Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will McBride (candidate)

Losing candidate in Florida Senate primary. No other assertions of notability and no sources. Previous AfD was when he was still in the news. Keep endorsements tended to be provisional on his winning the primary. He did not, so here we are. DarkAudit 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Tyler4pres has deleted most of the article several times. The latest time [1] it remained deleted. There were 11 references in the preceding version.[2] PrimeHunter 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the biographical information does not assert notability. The sources, although statewide, are still for the most part restricted to central and south Florida. DarkAudit 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, namely, this line: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." He doesn't fit under any of those. Whs itc hy 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources there may be, but it fails notability per the above criterion. Adrian M. H. 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete i'd say to delete this article, clearly, but i woudl argue that the criteria used above needs to be probably be revisted. There are notable people who ran for office who never actually held it, i.e. Ross Perot, Lyndon LaRouche. Barsportsunlimited 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ross Perot was a major 3rd party candidate for president. This guy didn't even make it past the primary. There's a big difference. Whs itc hy 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ross Perot would be notable had he never run for office. Larouche's notability is as much in his political organization as in his presidential runs. --Charlene 10:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Barsportsunlimited. Read the context in WP:BIO. It doesn't say people are automatically non-notable just because they lost an election. PrimeHunter 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not in office and no other notable accomplishments -- Whpq 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete This article patently failed WP:CSD #A7 as no claim was made to the subject's notability. NB For such articles in future, please consider tagging for speedy with {{db-club}} for patently non-notable subjects. AfD should only be used as a last resort. Qwghlm 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen FC

This club does not appear to meet Wikiproject Football's notability guidelines. MTC 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. MTC 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I nominated it. - MTC 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: There is a consensus to preserve at least part of the articles' content. Thus, I am tagging both articles with {{cleanup-afd}} and am leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland to make the project's members aware of the them. Any trimming and/or merge is left to editors' discretion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durrus and District History Modern

Unsalvageable history essay. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

trim, wikify and merge both back into Durrus. Chris 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (with regret) with Chris - This is a potentially valuable article on a district in the southwest of Ireland. They are potentially good articles, but are not (in my view) suitable in this form for WP. However I hope that the material will be saved elsewhere. It could then be uploaded (as a number of separate pages) to a dedicated website. This should then be summarised into a WP article. The present content (bot the articles mentioned and also Durrus and District History 1700-1900 would make a very satisfactory series of webpages on a website devoted to Durrus, but it is all much too long for an encyclopaedia. Peterkingiron 18:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but without unnecessary trimming. On a brief look appears interesting, and Wikipedia is not paper, i.e. there is space for detail. Palmiro | Talk 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but do a major amount of trimming. An encyclopedic history article should be written in respect to the most salient points of the city/state/district in question. For example, in History of Minneapolis, Minnesota, I included a pretty significant chunk of material about Fort Snelling and St. Anthony Falls, since they had so much impact on the city, but I didn't mention a thing about the city's phone system. Maybe the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland could help edit or rewrite this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actor-singers

Is this list really necessary given the existance of Category:Actor-singers? PC78 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, this article is redundant due to the Category:Actor-singers. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you wanted to see this you could look at Category:Singers and Category:Songwriters
Weak delete This list could be made useful with the addition of information you can't get from the category, i.e. genre of music or era of acting (wouldn't it be great to get a quick sweep of rapper/actors versus beeboper/actresses?!?). However, that isn't the case. - Freechild 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable, too broad list of (currently) low quality. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP - Nabla 12:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed (2nd nomination)

Non-notable politician who has never held public office. Losing candidate in two Congressional elections. Only source provided is a personal web site. This page was previously deleted last summer. Too long ago for a G4 speedy, probably. DarkAudit 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like spam to me.TheRingess (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remove this weed, this time by the roots so it doesn't grow back. Clarityfiend 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major-party nominee for Congressionl seat is notable enough to keep, without more, for the sake of completeness of our election coverage. This particular article could be better-referenced, but the references are out there. I added some information from the endorsement of Weed by the Roanoke Times and from stories in two other newspapers, which I found without checking more than a fraction of the 27,000 hits on his name (not all of which, of course, are about him). JamesMLane t c 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". He is not. It further states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The coverage here is primarily in his own district. Has he received coverage outside the district, or any coverage outside the election season? The 27,000 hits is just a big number. You clarify that not all are about him. Can you further clarify that those mentions are both non-trivial and from reliable sources? DarkAudit 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references are from an editorial and three news stories in three separate regularly published newspapers. I hope that clarifies that they meet the WP:RS test. Each of the four cited references is focused specifically on Weed, as opposed to something like a story naming him as one of several candidates attending a fundraising dinner. If you look at them, I think it will be clear that each of those four references is "non-trivial". Yes, the newspapers are in that Congressional district. There are many people, in politics and in other fields, whose notability derives from a specific geographic area. Finally, I agree with you that 27,000 hits by itself doesn't prove anything. Most are apparently about Weed, although a few are along the lines of "Richard Jones et al., 'Weed Control Methods'". I mentioned the number as an indication that there are probably additional sources. Today, going a little further into the list of hits, I found this story in the Washington Post about the furor that resulted in the resignation of one of Weed's campaign staffers. JamesMLane t c 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I may not have been clear enough when asking about reliable sources. I was actually referring to the 27K Google hits, not the sources already provided. I have no doubt that these sources are reliable. when your competition can include the Washington Post, you'd better be. :) DarkAudit 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I see that I misread your comment. Obviously, some of the 27,000 hits are not citeable sources, and others are simply lists of candidates, with no additional information. As a follow-up question, let me ask you: If this article were deleted, what would you favor with regard to the information about Weed's political positions? It would be clutter in the Virgil Goode article, which shouldn't get into that much detail about each of his opponents. The coverage in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006 is just a paragraph about each race. If the Weed article were deleted, the reader would have no way of knowing that, for example, Goode defeated an opponent who called for withdrawal from Iraq. I'd consider that an unfortunate omission in our election coverage. Similarly, we'd lose the information that Weed wasn't just some sacrifice candidate put up because no one else wanted to run, but that he defeated an opponent for the Democratic nomination. JamesMLane t c 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:LOSE. Election coverage is for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. DarkAudit 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The text you cite, at WP:LOSE, amounts to saying that loss of information isn't an issue when the information isn't actually lost. In the case at hand, I explained why the information would be lost. I don't accept your sweeping generalization about election coverage. We have huge amounts of election coverage -- not just Bush v. Gore and other recent aspects, but older ones like United States presidential election, 1860, elections below the level of President like Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, and even some Congressional elections like Ohio's 2nd congressional district election, 2006. My opinion is that we don't have enough information about the Virginia 5th District in 2006 to necessitate such a separate article, because it can be accommodated in the articles about the candidates. One way or the other, it should be possible for a reader 50 years from now to come to Wikipedia for this kind of historical information about an election. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I agree that our election related coverage should be consistent and comprehensive. However, I believe the current general consensus and precedent, per WP:BIO and WP:AFDP, is that losing candidates are not sufficiently notable absent additional evidence of notability. There does not appear to be anything here beyond the usual election coverage. The Washington Post article is not really about him.--Kubigula (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is your interpretation of the consensus that there should be a separate article about the election? that the information about Weed should be incorporated in the article about Goode? or that the information should be removed entirely? I don't see how our election coverage can be consistent if we willingly excise the information about, for example, the contest for the Democratic nomination. JamesMLane t c 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The recommendation of Wikipedia:Candidates and elections was to start with an article about the election. That proposed guideline failed, but I think the reasoning was pretty sound - it's hard to argue that the election was not notable. Currently, there's only a paragraph about it in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006, but there's no reason it has to be that way. If you want to preserve some of this content, I would suggest expanding the section on the election there. If it grows too big, then spin this election into a separate article. If that got too big, then a separate article on Weed would be the logical next step.--Kubigula (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other races described in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006 get only a sentence or two. Expanding the section would give this race more space than all the others combined, so it would be too big from the beginning. Part of my disagreement with many Wikipedians on AfD issues is that I don't share the mindset of We Are the Gatekeepers Who Must Keep Wikipedia Pure by Excluding Those Who Are Unworthy. My orientation, instead, is service to the reader. Given that Weed has run twice, and might run for something in the future, it's reasonable to expect that some readers might search for Al Weed rather than for Virginia's 5th congressional district election, 2006. I'd rather give them the information at Al Weed than redirect them. JamesMLane t c 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I still think that coverage of losing candidates is often better dealt with in an article about the election. However, this guy ran in two separate elections and we don't have articles about either. I am convinced by the points raised by James and W.marsh that deletion is not the better course.--Kubigula (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets WP:BIO/WP:N [3]. Efforts to save a few kilobytes of space on the server as misguided, as Wikipedia is not limited by the restraints a paper encyclopedia is. We can cover obscure guys like this. If anything it should be merged to an article on the election. --W.marsh 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced after looking at sourcing provided by W.marsh. These references need to be added to the article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO and notability guidelines as explained by W.marsh. RFerreira 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, but it probably should be merged somewhere. Please note that "merge and delete" is not a valid outcome. — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invariant speed

Merge or Delete. This article is really about the speed of light and should be merged into that article. As an independent topic it does not hold up. --EMS | Talk 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. Merge a condensed form into Special relativity; but that article is so exhaustive that there will be in fact little to merge. The concept of "invariant speed" is not an independent one in special relativity, it is directly tied to the speed of light. The article under discussion tries to use "invariant speed" as a link between special relativity and classical (non-relativistic) mechanics. This may be used in a textbook to explain the differences between classical and relativistic physics, or how to approach the classical limit. (That's a matter of taste, let's say.) But it's not much suited for a short introduction in an encyclopedia; even less does it warrant an own article. Wikipedia is not a textbook. --B. Wolterding 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to speed of light, as the speed of light is the invariant speed. I don't believe this article contains any information that needs to be merged, and its existence is redundant. Someguy1221 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; if not keep then redirect to speed of light or Minkowski diagram. This article is about concept of speed independent of observer in general, while speed of light is only kind of special case, or more precisely, it is invariant speed in hypothetical universe with our laws of physics (one such universe is our own which is of course not hypothetical). Invariant speed is also an important property of spacetime. If Galilean transformations would be true, invariant speed would be infinite speed. Mathematical concept of invariant speed should be explained and it should be noted that speed of light is invariant speed. This should be done, among other reasons, because name "speed of light" can be sometimes misleading, making reader think that fact that velocities above c cannot be reached by means of constant proper acceleration is due to fact that light (in vacuum) propagates with speed c. Speed of light does not have "special place" in physics because it is velocity with which light propagates, but because it is more generally something that is most simple to call invariant speed. Name "speed of light" is only kept due to historical reasons so there should be both articles about speed of light and invariant speed.--antiXt 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely disagree, as mentioned above. But this is not the place to discuss physics problems. Provide multiple references that show that "invariant speed" is commonly used as an independent concept in the physics literature, and I will reconsider my vote. --B. Wolterding 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a Complete Rewrite since it is both confused and confusing. The concept of an invariant speed other than light and of relativity without light is interesting, but this article is far from clear on the subject. A pertinent reference by one of my favorite physicists (David Mermin) is: "Relativity without light." Am. J. Phys., v.52, p.119.
Comment. There is perhaps enough material there to write a nice article on invariant speed, but Mermin himself states that the conventional viewpoint among physicists is that the speed of light is the invariant speed. Further, while his paper is factually correct, he does not suggest that it is considered truly significant by anyone beyond himself and perhaps Purcell (although he does not explicitly state that). Someguy1221 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the conventional viewpoint among physicists is that the speed of light is the invariant speed. But it should be explained what invariant speed actually is, and which consequences arise from existence of finite invariant speed and what would be if some other case would be true. Also having an article about invariant speed in general could help to simplify some sentences in other articles (most of them are relativity-related) in the way of changing something like "Speed of light is universal constant and it is the speed that is independent of the observer, which implies (...)." into something like "Speed of light is invariant speed." --antiXt 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, In light of this I change my mind to keep as a meaningful physical concept beyond simply being the speed of light. I will rewrite the article tonight when I have time. Someguy1221 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This does not convince me of anything. You will have gone from explaining the significance of the speed of light directly to instead refering someone the another article to figure out what an "invariant speed" is. Maybe once I see the rewite I may be more charitable, but up until now I have seem the link to invariant speed in speed of light to be little more than internal spam for a very weak article. --EMS | Talk 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And here I am beginning the rewrite when I realize the "relativity without light" bit is already explained in postulates of special relativity. I still believe that we should have an entry to immediately explain to readers what an "invariant speed" is should they come looking for it. Yes, speed of light and special relativity have it in there, but the concept is independent of these, and you'd have to do some minor looking for it, so I think it should stay even if it's a permastub. Someguy1221 05:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO, the rewrite only serves to show how useless this articles is. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Wikipedia may not be paper, but there is no sense in having an entry here solely in order to have an entry here. If there were multiple theories with different invariant speeds, then having this article could make sone sense. Instead, the article is saying little more than that this notion is part of the postulates of special relativity. The invariant speed is the speed of light, and no other qualifies. Let's agree to either redirect or delete this article, and be done with it! --EMS | Talk 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the original author of this article, and I have to admit that (if I remember correctly) this was the first article I wrote on wikipedia. I thought the concept of invariant speed was important enough to write about because it was important enough for Rindler (not strangely enough ladder paradox was my second article, also by Rindler). Anyway, the point of invariant speed is that it's purely mathematical and the core of relativity is purely mathematical. What links relativity to the physical is the invariant speed corresponding to the speed of light, the local/universal spacetime metric, and the definition of mass (classical or quantum). If this article, in and of itself, is going to be excised, then I suggest Merging with invariant (physics). DonQuixote 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, non admin closure. Whsitchy 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

The Crystal Ion, Arodynamic Air Turbine Engine

Well, first off, the article is full of speculation and original research and is very poorly written and even the title is misspelled.. But beyond that, this "Crystal Ion" thing, from my Web research, is the power-generation equivalent of a perpetual motion device invented by someone no one has heard of who is trying to promote it without much success. As far as I can tell the extent of sourcing available here is that this made it into a local newspaper article once because of the wild claims of its inventor, but it gets no hits on Google News. See WP:SCIENCE: we cannot possibly cover this topic accurately because no reputable work has been done about it that I can find, either in support of it or in opposition to it. And it's not, from the Google News search, notable crackpottery, either. (Oh, and it was a contested prod.) Delete. Mango juice^talk 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. --EMS | Talk 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Patent nonsense, and besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles cannot be created to predict how well an engine will work. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Mascherino

This seems to be a resource of unsourced or poorly sourced fancruft concerning a member of a band called Taking Back Sunday. I've tried redirecting to that article but this was reverted and cruft continues to be added. I suggest that the best course of action would be to redirect it to the band article and stick a protection on it. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up and he's non-notable how? I'm missing the point here. Whsitchy 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't the issue, nor was it ever. The operative policy in this nomination is Verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then remove the unverified stuff, and stub the article, I see no reason to delete it. Whs itc hy 00:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup if you're having problems with another editor, try some other solutions. I can't see why this would be deleted unless there's something specifically libelous in it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article might need some work, but he meets notability requirements. matt91486 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and keep. Notable, and deleting this article without deleting the articles of the four other band members will probably raise questions. Verifiability is an ongoing process for all articles, including this one. Amphy 04:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is clearly notable. That said, if we can't provide enough in the way of reliable sources, a redirect would be the correct action in the interim — as the nom should know this is an editorial decision which does not require deletion nor a deletion-related discussion. RFerreira 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese books by title

As far as I can see, violates the WP:NOT facets: not an indiscriminate collection of info, not a directory. Was thinking about speedy deleting it, but it would proll'y have been too pretentious. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could set a useful precedent for quickly and easily finding books from particular countries, as opposed to List of books by title, which really violates WP:NOT. - Freechild 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories already sort by title, so the list is essentially useless. Whs itc hy 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly unmanageable. Definitely WP:NOT. Who goes searching for books by country? Clarityfiend 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whstchy. WP:NOT, recentism, no context. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. There are thousands of books published in Portugal every year (and many more published in Portuguese languague), most of them are NN and apart from the Portuguese national library no one needs such a list. Malc82 11:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already are the categories Portuguese novels and Portuguese literature, which should be enough to cover the notable books. Malc82 11:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only merit in this kind of list is to identify articles that are needed, but this list is much to wide-ranging and unmaintainable. This is currently a list of 160 books of which 90% are red links, though in many case the authors have articles. In the English WP, a foreign language book would need to be notable in English, not merely notable in its origianl language, to warrant inclusion. Peterkingiron 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental books

Malformed attempt to create a category, no real content. Carom 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Between List of environmental books and Environmental journalism there won't ever be a need for this page. Someguy1221 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page is a useless stub. List of environmental books also strikes me as an oddly structured article. Peterkingiron 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. If the albums/members are deemed insufficiently notalbe on their own, the solution is to redirect, not delete. W.marsh 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kahtmayan

Failed prod, doesn't appear to meet notability standards at WP:BAND. I also added a band member's article to the nomination. Nufy8 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added an album article to the nomination. Nufy8 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Julian Cope writing about you in The Guardian should count for something, I think. Article does need work and references. Is it fair to hold bands from places like Iran to the same exact standards as those from the US + UK? (That last bit isn't part of my argument, I'm just thinking out loud, I guess). Closenplay 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the band itself, seems to have some notablity (if not actual success) as noted above. Delete the article on the band member as he has no notability for anything other than the band. A1octopus 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't quite reach WP:MUSIC. The album called Exir was published by Roadrunner Records, which is apparently now owned by the Warner Music Group, so it must count as a major label. If they had two such major-label records they would be notable by WP:MUSIC. There is nothing in this article about touring or awards, which are also used as criteria. EdJohnston 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd just like to point out that there is no evidence that the band was signed to Roadrunner Records at any point; this info was apparently removed from the article after a discussion on the talk page. The album's article still makes the Roadrunner claim, which is where I assume you got that from. Nufy8 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like you're correct. The only stuff I could find connecting them with Roadrunner all seems to be taken from the Wikipedia article. I did find a posting on a site (blabbermouth.net) that's hosted on the Roadrunner site, about the band (as "Koht Mian"), but nothing about them signing with Roadrunner (link) (or any of the band moving to the USA, etc.) Closenplay 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Clearly doesn't meet WP:WEB as the sources are just minor mentions, but they do establish it's well-known enough to warrant a redirect. W.marsh 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKNova (2nd nomination)

