Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Otto4711 (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 1 June 2007 (afd nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 31 June 2 >

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mortal Kombat storyline

The Mortal Kombat storyline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - pure plot summary with no real-world context. Clear-cut violation of point 7. Otto4711 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep / merge somewhere and change the dang article title. Something like "Plot of Mortal Kombat" or the like. This article looks like a disaster zone at the moment, but its content probably shouldn't be deleted. Hopefully someone who knows MK better can figure out something more specific to do. SnowFire 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep / cleanup While it is nothing but plot, it might be appropriate considering the larger article series on the subject. Even then, there is likely potential for out-of-universe information and style changes. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs to be rewritten in an out-of-universe perspective and could also use a section on the influences as mentioned by the series creators. Cheers, Lanky TALK 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This sorely needs a new title, though. The game series is quite notable, so an article on its storyline is not unwarranted. The style could be cleaned up as well (it refers to the Elder Gods of the setting as ONE being at a few points early on, for example). It doesn't look too in-universe to me, but that's my eye. And some more notes from the writers/programmers/developers would spice up the article, too, if findable. IL-Kuma 02:15, 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 to keep it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery

Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established, content mostly title and chapter headings, wikilinked! IPSOS (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable sources provided to support notability of book, and author has no WP article. Quickly, before someone actually writes articles on the chapters! Deor 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a classic book, but I'm at a bit of a loss at how to justify that. It was published in 1850, so there aren't modern book reviews and news items. Google scholar has a couple of articles that seem to be discussing it in a historical context, but I don't have a subscription to view the full text to check them out (perhaps someone else here does). The book has been reprinted numerous times, including one in 2005. I'd like to call it a keep but improve the article, but as I'm not in a position to check the possible references, I can't give anything concrete. Polenth 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I managed to turn up a source for notability and edited some of the other oddities (like the incorrect date and the chapter list). One source isn't ideal, and it's still very stubish, but I think there's enough to keep it for improvement now. Polenth 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any suggestions why Walter Leslie Wilmshurst redirects to this page? No one by that name seems to be mentioned on it. Deor 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He wrote an intro to one of the reprints. That's worthy of a mention in a discussion of reprints, but not of a redirect. He's notable in his own right as an author of Mason books and I can see someone wanting to make an article on him someday. The confusion probably came about because the original author of the article seemed to think the Wilmhurst reprint was the first edition and didn't know the real author's name. Polenth 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Polenth. This book is also a reference for this article on alchemical symbolism. Ms. Atwood needs an article herself. Create & merge? --Evb-wiki 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/merge with article on the author. I'm not involved with this article and just noticed the AfD listed. The book title brings up around 1,700 Google hits. Some of the links lead to pages that mention the book as part of the development of modern thinking on the topic of alchemy as a process of spiritual transformation rather than the mundane process of transmuting metals. A couple of examples are here and here. I'm not an expert and I don't put these forth as definitive reliable sources, but since I was able to find them so fast and Wikipeida is not paper, it seems to me we can take some time to let this article develop rather than quickly deleting it. I did find one reference that refers to a reliable source, here, in that it refers to comments about the book by noted author A. E. Waite. His comments are controversial, however, this shows that the book is notable enough to generate some controvesy among experts in its topic. Considering that I found this info in just a few minutes, I'm sure that editors will be able to expand this article and add interesting information about the author who seems to be a somewhat notable historical figure in this area of study. --Parzival418 Hello 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a second source to the article, though I admit that my addition uses only a small percentage of the relevant content in the source. The book is obviously considered notable and there are a number of potential scholarly sources for it in books and journal articles. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has undergone extensive cleanup and sourcing since AfD was initiated. —Gaff ταλκ 20:33, 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 of article following conversion to category. Herostratus 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needing Tamil script or text

Articles needing Tamil script or text (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this needs to be a category, was created as an article but is not. Chris 22:16, 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 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Whitney Pace

Gage Whitney Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a completely non-notable fictional law firm that is mentioned in exactly 2 episodes of The West Wing and maybe once or twice on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The content currently in the article is all that can possibly be said about this fictional firm. It is fancruft and trivia. (I'm not sure if it could have been speedied under CSD-A7, so I AfD'd instead.) Hnsampat 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I am a fan of West Wing; however, this article is decidedly unnecessary. Fancruft, as the nominator asserted. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non-notable, and probably trivia to boot. -Haemo 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge why not merge with west wing and redirect?--The Joke النكتة‎ 06:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On West Wing, if memorey serves me right, there is an episode that is totally devoted to Gage Whitney Pacy (the one when they went and ran the oil ship aground). Then there is the episode when Josh got Sam out of Gage Whitney, and there were other references as well. On Studio 60, there have been more than just 2 references. However, the main point of this is to note that Sorkin has crossed over the names between the two shows, as it is not something that is just oriented to one TV show... --Alebowgm 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In both of those West Wing episodes, very little is said about the law firm itself, except that it's the 2nd biggest law firm in NYC. There isn't enough information there to merit having a whole article. Also, the fact that Sorkin crossed over the names between the two shows is trivial. Writers cross stuff between their works all the time. In fact, Sorkin wrote the screenplay for The American President, where an environmental lobby firm called the Global Defense Council plays a prominent role. That lobby firm is also named in one episode of The West Wing. However, I shouldn't then go and write an article called Global Defense Council, because there's nothing to be said about it. Same holds true for Gage Whitney Pace. Tell me, can you add anything to what's already there in the article? I sure can't. Something that we can't write more than one paragraph about doesn't merit its own article. It is trivia i.e. something that is "interesting without being notable." Gage Whitney Pace utterly fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore does not merit its own article. --Hnsampat 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely minor element with no hope of expansion -- Whpq 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:31, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desire utilitarianism

