RfAr, this is AfD. Let's stay tightly focused on the article in terms of: should it be kept, should it be deleted, or should it be integrated into the main article? Please put the past behind and focus on the topic and our options. — Deckiller 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no reason why consensus could not be reached on the main articles talk page regarding which examples to rework into the Rush (band) article in a nice orderly prose-esque format. Dump or eschew the sightings of Rush paraphernalia in movies/TV shows (as this is clearly pushing the limit) and concentrate on references which are obviously of merit such as the use of the band's music or direct laudatory (or critical) verbal allusions. There are plenty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Wikipedia has been shunning "in popular culture" lists for a while now, especially when the lists are taken from one source. All we need to do is provide a link to that source, since encyclopedias have always been gateways into a topic. — Deckiller 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - We do not need collections of every mention of a band ever made in any movie, TV show, etc. regardless of how substantive or trivial that mention is. Also echo the OR concerns expressed by others. Otto4711 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I summon a comment! I mean, Delete; it seems there's been a lot of time to deal with the issues raised above and it's not happening. JuJube 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a large, unencyclopedic list of trivia, two things that we are trying to stay away from in articles: lists and trivia sections, that's all this article is. If the information was needed, it would be in the main Rush article. Darthgriz98 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic cruft article. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking sources and appears to be original research. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to consult this anyway. Spartaz 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you need to know that in A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984 in the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed. Freshacconci 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Word

edit
Just Word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a program in pre-alpha. Lots of crystal ballism, doesn't seem to fulfill WP:SOFTWARE. Delete Transfinite 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; totally non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm the developer of it. I can prove it if you want. But still, delete it if you want.Wikinerd2000 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that we don't believe you, the problem is that the article has conflicts with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI. If/when you get where you are headed and can meet the encyclopedic expectations you will not even have to write the article some fan will do it for you. Jeepday 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked far and wide for additional non-trival cites to no avail. I also now have a better understanding of SourceForge and see that it is self-authenticating. I even download the app-- it seems to have good potential, but sadly that does not help verify the article. I personally find deleting the work of other users distasteful so I won't argue for "delete" but need to withdraw my "keep." I wish user:Wikinerd2000 the best and I'm sure he will do great things. Edivorce 02:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_9&oldid=1234119043"