Torrent site. Fails WP:WEB with little to no non-trivial coverage. Previous nomination was no consensus, mainly due to citations of Google and Alexa results. The vast majority of Google hits are either trivial in nature or blogs. Not from reliable sources. DarkAudit 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here is the prior discussion. I tend to think that BitTorrent sites may well have to pass fairly high hurdles. This one did at least get a mention in The Guardian, which was apparently added since the prior AfD. FWIW, blogs and other self-published Internet sites may well be reliable sources for Internet related materials. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's become standard practice to consider most blogs and self-published sites to be unreliable in regards to WP:RS. One article doesn't really meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" guideline in WP:WEB. DarkAudit 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:N has been changed recently to no longer require multiple sources in all circumstances. It seems WP:WEB has not been updated to reflect this. UKNova is a well known site, perhaps the best known British torrent site. Guardian article is enough to keep in this instance, I think. JulesH 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if one Guardian article would rise to the level of 'significant'. DarkAudit 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not sure why this is coming up again. The site gets coverage in the national media. Someone has already referenced one article in The Guardian - and there is at least one more in that paper. And here is another one only last week in the Sunday Times link. Nfitz 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that article. UKNova was mentioned, but mostly in passing. "sites like UKNova" doesn't quite pass the non-trivial test. The article wasn't really about UKNova. DarkAudit 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you direct me to the URL for the non-trivial test? I would have thought that if it was written in passing, then the assumption is that many of the audience would be familiar with it. Nfitz 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - it's in WP:WEB:"Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address" That's all the Times article did, point out UKNova as an example. It was not the subject of the article. DarkAudit 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah ... hmm, but the article didn't report the site's Internet address. It simply used the name of the site, on the assumption that people already would know what it was, and how to get to it. Nfitz 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I was ambivalent about how to close this AfD, I have decided to participate in it. The article fails the notability guideline for web content as it is not the subject of coverage in multiple reliable published works. The Sunday Times article is only a trivial reference and the coverage in the Guardian article, though not trivial, is probably more relevant to the particular Doctor Who episode than to the UKNova website. However, this evaluation of the subject's compliance with the notability guideline should be tempered with consideration of the fact that WP:WEB is a guideline and not policy and that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no harm in erring on the side of inclusion at times (especially when the subject is not a living person). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. At present, the website has an Alexa rank of 16372, a decline from the previous AfD, but still impressive as a top 20000 website from among millions.[reply]
Delete - I love posturing as much as the next guy, but it's missing the essential multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. For that, I can't even begin to assess it against the other criteria. 81.104.175.145 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Star (hip hop group)

Fails to meet notability requirements and appears to violate Wikipedia's self promotion, conflict of interest and future events policies. After I initiall taged the article for a speedy delete review (CSD A7), the editors deleted that tag and added the following sentence to the article: "Their second blood feud is with Wikipedia user, AlphaEta, who is just a hater. It is as of yet unresolved." This entry is a hoax at best. AlphaEta 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cover band, if this group even exists. Maybe they'll decide to be in a blood feud with me (it would be kind of cool) Black Harry 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give the editors credit, the entry - including the blood feud comment - is quite funny. Unfortunately it's just not suitable for Wikipedia. AlphaEta 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It gets my vote for most amusing AfD article of the day, but there is no way it passes WP:N, among any other number of guidelines.
Fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Only album: "White Star (late late supa late 2007)". Being an opponent of crystalballery, i advocate to Delete it soon sooner the soonest. --B. Wolterding 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobio, spam, notability, ~~being biters~~. tomasz. 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, no sources, etc., etc.. Closenplay 12:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"do not delete" this article is legit. i know the group, which really does exist. they are also very notable, and if you were to see them perform, you would definitely agree with me— 69.131.75.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Note: The above comment was added by an anonymous IP. --B. Wolterding 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it was also that Anonymous IP's first and only contribution. BH (Talk) 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"do not delete" if I were reading this article from the outside I too would imagine it to be a hoax the band is however legit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 64.35.203.130 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC-119

Fancruft; non-notable character from Star Wars universe. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. -- Merope 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the image too. Yechiel Man 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Add to list of minor characters perhaps with a short discription. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless fancruft. Whs itc hy 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page could only be kept at List of minor Star Wars characters, and nowhere else. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character is covered in a novel, but isn't a significant enough character to warrant his own article by any stretch. This character is adequately covered in List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders. -- GJD 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, kept with no objection to merging (until enough sources are found to write a more substantial article). — CharlotteWebb 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Ondich

I find it hard to credit the notability of a rock musician who scores fewer unique Googles than I do. If there are any non-trivial independent sources, they are not cited. Perhaps it is possible to have a band of some level of notability without conferring notability on every member. Well, yes, actually, it definitely is. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's fairly easy to determine that he was actually in the business and in these bands; the bands are obviously notable enough to stick around, so it would then follow that he likely edges over the guidelines. But, I find a total of three Google News Archives hits for him, two of them in languages I don't know; none of the Google hits I looked at were what you'd call reliable sources. If someone turns up a source or two to give him some connection to coverage, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some minimal sourcing that covers the circumstances around his departure from Black Label Society. The lack of material specifically pertaining to him is a problem, but the normal solution of merging to his band's article isn't a good idea in this case, since both of his bands are notable. A standalone article may not be the perfect solution, but I think it's as good as we're going to get at present. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for sources too, but didn't find anything better than what's already in the article. With such weak references, I don't see enough to support an independant claim of notability. It seems like his main claim to fame is as a founder of BLS, and that can be adequately discussed in that article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Black Label Society is a pretty big and popular band. Being a member for even a few years is notable to me. I think we should keep it, mark it as a stub, and perhaps list it to the Wikiproject on musicians. If it doesnt improve within a few weeks, relist it. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable musician who has recorded and toured with various "major label" acts. He may not be as well known as the drummer for say Coldplay (whoever that clown is...) but then again, if someone is looking for biographies of lesser known musicians, where should they turn to? Not Wikipedia if AfD's like this pass. Looking up facts on the "little musicians" that have no bio's elsewhere is what drew me to WP in the first place. Hamster Sandwich 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this argument is that if there are no bios elsewhere then we have no basis on which to write an article. If you want to do some legwork and dredge up at least one substantial reference, I would probably support keeping the article. One substantive reference + membership in 2 notable bands would be enough for me.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any problems with the argument I presented. The references provided are not trustworthy? Is there a question of veracity? What would constitute a "substantial" reference in this case? What seems to you to be his "main claim to fame" is his association with BLS. When I began this article I had no idea he was even involved with that group. He was also a member of Raging Slab (RCA Records, Def American) who were on at least two world tours opening for RHCP's. Now, maybe someone might say, gee I wonder who the guy playing drums for Slab that night was? I wonder what he's doing now? Maybe I should check Wikipedia! Oh no wait, they never have anybody in there if there not on the top 40 this week. The problem with your argument is that if there is some little bit of information elsewhere about Ondich, then it negates the need for a bio in WP. Is this the intention of your rebuttal? Hamster Sandwich 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so much aiming to rebut your argument as I was trying to offer a suggestion on what I think would push this article over the hurdle. Personally, there is little I like better than to see an article improve during AfD and become a keeper. If we could add at least one decent reliable source where Ondich was a primary subject, I think we could get there. I spent some time looking, but I couldn't find such a reference. As it stands, the little info we have about him can be perfectly adequately covered in the relevant band articles; there really isn't much justification for having a separate article just on Ondich. For example, all the article says about his involvement with Raging Slab is that he was once their drummer (one of 20, as it turns out). There's more written about his involvement with BLS, but again, nothing that couldn't easily be covered in the band's article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree most strongly with your reasoning to delete this stand alone biography. You must be absolutely sure that this musician will never ever again be involved with any other major label acts. I wish I had that kind of sense of prescience regarding such individuals. We have here a musician who has played in more than one major label act already. We have a person who meets the criteria for an entry into the Wikipedia. End of story. Hamster Sandwich 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he joins another major act or gets media coverage, then he almost certainly would be notable. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, being a member of a major label act is not a criteria for inclusion. As far as I can see, the best argument for meeting a notability guideline is that he has been on a major tour, under WP:MUSIC. However, that is one of the weaker criteria. You are free to disagree, but I don't think you advance your argument by being dismissive of opposing views.--Kubigula (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable member of two notable bands; no non-trivial references. Include a line or two about him in those bands' articles and be done with it. Closenplay 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BAND - member of notable bands. Corvus cornix 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to badger keep advocates, but I don't see "member of notable band" on WP:BAND. I'm fairly close to the edge on this AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, he was a non-notable member of those bands. The front-man or main songwriter I could see arguing for but he was the drummer (not to take anything away from drummers—it's just they're less visible as far as general recognition of their contributions to a band). While he was an original member of Black Label Society, he was only in the band for two out of the band's nine-year (so far) history (the guy who replaced him is still in the band). And he was in Raging Slab for only a year, and that was after they were no longer a major label band. He hasn't been involved with any notable bands since he left BLS in 2000. Also, there's the fact that there are no non-trivial references (the Drum! article is an interview with his replacement in BLS). Even a human-interest story about his struggles and what he's been up to the last seven years would help. (Please be advised that, like Kubigula, I am not trying to badger any "keep" advocates; I'm only attempting to clarify the points I made in my "vote".) Closenplay 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND says Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. If a band can inherit notability, then why don't the members of the notable band have that same notability? Based on my reading of the above, any other band that Phil Ondich would join would inherit his notability for being the member of a notable band, so why doesn't he inherit the notability on his own? Corvus cornix 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the second half of that sentence from WP:BAND: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". Closenplay 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was hoping to change my own mind, so I went through pages of google hits and searched the sites of every drum magazine I could find. However, there really does not appear to be anything else of any substance available about this guy online. I could support a redirect to BLS, as his name is a plausible search term, but it doesn't look like there is much potential for this article to grow beyond a stub at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MaxSem 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.V. Ramanayya

As a single unbroken block of text, this was understandably speedied. It also is a poor article and devoid of any sources whatsoever. However, it looks like the guy could be notable. "Public Prosecutor" of a state - what is that? Is that like being the Attorney General of an American state, or what? It says the he prosecuted some notorious cases, which doesn't make him notable, but doesn't hurt his case either. I guess it hinges on what an Indian "Public Prosecuter" is. Herostratus 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain as nominator. I just don't know. Herostratus 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in most commonwealth countries, "Public Prosecutor" is an official who may be comperable to a "District Attoney" if of a municipality or small region, or to a state or even federal Attorney General if of a larger district or a nation. The claim here would be roughly comperable to beign a US state Attorney General, or possibly a deputy sate Attorney General, i think. I did a google search, and all relevant results seem to be wikipedia mirrors. But this might be true and not covered in any online source, due to the systematic bias of the web, or to varient speelings of Hindi names. Sources are badly needed here. If the current article text is accurate and verifiable this person is probably at least marginally notable. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment -- to the nominator. We have an article in wikipedia on Public Prosecutor. Yes, a public prosecutor is the Indian equivalent of an American District Attorney. He/She represents the state in court. As far as notability is concerned, I abstain. This person could be notable, but as he passed away 20 years ago, web references would be almost nil. This needs to be kept in mind while closing. A person from Andhra Pradesh could help in determining notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised that nobody has done this already, but I asked the contributor of the article to weigh in on this or provide some references. The user appears to be an active wikipedian, so should be able to help out on this. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AKRadecki 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I see here and read in the article, it seems as though the article does not merit notability as per WP:BIO. We should still get more users to weigh in. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteSounds like a case where an adequate article could be written, becasue there likely exist stories about his professional career in actual newspapers in his country. What exists does not merit retention. Without some effort by persons there, it is doubtful that sources satisfying WP:N and WP:A can be found. When someone wants to go to a library and find the sources and write an article, it could be added then. Edison 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alright ... I went searching on the Indian Google, and the few hits that were there were mingled with a fellow by the same name who's a philanthropist. As far as the notability of the office goes, Andhra Pradesh is large enough that it'd be the 15th largest country in the world by population were it independent, but as far as I could find this fellow was the public prosecutor of a relatively small city in the state, not the chief prosecutor for all of Andhra Pradesh (which would be very notable). Beyond that, though, this text is word-for-word copyvio from this page on kerala.com [4]. RGTraynor 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Writing with egg on my face) Comment Based on the above, and on the copyright statment on the page referenced, I speedied the article as copyvio. Propaniac, however, politely (which I appreciated!) pointed out that there was a note in the article that the text was licensed under GFDL and taken from Wikipedia. Sooo...everything is restored back...debate on. AKRadecki 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the prosecutor and the philanthropist aren't the same guy? According to the article, he established a high school, a college and a convent. Just checking. Propaniac 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The philanthropist was repeatedly referred to as a raja, but there's nothing in the article positively denying that our fellow was one, come to that. RGTraynor 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep The many claims in the article about his fame, his nickname, his work in establishing civic institutions, and his long tenure as Public Prosecutor are enough to sway me towards keeping it, although obviously all of those claims need references. Propaniac 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-design

From PROD. I think this is a valid article, but it looks marginal enough that it'd only be fair to run it through AfD. Is just a DicDef? I would say no, its a stub that could be expanded well beyond a DicDef. Is it an important enough concept to have its own article? I don't know, but I think it's at least somewhat important. Certainly the concepts "User Interface", "User Friendliness", and "Usability" are very important concepts and need to be broken out into subarticles, of which this should be one, maybe. We have an article on Baby Duck Syndrome and this is at least as important. Herostratus 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator, see above. Herostratus 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary and this seems like it would be better in a site like Wiktionary, or would be better merged into an article about design. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, and as I suspect this is merely one person's own definition of over-design. Further, Herostratus, if you never thought it should be deleted in the first place, why didn't you simply label it with {{notability}} or some such? Someguy1221 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I did a search on this one and while it is abundantly clear that it is a term that is commonly used there is no substance beyond "dictionary definition" that I can find. It's hard to see this becoming more than a dicdef. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a widely known term (read: I didn't hear it). Not in the Hacker's Dictionary like creeping featurism or second system effect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a common term in engineering in general (outside the computer world), but I'm not certain that anyone even in those fields are discussing this specifically. --Charlene 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete unless referenced; I see no potential for expansion. - Mike Rosoft 08:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SavageWheels

This freeware game does not seem to be notable. Two links to game reviews are given as references; they seem to be self-published content, but I can't judge in detail (perhaps somebody who speaks Czech could have a look). Google only returns very few relevant results, in particular when excluding Wikipedia hits. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Deb 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if only reviews are self published then it's not notable software.Ga rr ie 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Peacent 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Jefferys

Let me back track for some people who don't understand:The C.W. Jeffreys school shooting is no longer notable, meaning the school itself is no longer notable, and in turn this person is no longer notable.This has to be deleted by default as well as the article on the school. Rodrigue 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and close Faulty logic. Once notable always notable is the Wikipedia rule. Anyone with a biography in The Canadian Encyclopedia is inherently notable. If we delete an article on a killing on MLK Boulevard, we don't delete the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not according to the new revision put up by Jimbo to WP:NOT, and I quote: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography." What elements of WP:BIO do people believe the subject passes? Ravenswing 13:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he's dead... Keep.--Samuel J. Howard 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I am supposed to assume good faith but ... I don't think you even read the article, or comprehended my argument. He is not living and he is listed in the "The Canadian Encyclopedia", I think you are confusing the historical figure, with an event that occurred at a school named for him. Please reread my argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. I believe that deleting this article would be a misapplication of Jimbo's statement. Jimbo's statement would support the deletion of an article about someone who was in the news for being shot -- not someone who was a "creative professional" under WP:BIO and whose article focuses only on his artistic career and does not mention the shooting at a school named after him. I also don't see how the school would lose its notability given that most high schools which come up for deletion are deemed sufficiently notable and have their articles kept. --Metropolitan90 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Forget the fact the school is named after him, he is notable in his own right. Wildthing61476 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadian painter. Besides: look at that picture. I'm afraid if I voted Delete he would freeze me stone with one look from those steely eyes. Even from beyond the grave. Herostratus 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment on Martin Luther King is dubious because on his own martin luther king did many things that were notable, so he does not need a boulevars named after him to be an article.This person did not do anything sighhnicant other than have a school named after him, and his article was only created after the shooting.
Comment on Comment I think you misunderstand the argument ... again ... and I still think you have not read the article yet. You are still confusing the shooting incident, with the painter that the school was named after. The school is not named after the shooter, or the victim, or the gun. Thats the argument for MLK that hasn't sunk in yet. Please read the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some policy that says his notability does not just lie solely in being the name of a now unnotable school, then the article should be deleted,regardless of opinion. Rodrigue 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 11 books which discuss his artwork here [5] What a discussion about 'the policies on biographies of living persons' has to do with someone who died over half a century ago is beyond me. Nick mallory 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep From The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Jefferys is one of the most frequently reproduced of Canadian illustrators and is best known for his 'visual reconstructions' of Canadian history." The school is totally irrelevant here. Zagalejo 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou say the school shooting is irrelevant, but that event is actually the only reason anyone knows his name besides the students of the school.If the article on the shooting had not been deleted, people wouldn't be trying so hard to establish his notability beyond that event.

Although I will give credit to the reference from the encyclopedia, finally someone has shows that he was atleast a somebody besides being tied to the school. Rodrigue 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a television documentary about the guy in January 2007. Someone must have heard of him before the shooting occurred. Zagalejo 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep How is that not notable? I mean yeah, it's short, but it's good. Whs itc hy 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows the confusion produced by using the criteria for the wrong things--the strong notability for the person has nothing to do with the shooting. (And if the shooting was notable once, it remains notable, but that's another matter). I urge Rodrigue to simply withdraw his nom. 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)DGG

Keep and I suggest WP:SNOW. The article both asserts and cites notability of the individial per WP:BIO (including multiple secondary sources), I see no evidence of OR or POV in it. Why is this on Afd? When did we decide historical figures stop being notable? -Markeer 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notability doesn't just disappear... recommend speedy close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and investigate nominator for vexatious, improperly listed AfDs. Nomination is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. His very first AfD on these related topics (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting) concluded with an admin Userifying a shooting article to merge it into a new article about the school. They were not judged as worthy of being deleted. This nomination is entirely flawed and I would close it immediately if I could. Canuckle 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~WTF~~ keep. Agree with above. This is ridiculous. The chain of logic in the nominations is, well, mindblowing. What next? AfD for Toronto? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment

Unsourced WP:OR screed, POV magnet, troll-fodder for edit wars and move wars within hours of its creation. As if we hadn't already enough articles about the Macedonian conflict.