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

The topic has not received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore not notable Banno 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two new, external, sources have been added. Canadianism 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Michael Shermer recommendation to Alonso's blog martino 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here seems to be that if lots of people mention it on their blog, regardless of how trivial that mention, then it must be important. But my point, as outlined below, is that according to Wiki policy, blogs are not reliable sources - regardless of how many you can find. Banno 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The main reference is self-published at Lulu.com. The other references, all to a single author with little academic standing, are from a single blog site. The two external links are to other blog sites. The authors have not been able to provide any links to secondary sources over the last few days (One of the authors is a regular editor, the two others are welcome newbies, who came to the article after I queried it. Neither has edited outside of this one article). Furthermore the article reads as if Desire utilitarianism where an accepted philosophical theory, on a par with rule utilitarianism or act utilitarianism. It isn't. Banno 02:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article read as if it was on par with rule or act utilitarianism? I should note that a lot more mudane philosophical theories have been added to Wikipedia, with little or no following or support. Also, whatever your personal opinions on the matter are, self-published works aren't of less value to Wikipedia. Canadianism 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To your second point, it is not just my opinion. Clearly self-published works are considered of lesser value. From Wikipedia:Verifiability Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Note that this is an official policy, not a guideline. Banno 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, it is nothing that could not be fixed by pointing out the limited spread of this theory in the introductory paragraph. I would welcome such an edit. Banno 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pixnaps 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point at issue is that the article is supported only by self-published materials and blogs, but that these are not acceptable sources. Adding yet another blog does not improve the case. "If you doubt this, how is it that there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??" ;) Banno 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pharyngula has be used as a reference in other articles and I don't see how adding a notable blog doesn't help the cause. Canadianism 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Pharyngula link you cite above says nothing more than that Myers has placed the book on his list of books to read. Good for him. Banno 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Michael Shermer recommendation to Alonso's blog martino 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infidel Guy Podcast isn't a "single blog entry" and Pharyngula is a notable blog. Canadianism 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear as to what point you are making here. --Evb-wiki 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have e-mailed Fyfe to see if he is aware of any sources that might vindicate this page's inclusion on Wikipedia. If he has not returned my message by Wednesday, I will vote for deletion. Postmodern Beatnik 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Fyfe has confirmed that there are no reliable secondary sources on his book or his philosophy in general. As such, my vote is for deletion. However, I would like to note that the topic is interesting enough that, should it ever pass WP:V, I hope it will be resuscitated. Postmodern Beatnik 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Beatnik. Another option might be to write an article on Fyfe himself - perhaps he is mentioned somewhere? Banno 21:54, 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.

Under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" Whipped Cream meets reason number 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." The page clearly shows Stephen Quadros who is notable within himself, and Adam Kury who is a member of Legs Diamond. Therefore, Whipped Cream is notable.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whipped Cream (Band)

Whipped Cream (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band that may not meet WP:BAND. Only sources point to band homepages, and one is repeated. No hits on Google except for the band's pages. KJS77 20:51, 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 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poo-chucker

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

Procedural listing. Contested prod. Editor who placed the original prod tag gave the following rationale: "non notable neologism,Content not suitable for an encyclopedia,possible hoax." Pastordavid 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm going to say delete it, but if the sources can be validated, I will take another look. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am the editor who who placed the original prod tag. This is a non-notable neologism and a possible hoax. Supposedly a baseball term but a google search for "poo chucker" baseball generates only 11 results [1]( 3 of which are related to Wikipedia). There are sources listed but they are difficult or impossible to verify. Even if the sources were valid I would contend that the subject matter does not deserves an entire article. Furthermore, more than half of the article consists of a subjective list of "poo-chuckers" which would need to be removed immediately - who gets to decide who belongs on this list ?. -- No Guru 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NOT#COOL, the fact that it has no references other than, and the original PROD reason. If all else fails, merge to List of baseball jargon. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The lack of search engine results may imply that it is a non-notable neologism. However, the mention in a 1969 magazine may have a slight weight in verifying it. If only a copy can be obtained, that is.--Kylohk 09:25, 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 per improvements made to article. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew nagorski

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

1. Non notable as per WP:BIO 2. No "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (WP:BIO) —Visor (talk · contribs) 20:18, 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, fails WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Thrower