Same problem applies here as with most other "Anti-X'ism" articles; see precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism, from which the following rationale is quoted almost verbatim: The problem with these articles is not the sourcing of the individual facts they report. Of course there are people who have displayed or expressed hostility towards Macedonians. And of course other people criticising the former have employed terms like "anti-Macedonian" to describe them. Of course that's all sourceable. The point is: There is no scholarly literature (WP:RS) that discusses all these different historical situations as part of a single story, a single unified pattern or phenomenon. The article commits OR by constructing "a novel narrative" from these unrelated instances.

So, please, no "keep" arguments along the line of: "But I know people who are anti-Macedonian! It exists!" or "But I found the term 'Anti-Macedonian' on Google!" or "But it has some sources!". Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing the existence of "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" as a consistent, unified pattern. None of the ones quoted now does this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here we go again. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular it is not a place to air your grievances. These articles are inevitably POV, and just as inevitably become vandal magnets. BTLizard
Delete: per nom; the argument is correct and persuasive. Ravenswing 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not so much per the "anti-" arguments (in the "serbophobia" article's 3rd AfD I expressed in detail my opinion on the "anti-" articles, and how they could be regarded as proper encyclopedic articles IMO), but because this article lacks completely the structure of a proper encyclopedic article. It hardly has a context, mixing 2-3 incidents without offering the overall analysis its topic would require. Subsequently, as it is now, without even clarifying its scope, and without indicating how some isolated incidents construct an overall phenomenon worth to mention in an encyclopedia, this article fails the criterion of notability as well. Not to mention that the selective mentioning of 2-3 incidents, which stop at a certain chronological moment fail to indicate the continuity, and the subsequent alleged importance of the phainomenon.--Yannismarou 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR per nomination, before I succumb to the temptation to write an article about Anti-Florentine sentiment, packed with Pisan and Sienese sources, spiced with quotations from Dante and "Il Vernacoliere" , ranging from the Battle of Montaperti to widespread non-Florentine Tuscan support for Juventus as the nemesis of hated Fiorentina. Stammer 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all anti-X-ism articles. - Francis Tyers · 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, while we're here, check out Albanophobia. - Francis Tyers · 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, also see Serbophobia. - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Francis, delete all anti-X-ism articles. It does not make sense to keep this article if we deleted anti-hellenism, and this is quite blatant POV pushing. Maybe we can move the content to an article on Slavic minorities in various countries. 74.134.238.58 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All entries are cited, how is it OR? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Simple. This article doesn't cite sources discussing general anti-Slav sentiment in Macedonia. Its citations describe various incidents, in language heavily loaded with allegations of racism and xenophobia, which the creator of the article then cites as proof of this theory. With only one exception, every single source comes from Macedonian advocacy websites; there is a near-complete lack of reliable, third-party, independent, published sources. The creator isn't describing a phenomenon discussed in primary sources; he's taking sources and deriving a synthesis from it. That's the definition of original research. Ravenswing 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SYN. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this policy is not always enforced by admins closing AfDs. Stammer 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, to get the situation delineated in WP:SYN, you'd have to have reliable sources. This article doesn't manage that much. Surely if these demonstrations and riots the creator cites were as large and menacing as all of that, the international news media (or even the Greek media) would have noticed. Ravenswing 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and de-SYNify So... The problem is not with the cited material, or with the article topic, but with the adjectives and connections made. So, remove the adjectives and OR connections, and the article is OK. Improve, not delete. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I dont' see much of the OR or SYN that is being referred to. And I don't see any discussions about objectionable content on the talk page -- which would be the normal first step to addressing problems with an article, not straight to AFD. Could someone point out the portions that violate OR? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the nomination statement? The problem is with the cited material, and it is with the article topic. It's not with any specific "parts", it's with the whole premise of the article. The problem is that an article was written in the absence of reliable sources saying that the topic of the article exists. There's no use cleaning up details or discussing such cleanup in talk when the whole premise of the article is unsourced. And I took it straight for AfD because it's one in a long row of questionable articles that get written on a pure tit-for-tat basis by nationalist edit-warring factions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not concerning myself with the sad state of Wikipedia politicism as rationale for article deletion, and dealing, rather, with the content of articles... If there are cited examples of the sentiment described, then the sentiment described does exist. What then can be objected to -- the word itself? Wouldn't then a simple rename to Discrimination against Slav-Macedonians suffice? The article establishes both the existence of the sentiment as well as the use of the term with more than adequate citations. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, the article does not construct a narrative at all. It is currently just a list of incidents of anti-slav-macedonian expression. Nowhere does it draw a connection between the incidents. Nor would it have to do so in order to cover the topic, any more than Inbreeding suggests, through its coverage of the topic, that all cases of inbreeding are part of the same story. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rational here. All these amateurish nationalistic anti-X articles (unless it's adequately sourced that such a movement exists and there is reliable literature on the topic, e.g. Anti-Semitism) should be deleted.--Ploutarchos 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment use those information in other articles.--Svetovid 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; as he said, there is no scholarly literature on the topic.--Aldux 14:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "anti-X" articles. WP:NOR, WP:POVFORKs. No exceptions = no bitching. Niko Silver 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at an offsite copy of Anti-Hellenism, I see that it says a lot of things like "Anti-hellenism is a conspiracy" and makes value judgements about other works. Whether or not those and other objectionable bits of content necessitated deletion (IMO it didn't), this article doesn't commit those sins. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this "offsite copy" was already deleted from wikipedia. So, your argument is baseless. Unfortunately, wikipedia sysops do not have the authority to delete theses "offsite copies".--Yannismarou 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the principle used to delete Anti-Hellenism -- namely that it asserted conclusions, characterizations, and connections from its content that were not verifiable -- doesn't apply to this article, and this is determinable by comparing the two articles. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Abbondio

Non notable referee with only non league amateur experience Cruccone, already deleted from it.wiki. 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relegate ... err, Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. A player who played a handful of matches in amateur action wouldn't even be a blip on our radar. A referee in the same category sure doesn't. RGTraynor 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. Not notable enough to be a full article. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Paranormal Investigators

Non-notable local group. There are also no reliable or verifiable sources. Prod was contested. JLaTondre 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't state importance of the group, and it's non-notable. GrooveDog 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG, WP:V. Only 87 G-hits on a directed search [6], and the article has a strong flavor of WP:NFT to it. Pictures around a candle and Youtube videos of their "investigations" sound a lot more like they're Ghostbusters wannabees than anyone serious. RGTraynor 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Comment withdrawn. Delete supported. Research society not associated with the "Singapore Paranormal Investigators" company anymore. The article would well be deemed as an advertisement for marketing and profit. Uranium2k 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, that's all very well and good, but none of it falls within Wikipedia policies and guidelines about article retention. Which elements of WP:ORG do you claim this society fulfills, and where are the sources that WP:V requires? Secondly, Uranium2k contributions to Wikipedia are overwhelmingly in this article, and in creating numerous redirect pages to it. RGTraynor 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was deleted[7] by David.Monniaux earlier today with the summary CSD:A7 (no evidence of notability) + complaint on m:OTRS. It was then re-created 20 minutes later by SPI Kenny (an account[8] established just before the new version created). I have re-added the AFD tag to the new version as this debate was never closed. -- JLaTondre 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment.The newly edited is the correct details that's given out to the public then the previous one.Here is the details of SPI Singapore Paranormal Investigators (SPI) the website http://www.spi.com.sg / http://www.spi.com.sg/forum . User:yuiiko — yuiiko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Seems apparent that someone has changed the article for self-advertisement. The mention of "Kenny Fong" is obvious and insignificant. Furthermore, the majority of the article is identical to the one which was written earlier. If the previous article was due for deletion, this new article should go as well. 218.212.190.216 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — 218.212.190.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete "Singapore Paranormal Investigators" is a profit-making company in Singapore, no longer associated with the original Society. Since it is a business, advertising itself here becomes a breach of policies. Deletion hence supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium2k (talk • contribs)

Delete: The newly published article by Kenny Fong is not authentic. First of all, it is not a research and investigation organisation, but a registered company in Singapore, bearing Company registration number 53086560B. Secondly, the arsenal of gadgets previously featured under the Society do not belong to the company anymore, hence the article is misrepresenting facts which are untrue. I fully support the deletion of this article.Dashingblue 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Dashingblue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: An added comment: the company seems to use the article for advertising of its "Ghoulish Trails", which, despite the founder possessing a Tourist Guide license (which is unknown if it's expired), are not held in accordance with the Travel Agents Act (Cap 332) and regulations of the Singapore law, as the company does not possess a valid Travel Agents license. All in all, the article appears to be advertising its tours and recruitment for agents. Uranium2k 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no proof of notability in available the article or in my online search. That said, I disagree that the article is speedy-able per A7 as "has gained much international media attention" constitutes an *assertion* of notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam coomber

At best, non-notable & unsourced, but probable hoax. No indication that such a person or books exist. Of the provided ISBN numbers, 3 cannot be found and the other 1 is for a different book. Prod was contested. JLaTondre 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being obvious hoax and WP:Complete Bollocks that was very likely made up in school one day. Fisk: the publisher's name 'R.Sole & Piles'? Puhleeze! That ranks on the same level of sophistication as 'Hugh Jass'. Eddie.willers 12:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is definately a hoax. None of the isbn numbers link to a real book, increasing the proof that the article is fake. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 12:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. And Cheddar's in Somerset by the way, not Gloucestershire. BTLizard 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. "led by Mike Hunt". excuse me while i completely fail to laugh. tomasz. 12:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteHOAX.Knowledge Hegemony 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Maybe a hoax, but definately falis WP:BIO. *Cremepuff 222* "As cool as grapes..." 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nextman stole my creps

Speedy tag removed without comment. No noteability asserted, only sources cited are myspace pages, that is also the only thing that comes up at google Dr bab 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely non-notable local band. tomasz. 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:MUSIC Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per CSD A7 -- GJD 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems to be a local band for now. Like bab, I could find nothing about the band beyond their own materials in myspace.com. gidonb 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Note to the nom: removal of speedy tags is a form of vandalism. You can and should replace the tag and warn the vandal. Repeated abuse blockable. I suspect this would have been a sure fire speedy delete? —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it also a form of vandalism when it is not removed by the creator of the page? Dr bab 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Have replaced {{db-band}} given overwhelming consensus. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cypher

While one of the more infamous Usenet trolls, there are no reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article from. Also because there are no reliable sources, the article will be hopelessly POV and filled with unverifiable information. --Farix (Talk) 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With a prod already filed, isn't an AfD jumping the gun? RGTraynor 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's so vain, he probably thinks this poll is about him. Kill it, I say.Izuko 23:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were not so heavily sedated, I'd say speedy delete (and do it myself). The article, as it is, has highly unremarkable claims to fame. Unless credible sources materialise overnight that prove, without doubt, that this person is the greatest philosopher-king ever lived (which I highly doubt), this is delete material. (Disclaimer: I think I used to post NoCeM notices about this guy years ago in rec.games.roguelike.nethack, but I'm not so sure. It's absolutely nothing personal - I just want to keep places junk-free =) I'm tagging accordingly; if a crankier, less-possibly-very-remotely-conflict-of-interesting admin thinks this is A7 material, kill away. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, then redirect to discourage recreation. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrisVan

Delete. First and foremost, this is a recreation of a former article that was previously deleted. The article, in and of itself, is futile, redundant, and has no merit…about a defunct fictional soap couple. It is biasly written, and is being used to promote a fan base. Also, the article features a bevy of plugs and advertisements to personal and agenda-based websites.—WikiTweak 09:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if we must, Redirect to One Life to Live in the same way as Dusty Donovan and Lucy Montgomery were. Both actors & characters have got their own articles anyway, which isn't the case with many other couples in soaps, so there's nothing additional here. Looking at the link to Supercouple reveals a veritable glut of AfD candidates. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Life to Live, although I do admire the article's use of "portmanteau." Propaniac 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, mainly becase this was a copy an past edit of Tangeline as you can cleary see in the picture sum, Todd.... as well as there is no in depth history, and also added some things which there is not note for like you say they changed the face for supercouples...how?--Migospia †♥ 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arverni Guard

Completely unreferenced since creation in Oct 06 and all editors have since tried long and hard to find any references for it, all to no avail (most especially in what should be its main source, the de Bello Gallico) - suspect it is either a synopsis of a novel on the Gallic Wars or, more likely, a hoax. Creator (User:Celticepic) is long-gone, not replying to talk, and was apt to create fictions and exagerations of Celtic military prowess (eg to rewrite Gallic as Celtic). Consensus on article talk page is for AfD at the very least.Neddyseagoon - talk 09:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V. Just for yucks, I Googled it, and out of the forty G-hits there is, almost every one of them were this article or various Wiki mirrors, many highlighting the pleas on the talk page for some sourcing, any sourcing. Ravenswing 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey Neddy, Needle Nardle Noo! <cough>
I yanked off a prod tag that Neddy placed on this article about a week ago and since then we've discussed it some. Neddy has tried contacting the original editor to ask about sources - but the last time I looked she/he had been inactive since 2006. The problem is that the article is plausible historically and the editor who made it seems to be a good faith editor.[9] Personally, I was originally in favour of keeping the article - hence the de-prod. However, since then I've hunted high (in Titus Livy) and low (Bello Gallico) and even in specific history of Auvergne to see if the natives bragged about their famous fighting forebears (they did but not these ones). I may have found the origin of the original editor's theory for an elite Arverni unit from the game 0 A.D. - [10] - but I'm afraid it's just a nice theory. This article is also the number two hit in Google for "Arverni" so Wikipedia is much better off without it. User:Paxse - talk 15:22, 1 June 2007

Nice work. I would say turn the article into an article on that computer game, but that's pretty pointless seeing as the game itself is unrepresented on Wikipedia, this theory might not even need to appear on the game's Wiki page, and it could cause continuing confusion with historical reality.Neddyseagoon - talk 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd say the measure of whether the article is plausible historically is if we can find any evidence that it's true. Not every hoax is written in mangled leetspeak by User:PhreakThaPirate. Ravenswing 15:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A measure it pretty clearly fails. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RGT, you're right of course, the very best hoaxes are probably written by Oxford dons :) What I meant was that the Arverni were the pre-eminent Gallic tribe for a goodly part of history, they were wealthy, influential, powerful and seem to have handed out some military 'whuppin's' in their time. They must have been able to fight, and fight well. So some kind of renowned military unit is plausible given what we know of the tribe. Unfortunately, the historical record around this time is also full of holes. Having done some recent reading on this (does it show!?!) I'd say the fact that the 'Arverni Guard' aren't mentioned in the major sources that have been checked is a pretty good indication that there weren't no such animal. Not perfect, but pretty good. Kind of like failing the Iron Age notability test. Paxse 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have to have some proof they existed, not just assumptions and speculation. --Charlene 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Stephanie ^talk 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn A Christodoulou

Non notable. Also a copy of User:Christodouloug534, making it WP:COI. Created by the same person who made E J Boys. I tagged it WP:CSD#A7, but tags were removed. Whs tc hy 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User that the page copies blanked his userpage. View here: [11] Whs tc hy 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seeing as User:Whstchy has pointed out a conflict of interest at work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'conflict of interest' has been explained following the accusation by User:Whstchy of sock puppetry. Several academics new to Wikipedia have been checking and editing each other's articles to ensure they are of a high standard. Therefore this article should not be deleted. 27 May 2007 Jack1956 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

CommentSince the above message User:Whstchy has canvassed Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} to vote against this page as he had nominated it for deletion and no one else had supported his opinion. Doesn't sound like that's in the spirit of Wikipedia to me. See copy below. This is starting to look like some sort of personal crusade.

[== Hey ==

Not to sound like I'm canvasing here (I technically am, but with reason), but I have an AfD that has no votes on it. Could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn A Christodoulou please? Been sitting like that since I opened it.]

Jack1956

Comment Jack, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Charlie 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did that because no one had voted, and I know ten pound can provide rational thought to the process. There's a difference between one person I know and a whole bunch of random people. --Whs itc hy 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nevertheless, no one voted against this article, including Ten pound Hammer, until you'd canvassed him. You were so determined to get this article deleted that you asked some one else to vote. In fact, I think you've nominated all my articles for deletion, haven't you. Jack1956 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CANVAS explains what canvasing is. One, I did not ask ten pound to vote a certain way, two, I only asked because of no votes.--Whs itc hy 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my contention that by drawing Ten Pound Hammer's attention to the article, and by pointing out to him that it had not received any votes in support of your proposal to delete it, that you were actually implying to him that you wanted him to vote against the article. You were not saying to him, 'Hey, take a look at this great article I've found'!

I also note that you make no comment concerning what I said about your attempts to get my other articles deleted by persistently nominating them. It is my belief that you have a problem with me, hence your entirely negative interest in and towards my articles. Jack1956 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with you, just that the articles were not up to standard, and violated policy. Whs itc hy 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the exception of one article, [E J Boys], unfairly deleted in my opinion, every article you nominated for deletion was improved with suggestions by other editors and saved. Even then you put a CSD tag on my well-established E G Bowen article, which was removed by another editor. In my opinion [and the opinion of some of the users on your Talk page] you are sometimes a little too quick with the speedy deletion and AfD/CSD tags. In my opinion you need to look deeper into articles to see if there is anything of merit and if so to be encouraging. We are all doing this to expand knowledge. 'You have bitten a newbie. Jack1956 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "You have bitten a newbie" was added by user:86.152.81.34, who has no contribs outside the page. Also, Jack... I'm about ready to take offense to your comments. Whs itc hy 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems notable enough to me CharlieAmos 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — CharlieAmos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I agree...the subject of the article stands up as being suitable for inclusion MDJB 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — MDJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IMPORTANT COMMENT The above two have made no contribs outside this AfD or their user pages at this time. Whsitchy 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both the above users, as well as User:Jack1956, have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable subject. Looks like some sockpuppetry here as well. Bradybd 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response No sock -puppetry here. I simply asked a couple of Wikipedia users to take a look at the article and provide rational thought to the process. They made up their own minds as to the notability or otherwise of the subject. Jack1956 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yet when Whsitchy did that, you accused him of canvassing. Edward321 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RESPONSE You failed to note the irony of my highlighted comment which was copied from Whsitchy! Jack1956 10:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Irony is not the word I'd use. [12] Edward321 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two users who understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability with their very first edits? Not at all suspicious, then. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Times reference is a letter TO the paper, the Guardian link is a one-liner, the TV appearances are fleeting, and the book is privately published, by the looks of it. The fairly obvious sockfest doesn't inspire me to go hunting deeply for sources, either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Cruft article of a person of questionable notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for people wishing to seek out their 15 minutes of fame. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Minimal ghits. Apparently this guy is as notable a collector of Doctor Who memorabilia as anything else, though that's not in the article. BTLizard 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not ready to say it is necessarily sockpuppetry going on here, but at the very least it doesn't pass WP:BIO, as hard as it may try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintainerzero (talk • contribs)
Delete as unsourced bio: the Times citation is for a trivial letter to the editor unrelated to his career, and the guardian story is mainly about other people. DGG 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair trade jewelry

POV fork, with no references cited. Reads like a school essay, but may have some merit.--Gavin Collins 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research, no references. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a poorly written ramble-shamble that is, possibly, OR. Eddie.willers 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confusing, uninformative and unsourced. BTLizard 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an essay, and the use of the "fair trade" label suggests PoV issues also. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could the PoV be any worse? Whs itc hy 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Abuses in Kashmir

Delete. Blatant PoV fork. Consists mostly of a bunch of long quotes, with some lovely personal commentary thrown in for good measure. The recently-registered user (User:Khanra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) who created this article seems to have an agenda on his mind, looking at his contrib trail. He has removed content and added PoV remarks in almost all his edits. Nominated for deletion per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAP and WP:WWIN in general. Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a propaganda screed. Nick mallory 08:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear-cut propaganda. If the user is on Wikipedia solely with an agenda of propaganda, then s/he ought to be warned and perhaps admin action is needed. --Hnsampat 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the horrible style and huge quotes are enough for me. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to a more NPOV title. If the nominator is claiming that it is a PoV fork, it would be well to add what it was forked from. I have not found a Human rights in Kashmir article. This definitely requires heavy editing to make it NPOV and appropriate in style, but the subject would appear to have potential, and this text is not wholly useless to someone who may wish to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It forks out of several Kashmir-related articles, including Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir conflict, and others. --Hnsampat 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to create an article Human rights in Kashmir that would be fine but this article too much propaganda and should be deleted. Davewild 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant POV fork. --vi5in^[talk] 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-Law

Spammy article promoting book and its authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs)

Weak delete as this, in its current form, is a poorly written borderline ad. However, it could become a meaningful article if subbed by someone with relevant knowledge. Eddie.willers 12:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but it needs editing. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. Third-party reliable sources: [13] [14] [15] [16] JulesH 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it reads like an ad for the books it mentions. I due agree that it could become a relevant article if rewritten. Black Harry 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and tag with {{Advert}}. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. --Djsasso 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the non-trivial coverage in reliable published works identified by JulesH. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangeline

Delete. This is a senseless article. First of all, the characters of Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson were never a couple. The two briefly flirted and had fleeting romantic angst, but they were never officially paired with one another. Second of all, the name “Tangeline” is a fan base tagging; nothing officially sanctioned by any real authority. Finally, it’s redundant and trite for a fictional soap opera couple to have a Wikipedia article. The details of their relationship can be stated on the characters Wikipedia article.-WikiTweak 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced, even as a fan-based phenomenon. A Google search does demonstrate that enjoys some currency among fans - a lot of hits to Myspace and other blogs, Youtube and various forum posts, but no reliable sources to demonstrate to satisfy notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep.~~ Confused reasons for deletion does not make sense and mostly not true.

Senseless article- Why? Wikipedia has articles like this, that is where the idea came from, senseless by definition means: mindless and pointless, what makes this article so different that it is mindless and pointless?

Two wrongs do not make a right. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two briefly flirted and had fleeting romantic angst- Actually no the two flirted ever since 2003 which has been stated and spoken about by Trevor St. John and the directors of the show One Life to Live, but they officially became a couple in 2007. SO again false claims they never briefly flirted but have for years and no fleeting romantic angst but compassion and feelings.

Angst on a TV show is notable? Who knew? This doesn't change the article's notability. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they were never officially paired with one another - According to the show they are portrayed on One Life to Live although they kissed sometime in March they officially become a couple in April.
“Tangeline” is a fan base tagging- Fine I will change the article title
nothing officially sanctioned by any real authority- Like I said earlier based on the directors of the show and the show itself they were a couple.
Finally, it’s redundant and trite for a fictional soap opera couple to have a Wikipedia article- Again let me state the idea came from the fact there were other couples for and near the Supercouple status.

no reliable sources to demonstrate to satisfy notability- Wow there are tons of videos, which is better than actual writing on a web page that shows them as a couple

See WP:RS David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this article should stay for many reasons, it is depicting the couple and relationship of Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson, which they were a great couple and an inspiration to many. There are not many publicly interracial relationships on TV shows, and I strongly believe that there should be an article that represents one of the major interracial couples on television; there are many fictional couples and supercouples articles on Wikipedia but none other like Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson, and none with interracial couple of this manner. There is no real reason to delete this article, and keep interracial couples in the dust and forgotten. Mainly Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson were an amazing couple and showing the world that interracial couples are okay and gives inspiration to all the interracial couples and families out there, and should not take that inspiration away because it would be pointless and not nice. Please keep the article the name will change.--Migospia☆ 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speculative and superfluous - Enotiva 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Please look those words up before you can an article about an interracial couple Speculative and superfluous--Migospia☆ 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply... not... needed. Characters, if notable enough, have their own articles. otherwise they get folded into List of articles. But this is superfluous to say the least. All the article does is recite the plot and give unsourced trivia. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On/Off flirting and a brief kiss doesn’t make two fictional characters a fictional item. These two characters involvement never moved past a preliminary stage, which basically makes the article deceptive and forged.Stavdash 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my commments because eveything said here I have proven otherwise, look into your guys actions please and think about this, because no one is taking this seriously--Migospia☆ 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys also keep saying fictional couples, but like I said if only you have read there a lot of fictional couples articles on Wikipedia, just once there is an interracial all of a sudden oh my gosh we have to delete this under no reasoning--Migospia☆ 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- These two aren't now, nor were they ever a couple by any measure. That hysterical "interracial" jargon that Migospia loves to spout ad nauseum in defense of these two has absolutely no significance whatsoever to the subject at hand. Quite frankly, the article is bogus and needs to be done away with. Let's please keep that fangirl crap OFF of Wikipedia. --- The Real One Returns 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional non-couple. Ford MF 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here--Migospia☆ 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Guide. Looks like a case of WP:OWN, as well. Calling people who disagree with you racist is a good way to get blocked. See WP:CIVIL and rethink your statements. DarkAudit 13:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right let's just keep all the other white couples from soap opera although Wiki is not a soap guide. I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist, and as well how can you vote to delete this and not be racist since no one has given valid reason to delete I am just a lot confused there it is like you might as ell come out and it say, it is because Tangeline is a production of an interracial couple and the media is against interracial couples, people don't think about that but that is racist and very much not right--Migospia †♥ 01:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was almost comical. You paranoid delusional, you. I suggest you review this log again. You're the *only* person who has brought up race. Doesn't matter if they are purple and green, Todd and Evangeline were NEVER a couple. Just accept the fact that this article is GOING to be deleted, and that nothing you have said in defense of it (particularly those pointless, hyper hysterical rants/lies about people being racist) has made any sense or will stop the inevitable. --- The Real One Returns 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Real One Returns, please you should not even be allowed to vote for what you said to me a while ago. And no personal attacks, by saying You paranoid delusional, you

And yes read the article you apprently for no reason (or a hidden reason) want to delete and then go buy or search for videos of them together and Evangeline has been referred to as Todd's girlfriend and they were dating. --Migospia †♥ 02:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That made absolutely NO sense. This is becoming a trend with you. --- The Real One Returns 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted, the term "Tangeline" isn't really verifiable as per WP:VERIFY as it appears only in scattered blog entries, and a brief flirtation between two soap opera characters doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a separate article. --Wingsandsword 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had READ above I said I would change the article name, please can someone ANYONE give me a real reason to delete this article?--Migospia †♥ 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to what?! “Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson.” That article is being deleted as well.—WikiTweak 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIVE REASON--Migospia †♥ 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delete ? For no given reason?

Comment I am going to say this once. Except in very special cases (Luke Spencer and Laura Webber transcended soap operas), soap opera couples can and should be discussed in the individual character articles. Go ahead. Check my edit history. I've said the same thing about other soap couple articles. Wikipedia is not the Soap Opera Guide. Your continued insistence that opposition to your viewpoint is racist will only serve to get you blocked. DarkAudit 05:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both characters are current, and the (is it/isn't it) relationship appears to provide a dynamic to the series. I find the argument that the article title being a fan derived wording fallacious, in that the article is far more easily found on that basis by a fan (obviously the most likely reader). As it links from both characters articles I think it justified. LessHeard vanU 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern here isn't racism: it's the idea that something more popular with women than with men might be considered automatically and without question immensely less notable than something that's more popular with men than with women. From some of the comments I get the impression that having articles on subjects more popular with women may even be considered embarrassing or stupid by some editors. This isn't new to AfD (for example, the AfD on Kim Kardashian had some of the same comments) but it really goes against WP:CSB. If this pairing is being talked about by independent, notable third parties (and not just outside of the soap opera world, either) it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 11:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge relevant info into the two characters' articles. Having a separate article isn't needed nor warranted. And Migospia☆, please stop accusing people of racism for stating this view. While I could point out a ton of systemic bias that has occurred over the years at Wikipedia, in this case the article simply isn't notable enough to keep. --Alabamaboy 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Accusing people of racism and/or sexism isn't particularly productive to this discussion. What should matter is how notable the subject is, and not being a soap fan myself I have no idea on this. I do tend to agree with other comments to the effect that it generally makes more sense to mention the couple within articles on the separate characters involved, and/or on the program as a whole, rather than as a separate article just on the couple, except perhaps in the handful of cases where a particular couple has been heavily noted as part of the general pop culture (like General Hospital's Luke and Laura, a couple I've even heard of myself despite not following soaps at all). *Dan T.* 13:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here's another AfD on a soap couple who both happen to be white which I started myself to see what the consensus is. If it is deleted (and that's the way it's going) there will a lot more to follow. So this particular article isn't being singled out. Anyway, delete for the same reasons as the AfD I've just quoted - this is a big wedge of plot summary and nothing else. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ford MF and nom Localzuk^(talk) 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to One Life to Live. Corvus cornix 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EliminatorJR- Yes but wheres an interracial one? There is none that I know of on here on Wikipedia, and I just think there should be one and this article to me is complete and referenced. I was not accsuin people of racism and/or sexism, and deleting this article without any real reasons also is not productive to this.--Migospia †♥ 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Migospia †♥ has now voted both Keep and delete, please strike one. Rockpocket 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, merge, redirect: Fine since the issue here is not race but a Soap Opera couple delete of the article would be okay but then we should delete the other 26+ as well since they apparently clutter up Wikipedia and such and are senseless articles and are speculative and superfluous and simply... not... needed. Merge with One Life to Live and redirect there--Migospia †♥ 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Correct, and I'm working my way through the category at the moment. I think there are a few notable ones, so I'm not going to AfD the whole lot in one go, that way lies confusion. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:And why is this not notable? And delete this one last not first--Migospia †♥ 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Rockpocket-Wow, please READ everything all my reasons for keeping the article no where it says ILIKEIT and look at reasons for delete, they are saying IDONTLIKEIT...again other way around--Migospia †♥ 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Migospia, I wish I had gotten to this article at the beginning of its deletion nomination to help you with its format, but it seems that this article will now be deleted, and I'm currently busy working on improving other soap articles and or soap couple articles. I will state that I don't feel that the media is against "interracial" couples. In fact, dating someone "outside of your race" isn't all that taboo these days [17], although I can't see why it would be. Also, we see some "interracial" coupling on television and or in movies.
Even the Disney Channel show Lizzie McGuire had an interracial date once (where Gordo dated Brooke, portrayed as a black girl, in the episode Gordo and the Girl); the race aspect there wasn't even commented on in the episode (or the Wikipedia article about it), unlike what the situation would likely be in earlier decades: in the '50s it would be unthinkable to have an interracial date at all; in the '60s a progressive producer might want to have one but it would be killed by network censors; in the '70s it would be done as part of the "social relevancy" fad and feature lots of extreme reactions from other characters on the race issue; in the '80s it would be a "Very Special Episode" attacking bigotry. But by now it's just a matter-of-fact thing not even particularly notable. *Dan T.* 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article is being considered for deletion is because it doesn't fit the notability standards for a couple, soap opera or not, on Wikipedia. I'm a participant of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, and you can read that to better inform yourself on these matters. Flyer22 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no idea what you guys consider notable or not but I was told otherwise and that reason fits, they should all go--Migospia †♥ 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And WP:OWN. You're still taking this far too personally. I've had articles I've worked hard on deleted, even after I thought I'd fixed them. It's not the end of the world. DarkAudit 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Read the article. And read the deletion log. And who are you to say I am to this far to personally, I am taking it personal because the type of article it is, but too far? I am just trying to handle this the best way I can and from reading above apparently the only issue that it is a Soap Article and if the show is notable enough to have a page of it and even if the actor and or charcters are notable enouh to have their own page fine I am okay with that, but for ALL TV fictional supercouple and couple articles delete, that is what I got from above because no one was giving me any real reason till someone gave me that and that reason makes sense.--Migospia †♥ 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, any useful information in the article should be included in the articles on the individual characters. NawlinWiki 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Migospia - just because Wikipedia has some unnotable articles doesn't mean it should have more. What determines notability is the article's content itself, not the content of other articles. This article just doesn't meet wikipedia's notability standards. --daniel folsom 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree I just thought it was notable enough, I do not even like or watch soaps and I knew about them, but I still think it was a good article--Migospia †♥ 00:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migospia, some editors gave you a true reason as to why they choose to delete this article. My post above on "interracial" couples, as well as what the guidelines are for a Supercouple on Wikipedia were to point out why I feel that "race" is not why this article is being considered for deletion. Let's just say that was the reason, it still doesn't take away from the fact that this article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I don't know how else to explain it to you, other than to again advise you to look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas.

If you will read over that, or take a look at "my" article J.R. and Babe, which was nominated for deletion as well, then spared because it later provided creation, real-world impact, and reliable references to validate its claims, then you'll hopefully understand why the Tangeline article was nominated for deletion. I really do know how you feel on having an article that you've worked so hard on nominated for deletion, plenty of editors here understand that, but I (as well as some of them) learned (and am still improving on) what it takes to have a good and or great article on Wikipedia. Your article needs to at least be notable enough to stay on Wikipedia, even if it isn't at "good" status. Please know that I have nothing against you and certainly not "interracial" couples, but "your" article is lack-luster, and that's not an attack against you personally. Perhaps once you've gathered the right material in which to ensure that this article is valid in remaining on Wikipedia, as I can help you with that, if the reliable resources are indeed out there for this couple, then this article can be re-created, because as it seems now...this article will be deleted. If the reliable resources are out there for this couple, then -- as I just stated -- I can surely help you with this article, and it can be re-created at a later time. Flyer22 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know JR and Babe did not impact me, but yes of course it did hurt that this get nominated for deletion but I thought I had good reasons for keeping it around, but the comments on this page hurt a lot more since a lot did not state a reason for delete especially the person who wanted to delete it in the first place, and I read on the deletion process that *Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion* to me that leaves 10 of the people on this page out, since they were not acting in good faith at all, I mean two have major vendettas against me, one later VERY rude, the others just gave reasons no i don't like it delete type reasons come on that is not good faith! But, whatever I am sure Wikipeida is favourable in many cases and it will get deleted because the majority of people not acting in good faith swayed everything else, fine I get it, sort of. It would have been easier if I did not know 3 of the people on the page not good ways as well if the reasons made more sense, like although semi notable not notable enough because there is not much information sites on them or such, but no too flaky, my gosh are you serious? so yes it sucked majorly it got nominated for del but what sucked more are the reasons for delete and comments and 2 of the people have a vendetta against me so anytime I'm getting fried they would jump in....

but we should just del and merge/redirect this already because too many are enjoying this already no need to drag it on, even though the name one just got into the scope of some WikiProjects--Migospia †♥ 05:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get that J.R. and Babe may not have impacted you. There are certainly some fictional popular couples and supercouples that did not impact me either. I'm just letting you know that if "your" article can provide the type of sources that Wikipedia requires, "your" article on Tangeline can always be recreated later, well, under the name of Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson, but only if it provides the type of sources and references in which Wikipedia requires. Flyer22 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever, *I* understand. The other got deleted with no log? --Migospia †♥ 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is to keep - if the spammy link at the bottom bothers you, remove it. Wily D 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental finance

Propose delete of this original research promoting software vendor. --Gavin Collins 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it was written by the publisher of software used for the analysis of Experimental Finance, it still looks like it is a valid finance principle and should stay. Perhaps you should look at the JessX software page and see if that is spam. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 12:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is outside my realm of expertise so I cannot speak definitively but a search on this term seems to pull up at least a few good academic resources on the topic. Many seem to be intrinsically linked to behavioral finance and so I wonder if it might not be best to merge it there until someone with better knowledge on the subject can improve and expand on it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the attempt to use an article about a possible general concept to promote an individual computer program--unsourced except for the link to that program. Whether it is a valid concept would depend on other uses and sources; if an article could be written, this wouldnt be of much help. . DGG 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently written to provide much-needed support for the very spammy article about the software in the see-also. DGG 01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Djsasso 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plm209. It's a start. JessX otoh is very spamy. John Vandenberg 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deruism

This is probably a hoax, but is not ridiculous enogh for me to delete it as vandalism straight away. Jesse Viviano 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a request for sources. If it can be verified, keep. If not, delete. However, as it stands, it appears to be a hoax, or more specifically, something made up during lunch time. Turlo Lomon 08:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No valid google hits. Sounds like an entry on Uncylopedia. -SESmith 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get zero ghits for deruism and no likely-looking ones for Felix Bieker either. BTLizard 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked this one out a little while I was on welcome patrol earlier. I couldn't find any sources for Deruism and Bieker seem to be only 'myspace' notable. Paxse 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:N, and probably doesn't meet WP:NOR, either.
Delete. Absolutely NO hits on Google for 'Deruism', which is why I marked it as speedy in the first place. KJS 77 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly redirect to Druid as a misspelling? Also, no page on Druism, which is I guess what Druids do...—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

better still...redirect to Neo-druidism.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another hoax -ism that someone probably made up. No sources given, and no ghits anyway for it. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Corporations Rule the World

Propose delete on grounds of non-notability and advertising of book. Related entry Corporate libertarianism has already been deleted.--Gavin Collins 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does seem vaguely notable after a quick search, needs better sourcing though Guycalledryan 07:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ At present it's just an advert and as the writer stands against capitalism and globalisation I'm sure he wouldn't want everyone in the world to read all about it here or be able to buy it on Amazon either. Nick mallory 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion to Keep after more material was added. Nick mallory 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclosure: I am the article's only author to date. Can I "vote"?)