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

Probably a non-notable person. Article makes lots of extraneous claims typical of notability padding (his mother used to carpool with Jackie O. and his dad invented the WPIX Yule log). I removed most of this stuff focusing on why he might be notable but this remains a BLP with no sources other than the guy's own blogs. Thatcher131 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The closest thing to actual notability here are his minor appearences on a couple of reality shows, which isn't much. A large portions of the edits come from the subject himself, raising autobigraphical and conflict of interest concerns. Looking at the edit history and talk pages of all concerned (yes, including the alleged vandal, Rwilco201), it appears that the other primary editor is also associated closely with the subject. It is considered bad form to write about oneself here, or to have some do it for you. DarkAudit 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as founder of a 20-year-old magazine and of active.com, a well-ranked fitness website, he should be sourceable. Needs cleanup & attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The website is notable; he is not. Has written one article for the San Diego Business Journal. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is ok with user who the post is about! This is Mitch Thrower - you can confirm it by Googling me, then sending me an e-mail and I will respond to confirm. Or, if you are in fact a power wikiuser, you can call me anytime (my phone number is easily accessable on the web). It would be better for me if the page written about me on Wiki is deleted. For the record, User:Emilyashland had inside information. I did not approve of her posting the information to Wiki - but the stuff she put in her original post was in fact correct. If necessary, and the page is deleted, a great deal of it can be confirmed by official sources, Emily is accurate but way to personal, if the page is not deleted, it's up to the true wikipedians to sort out what from that should still be Wiki. Here is the Original Complete Article Post. How long will it take to delete my page, because I'd love it to get deleted prior to an upcoming role in a film later this year - because I'm not a fan of non-approved creation of a site about me, and what happens when the attacks come in. The page history dictates these challenges, because even after my brief appearance on the ABC TV show The Bacahelor, a user user:rwilco201 started to aggressively change the page and cite sites that did not meet wiki regulations. Regardless, the Wiki community has done a good job with the clean up. I defer to the collective wisdom of Wiki expert users judgment if they see fit to delete the page - or to remove as much as possible, then great! Also, it’s important to note, that for the record, the only edits I personally made to the page about me were to remove the slander and insult posts from vandal,(too many times) and to correct two dates. A sincere thank you to the Wiki community for getting involved to fix things.
    • To User Rwilco201: three very important things of note from Mitch Thrower: a) Wiki Administrator clearly stated in several locations that you have read and responded to previously. Here it is again so you don't have to click all the pages and posts that we created in this mess: "Celebrity tabloid-type web sites are not reliable sources, by the way." This quote is From administrator: User:Thatcher131 in case you want to challenge it. b) The original article/e-mail you are so passionate about has actually been removed the author, original article you keep citing. If you would like, I could arrange to have a copy framed for you.  ; ) c) see your talk page and the arbitration page for further detail and responses. So Mr. or Mrs. Rwilco201 - Let’s declare a truce, and both go back to learning the ways of Wikipedia, and then figuring out ways to make solid contribution that are made within the Wikipedia guidelines and established procedures, Sound good? - Mitch Thrower
    • Comment this AfD page is not the forum to continue whatever drama exists between you and Rwilco201. DarkAudit 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Based on MitchThrower's connection to wikipedia entry "Andy Baldwin", and his attempts to self-promote on both entries. This is from the user, rwilco201, who started the whole request for arbitration for the article. I didn't have any connection to Mitch Thrower or "The Bachelor", but got involved with this based on Mitch's vociferous attacks on what i thought was a innocous edit. My take on it was that Mitch got caught sock-puppeting his own entry and Andy Baldwin's (see user:EmilyAshland's edit history). Based on his connection with the Andy Baldwin entry, this needs to be kept- otherwise the Andy Baldwin should be revised as well. BTW, could someone respond to me and tell me why the Cele|bitchy entry was not viable? It is a blog that's well known, and I thought I reported on it from a NPOV - including quotes from Thrower himself. I read the BLP guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP) - and it does say that one can include quotes from the person in question. My apologies if I'm missing something as a newcomer to the Wiki community. — rwilco201 (rwilco201 – 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for Correspondence – Keeping with DarkAudit's request to keep this AfD page clear, would someone (other than Mitch), please correspond with me about my concerns, either via my talk page or email? If I'm doing something wrong, would like to correct it. rwilco201 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rwilco201 removed my !vote from this afd [2], which was delete based on a belief that a bio subject's support for deletion in an AfD should weigh significantly in favor of deleting the article. Rwilco201, please don't remove other people's entries. Let the closing admin figure out what to count and what not to count. Note: I didn't check the rest of the edit history enough to see if any other edits were changed or removed by other than their authors. 75.62.6.237 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have not deleted Mitch's post. Mitch is making unsubstantiated claims, and has a history of this - please look at this history of this comment to prove this. Mitch's vote is above, and always has been. Sorry to clutter the AofD page with this nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rwilco201 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2007. [3]
  • I think Rwilco201 is confusing me with Mitch Thrower, but I have nothing to do with Mitch Thrower and had never heard of him before noticing Rwilco201's arbitration request.[4] 75.62.6.237 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About this user: On user page, it mentions "This host, adsl-75-62-6-237.dsl.snfc21.sbcglobal.net, is registered to SBC Internet Services / AT&T, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy or is reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.". It is also a San Diego based IP address, where Mitch Thrower is based. If it isn't the person in question, my apologies - however, all signs point to such.
  • Delete When a barely if at all notable biographical article on a living person is written with input from that person, it strikes my ire. There is not enough here for the benefit of Wikiepdia. —Gaff ταλκ 20:45, 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 General Hospital. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard

Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

They're a couple in a soap opera. Both actors have their own articles. Both characters have their own articles. What is this huge wedge of plot summary doing occupying its own article? EliminatorJR Talk 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yet another iconic couple that shouldn't be deleted from Wikipedia. Migospia, I get that you're angry that your soap couple article was nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean that "Oh, to heck with all of the other soap couples, they should all be deleted from Wikipedia as well."
Furthermore, I really don't get this notion that "Soap couple articles should be deleted from Wikipedia, unless they are Luke and Laura", or that "they should all be mentioned in the character's individual articles, but shouldn't have their own articles." I say that I don't get such a notion due to the fact that Wikipedia has nothing against soap couple artices, as long as the couple is notable. Well, all of these couples are notable. And as I have mentioned before elsewhere here, I am a part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, and we only recently started this project, so of course these soap couple articles aren't fixed up yet, but all of these articles are tagged within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, meaning that we will get to them. Just because these articles aren't fixed up yet, doesn't mean that they won't be fixed up, and it doesn't mean that they should be deleted from Wikipedia either. I'm utterly against any "Remove all soap opera couple articles from Wikipedia" notion. The only couples that should be removed are ones that fail notability. If they don't fail, then they should NOT be removed from Wikipedia.
I may not feel that there needs to be an article dedicated to weapons from a show and that it should rather be mentioned in that show's article, but that doesn't mean that it's not right in being a stand-alone article. It's the same for soap couple articles. Just because some editors may feel that no couple should have their own article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that the article is any less valid in remaining on Wikipedia, only notability determines that. And I must contact all participants of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas on this matter of articles we are currently working on being nominated for deletion before we even have the time to improve them.
The reason these articles aren't mentioned in their character's articles is because the character article should be focused more so on that character, and not on their romance, which means the plot summary would be limited in also tackling the issue of the character's notable romance, thus is why an article specifically about that couple's romance and impact may be created. I cannot improve all of these soap couple articles by myself in such a short amount of time. Therefore, I ask for any editor here to hold off on nominating such a supercouple article for deletion when it can clearly be improved. Deletion is not the answer of such supercouples. Clean-up is. Flyer22 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alan and Monica were a major couple for 30 years. They were a major part of GH when the show was the talk of the nation, and their stories helped saved the show from cancellation in the late 70's, before Luke Spencer even existed. They are not just some random soap couple like the millions who have been around over the years. They were iconic, and I don't think a page about their relationship is any kind of travesty. --JamesB3 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Alan and Monica are definitely a notable couple on General Hospital, but the current state of this article is appalling. If/when someone wants to write a real article that has real-world references and is more than just a plot summary, this article can be re-established. --Elonka 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you should not get angry, the reason is I was told that Wiki is not the place for soap opera couples not matter anything so that means ALL go, peace--Migospia †♥ 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would argue that these couple articles don't have to be repetitive. A character's article is not supposed to have a significant chunk of his or her article dedicated to their notable romance, which is what it would take to address such notable couples. Plot summary is supposed to be limited, therefore plot concerning the notable couple's romance would also be limited due to the fact that the plot summary itself should be kept short. Thus which is just one of the reasons a notable couple should be given their own article. One can't sum up Alan and Monica's romance in a few short words without it failing to have reason to be mentioned at all, if that were the case. Alan's article, as well as Monica's article should focus more on the life of those characters, not their romance, as we all know. An article about Alan and Monica's romance should be about that couple, of course, their creation, their real-word impact, and notable details in which would appear out of place in tackling all within their individual character articles. For example, adding the detail of what the J.R. and Babe article encompasses to the J.R. Chandler article and the Babe Carey article would seem excessive, it would also be redundant to have all that is mentioned in the J.R. and Babe article, such as their Cultural Impact, be in both articles. The J.R. and Babe article is different enough from their individual character articles that it's not, at least not in true-to-form, redundant, and that is what the participants in bettering such soap couple articles aim for.Flyer22 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were the case where the article already had extensive references and proof of cultural impact, then it might make sense to have the debate about whether or not the information should be in the individual character articles or the couple's article. But in this particular case, all we have is an article that is 95%+ storyline. In which case the article shouldn't exist at all. Wikipedia is not here to present storylines, it's here to present information in an encyclopedic context. And right now this article just doesn't have anything like that. --Elonka 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get some time to get around to fixing up this article

Of course, if I don't get around to it soon, then delete, as I will see about having the article re-created at a later time, with it fixed up, of course. Flyer22 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRUNCH, The Musical

BRUNCH, The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod about a musical, notability is not established. Only online mentions of it are WP, MySpace, and Xanga pages. KrakatoaKatie 19:37, 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 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Individual Investors

American Association of Individual Investors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a non-notable "association" of investors. For what it's worth, I've received 5 invitations to join (for free) in the past week, so that even an audited membership count would be of questionable validity, and I see no evidence of that on the web. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 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 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep following modifications to the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hochman

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

This is a weakish delete for nom, largely because the references and publications all seem from somewhat dubious POV publications assocaited with "cultic studies." This sounds like a bio of a hard working forensic psychiatrist. However, nothing seems to elevate this forensic psychiatrist above the masses to warrant need for an encyclopedia article. —Gaff ταλκ 19:07, 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. As illustrated by many editors on this discussion, this article was poorly sourced and solely comprised of negative sourced information on an entity who's notability is disputed within WP:BIO. The subject of the article is only known for a number of posts he made on Usenet groups, which does not make him inherently notable. Most of the references made on the article are to a college newspaper, which cannot be taken as a reliable and unbiased source of information. The book authored by Eric Francis is one source that cannot be ignored, but there are still no multiple, reliable and independent sources available (Discover magazine makes a transitory note on the subject). There are gross violations of WP:BLP on this article and as the largest source of information on the internet we have a lot of responsibilities towards the society and it's members. The article has done nothing but made a mockery of the person. Wikipedia, as it has been circumstantiated in the past, has the capability of adversely and antagonistically affecting lives of individuals. We do not, and should not harm. That is what BLP means. Moreover, it seems from the logs of the page, that the subject of the article does not wish this article to exist either. Please note that I have ignored arguments on the lines of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium

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

I deleted this as being comprised solely of poorly sourced negative material about a living individual. I explicitly invited people to contribute to writing a properly sourced version, but the response was instead to simply undelete it ("unilaterally" to use that phrase; all admin actions are of course unilateral, that point seems lost on a few poeple).

The major source is The Dartmouth, a college newspaper (this is disputed below; there were I think around ten citations to that source, which is why I say it was the major source). In other words, sophomoric sniggering. According to my alma mater's student newspaper, edited by someone who is now an editor on a major UK daily paper, I was the president of the university's Christian Union. In fact, I was never even a member. Student newspapers are not renowned for the highest standards of fact-checking, and certainly not in pieces on folks the students like to snigger about.

The second most prominent set of sources is Usenet posts. Enough said.

This is a vile, hateful, despicable piece of drivel. Maybe a good article could be written on the subject, one which does not gleefully take the piss out of someone who appears to be mentally ill, but this is so far from being that article as to make the path from A to B incredibly hard to see.