The book is widely known in globalization and anti-globalization circles, especially among academics (adheres to Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books - google the book title and "syllabus" and little time is needed to find examples).

Inside WP, references to the book are seen in articles on Anti-globalization and David Korten. In both cases, I simply linked to the article in question and did not create the initial mention (the book is mentioned in the Feb 2003 creation of the author's article, since it's his most well-known work).

Outside WP, the book is cited often in a variety of fields (see Amazon citations and Google Scholar) and has multiple printings. Perhaps I should link this NYT reference to the article which says the book is "considered the bible of the movement against globalization".

While a term from the book (Articles for deletion/Corporate libertarianism) might not have been worthy of an article, the book, like the author, is worthy.

Finally, I don't believe the article to be "advertising". I tried to stick to NPOV by describing what the main themes are in the book. Maybe I could understand a {{tone}} tag. --Fisherjs 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's more or less NPOV, and isn't that unnotable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google'ing of it clearly shows that it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books. Not as NPOV as I would think ideal, but not worthy of deletion. Just needs a bit of cleanup. Maintainerzero 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and remove the spam. The reviews belong as references, not as long quotes expanding the article. DGG 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Djsasso 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure seems notable. --Nricardo 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect is what we normally we do with marginally notable works by notable people, so people searching for the term can find information. W.marsh 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early wrapt in slumber deep

Prod removed without imporvements or commentary. Original research and unverifiable: first part is a source text (should be on Wikisource), the rest is a school paper without any sources. Wikipedia is not a free paper hosting service. Fram 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable poem, top ghit is wikipedia Guycalledryan 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non notable poem? Top ghit is Wikipedia? You have heard of Charlotte Bronte I hope? I'm not disputing that this is unsourced, unreferenced and reads like a school kid's book report but I hope the worth of the Bronte's work isn't being reduced to their ghits these days. Nick mallory 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should be deleted because nothing in it is useful for Wikipedia. Another article on this poem may be possible though, as she is obviously an important writer (I'm not convinced we need an artice on individual poems though except in exceptional cases: articles on poem collections may be more useful). Fram 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nick mallory 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - no information beyond text and brief discussion of Bronte, although the poem itself could be transwikied to wikisource. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee1

Delete - trivia section masquerading as an article. Otto4711 06:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per current merge tag, merger into The General Lee Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into another article, car is non notable by itself Guycalledryan 07:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect into The General Lee. Not enough material to warrent a seperate article. Turlo Lomon 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All the information here is currently in "The General Lee", and in both instances, none of it is sourced. -- saberwyn 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, you've made your point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Smart (abductee)

Pursuant to administrator Newyorkbrad, Wikipedia articles cannot contain the names of minors who were victims of crime. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_28 John celona 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)repairing nomination. -- saberwyn 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we can't have an article on Shawn Hornbeck, who was kidnapped for 5 times the length of time of this girl, then we shouldn't have one on this girl. After all, when she is in her 30's she might be traumatized to know a wikipedia article exist about her regarding a horrible experience she endure when she was just 14. Right Brad??? Fighting for Justice 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

To the best of my knowledge, this AfD has not been transcluded onto the appropriate page. I do not know if it is a serious nomination or an attempt to make a WP:POINT at my expense. If the page becomes a live AfD then I will rely upon other Wikipedians to make their voices heard on the issues raised.

User:Fighting for Justice presents himself as a voice for the rights of crime victims on Wikipedia, while User:John celona presents as an anti-censorship activist. Both raise, albeit with strident and unnecessary rhetoric, different aspects of the question of how we should deal with people who are victimized by serious crimes, especially as minors. These are not easy issues, particularly when the victim has become far more famous for whatever reason than the typical victim or where the victim or his or her family has, after the crime was over, elected to take on a public role in addressing criminal justice issues.

Much of the Wikipedia community as a whole is introspecting and agonizing over how best to deal with these issues. They are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop), various policy pages, and a series of deletion debates. I have presented my own thoughts on these issues on various pages of the project, most recently on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby (see at the top and then the long post immediately after the arbitrary section break). I have tried there to survey all the considerations for and against keeping these types of articles in the encyclopedia; the simplistic comments above here ignore all the complexities of the matter, although I am doing my best to assume good faith rather than the presence of trolling. Please approach this DRV with a seriousness properly attendant to the nature of the issues presented. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It hasn't been placed on the appropriate page (maybe because John celona got blocked before he could), but obviously was nominated in bad faith per WP:POINT. An admin should delete this page (and the irony of that doesn't escape me btw). Lipsticked Pig 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, okay, now it has been nominated for deletion properly. I'm not saying I disagree with deletion (this is a very difficult and painful issue), but obviously a policy for these situations is needed, rather than an emotionally draining bitter fight over each and every one. I assume that such a policy would arise from the Shawn Hornbeck DRV, not here. Lipsticked Pig 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is silly, and I was quite shocked to see this tag at the top of the entry. Smart is a public figure, like it or not - and her story has been told repeatedly by every major news outlet in the country. Removing her article from Wikipedia (or even proposing to do so) is a stunt. Boisemedia 05:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close seems to be a a WP:POINT based nomination more than anything. Viridae ^Talk 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom FtJ there is no difference between naming Elizabeth Smart "repeatedly raped" and nameing Shawn Hornbeck as "repeatedly raped". Same story, different sex. Exactly identical situation. Wjhonson 05:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As these cases have been widely reported I just don't see the point in pretending that it never happened here. Articles shouldn't be prurient but this isn't a place for censorship. Are we going to get rid of 'Mary Bell' next? Nick mallory 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep While I understand the nominator's argument, I don't necessarily agree with it. The article is well research, the information is in the public domain, and the family has gone to the point of publishing a book on the events surrounding the kidnapping. Meets WP:V, WP:BIO. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored. If you're going to remove an article about one person who is linked to a notable crime, then you're basically setting a major precident which lays the groundwork for removing all other articles of persons associated with or victims of crime. You could forseeably use this as a basis for removing articles on 9/11, Columbine, and the Virginia Tech shootings. This has to be the silliest XfD i've read this week, and yes even sillier than the nomination to get rid of WP:BJAODN. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The arguments are the same ones used at the DRV for Shawn Hornbeck. His story was also widely reported (over a hundred thousand google hits at the moment), the article was also well researched and cited. The BLP point is A) minor and B) raped. If that is not enough to remove the article, then you should go all to the DRV for Shawn and vote to keep that one as well since the situation is... identical. Wjhonson 07:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I echo the same sentiments. Why don't you all support the effort in bringing back the Shawn Hornbeck article? His kidnapping is just as notable as the Smart one if not more. For example, his was gone much longer. Fighting for Justice 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename to article on abduction Elizabeth Smart is no longer a minor. That nullifies the comparison to Michael Devlin abductees that are minors. That said, Elizabeth Smart is not particularly notable outside of her abduction therefore he bio is not necessary and the relevant details of her life can be covered in the other articles. Remove the personal bio details (i.e. picture, birthdate, etc) --Tbeatty 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article with information on the crime itself, looks set to go, just need to rewrite first paragraph and a change of tense in others Guycalledryan 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I missed the Shawn Hornbeck discussions, and disagree strongly with Fighting for Justice's suggestion that it is hypocritical to comment here without also wading into that swamp - that ship has sailed (and, as many helpful editors have pointed out, there are many, many facts of the two cases that are different). However, two wrongs don't make a right. This article should be kept, as this person is notable. UnitedStatesian 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The DRV for Shawn is ongoing as we speak. It's not finished. Wjhonson 08:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment I know that all of these articles have DRV cases opened on them as soon as the admin. closes the AfD. For me the ship sails at AfD closure, regardless of whether I like the outcome, and it should for more editors. DRV is a very destructive process, IMHO, and I refuse to participate. UnitedStatesian 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - pointy nomination - and in any case, Smart is a public figure, having routinely given interviews over an extended period of term relating directly to her case, and advocacy surrounding it. --Haemo 08:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, this whole nomination is pointy in the extreme - and the editors responsible should be ashamed of abusing the AfD process in such a way. I should reject this deletion solely on the basis of WP:POINT. --Haemo 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Shade (mythology). Daniel 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shade (Undead)

Page seems unsure of what it is about, whether it is fact or fiction. Originally, the references were listed as "Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos", "Eragon book", and "A survey on what people define a shade as". Tags and a prod were added by myself and User:The Kinslayer, though they were all removed two days later, by an anonymous IP. Article lists Durza as a shade, but the Durza article links to Shade (Inheritance), which in turn redirects to Magic (Inheritance), which gives a different description of Shades. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seem to have been in a few games, clean up more appropriate Guycalledryan 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge with shade (mythology)? JulesH 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like JulesH's idea, would seem to fit there better. Whs itc hy 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't about mythology, so it doesn't fit in that article. It's about the concept as it has appeared in fiction and games, most of which is already covered in the relevant articles linked at the disambiguation page. There could possibly be a place for Shade (fiction) on Wikipedia, but this article isn't it. -- Kesh 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shade (mythology). It is true that the (stubby) mythology article does not currently contain information about fictional appearances, but a "Fictional appearances" section would make more sense than an entirely separate article. I'm also not certain that the main "Shade" article is the right place for the D&D mention in so much detail. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Shade (mythology). Any article that cites Warcraft 3 and a book aren't being cited by reliable sources - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shade (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Ingram

Declined speedy. Was nominated as spam, but declined as notable. This is not an encyclopedia entry, this is PR copy. This is spam solely for the purpose of promoting this person. Notability, or a claim of it, should not trump abuse. DarkAudit 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't researched the notability claims, so I won't say delete for now, but I am certain that sections of this article are at least inaccurate: in two different paragraphs, the article claims the subject has written four, and then eight, books. Charlie 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't seem to find much in terms of critical reviews, non notable overall Guycalledryan 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, written as a huge advert along with the article Walk Thru the Bible. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above with a hint of WP:COI as well. Whs itc hy 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD a7. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network

Non-notable organization not covered in independent,reliable sources. ([18] [19] ) Google gives a relatively unimpressive number of unique hits,many of which are fetish sites that use the name as lorem ipsum text. It's not really a part of the Unitarian Universalist Association, so a merge seems inadvisable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research - no reliable references. Non-notable group as well. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations Guycalledryan 08:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guycalledryan, merge to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. --Devin Murphy 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to link cited by Guycalledryan. Orderinchaos 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. Bigdaddy1981 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness

Non-notable organization. No non-trivial mentions in reliable sources and an anemic number of Google hits,none of which leads to a reliable source. Not really a part of the [[Unitarian Universalist Association, so a merger there seems inadvisable. ([20] [21][22]) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the further reading section of the article are not specifically about this group (although they mention it in passing, but could be the basis for an article on Jews and Unitarian Universalism. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research - no reliable references. Non-notable group as well. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless proper sources addedMerge to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations Guycalledryan 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Guycalledryan. --Devin Murphy 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Looking at all the U.U. stuff up for AFD consensus is to delete or merge to this article, and no strong arguments for keeping this article, so the conclusion just seems to delete the 4 currently at AFD. W.marsh 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

This appears to be a hybird of an article and a list. The article part is uncited and so appears to be original research. It's difficult to see how an article could be written about this subject, as the concept does not appear to have been discussed in independent, reliable sources. ([23] [24] [25]) Nominated previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations, which closed as no consensus. The problem with having this as a stand-alone list is that the organizations are not independently notable enough to have their own articles, and thus it is an inappropriate list for Wikipedia. Lists should be lists of articles. From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists): "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Expanding the items on the list to include discussion about each item does not appear to fix the problem, even where stub articles have been created about the non-notable organizations in question, as notability isn't cumulative: you simply cannot combine the articles on several non-notable organizations to pass the notability guidelines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I don't really see what purpose the list serves within Wikipedia. None of its members seem notable. Yechiel Man 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all other articles into this one, notable in that it describes process of Unitarian Universalist Association Guycalledryan 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is an admittedly poorly-named concept. Wikipedia:Notability describes what the word means in this context. The essential problem with a merge is that none of the organizations are described in independent, reliable sources and there are no sources that discuss UU Independent Affiliate Organizations generally. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I agree with Guycalledryan.--Devin Murphy 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship

Non-notable organization. Author couldn't be arsed to cite indepdendent, reliable sources when writing the article and I cannot find any. (See [26] and [27].) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unitarian Universalist Association, non notable by itself Just reread and found "Independent Affiliate", so changed to delete Changed my mind again, probably dealt with by merging all these articles into one Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations article Guycalledryan 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. --Devin Murphy 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources. I don't see the point of a merge, because the cited list is scarcely more than a pure list. You would not need to copy over any actual content from this article. EdJohnston 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: There is no content worth merging. The first two sentences were or are now duplicated in the suggested target. The last sentence is not written from a neutral point of view and thus doesn't merit merging. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists

More crUUft. I suspect this organization must have the same membership numbers as Islamists for Pigs' Knuckles. My search for reliable sources did not prove me wrong. (See [28] and [29].) Lack of reliable sources means that the organization is non-notable and the article should be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations along with all the other articles Guycalledryan 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Guycalledryan. --Devin Murphy 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. Bigdaddy1981 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see how it could be merged, but per the "Pigs' Knuckles" argument, it's not notable. --DodgerOfZion 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Rehermann

I tagged this for proposed deletion as an "unsourced orphan puff about a living person". The tag has been removed but I still see no reliable sources. It's still an orphan. Perhaps this could be cleaned up and sourced. If not, let's delete it. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody's near a good library (and it'd have to be good to have back issues of "American Theatre" magazine), there's an English-language article about him here. Most other possible sources seem to be in Spanish. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tried a cleanup job on the article. es.wikipedia has an article similar to the one here; it seems that someone made a poor effort at translation. Apparently the Spanish speakers consider him notable, and based on the awards he has purportedly received, I would agree. Yechiel Man 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that article as well, in order to assess potential notability, but the account name of the page creator is the same in both cases. It looks like the ES one just received more attention than ours did, as far as cleanup goes. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rehermann appears to be notable, article needs a cleanup, not deletion Guycalledryan 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Referenced in American Theatre. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, already mentioned. I found the full-text article (though I can't read it). :P — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haloid

I nominated this article for proposed deletion a few days ago, saying "this looks like somebody's hobby on the internet". It was untagged, so here we are. I can't see any reliable sources, it's a near-orphan, and well, it might be a merge candidate for something if we could source it but as it is, no. So I propose that we delete this article if it isn't sourced and given a bit of that secret encyclopedic ingredient known as "oomph" over the next few days. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Fan film. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but does register a fair number of GHits. Clarityfiend 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The subject has some notability, but this article needs a serious rewrite to be salvaged first. Rebochan 03:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got some good coverage in Penny Arcade. I'll see what I can dig up. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Wikipedia article for a home-made movie? Not meeting WP:NN or WP:FILM. The Sunshine Man 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sources demonstrating notability are added Guycalledryan 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the following reliable source demonstates notability: [30] (writer is a professional research at MIT's media studies program, as well as a leading game industry professional, so clearly qualifies despite being a blog per WP:V; first commenter is also a professional expert on the game industry with particular expertise in promotion). Also has "about" 120,000 ghits. Over 2 million views on its page at GameTrailer.com, not including the views for the copies of it on youtube, google video and other popular video sharing sites. Seems pretty notable to me. JulesH 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete comments, and redirect to Xerox which was originally known as The Haloid Company. --Metropolitan90 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is keep, would a disambig page solve that issue? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we could probably handle that issue with just a hatnote, not even needing a disambig page: --Metropolitan90 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Google / YouTube indicates WP:N, but I agree with above that it should be marked for heavy clean-up.
Delete – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this seems to be fancruft. All references to Haloid in scholarly journals refer to Xerox; this should be made into a redirect. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ephemeral fancruft that serves no real purpose, has no notability (youtube and google hits are NOT a basis for that, see WP:BIGNUMBER, and even more importantly, WP:GOOGLEHITS to see why this is absolutely, positively, not a valid reason to keep this article) This is a homemade video, no corporate sponsorship, no publishing requisites, so again, not notable on that count. Also, take note that Notability is not temporary and requires objective evidence, more things that have not been shown for this article's subject. Perhaps some of this information may be adequately merged into a larger article such as a list of internet memes in general or some such thing, but until a demonstrated and concrete (that is long term) notability is established, this needs to be scuttled. Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a qualifier either. Just because youtube video xyz or fanfiction abcexists doesn't mean this should. In fact, if their notability is as questionable as this one, using that argument will probably result in their deletion as well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One Supporters Association

Organization NN. Considered for AFD at the F1 WikiProject talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Formula_One_Supporters_Association --Guroadrunner 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is POV for racing fans, and fails to provide any sources for notability. Yechiel Man 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom as WP:VSCA. Another non-notable organisation which doesn't meet the policy and has a fair few POV issues. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this article on the wrong site? First ghit is fosa.org Guycalledryan 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I knew what I was doing here, posting this is quite confusing. If it is wrong, I apologise. With regard to the Formula One Supporters Association, the URL fosa.org is not related to the Formula One Supporters Association. As per the original link on the FOSA article in Wikipedia, the real site is at the URL stipulated there. It is not merely a fan club, but a genuine voice of the passionate fans. They provide a service to all F1 fans and are always willing to help anyone in any matter related to F1 as a sport. Again, my apologies if I have made this entry incorrectly. K. Sozenovich

Delete seems be be speedyable as nn group or spam. Vegaswikian 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe E. Holoubek

Non notable author. Not widely known of or a significant expert so fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article reads like an obituary because that newspaper obituaries are the primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Graham (talk • contribs)

Puzzled. This isn't the usual career of an academic. Claims " founder of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport " which sounds impressive except it's based on a quote in a local newspaper. Butt here is something which might counts: "president from 1961-1963 of the Catholic Medical Association."

as a writer of inspirational literature, I can't judge. As medical science, If his accounts of Jesus' death, have been referred to as standard works in other such papers, that might reasonably be notability. I've seen at least one paper on the subject in JAMA--I wonder what I'll find. DGG 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete NN as a researcher: checking in the indexes, 16 articles of his are listed in Web of Science, only 94 citations total; only one paper deals with crucifixion: Holubek JE, Holubek AB, Execution by Crucifixion--History, Methods, and Cause of Death. Journal of Medicine 26 (1-2): 1-16 1995 Times Cited: 2 Maslen MW, Mitchell PD, Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 185-188 APR 2006 and Holoubek JE, Holoubek AB Blood, sweat and fear - A classification of hematidrosis Journal of Medicine 27 (3-4): 115-133 1996 (hematidrosis=sweating blood);

There may be other minor papers not listed there.

He may conceivably be notable as a medical administrator. DGG 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of documentation on his status as a professor and researcher. Not enough notability without that. The things people write about him are (1) practiced internal medicine for 40 years, (2) wrote inspirational books, (3) helped promote the creation of the Shreveport branch of the LSU medical school. Along the way he was a clinical professor of medicine but it's not clear if that was more than a courtesy title. DGG found some of his medical publications but they seem rather limited. He mentions one publication that got two citations. EdJohnston 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colligo Contributor

Not notable software with few reliable sources. 600 google results. few google news archive results. John Vandenberg 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the author's username and contrib history, there's strong evidence for WP:COI. Unless it's clearly notable, delete it. Yechiel Man 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oana Frigescu

Insufficient evidence of notability. Strangerer (Talk) 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian page on her seems to have little content as well, but I can't translate those sources. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- Strangerer (Talk) 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. Yechiel Man 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Does seem notable, albeit in another language. Perhaps seek the view of someone from the Romanian project? Guycalledryan 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Romanian TV Guide reference convinces me that this is a notable person. MKoltnow 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes; if there is a real article here, write it; don't expect us to deduce it from sources in Rumanian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is basically empty and does nothing to assert notability. Vegaswikian 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of subject not established. Indrian 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Courts

Small ~~housing project~~ council estate in Northern Ireland. The only assertion of notability is a passing mention in a BBC article as an example of what various orgs were doing with revenue from the lottery. --Dynaflow babble 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep If it's mentioned by Britain's top TV station, then it is marginally notable.--Kylohk 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:N or any other notability guideline. Passing mention in BBC article is evidence of existence but not evidence (or even assertion really) of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Minor notability from media, but not quite enough Guycalledryan 08:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention in Beeb article on Lottery funding ≠ "multiple, non-trivial references". tomasz. 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - 200 houses = perhaps 900 people. That is bigger than some villages. This is a stub and should be tagged so. Nevertheless it is only a small community in a substantial city. Peterkingiron 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article is an attempt to assert notability. Are we saying any housing project is notable by default? If not, then the article needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WBRPG

Unverifiable, Neologism, article was originally WBORPG until I prodded it and pointed out that the acronym had only 4 ghits. The deprodded and moved article ostensibly gets 125,000, (but less than 30 uniques), almost none of which refer to the article, since the article title is both the acronym for 'Web Based Roleplaying Game' and the model for a wireless router. WBORPG is now a redirect to this article, so that should go too.--Aim Here 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm all but certain we deleted something named roughly web-based role playing game, but I can't find it. Maybe around February. Anyone else?--Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again?). Google finds nothing at all relating to the use of this acronym for wiki-based games. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unless references can be added, perhaps expanded on another section of the project off mainspace Guycalledryan 08:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute

very simple, shooting article was deleted,so this must be as well. Should really be nominated for speedy deletion. -- Rodrigue 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD listing was not completed. I just did it. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy Keep While high schools are not always notable, the shooting definitely makes this one notable. The article needs more references and some expansion, but it was only recently started as a result of the AfD on the shooting (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting). Although that AfD was not properly listed, many argued there that the shooting page should be merged into an article about the school. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely, school made notable by the shooting Guycalledryan 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well It does not matter if you think thats what some said, because that was not the result of the AFD, and this article no longer meets Wikipedia:Notability since the shooting event is no longer considered so as well. Rodrigue 12:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the shooting itself does not meet the requirements of notability does not meant that the school itself does not. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the irony - "Move to C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute and make it a section. It would then be easier for readers to find. I doubt anybody will question the notability of the school in light of the shooting and resultant press coverage. --Butseriouslyfolks", from the actual incident's AfD Guycalledryan 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are an endless source of fascination for me. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability is determined by the media. The school has enough references to have an article and be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs at least one more secondary source to pass notability standards, but as it has one strong one to start with I'll say there's a presumed notability unless demonstrated otherwise. Looking at the Afd about the shooting I believe the nom is a bit confused. The final decision by the closing admin was NOT delete it was (quoting) "I've userfied the content at User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting for appropriate merging into the article on the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. FCYTravis 18:19, 28 May 2007". In other words, the closing decision was that the information belonged in this article. In fact, that closing argument is a tacit decision that an article on the Institute that discusses the shooting is an a priori Keep -Markeer 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close and investigate nominator for vexatious, improperly listed AfDs. Nomination is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. His very first AfD on these related topics (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting) concluded with an admin Userifying a shooting article to merge it into a new article about the school. They were NOT judged as worthy of being deleted. This nomination is entirely flawed and I would close it immediately if I could. Canuckle 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I took the original shooting content from the Userfied page and added it to the article. I also suggested that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Manners article be merged here. Canuckle 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to faulty logic in the nomination. DCEdwards1966 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; nomination appears to be based on bad logic and a faulty reading of the Jordan Manners AFD. Bearcat 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established based on sources provided. while incident may not justify a standalone article, the details belong here are sourced and establish notability. Alansohn 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the school is notable per WP:N for the significant, nontrivial press coverage arising from the shooting. The school was thrust into the national spotlight, and the school's responses and the impact on the students both received significant coverage. Also, the consensus at the prior AfD was not that the shooting was nonnotable; it was that we don't write Wikipedia articles around shootings themselves, but rather around the people and places involved. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, no, It was deleted for lack of notability because it was a simple homocide.Wikipedia has articles on school shootings such as the Virginia tech massacre, as well as people and places surrounding them, if the shooting itself was notable Rodrigue 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rodrigue: Possibly you missed where I quoted the closing outcome. The final outcome of that AfD was not delete it was, quoting: "I've userfied the content at User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting for appropriate merging into the article on the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. FCYTravis 18:19, 28 May 2007" The closing admin who determined that the article should be saved in the creators workspace was User:Royalguard11. This information can be found in the top area (above the redlink to the original article) of the AfD discussion on that article. Please do not keep saying that the determination was to delete. It was not. When the outcome of an AfD is to delete, the closing admin states that delete is the outcome at the top of the AfD. -Markeer 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by AlisonW (see below). Hut 8.5 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ny'sera the Golden Watcher

This seems to be original research in the case that it seems to have been created by the creator of the page. Meaning that this fictional character seems to have been created by this person and is not used in any notable fictions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No google hits whatsoever Guycalledryan 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Hut 8.5 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kind of like fanfic but not. Kind of like original research but not really "research". Falls between all stools. tomasz. 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps BJAODN. I must confess that the opening,
Graceful certainty reflects in twin gems of mossy green, like two pools of clear serenity her eyes gaze out from beneath two golden brows. Her face is gently carved, giving faint glimmers of cheekbones and a slender jaw.
has to be one of the most bemusing things I've read here. "Faint glimmers of cheekbones" strikes a nicely Argonesque note. Be sure to zap the picture as well, if it hasn't been already; it looks like a photoshopped glamour photo. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post background bios of fictional RPG characters. The picture should most definitely be zapped immediately as it is a copyvio stolen from http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/k/o/kozienko/kozienko.html. Arkady Rose 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed and speedied. --AlisonW 18: 15, 1 June 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 Speedy deleted outside of the discussion by User:Stephen at 21:03, 1 June. The deletion log states "content was: '{{db-club}}" Non-admin closure. -- saberwyn 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JUPO

I don't think this is notable, I had put db-group on it, but User:TThurston removed it so, I am doing the Afd process Jackaranga 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy Delete- The COI author admits its an ad at the top of the page. What more speedy criteria do you need? No citations? Non-Neutral Point of View? Original Research? Sure, a single edit account took off the db-group, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still get the same outcome. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of that was added after, also I did no want to push my point of view, when 2 persons opposed it. Jackaranga 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object-Since there is absolutely no questionable content on this page. This page does not sell questionable or borderline pornographic material like Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales was once accused of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Train26 (talk • contribs) — D-Train26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy Delete as non-notable conflict of interest. DarkAudit 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, removing a prod means send to AfD, removing a speedy tag does not mean an AfD is required. The tag removal was User:TThurston's only edit. A7 tag has been restored. DarkAudit 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this, for the last time, 1. when I nominated on AfD the article was not how it is now, and 2. I did not want to give more weight to my opinion than to the opinion of 2 other users, even if they are very new on wikipedia. Jackaranga 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process thanks you for that! You did right. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object- A7 states that it is an unremarkable group, but just because some haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't pertain to some. Wikipedia could by these standards delete anything that they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersticks (talk • contribs) — Thundersticks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
ATTENTION- It always amuses me to see how serious some people take Wiki. I love the fact that someone put that box up. {| class="wikitable"

|- !ATTENTION!!!! ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | You wrote that from your mother's basement!!!! | Girls don't talk to you for a reason!!!! | row 1, cell 3 |- | You take Wiki too seriously!!!! | Shouldn't you be playing D&D right now???? | row 2, cell 3 |} I'm just kidding, but seriously calm down, everyone...it's Wiki. not Judgement Day.Notimeatall 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)notimeatall — Notimeatall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is the article written, or is it possible for a version of the article to be written, in the majority or in its entirety from material taken from what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, which are independant of the group or its members (to prevent possible the problems associated with a conflict of interest while writing a Wikipedia article)? Do these independant, reliable sources demonstrate how this particular group meets any of the various notability inclusion guidelines (for example the one on groups and organisations or the one on people? Failing that, delete as unable to meet the Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- saberwyn 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to aplogize for comments that I made not long ago to the person that put that box up. The comments made were juvenile and rude. I'm sorry.Notimeatall 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)notimeatall[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in one school day. Seriously, this screms WP:VSCA and there is a demonstrated bias in the article. From the amount of *cruft articles on AfD today, it looks like everyone needs to raise their WikiDefcon levels and stay alert. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 10 people meeting every 2-4 weeks to play poker with no real stakes is not notable even if sourced (which this article isn't) Guycalledryan 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for a non-notable organisation, and one that appears to have a ridiculously high opinion of itself. BTLizard 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Tarango(tennis player)

Article is a copy of Jeff Tarango with no useful improvements made. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, he was a better doubles player... Clarityfiend 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there is anything worth saving (I don't think so) or otherwise Redirect to Jeff Tarango. Doesn't really need to be at AfD. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeff Tarango Black Harry 04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was bold and redirected this to Jeff Tarango. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article/redirect. As an article, it seems to be a pure duplicate. As a redirect, it is an implausible typo that falls under CSD R3. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Linux

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Linux distributions. No need for a solo article - Richfife 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom, it seems unnecessary to have a stub when it could be merged into a bigger article. The Sunshine Man 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software release that is past its shelf life. Even its own website is "undergoing maintenace". --Gavin Collins 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect/merge. W.marsh 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EHUX

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Linux distributions. No need for a solo article - Richfife 03:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are uncited, and article does not provide context into which it could be merged with another article. --Gavin Collins 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Linux distributions. John Vandenberg 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Joyous! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (Non-admin close). cab 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Quinn

Not enough info, non-encyclopidic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007 02:42 (UTC)

Comment fixed malformed nom. cab 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was No consensus Malla nox 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Said Bin Said Zaid

The onyl biographical information on Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is found in the header. The rest of the article is about procedures and other information about Guantanamo Bay detention camps. The article does not state the notability or importance of the subject other than the fact they are being held at Guantanamo Bay. --Ozgod 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for soapboxing. Notability not established within article. Eddie.willers 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which passages of this article you think are soapboxing. -- Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From 'Walid Said Bin Said Zaid' to 'Afghan people' - the entire article reads as something written by a POV Soapboxer. Eddie.willers 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense, but this is not a serious answer... remainder of discussion moved to User:Geo Swan#Walid Said Bin Said Zaid at Eddie's suggestion... Geo Swan 11:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. As a result of the discussion alluded to above, I retract my 'Delete' and withdraw from this AFD debate. Lack of free time precludes my ability to offer a reasoned or honed response to Geo Swan points. Eddie.willers 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I would kind of like there to be articles for each of detainees, but I'm not sure it's objectively a good idea. All of these articles should be combined into one long one. The bios are about the right length. Then redirects created for each of the names to the centralized article. - Richfife 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion has been made before. My personal opinion is that a union list should only be a supplement to the existing articles, not a replacement. Nevertheless, I adapted a list in my rough work space, to bring it close to the skeleton of a union list. It is over 420K long. Long enough to make it problematic to render. And problematic for anyone unfamiliar with it to find what they might be looking for. Here it is.
Delete simply being a prisoner does not make one notable. Almost nothing about the subject himself in this article. Resolute 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive essay, but not relevant, imo. If anything, it argues to me that you are on a POV based crusade. When the only thing that can be said about the subject of an article is "He is a prisoner, and he might have been born on x date." the individual is not notable, regardless of your opinion of the circumstances of his imprisonment. Resolute 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) -- Did you spend enough time looking at the article to see that it quotes the allegations against him prepared for the Summary of Evidence memo that was presented to his Administrative Review Board. Walid Said Bin Said Zaid#Administrative Review Board?

In your other recent comment here you asked for "multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources". Are you disputing that an official DoD memo asserting factors for and against his continuing detention is a reliable source"?

Perhaps you are asserting that the official DoD memo, which states he attended an al Qaeda training camp, and that his name was found on a list of al Qaeda members, is a "trivial" document?

Regarding your implied accusation that I am POV pushing. I urge you to consider the possibility that your decision that this document is "trivial" is a reflection of your hidden systemic bias. In other words, have you considered the possibility that your efforts to suppress coverage of this material is reflection of a biased POV on your part.

Above, you wrote: "...When the only thing that can be said about the subject of an article is "He is a prisoner, and he might have been born on x date." the individual is not notable, regardless of your opinion of the circumstances of his imprisonment." I think this passage illustrates your POV. There is a specturm of opinions about the circumstances of the imprisonment at Guantanamo. It would be a breach of WP:NPOV, and other policies, if the Said Zaid article said, "He is a human rights victim! The USA is violating the Geneva Convention! George Bush is a War Criminal!" That opinion would lie near one end of the spectrum. And the position you have taken, that this material on Said Zaid should be suppressed, lies at the other end of the spectrum. The POV I wrote from when I worked on this article is, I strongly believe, a neutral point of view, right in the middle, between your extreme view, and the extreme view of someone prepared to call George Bush a war criminal.

Yes, I have a personal POV. We all do. Everyone participating in this discussion has one. Participating in the wikipedia doesn't require us get a lobotomy, so we don't have a POV. It merely requires we exercise discipline to make sure we don't inject our POV into the articles we work on. I make a big effort to make sure I don't. I don't expect to success 100% of the time. That is why I follow up on ever suggestion that my efforts have lapsed. But I believe I largely succeed because I hardly ever get serious, specific challenges.

Can you point to a specific passage that you feel lapsed from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:VER? If not, sorry, but I don't consider complaints that can't cite specific passages to be serious. Geo Swan 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused it of failing NOR or VER, so that request is irrelevent. The POV pushing is highlighted by your arguments. Ie: that I apparently want to "suppress" this material because I disagree with you. It isn't a matter of suppression, it is a matter of notability. The PDFs that you linked are out there, but that does not mean they have to be on Wikipedia. My vote has no bearing on my personal opinion - or lack thereof - of Guantanamo detainees. I also find your need to write articles about random, non-notable prisoners to be POV itself, as your argument to keep is rooted in WP:ILIKEIT rather than in policy. Just because you feel it is important that articles for every prisoner exists does not mean articles for every prisoner should exist. These people are, for the most part, not notable, yet you attempt to invent notability out of thin air.

The DoD memo I would consider one reliable source, though the triviality of Zaid's mention is debatable. Regardless, you simply cut and pasted the information. There has been no critical commentary about this individual - which you yourself could not provide without violating WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of public domain material. The list of prisoners is a trivial link with respect to Zaid, as he obviously is not the focus of it, but rather is nothing more than a one line mention. Triviality is determined not only by the origin of the link itself, but by how much is written about the subject you are writing about.

The fact is, this individual is simply a random prisoner. He has done nothing outstanding to set himself apart from other Guantanamo prisoners. He exists, he is imprisoned, and he had a review. I fail to see how this individual is notable, and accusing me of systemic bias hardly serves to establish his notability. Resolute 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If people murdered by terrorists are deemed by Wikipedia to be non notable, and they almost always are, I see no justification for this article. As has been pointed out there's virtually no information about him in the article either. Nick mallory 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry,
  - but, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are discouraged from citing existing articles that they think share an aspect of the article under debate, to argue that an article should be kept.
  - Similarly, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are discouraged from citing articles that have been deleted, that they think share an aspect with the article under debate, to argue that the article in question should also be deleted.
  - Rather, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are strongly encouraged to judge each article nominated for deletion solely on its merits, and how fully it complies with policy. — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the advice Geo Swan. I still find your tireless advocacy for the terrorist suspects at Gitmo entirely unpersuasive however. As you're so keen to lecture me on Wikipedia procedure could you answer where the significance or notability of this particular terrorist suspect is asserted in the article? Nick mallory 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying this to be sarcastic. I honestly want to know. Are you really saying that if I had inserted the phrase "...is notable because..." somewhere in the article you would not have agreed that it should be deleted? Okay, so what if I had said "he is notable because he is being held under conditions that many legal scholars and human rights workers have called a violation of the Geneva Conventions?"
I dispute that I am a tireless advocate for the captives at Guantanamo. I make a big effort to for my contributions to article space to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. Did you mean to tell me you think some of my contributions to article space have lapsed into advocacy?
If you are aware of any articles about victims of terrorism, or survivors of terrorism, that are currently in {{afd}} I'd be happy to go read them. If you know of a stub sorting for them I would be interested in putting it on my watchlist. If you want to initiate an undeletion, let me know and I will be sure to go and take a look. FWIW I started several articles about survivors or victims of terrorism. I started Kathleen Kenna, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath, Layne Morris, Christopher Speer and articles about half a dozen Afghanistanis, and South Asians who were assassinated by terrorists..
Cheers -- Geo Swan 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the article doesn't even mention him, but rather describes his general situation. Delete as non-notable prisoner. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but don't you think the allegations against him are "about" him?
- You couldn't know this, but the wikipedia is the only freely available resource on the internet where an interested reader can look up the transcripts, or summary of evidence memos.