The article is currently deleted. Good. We should not leave defamatory articles which have triggered email complaints hanging around in mainspace while we examine our navels. That should not stop a debate, which should be about the subject. Perhaps we can see some evidence of intelligent sober critique, for example? Maybe a userspace workup of a better artcle? Guy (Help!) 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete / keep deleted per nom. BLP violations like this should not be tolerated - no reliable sources, not near NPOV, etc. This article should not be restored. Ral315 » 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Archimedes Plutonium is a particularly notable Usenet denizen. I don't understand how or why the article has been deleted outside of the normal deletion process. Phiwum 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Everything except the fact that it's a real individual is a notable Internet meme. In fact, it was a notable internet meme before there was an Internet. If we need to excise the real name of the real individual to preserve WP:BLP, that would be fine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ::I agree this does not come under BLP. This is another example of people who deliberate campaign in the most effective ways to make themselves publicly known within a certain circle, and then object to an objective article describing what they have done--conceivably as a way to increase the publicity. A highly visible fight with WP over the article has that effect--it amounts to gaming. Those who would delete the article are playing into the hands of the eccentric individual--he might well be asking for as long and complicated a multiple attempt at deletions with all possible channels. I see no reason why we need cooperate with him, and the best way of avoid beingpulled into his dames is purely objective article, and a firm insistence on keeping it. As an editing concern, the details of his personal life are not necessary, and soime other sections may be over-detailed. There are true BLP problems in WP, but this is not one of them. DGG 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't "agree" that something which personally identifies someone by name and date fo birth does not come under BLP. It is covered by definition. You may not consider that it violates BLP, but it is undoubtedly covered. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements in the nomination are utter rubbish. The major source is a book, published by St. Martin's Press of New York, N.Y., that devotes pages 87–93 to this person. The Usenet posts are only used as primary sources for the subject's own words, to back up the very same quotations as given in the book, for accuracy. The people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. Certainly they failed to actually read the article if they thought that the book, listed as the very first entry in the references section and cross-linked more than any other citation, wasn't the major source. Uncle G 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going by the article, which had many citations to the college newspaper. Six pages in a book is not actually much on which to base a biography, of course, and it would depend on whether the tone was prurient or scholarly in respect of this individual. I am happy to believe that he is a well-known kook, and if we can document that without pretending it's a biography then fine. But this was a very large article, and most of the actual statements in it were ref tagged to usenet or The Dartmouth, which is poor practice in the case of a living subject. There are ways of fixing this, and an Uncle G rewrite is quite possibly one of the better ones. Your rewrites tend to be a vast improvement on the original. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment
That book is The Dartmouth Murders by Eric Francis (St. Martin's True Crime Library, April 2005, ISBN 0312982313). You can use Amazon.com's "Search Inside" feature to read the relevant pages. The book is about the Dartmouth Murders. It has one short chapter about Archimedes Plutonium, with no other mentions. I think the following extracts from the its first, fourth and last paragraphs give an accurate impression:
The rumor mill surrounding the Zantop case was now in full swing ... Then, a week into February, the X-Files angle materialized in the form of a man named Archimedes Plutonium. ... The police saw it as an irritating but necessary detour, and turned their attention back to the [other] tips from the public."
I see only a few pages of light relief in a True Crime book. Does this count as a Reliable Source at BLP level? (That's a non-rhetorical question.) CWC 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the prior AFD discussion, you'll find that I had already tackled this article. How do you think I can state with such authority what sources were used for what? I know what sources I used. ☺ And I know how much time I spent going over the book and hunting for many sources to ensure that the article wasn't relying solely upon a single source. For vast improvements, take a look at the state of the article at the time of the prior AFD nomination (2007-03-19T19:42:25), before I tackled it. Now that actually was sourced wholly to Usenet postings. Also take a look at the bottom of the 2007-03-15T04:55:48 version of the article, before editors started insisting upon sourced material only. You can see why I, for one, insisted that such things be sourced to something at least as good as a published book written by a journalist. (Again note that there's good reason to check e-mail complaints for actual substance. M. Plutonium has been blithely mixing up various different people in what he claims about the book's author, much to the annoyance of two of those people, one who directly asked Plutonium to stop, and another who came to Wikipedia to ensure that we weren't led astray. See Talk:Eric Francis.) Uncle G 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still looks shaky to me, sorry. The Dartmouth case may well be a notable case, but that is a long way form establishing that this is a notable individual. Mike Corley has been trolling Usenet with his delusions that he is being watched through his TV for at least ten years, that does not merit a biography. We do not actually know anything about him as a person. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow existence. I don't think it's right to say "Keep" because of the BLP concerns here, but this is a famous internet personality, and it certainly should be covered in some form. Let's build it from the groud up, carefully, from really reliable sources. I don't think it's right to keep his name out of it just because it might be embarassing, but neither should we include it if it's not backed up well in reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / keep deleted per nom. Merge to new article (Notable) Usenet personalities (a more encyclopedia version perhaps of material already touched on at Alt.usenet.kooks) (14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) Looking at a Google cache I see that a lot of the sourcing seems to be The Dartmouth. Regarding the other source, The Dartmouth Murders, it covers AP as an interesting sidenote because he was briefly considered a suspect. His notability there is not his own, simply the reflected notability of the case and a "notability" and treatment (murder suspect) not befitting this project. Of course we could also merge to Barbara Schwarz under the section "other notable Usenet personalities" (removes tongue from cheek). No, just delete. --Justanother 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't read properly. The major source, cross-linked to the most and also the first listed, is the book. And an opinion that the book's treatment of Plutonium is as a murder suspect is clearly based upon not having read the book. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. I read the entire section on AP in the book via Google Books. Yes, they say more about him and the fact that he suggested a mutual suicide on Usenet (IIRC), etc., but the entire reason, IMO, that he is in that book is that 1) he is colorful and this was, after all a sensationalism book and 2) the police briefly turn a suspicious eye toward him. I like the idea floated on WP:DRV as I mention above in my amendment. Thanks for reading my comments. --Justanother 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seem to serious problems with the sourcing and too much of the information in the article is either from a primary source or an unreliable source. Its a BLP so we really shouldn't tolerate an article where core facts can't be properly verified. Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above statements are more utter rubbish. The only information in the article from unreliable sources was the information sourced from the subject's own autobiography and works, much of which had already been challenged and removed, the unreliability of the subject's autobiography (which xe actually deliberately altered at one point in order to get certain information into the article) having been already pointed out on the talk page. The only information in the article from primary sources were the texts of direct quotations, of things that the subject wrote, that were quoted in other sources and dual-sourced to the originals for accuracy. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The subject is completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. According to the opening of the entry itself the entry has posted some comments on the internet and believes the universe is a plutonium atom: i.e., he is completely non-notable. He has no adherents for his supposed theories and no publications. The article was an abuse of a man who in all likelihood was unable to defend himself. Furthermore, he requested deletion, a completely reasonable request in this case. Wikipedia can only be better off without this entry. FNMF 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong delete/keep deleted. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Wikipedia (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does not want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Wikipedia should be proud of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ElinorD (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per ElinorD. Jkelly 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Emperor Norton rates an article; this fellow does not. He is not sufficiently notable, or sufficiently crazy, or sufficiently interesting. Gene Ray he ain't. Also per BLP, leave the guy alone in his madness. Herostratus 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Matter of taste, I suppose, but why do you think that Gene Ray is more notable than Archimedes Plutonium? Seem like two of a kind to me. Phiwum 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: On Usenet back when that was a more important part of the internet than the www, I'd say Plutonium was more notable than Gene Ray. Time Cube made a successful transition to Web notarity; A.Pu did not. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usenet was never more than a techie's ghetto. The teeming multitudes never accessed Usenet or even knew what it was. Everyone uses the www, and Gene Ray has reached millions. Herostratus 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the web has many, many more users than Usenet. So what? AP is known to a much larger percentage of Usenet readers than Gene Ray is known to WWW users. Any regular reader of a fairly large number of Usenet groups has seen a post by AP or a reference to him. But you can read the web for decades before coming across a link to Gene Ray. Who has the greater fame? I am sure I cannot say, but I don't think it is at all obvious that it's Ray. Phiwum 01:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are wrong more often than not. Could be not this time, I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, the deleting administrator is wrong. Pretty much all of the statements in the nomination, written by that administrator, are wrong. If you read the contributions of Superdeterminism (talk · contribs) you will see what are almost certainly the "e-mail complaints" here. I suspect that the unfortunate truth here is that the people who handled the e-mail complaints took those complaints entirely at face value without checking their substance, when in fact what they state, about Eric Francis and about others, is not in fact actually true at all. (Example: Archimedes Plutonium claims that Wikipedia has been mocking him for ten years. Aside from the fact that he also makes this exact same claim about the entire population of Dartmouth College, leading to the conclusion that "X has been mocking AP for ten years" is a formula, Wikipedia hasn't existed for ten years.) In this instance, uncritically buying into the worldview of the complainant is (for obvious reasons) unwise. The people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objections to a properly sourced and balanced article being created. Being as prolific as he was I do believe he is notable within that circle through actions of his own. I would suggest creating an new article in the userspace and moving it when it is ready. ViridaeTalk 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable part of Usenet culture of the 1990s; as people and things particularly well known in significant segments of internet culture seem to be allowed in Wikipedia, I think that alone is sufficent. If the article sucks it should be rewritten. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please: No wheel warring This AfD was started to decide if this article is notable. Please do not delete before we reach consensus here, and then please formally close the AfD. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is currently deleted, and has been for the duration of this AfD. It should therefore be discussed at the DRV now open, not here. The way, the truth, and the light 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been discussed before and nothing has changed between then and now. The sourcing was a bit thin, but it does exist, and dubious facts had been removed. No evidence that the article itself is unsalvageable. We don't delete articles because the subjects tell us to — or at least we didn't. It's a sad day; looks like Daniel Brandt is winning. *** Crotalus *** 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regret. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Too bad. — Loadmaster 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am in two minds about this one. I have known about AP for far longer than I have known about Daniel Brandt and as a result he seems more notable to me. However I have not looked at the article for a long time but I can not do so now as it was deleted before this AfD was opened. I do not think that arguments for speedy deletion have been satisfactory argued, so I think this article should be restored so we can debate it properly. --Bduke 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article appears OK and has some sources. My only concern is notability, on which I have no real opinion, but is properly debated here. The way, the truth, and the light 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I object to the process being followed here. The article was deleted, then an AfD was opened. Then the deletion was undone. Then the DRV was closed. What this means is that the AfD, created after the deletion, is being used as though the article exists, and we need to determine whether there is evidence to delete. That is not the case. There was a deletion, and, if there is any question about that, it should be debated at DRV. Why would AfD be a better place to review a deletion than a Deletion Review? And I also note that there has been virtually no argument by those opposing the deletion establishing that the subject of the article was notable or encyclopaedic. A man is supposed to be notable because he posted some nonsense on the internet. I humbly suggest that such a criterion of notability is overly generous. The article was a nasty piece of work that should have embarrassed anyone associated with Wikipedia. FNMF 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to mainspace and keep. The man has spent over a decade single-handedly ensuring that he would be noticed by millions. He might be the ultimate Usenet personality, mainly because he very deliberately put himself into the public eye. The article is sourced not just to a book that discusses him but also to his own writings which show that he has provided every scrap of information in the article and in the book of his own free will. I don't see that WP:BLP applies to him in the same way that it would a victim of child abuse. As regards his notability: virtually every longterm Usenet user knows about ol' PU - how many people is that? Ten million? --Charlene 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We probably should cover {Archimedes Plutonium the USENET phenomenon} (and now we do — see Usenet personalities), but the True Crime book and USENET postings are not good enough sources for a biographical article about the real person behind that phenomenon. (I'd say that USENET postings by a mentally disturbed person are not valid sources about that person.) My guiding principles here are that