The only real thing that mentions this prisoner is the opening sentence so how does he deserve an ENTIRE article?. In theory, you can just merge his name along with other names from the prison. As per Arkyan, this is more of the broad issue of the detainment rather than an individual person----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this comment from Dysepsion disturbsed me. I wrote them, about it. and we had the following exchange: [31], [32]. -- Geo Swan 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer — I started this article.
- No offense — No offense, but there have been close to two dozen attempts to delete articles that are related to Guantanamo. And most of those nominations, and many of the opinions expressed, are based on simple misconceptions. One of those misconceptions is repeated here — namely that Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is just a prisoner, like millions of other prisoners. Here is an answer I gave three weeks ago on my talk page. If you think Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is just a prisoner, like a million other prisoners, with nothing exceptional about his case, please read: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
- Finding Said Zaid's allegation memo? — Is it possible to find all of Said Zaid's transcripts and memos, without using the wikipedia article to find the link to the right page numbers, in the right pdfs? Sure. But it would take about an afternoon:
- (removed a list of the steps to find Said Zaid's allegation memo, if this article was removed...)
- Couldn't those page number and file number references be put into one huge union list? Well, as I said, I took a crack at making a union list. I spent over 100 hours at it. It is something like 2/3 finished. Or maybe far less than half finished, given it will require proof reading, and editing for style and appearance, before it can be put into article space. On April 18th I asked for help on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees#total rewrite?. No one has volunteered yet.
- Cheers! — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What on earth has the lengthy comment posted above got to do with the merits of this article's inclusion or otherwise on Wikipedia? As someone who earlier lectured at length on the Wikipedia guidelines for comments at AfDs I would have expected the writer to know that any supposed difficulty in finding information from another source has absolutely nothing to do with the merit, or otherwise, of that information appearing on Wikipedia. Usually notablity is asserted on Wikipedia by linking to sources directly relevant to the article, Geo Swan seems to be making the novel argument that because such sources clearly don't exist for this terrorist suspect that means he should have an article here. That's the complete opposite of the usual rationale, presumably he's appealing to IAR rather than anything else here? Nick mallory 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I truly appreciate Geo Swan's dedication to the Gitmo articles, and have had some friendly interaction on related topics. However a review of this article shows it is more about the broader issue of the detainment rather than this particular detainee, and a glance at the several dozen other detainee articles shows the bulk of these articles are identical. I would support retaining these articles as redirects to a central article about the Guantanamo detainees or perhaps a tabular list of detainees, but it's a little late to include several dozen other articles into this AfD. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from being a soapbox, article devotes much space to specifying the allegations against him, based on the Pentagon's own contentions. I agree that not every prisoner in the world is notable but the attention paid to Guantanamo detainees is an order of magnitude beyond what most prisoners get. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am certain, then, that you can provide multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources that focus directly on this individual, as opposed to Guantanamo Bay detainees as a whole? The focus on the prisoners as a whole is already well covered at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Resolute 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JamesMLane summarised it pretty well. I've said it before, reconsidered at length, and continue to maintain that all of these individuals are notable because of the nature, scale and likely historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy, for a very good reason. The article is well constructed and fully compliant with the core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I see no NPOV issues in the article - it summarises who the prisoner is, what's he's accused of, and provides updates on his status in the detention camp. Why is he any less notable than Eldad Regev or any other person "notable chiefly for being captured"? He is also "unique" and "noteworthy" as a Guantanamo prisoner who actually supports the US war in Afghanistan and has said he has been treated fairly throughout his detainment. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not Notable --Bill.matthews 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. The referenced document (Factors for and against the continued detention) incudes about 50 similar cases, which almost immediatelly renders each one as not notable, while the whole set is notable but already covered here and at wikibooks. - Nabla 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As Cactus Man said above, WP:BIO is a guideline. This article is important, NPOV/neutral, particularly as it is sourced primarily using DOD information. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to cover topics like this in as great a depth as possible. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgression (Latter Day Saints)

Not clear at all that this is an actual doctrine in Latter Day Saint theology that is distinct from "sin" (as presented in the article). Article provides no sources. Internet research on topic yields two quotes from historical LDS leaders which can be interpreted as generally supporting the article's contentions, but these quotes are contradicted by quotes from other leaders and sources. No indication on lds.org that this is an official doctrine of the LDS Church. Cannot find any other information that other smaller Latter Day Saint denominations have adopted this doctrine either. Sounds like the editors may have been inspired by the legal distinction between malum in se crimes and malum prohibitum crimes. No one has disputed placement of notability tag on discussion page. Very few of the articles dealing with Latter Day Saint beliefs link to it. SESmith 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll research this a bit before casting a !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was raised LDS (I've long since left the religion) and I've never heard the term differentiated this way. When I poked around on the web, I find a curious number of anti-LDS sites arguing the same points the article makes, but no real LDS sites. It seems like an attempt to muddy the theological waters to gain traction in some anti-LDS arguments. Wikipedia is not the place for that. - Richfife 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no cited sources in the article giving evidence whether this is actual Latter-Day Saint doctrine. TheInfinityZero 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not for things made up in a school day I concur with Richfife on it not being refered to like that by the religion, however I think it would be wise to seek comment from the LDS WikiProject for their comments before taking action. I also concur that there seems to be a sense of WP:COPYVIO with this entry as well. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While my research is strictly colloquial, to quote somebody who was born and raised hardcore LDS, it is "when you fucked up royally against someone!". In short, what's here is not even correct in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix or Delete. The article is poorly written and unsourced, but it does identify why LDS don't believe that the fall of man was a sin. In its current form, it should be deleted, but I see the potential for it to be a valid article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was raised in the LDS church and never heard anything to this effect - the term transgression was used synonymously with sin. My memory might always be flawed - but a check for info turns up the same lack of anything verifiable. Nothing here to fix or merge as it appears to be totally unverifiable at best, patently false at worst. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a current member of the Latter-Day Saint church, and having checked a few sources to make sure I was correct on this, this is utterly non-doctrine within the LDS Church.Maintainerzero 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Unless someone can come up with some references to the contrary, the only transgression that is not a sin that has been given doctrinally is the fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore, merge this portion into the sin article then delete this article. Val42 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I am a CURRENT AND FAITHFUL member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have added a reference to an address given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Twelve Apostles, who the original author of the article under question blatantly plagiarized. Roughly 70% of the original article is a paraphrase/quote from Elder Oaks. Nemesis135
- I would consider this to be one reliable source. If there is nothing else to corroborate this, though, my !vote will stand. Anyone else on this?
  - Corrolary: This is one secondary reliable source. Need a primary though - the contents of Ensign, if I remember right, aren't necessarily considered to be actual doctrine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still for Delete: Contents of Ensign are not necessarily doctrine, nor are statements of one apostle of the church. Still not convinced. -SESmith 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - with the addition of a source this article is now putting far too much undue weight on a single turn of phrase used in a single instance. If anything that quote is about the fall of Adam and in no way intended to create a second class of "spiritual infractions". Taking the fact that one man said the fall is a transgression and not a sin and subsequently putting your own spin on the word is silly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemonexperte

Pokemon fan site that makes a claim to notability by stating that it's the largest of its kind in Europe. No source to really substantiate such a claim. Borderline speedy deletion candidate, decided on discussion instead. Leebo ^T/C 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamiwhatchamacallit. Somehow I doubt that the real largest Pokémon site would fail to properly put the grave accent over the E... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the diacritic in Pokémon is acute rather than grave, but the idea remains the same :) Leebo ^T/C 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Delete per 10PH. tomasz. 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per TenPoundHammer Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, many Pokemon sites don't put the accent on the E. And it is the largest competitive Pokemon community in Europe, if you enter the forum and click "statistik" you will see over 9000 registered users. Other sites such as Pallettown (Pokemon community in the Netherlands) and pcforums (Pokemon community based in Italy) pale in comparison, Pokemonexperte is easily the most recognizable European Pokemon community. — Defal555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:25, June 1, 2007 (UTC).
Comment. i can't find "having a large number of members" and "paling in comparison with other sites" in WP:WEB. tomasz. 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) speedy delete Checking the logs, it was speedied already for being non-notable, think it's still like that. Whs itc hy 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, see WP:BIGNUMBER Whs itc hy 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"i can't find "having a large number of members" and "paling in comparison with other sites"

Then check the sites for yourself instead of blabbing on about how it isn't notable.

www.pallettown.com

Just checked, pcforums doesn't even exist anymore! So why don't you find a competitive European Pokemon site that's bigger then? Pokemonexperte is the only active European Pokemon community that has a Netbattle server as well.

Also, I just linked the topic that contains the Hall of Fame as well as the member list (Which shows over 9000 registered users).

"Somehow I doubt that the real largest Pokémon site would fail to properly put the grave accent over the E"

Just felt like commenting on this stupid remark, wow what a dumb comment considering I'm referring to COMPETITIVE Pokemon sites and not general ones, so wtf? — Defal555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Then check the sites for yourself instead of blabbing on about how it isn't notable. He's referring to our notability guidelines for web content. Having a lot of members doesn't make a web community notable. Leebo ^T/C 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. "wow what a dumb comment considering I'm referring to COMPETITIVE Pokemon sites and not general ones". Is Pokémon spelt differently depending on whether you're competing or not, then? tomasz. 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to avoid egging each other on. The creator is a new user and is not familiar with our standards for inclusion. Understandably, he is frustrated. Leebo ^T/C 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Having a lot of members doesn't make a web community notable."

But it is notable, being the largest competitive community alone makes it notable.

"Is Pokémon spelt differently depending on whether you're competing or not, then?"

So instead of responding to my point you continue to use something very insignificant that doesn't matter? — Defal555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But it is notable, being the largest competitive community alone makes it notable. No, it doesn't. Did you read Wikipedia:Notability (web) before responding? We have definitions of notability for different subjects. Leebo ^T/C 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It met the qualifications, and you guys haven't been able to disprove anything. It seems like when one of you wants something deleted, the others just randomly agree like a bunch of minions. — Defal555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please indicate which criterion in the notability guidelines it meets. Copy the text if that will make it more clear. Leebo ^T/C 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Being a "minion" as you said I supposed I should give you a chance to show how this site meets WP:WEB.

From WP:WEB itself:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.

Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:

Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

Can you show where it meets ANY of these 3? Wildthing61476 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurumin Games

Low-quality article on non-notable topic. Chealer 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Linux distro. Delete. We aren't linux.org. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List on List of Linux distributions and get rid of it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Time!

This article was submitted for WP:PROD but the PROD tag was removed. Summer Time! is described as a series made for YouTube which will not premiere until late 2007. No sources are provided, and I haven't found any. Although the cast listing makes the series appear to be an offshoot of High School Musical, I suspect that this may be merely a series of fan-produced amateur videos (as is the case with High School Musical 2: The Series, the article for which was created by the same editor). This as-yet unreleased web content does not satisfy WP:WEB and should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and wizzard2k. WP:VSCA, Crystalballery and does not meet the web notability guidelines. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and wizzard. Whs itc hy 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal, notability G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 05:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photogeno

Odd combination of original research, insufficient references, confusing terminology, image lifted from another website (see "red algae" link on the MIT page) without attribution and has a history of strange edits. Tried to WP:AGF as long as possible, but I think this may be a hoax. AlphaEta 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Others unable to verify even the existance of the listed sources, nevermind whether they actually support this thing. Neither the topic itself nor the page's prime editor (==self-professed researcher in the field, Dr. Mandellez) give any relevant google hits. Page creator has not provided viable sources despite several requests. We could be generous and say it's OR, but still...RS-or-die time. DMacks 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict. Delete as hoax. Only "source" containing relevant word in title gets zero ghits, there seem to be no relevant sources online, and photogeni is an impossible plural of photogeno in either Greek or Latin. Deor 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Unless valid sources can be provided, at which time I will reconsider my opinion. Corvus cornix 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Hoax. Sounds like someone took the algae page, removed a lot of crap, and passed it off in the 1st person no less. I thought that was an image of red algae on there. Whs itc hy 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codependent Collegian

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously kept after a "no consensus" closure at AfD. DRV overturned, holding that the AfD was under-attended, and failed to address adequately WP:V concerns. This is a procedural relisting, so I ~~abstain~~. Xoloz 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tony is playing red-tape games, and I don't have time for his silliness, Delete the thing, fails WP:V. Xoloz 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a deletion rationale. Wasn't so hard, was it? --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of POINT violation? Surely something should only be listed for deletion if someone believes it should be deleted. I'm not sure what to make of a nominator re-opening his own nomination after a close, and then providing a different rationale either. It's not good form to reverse a close regardless. What's going on Xoloz? Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV ordered relisting, Mack. Tony wants to enforce silly red-tape against abstentions, and too busy to fight it -- so I express the will of the DRV (and my own opinion, too) that this has a WP:V problem. Unless you, Mack, are also in love with b'cracy, I'd suggest that we let the AfD, an expression of the DRV's consensus that this needed to be here, continue. Or, if you like, I can use the DRV to justify outright deletion -- a little extreme, since everyone said "relist", but if you and Tony wish to mire AfD in red-tape such that referrals from DRV become impossible here, it is one option that remains. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather dislike bureaucracy, especially the needless kind. Saying "relist" when an article survives AfD is silly--just nominate it again if you think it needs deleting! Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting immediately after something has survived AFD will bring about calls for "speedy keep", "it was kept just yesterday", "how many times do we need to discuss this", "sanction nominator for wasting our time", etc. By sending it to DRV first, an endorsement of an early rerun can be had without that happening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the external links provided in the article support the claims of notability (i.e., reliable sources in national print publications). Closure of this AfD was out-of-process, and Xoloz's reversal was entirely justified. Deor 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz seems to be terribly confused. If Xoloz wants to delete articles he can provide a deletion rationale like everyone else or refrain from nominating for deletion articles he claims he does not want to delete. This article is completely unverifiable, so I agree with the rationale. It's just this guy's blog. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I beg your pardon? When the clear consensus at DRV is to relist, how is it wrong for someone to relist? Deor 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's objection is that Xoloz relisted without providing a rationale to delete, an objection that I share. Relisting itself is not the issue. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done a check of news archives and can't find anything. Google turns up under a thousand non-Wikipedia hits. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All participants in tonight's squabble about nothing in particular should step away from the computer for a few minutes and enjoy a refreshing beverage. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely after 8 weeks since the 1st AfD nom, and 9 months of being essentially a stub, the article line "...featured in major media such as CBS, MTV, Fark, and Sports Illustrated..." could be properly attributed per WP:CITE, no? As I look at it, one Fark in external links does not WP:V make (nor is that one Fark cited properly...) LaughingVulcan 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this listing shows is that there is a lot of ignorance about how to get things done on Wikipedia, even amongst quite experienced editors. User:JzG, a very experienced administrator, disagreed quite rightly with the "no consensus" result in April, but he could have dealt with this by one of two very simple ways: proposed deletion or simply relist giving his rationale for deletion. The discussion would probably be over by now. Instead he went to deletion review, which took five days to do what JzG could have done in the first place.

Since this article has already had seventeen days of discussion wasted on it, and it's obviously just some guy's blog and is composed of unsourced statements, I suggest that we cut to the chase and speedy close as delete. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROD would have been a highly inappropriate in this case. Immediate relist on AFD would have brought up the responses I mention above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with what Deor said. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT For it's online component, it's a blog, and on that alone it does not meet WP:WEB. It also doesn't qualify for conferred notability on the basis of what sites have linked to it or discussed it. It's not a serious work, does not confer with WP:RS, and the article does not meet WP:NPOV. Should I go on... I think not. Delete this as just another *cruft article, salt it, and make the wiki a better place. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. Only 72 G-hits (the lead ones being this article and mirrors), and every single one of them seem to be blogs; the purported features in/on SI, CBS and MTV somehow don't seem to have made it to any archive. Ravenswing 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most everyone. While it claims notability, nothing seems to be verifiable (even things that should be easily verified). Closenplay 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No mention found in full-text search of major publications. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the claim of mention in major publications can be sourced. if the eds. who wrote it think it was thecase, they presumably have the references. As I see it, it was relisted because there was almost no participation in the first AfD--a reasonable complaint. But now there is. DGG 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my unanswered question above and per DGG LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me} ^{or Logical Entries} 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable independent sources to verify claims of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:A. Third time's charm. Edison 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of verifiable secondary sources, and Xoloz, Tony Sideaway and Mackensen all need to kindly take a step back in the future. If the three of you wish to have a private conversation about procedure, please go do so on each other's talk pages. Having never seen this article before THIS AfD I wasted my own time translating all of your bickering to absolutely no benefit before posting my opinion on this AfD, and I suspect I'm not the only editor that happened to. My apologies as I don't mean to be rude, but please minimize disruptions to a listed AfD as a courtesy to others. -Markeer 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Speleological Association Inc.