    (1) Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for cruelty, and
    (2) "With great power high Google rank comes great responsibility."
    CWC 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely put; encyclopaedic content can be achieved without actively participating in the mockery, as you show here. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you clarify your claim that "USENET postings by a mentally disturbed person are not valid sources about that person"? How is your claim that AP is mentally disturbed relevant? Are books written by a mentally disturbed person valid sources for reporting on the self-proclaimed beliefs of that person? Is Gene Ray mentally disturbed? If so, should we remove references to his web pages? Are all or most cranks and pseudoscientists mentally disturbed? Alfred Lawson? Cyrus Teed?
I know that some people claim Usenet posts are not reliable because they can be forged. I understand this criticism (though it seems out of place in articles about noted Usenet posters). But you seem to be saying something else. Phiwum 12:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was making the general point that some mental illnesses cause delusional episodes. Mental illness can also cause people to lie about themselves. I don't know whether any of the people listed have such an illness. Note also that some cranks are "mentally disturbed" but not mentally ill, much less insane. There's a continuum here. CWC 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, we have no source for a crank's beliefs other than his testimony. If crankish beliefs are enough to suggest that one is mentally disturbed and hence should not be believed, then we should remove every article about cranks. Phiwum 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the history is availiable for those who want to view the article and the DRV is CLOSED ViridaeTalk 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Keep deleted - having looked at the history at 18:59, 1 June 2007, apparently the last available version, I would suggest that this is a not-notable crank, who suffers from a persecution complex, no doubt because no one believes his widl ideas. If retained, it should be heavily trimmed. All the questions about when and wheter he had Internet access are non-encyclaedic. Peterkingiron 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following sentences ripped from the above say it all: Archimedes Plutonium is a particularly notable Usenet denizen. Everything except the fact that it's a real individual is a notable Internet meme. In fact, it was a notable internet meme before there was an Internet. Greglocock 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Usenet postings by a person are perfectly valid sources about that person. Letters to the editor of well-known magazines by a person are valid sources about that person. A person's own web site is a valid source about that person. Articles in prominent college journals that have a history of good journalism are reliable sources. Usenet sources are adequate to establish notablity for an article about a usenet celebrity. If there is unverifiable information in the article, that information should be deleted, not the entire article. JulesH 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way I see it, the subjects main claim to notability is posting in different forums where he advances his ideas and theories, but I see no evidence of him actually achieving any position or status which would make him notable. I have no clue as to why there are so many references to the person, but none of them make me feel that the person meets any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Being an intrepid defender of a personal theory supported by just about nobody else does not make you notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated comment (outsider's opinion) I do strongly believe that Gene Ray is a non-notable mentally disturbed person, and the article on him should be deleted, definitely (even if out of mere decency). This discussion, however, is not about that. -- Ekjon Lok 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One may consistently argue that both Gene Ray and Archimedes Plutonium should be deleted, for decency's sake. I'm not sure if I would argue against this position. Some editors, however, have argued in favor of keeping one as notable while deleting the other (partly because one has a website and the other is still a Usenet phenomenon, by and large). I was merely asking where Sjakkalle stands on this question. Phiwum 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Notable Usenet personalities. I read through most of the discussion and, while I agree with those who commented "delete" that we should not have such a detailed separate article, I think this man needs mention: in Notable Usenet personalities. --Iamunknown 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well-sourced article about notable Usenet personality. Spacepotato 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Notable Usenet personalities, focusing on matters of encyclopedic interest rather than pretending to be a complete biography, which it's not and never will be. FCYTravis 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commenting is probably useless now, but I think we've gone a little too far with fighting BLPs (most of which I do otherwise support). I think it's clear we have reliable sources for at least good chunks of the article. I also think it's clear that a lot of the excuses for deletion is that people simply don't like using Usenet posts as sources. If someone is notable *for* his Usenet posts, the Usenet posts are usable as sources as self-published work by the person about himself (or more specifically, about his own beliefs).
I may also add that I was around on Usenet when this guy was a nuisance. He clearly wanted attention and posted specifically to put himself and his words in the spotlight. This is not a crime victim article or other one where the subject of the article has received undesired publicity; AP's publicity was desired by him, at least at one time.
And I'll also add that if you think the policy should be "we should not have separate articles about people. Make them articles about the incident, meme, etc.", then it should be written out as a policy and put somewhere where people can comment on it separately and try to reach consensus. Don't use your policies before they're hatched. (While it's true that policy can just put into words what we're already doing, that really isn't an excuse to create a *new* policy by constantly enforcing the proposed policy as an existing policy, especially against objections.) Ken Arromdee 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable usenetter; well-sourced; had a verifiable impact on a notable topic. This article is pretty hard to follow though - it might need to be wikified and stripped down. CredoFromStart talk 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But modify. Archimedes Plutonium and his use of Usenet posts represent a phenomenon that I think needs to be documented. And I think the article should be oriented not towards presenting a crank, almost for entertainment value, but towards this new phenomenon. For example, he has recently 'invented' the notion of publishing a book on Usenet by an accumulation of posts about the the book's subject. I wouldn't venture to write his article, but maybe what I'm saying might be useful in the discussion. Ken M Quirici 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As has been said above, he is a crank that has deliberately sought attention and is at least as well-known as Gene Ray.' The way, the truth, and the light 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rueful keep' as a significant part of Usenet, who was covered in offline media and who invented the term "search engine bombing". DS 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow. Invented the term "search engine bombing"? Who knew? Still, I suppose there is no evidence that the term was popularized by AP's invention? Phiwum 17:12, 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Protack