A contested PROD with the reason "Added some notable contributions that the club has made to the world of speleology. The wikipedia contains many such clubs from around the world and I think it's important to also acknowledge the VSA". While I am sure the organisation is a worthy one and does great work, the article has no independent reliable sources and the subject does not meet WP:ORG. Mattinbgn/^talk 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Australian Museum reference links names of the discoverers to members of the Victorian Speleological Association Inc. as per their website which even allows for direct contact to verify their involvement. -- Vicspeleo

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As WP:VSCA. No assertion of notability, and as per nom no reliable sources within the article which would help it meet the criteria of WP:ORG Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for a version of the article to be written entirely from material taken from what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, which are independant of the group or its members? Do these independant, reliable sources demonstrate how this particular group meets any of the various notability inclusion guidelines? Failing that, delete as unable to meet the Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- saberwyn 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten the article and pointed out that the role of the VSA in exploration and conservation is acknowledged in the Mount Eccles National Park and Mount Napier State Plan [33] and their publications are cited by Australian State Government agencies in guides to various cave systems. [34] [35] If their work is good enough for the Victorian State Government it should be good enough for us. Nick mallory 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think a passing reference to the organisation is enough to make it notable. How about adding the VULCON handbook to the article, what it is, and the major organisations that rely upon it, and I reckon the article would stand a better chance of staying. Assize 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about you adding it as we're all supposed to be building an encyclopedia together? Nick mallory 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and I've already spent a lot of time researching and fixing up Pakenham Secondary College which was proposed for deletion (and I am about to add a bit more). The comment wasn't meant to be directed at you, but to the discussion in general. I apologise if I offended you. I didn't want to vote delete. However, in hindsight, I should have just voted and added my comments there. When I finish with Pakenham, I will have a go at this. Assize 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The mentions in the references are passing mentions, and don't yet establish notablility. Could easily establish notability as organisation's work is often cited (see Google Scholar) and I suspect that the VULCON handbook may be an "industry standard". Assize 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references that Nick Mallory are enough to establish notability for mine together with the museum references. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think the references that exist in this article are very weak. However, I'd err on the side of caution here. Lankiveil 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the only reference about the subject of this article is the sport.vig.gov.au link, which is a directory entry. Most promising looking link is the first one, and VSA is only mentioned twice in that reference which is a management plan.Ga rr ie 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to fulfil WP:ORG. Recurring dreams 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not just a club. Publishes books and is cited in academic works. John Vandenberg 08:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please tell me, what criteria of either WP:N or WP:ORG does this article meet? Garrie 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Do you honestly believe that an organisation of this type that has been in existence in one form or another since 1957 does not have substantial material written about it? Per the deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". John Vandenberg 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have improved the information and added some more references regarding the discoveries of the megafauna as well as the fact a special report was aired on Australian television in 2006. Vicspeleo 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side chain (music)

Firstly, there's obviously no point having this and side chain (sound). Secondly, the definition given here isn't concise, it describes one appliance of sidechaining in electronic music as opposed to the general meaning of the term. Finally, this point is already covered in the Dynamic range compression article. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side chain (sound)

Merge and Redirect to side chain (sound) - it can be used as a good example in side chain (sound). - Etcher 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Already merged pretty much, just a redirect is fine. Wickethewok 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side chain (sound)

Anything here that's not covered in Dynamic range compression could be merged into the article. I don't believe there is anything. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side chain (music)
Redirect - Very short stub with better coverage in another article. Keeping the redir doesn't really hurt anything. Wickethewok 08:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Animation

Article about an animation class at the Illinois Institute of Art. Possible speedy for lack of notability, but listing it here anyway. Masaruemoto 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/Merge - No need for its own article, but some text may be salvageable for the Illinois Institute of Art article. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - An article about a class. Not what I consider notable. Contrary to teh tennisman, I don't believe we need to merge. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't saying we need to merge, just that some sort of comment about this could be kept, not that it needed to. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. No notability. Ab e g92contribs 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. i can see the rationale – "this name's snappy enough for its own article!" but at the end of the day a single class on a single course of a single degree at a single higher learning facility is never gonna be notable unto itself. tomasz. 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Orderinchaos 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazahana Family Mass Battle

Article appears to be mainly promotion for this internet project; "Kazahana Family Mass Battle" gets 28 unique Google hits, most of which are blogs, forums, etc. Masaruemoto 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would Speedy this for CSD A7: Non-notable biography / article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the notability of the subject. Definite delete. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete - I agree. "CSD A7" it. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom and ors, it's a clearcut CSD A7. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as stated above, a textbook CSD A7. Mkdw ^talk 10:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it per CSD#A7, attempt at publicising totally non-notable grassroots art project or somesuch. tomasz. 11:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged it as such. Whs itc hy 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone really wants to do the merge, I'll make the content available to you. W.marsh 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape of archaeology

It is unclear why these articles need to be seperate from the articles on landscapes or the other respective topics. Diletante 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Comment: It strikes me as likely that a common word like "landscape" has different, and more precise, definitions and usages in different fields (no pun intended), and that these definitions may well be complex enough to be subjects of articles of their own. That is the case with many common words when used as part of specialist terminology. The current articles may or may not reflect that as well as they should, but they are in several cases sourced to specialized studies on the topics. Aren't you actually suggesting a merger, rather than deletion of these pages? Pharamond 06:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If these were terms of art I would expect there to be edits by other editors, but these were virtually exclusively created/edited by one editor. Acually these terms are already in landscape planning, but someone has put a disputed tag on them. -- Diletante 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate, otherwise just delete. These articles provide very little in the way of context and nothing in the way of references. It may be possible to merge some of the material into the respective parent articles (or perhaps landscape planning) but given the lack of any useful information (most of them seem to be nothing more than a dicdef) even a merge may not be warranted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Landscape planning. These concepts are important and different, but the articles are not substantial or well referenced. Furthermore they largely duplicate the similar sections in the target article. The landscaping for an open pit mine is not the same as for a historical site, and neither has much to do with tree trimming next to a powerline. Many millions of dollars are spent on some of these in a given state of the U.S. There are probably books and journal articles besides those few cited by the author. There is no barrier to prevent creating well referenced articles on any of these topics in the future if the individual section in the target article becomes too long due to well referenced quality writing. Edison 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing substantial to merge. I agree with Edison, no prejudice to re-creation if sources and substance are found. DGG 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is dealing with a genuine issue, possibly with a WP:POV. However, its subject seems to be the Landscaping of Archaeological Sites. This is quite different from Landscape planning, which is an issue concerned with the design of the surroundings of modern buildings. It is also different from Landscape archaeology, an academic discipline concerend with making archaeological deductions from ancient landscape features. Accordingly, Keep but Move. The rest of the nominated articles appear to be repeating material in Landscape planning and should be merged back to it. Since the content appreas to be the same, this will consist of converting them all into redirects to that article. If the author's objective was to expand these inot full article, no doubt he could have, but all seem to have eben created by Willow4 on 30 May 2006, and to have been changed little since. Peterkingiron 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing substantial to merge. They look like chapters from a single book, which proposed them speculatively, but have not been taken up by other authors. -Gomm 21:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge to section of landscape planning what little may be mergable and dlete the rest. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Edison that re-creation with substantive content would be OK, and with DGG that there is nothing to merge. The current problem with all these articles is that there is nothing there. EdJohnston 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Forrest

Non-notable animator, has an IMDb page but no major references that I can find. Vanity article created by the subject. Masaruemoto 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that he has made special effects for a few movies does not make him notable. Also fails WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definite failure of WP:COI. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article offers no sources to indicate this person is notable. Mwelch 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not being notable enough for its own article. --The Hippie^talk 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Mkdw ^talk 10:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. autobio and notability. tomasz. 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and fails WP:COI Tim Q. Wells 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unattributed article and fails on notability. Carlosguitar 23:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, hoax --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Boatman

I tagged this for proposed deletion a while ago. The tag was removed and I just got back to it, so here we are. It appears to be an unsourced vanity piece by a semi-professional or amateur football player (I can't tell which because I'm not an expert. I propose that we delete it. --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a bored university student and his friend mucking about creating articles on themselves/each other - no notability whatsoever, article consists of a equal-parts mix of no doubt hilarious in-jokes and utter bollocks ChrisTheDude 07:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-professional player, fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls way under normal notability criteria, and as per all the resons mentioned by ChrisTheDude above. - fchd 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in fact I tagged it with speedy. Punkmorten 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Combination hoax and attack page. There were strong rumours that Sven Goran Eriksson was due to include Boatman in his England squad for the 2006 FIFA World Cup if he cut down on his Hey Ewe attendance during the summer term - I think not. Boatman is still unsure of his sexuality - childish stuff. BTLizard 09:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a recreation with proper sourcing, if that's possible. W.marsh 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill still)

Bill Still

This appears to be a poorly sourced, poorly written biography of a living person who appears to be some kind of conspiracy buff. I suggest that we clear up the sourcing concerns or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's just an excuse for yet another long ramble around a bunch of obscure absurd conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Nick mallory 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick mallory, and for having no sources and for almost certainly violating WP:BLP at some stage. tomasz. 11:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. His top selling book on Amazon falls at number 399,000 (out of 4 million or so for sale on Amazon) and was published by "Huntington House Publishers" which is [36] a "Christian online publisher." His number two seller "Towards Spiritual Maturity " ranks #2,384,601. Edison 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That actually means that his book is in the top 10% of sellers on Amazon, and I'm not sure what you mean by quoting the "Christian online publisher" part. Christian books are a large niche in bookselling. The book is not just published "online" if that's what you're trying to imply, because as you provided evidence of yourself it's for sale on Amazon and in the top 10% of physical book sales there. So, basically, I'm not sure what your point is. I think you make a better case for the article than against! :) ---Gloriamarie 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete His books about monetary reform are self-published. The only possible notability is from his "New World Order, the Ancient Plan of Secret Societies," (Lafayette, LA., Huntington House, 1990); the article claims it influenced Pat Robertson's book of the same title. No sources are given for this. I don't judge NN by Amazon sales, but I see no reference to published reviews. As there is almost no personal biography, & the article is devoted almost entirely to his non-notable published writings, I dont see that BLP has much to do with this. DGG 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is the narrator of the movie "Money Masters", part of which I just saw and which was very interesting. Before deleting, time should be given to properly source the article. I was interested in the guy after I saw him in this documentary, and I'm sure others will be as well. It's interesting that he's written other books, and I think this is worthy of being on Wikipedia. --Gloriamarie 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Gloriamarie, pending proper sourcing of the article. --JayJasper 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article needs major cleanup to even be a biography. Its mostly a rant, poorly sourced. I agreee with DGG above. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gannon (motorcyclist, activist)

Poorly sourced, poorly written, orphan biography of a living person. If the sourcing problems can't be cleared up, I suggest we delete it. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article at first seems salvageable, but I tried and failed to come up with some adequate sourcing for it. Sifting through the other Bill Gannons that come up on a Google search come up with scarce information, and none to establish notability. Open to changing my opinion if soemone else has better luck finding reliable sources to prop the article up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unsourced, and the claimed accomplished should have been possible to source. Nothing controversial is said about his bio, so I do not think BLP has anything much to do with this one.

Is there a Motorcycle wikiproject? they might know of sources. DGG 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 1 (Boonton)

Non-notable locale Scout Troop. Claim for oldest unit in the US is unsourced and rivalled by some other units founded in 1908 (see Oldest Scout Groups).--jergen 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom-unless sourced as per claim of notability, in which case redirect to Oldest Scout Groups. Scouting WP MoS holds that troops are not inherently notable nor worthy subjects for their own articles. Chris 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article written, or is it possible for a version of the article to be written, in the majority or in its entirety from material taken from what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, which are independant of the group or its members (to prevent possible the problems associated with a conflict of interest while writing a Wikipedia article)? Do these independant, reliable sources demonstrate how this particular group meets any of the various notability inclusion guidelines (for example the one on groups and organisations or the one on people)? Failing that, delete as unable to meet the Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- saberwyn 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above.Rlevse 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ORG and WP:SPEEDY under non-notable groups. Mkdw ^talk 10:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced nn group. tomasz. 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any reliable sources, and for that matter no sources at all. --Metropolitan90 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Scouting in New Jersey. --evrik ^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bold redirect to the main article. Sr 13 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th Canadian Brigade

information already available on 4th Canadian Division page. Kscheffler 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you can just redirect there. Tizio 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — It looks like this brigade was attached to the same division throughout the conflict. — RJH (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4th Canadian Division, just duplicates what is on there. Davewild 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; this is the second time it is created; the next one I guess we should protect-delete it. Tizio 11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The waters family

Patent nonsense. I just got this page speedy deleted, and now it's back. Will a hard delete keep it from returning? Hoof Hearted 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2006)

Listcruft; details of the number-one records of every chart in the world (or even in all major countries) is unnecessary and unecyclopædic. I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason (and I'd like this AfD to cover the creation of similar articles for other years)

Question. Are articles like

List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)

covered by this AfD? The scope is unclear to me. Wasted Time R 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is where categories fail, they can't tell what date the singles charted at #1. Being a #1 single is a clear indication of notability. Whs itc hy 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its regiocentric to have US and UK number ones, and not have other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please review this article based on its merits. Punkmorten 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we're just pointing out that we'd keep those too. If you want to kill the entire concept of listing #1 songs, nominate them all at once instead of taking the anti-third world approach. Chris Croy 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a limited list and it provides useful information. I always find it fascinating how our American music can hit #1 in other countries - Does anyone know if those songs are translated? Chris Croy 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jonhoistic nomination. --Nricardo 22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jacobs

This article was previously listed for deletion on December 11, 2005, a few days after it was created. Two people commented and said "keep", and cleanup was suggested. Well it's been tagged for cleanup ever since, and four months ago someone added a "Notability" tag. It remains an orphan.

If it hadn't been listed for deletion before I would have simply slapped a proposed deletion (PROD) tag on it and forgotten about it. But it has, so here we are. I suggest that we delete this poorly written, poorly sourced orphan biography of a living person. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Notability is not established. Also, I know WP:GOOGLEHITS applies, but I received no hits on MSN, Ask Jeeves, Google, or Yahoo. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are said to be multiple works on social science--in Scopus I find: one in the New Republic:, apparently 1 page long, one in a peer-reviewd journal, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,'cited 13 times, and 4 in the journal he edits, IDEA. (details added to article) As for his journal, IDEA, it is an on-line journal, ISSN 1523-1712, that has published between 1 and 4 articles a year since 1996--but it is in scopus, which gives it some degree of respectability. The award claimed is given by the International Transactional Analysis Association,which is listed in the WP article for I'm OK, You're OK, and several other WP articles refer to people who have received it. I have no information on the notability of the photographs. I think all in all it adds up to weak notability. DGG 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there is enough info to remove the 'notability' tag! He does not have the publication record you would expect of a full professor, and I agree we should keep full professors by DGG's standard. He holds no announced academic position, and he lists no publications since 1998. Two of the pubs found by DGG (mentioned above) are by different men also named Alan Jacobs, so I removed them. Note that his personal web site (which I have added to the article) includes a list of his publications. I agree that the award he received counts in his favor. EdJohnston 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Publishing in the journal you edit was not what WP:PROF had in mind; and which of these contributors to IDEA is well known - outside the editor's mind, that is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about that, which is why I mentioned it; however, being editor in chief of a reputable academic (or other) journal has usually amounted to notability, and this is one factor. Whether the journal is important enough is not obvious--if it's in a major index like Scopus, it has some degree of respectability. It's in Ulrich's also, it's print as well as online, been published since 1966, & is primarily devoted to Holocaust and genocide studies. [http/www.ideajournal.com/] He is not the major contributor. I frankly don't know how to evaluate people who have a little bit of notability in several dimensions, none of them sufficient in themselves. DGG 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sparrow

Delete Non notable character; nothing but a mere antagonist. Article does not suggest anything that creates notability. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tony Hawk's Underground. There can be little point ion having articles on individual charaters in video games, which will be here today and gone tomorrow (or rather next year). Peterkingiron 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This appears to be a main non-player character spanning more than one game. Per WP:FICT, these should be discussed in the main article if they are not particularly long. Since many of the plot twists involving this character are already in the plot outline of Tony Hawk's Underground, I would say merge anything else of note and leave a redirect to that section. Gimmetrow 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. The Tony Hawk's Underground series of games seems to be ended at two, and Sparrow's role (and ability!) in the second is noticably less than the first. He's a notable character in the series, true, but I'm not sure it's enough to warrant his own page. IL-Kuma 23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can be renamed as appropriate, of course. W.marsh 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private collection

This article was tagged for deletion as a dicdef on 9 Sept 2006, at that time, quite correctly. It wa, though, not deleted despite passing its 5-day grace period and was later tagged as undergoing serious editing. What we have now is, essentially, the original article with the addition of a not entirely relevant section on Famous art collections> This raises the sorts of issues we see frequently with List of..... type articles - i.e. who says what is famous, why these and not others (all?)? etc. The only other addition of note is the statement that "Originally nobility were the only ones who collected art, but later other wealthy industrialists adopted the habit" which is contentious to say the least. In essence, remove the bits I've referred to and we still have a dicdef Emeraude 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about transferring some of the important information from this article to others, such as Princely Family of Liechtenstein? The info regarding them seems notable. The dicdef portion could simply be moved to Private Collection (or that info moved to this article with only the dicdef kept). - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Totally inadequate article, but private art collecting is notable--there may be a better title, such as art collector--we do not seem to have a general article on this subject.DGG 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as stub. I have restructured the text slightly, but information could usefully be added on other private collections. However, the normal use of the term is as a citation of a work reproduced in a book etc. leaving the provenance anonymous. Peterkingiron 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only argument other than the nom is the invalid "delete and merge" (merging means keeping the edit history and some of the content, not deleting it). W.marsh 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' fifth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Not only non-existent (which many of us deprecate), but it doesn't even have a name. The previous AfD ended with no consensus (despite the closer's claim that it was "keep"); I think that the issue needs settling properly. other AfDs of similarly unnamed, not-yet-existent albms have ended in deletion, and I don't see the difference with this one. Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one difference between this and, say, Ashlee Simpson's Third Album (AfD discussion) is that in this case we have content from sources other than Spears herself, i.e. other people reporting that they have worked with Spears on the album, and giving their views of the music, and analyses from independent sources such as The New York Post. Uncle G 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has quite a bit of sourced material, although there is about as much non-sourced material. The fact that the album doesn't have a name is neither here nor there. The name of an album is one of the last things to be decided on. DCEdwards1966 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH GOD! she has another album. But as Uncle G pointed out, this one does have sources. Keep Whs itc hy 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: adequately sourced article, per others comments. RaNdOm26 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is constantly filled with false information. The album has been pushed back year after year. Merge it with the main article. Maddyfan 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. And deletion and merger are mutually incompatible, because of the GFDL. Please pick one or the other. Uncle G 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The false information was just something I was "also" taking note of. My main problem is that the album is pushed back year after year, the information is highly wrong, and it should be all condensed down to the main article. Maddyfan 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of the new album is everywhere...from the internet to magazines to television. Soapfan06 1:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainly passes notability and verifiability policies. ShadowHalo 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avantoure

I don't believe this magazine/company satisfies notability criteria for either companies or web content. Google brings up only press releases or advertisements, and the same goes for Google news and Google news archive. Couldn't fine multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources Wafulz 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Agree with nom, couldn't find any reliable independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:N, which makes me think that the magazine is not notable enough. That being said, with over 7000 Google hits there may be some, and if someone finds them, I am willing to change my vote. ikh (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered this, but it's a digital magazine, so these would be common. --Wafulz 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches for citations which were not press releases, promotion or blogs came up empty. — Athaenara ✉ 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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