AfDs for this article:
Michael D. Protack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Politician who lost in the primary, Has otherwise not held any office beyond local offices. Not otherwise notable outside of the local area. Previous no consensus AfD was when he was still a candidate. DarkAudit 18:57, 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 to Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson-Mazzoli Bill

Simpson-Mazzoli Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplicate subject with Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and there's not enough in this one to be worth a merge Katharineamy 18:49, 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 no consensus. Bucketsofg 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies

John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and likely self-serving award by biased POV group. Justanother 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands Rewrite sourced well, but lack requirements for nomination, plus lack of winners show to me it's not notable up to par yet. Whsitchy 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notable winners show that it is adequately notable itself; the article needs editing because the inidividual bios of the notable people given the awards should not be recapitualated here. DGG 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't say the award is "self-serving", but I would like to see some third-party coverage. The journals mentioned in the article are, of course, published by this organisation. StAnselm 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IDK, I see a certain similarity in the researchers that receive this award and doubt that a researcher that did a study called, oh, IDK, "Positive changes resulting from involvement in NRMs and LGATs" would even smell a nomination. --Justanother 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - And to StAnselm (talk · contribs), above, the article also utilizes citations from Case Book of Brief Psychotherapy with College Students, and Recovery from Cults, both of which are secondary sources. Smee 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. If this award was notable it would be reported in secondary sources not related to the subject. To keep, bonafide secondary sources will be needed, not just primary sources. I would suggest that editors wanting to keep, make an effort to find these sources, maybe extending the AfD for a few more days if needed be. If no such sources are forthcoming, redirect and merge to International Cultic Studies Association so that work is not lost. Not all subjects need an article, when material can be incorporated into other existing articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect There is really nothing to this article. It reads in brief, "there is an award, these guys won it, here is proof it exisits." That's fine, but does not need to be an encyclopdia article. Move the award to a section of the article on the organization that presents it. Then make this page a redirect. —Gaff ταλκ 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: To closing Admin -- My sentiment is still "Keep.", but if the consensus is to merge and redirect, please keep the history so that I can merge the material into the other article. Thank you. Smee 20:30, 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 delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melodramatic (website)

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

Deleted prod because it fails WP:WEB. Contested, so AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." That is lacking here. As I mention below, there is only the LA Weekly interview, where the interviewee glossily mentions Melodramtic once in the course of an interview.—Gaff ταλκ 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:WEB, WP:SOURCE, and per the fact that wikipedia is not a directory. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not really a commercial site, so it is not promoting itself, but it IS an online community, that includes 50,000 plus members, mainly in California, but has spread across the world. It has its own unique history, and some background that would be enlightening for a person who bumps into the community. Also, Jeffree Star, a person of note on MySpace, HAS mentioned the site in a couple of interviews, most recently in LA Times, a couple of weeks ago. User: Apsedona Timestamp function? I'd have to look it up June 1, 2007, 11:24 MST
    Whether Wiki users consider Star notable or not, Melodramatic has been mentioned in a major publication, (LA Weekly, not LA Times) which is one of THE defining criteria for keeping an article about a website. User:Apsedona 1:15 am MST, June 2, 2007
  • Delete, commercial or not, it's still a non-notable website. Should have been speedied. Jefree Star has frequently been discussed on Wikipedia and has repeatedly been decided as not notable, so his opinion is of no consequence. Corvus cornix 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is notable for its programming design, which shares many features that other friend/journal communities share, yet was developed in isolation from them. Anyway, it meets one of the three criteria for website articles. [Whether people like that Jeffree Star is noticed by major media is an opinion, and it is not objective, which is the aim of an encyclopedia. I'm sure there is an entry in Wiki on Paris Hilton, although she is also merely famous for being famous. She has some notability , whether people like it or not, or whether people consider her to be culturally significant, or not (which she is, because she has become a sex goddess, an icon of sexuality, of her time - and I don't particularly like her, or dislike her either, for that matter). In the same vein, Star has some notability for being a SUCCESSFUL transvestite and promoting his particular magnetism, whether certain users deem him culturally significant or not, Star is notable because MySpace is a cultural phenomenon, and he is one of the one of the few who has successfully exploited it for commercial advantage, enough to get published in LA Weekly, ABC interviews, etc. If my mother had heard of Jeffree Star, and a media source had failed to qualify who he was, she might very well go to Wikipedia....and be denied basic culturally significant information???? Even a basic entry??? I'm sorry, that's just prejudice, its not objective. You may not LIKE that Clinton cheated on his wife with an intern in the Oval Office, but you are not going to mention it in Wikipedia? Sorry, Star is culturally significant, whether you, me or anybody else likes it, or not.User:Apsedona 1:47 am MST, June 2, 2007
  • Whether you like Jeffree Star's "opinion" or not, it is 20/20's opinion, and LA Weekly's opinion that is really at issue here, in reporting about him. Wikipedia shouldn't really be deciding who is worthy of being infamous. Examples include Christina Aguilera, for one, for being quite controversial; I wouldn't mind her being excluded from Wikipedia, if you want to make Wiki arrogant, stuffy, and irrelevant to contemporary cultural society. Another infamous, questionably relevant, but then again highly entertaining and totally worthwhile character on Wiki: General Butt Naked. User:Apsedona 3:30 am MST, June 2, 2007
  • Furthermore, the article I reference from LA Weekly reports that Star had a fan base BEFORE he arrived on MySpace, that helped propel his notoriety. It's not about Star's opinion, (or even LA Weekly's opinion) its about him stating facts, and being reported in a RELIABLE publication, per WP:WEB, WP:SOURCE. User:Apsedona 3:36 am MST, June 2, 2007
  • You'll have to pardon my cultural illiteracy, but I don't know Jeffree Star. I looked at the LA Weekly reference (the only third party source for this article). Jeffree Star mentions Melodramatic.com once in the interview. I find that kind of...unimpressive...—Gaff ταλκ 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site is, as has been pointed out, not commercial, and does have legions of users. The Star citations have been noted; another Melodramatic personality, Maggie Fiasco, was recently featured on Jimmy Kimmel Live. It's notable for its unique history, as User:Apsedona has said, and for it's unique features, eg Karma. — Beobach972 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Certain individuals may be encyclopedic, but this doesn't mean any website they use or mention is encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, it fits the criteria for a website, according to existing Wiki guidelines, that it has been mentioned in a reliable publication. I think helping to bring along 30,000 users to a new site has some substance. 71.223.172.130 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: while I agree that this meets the guidelines as it has been mentioned in a reliable publication, I am not sure I understand the latter part of your comment. If you are suggesting that the Wikipedia entry be kept to guide users to the site, please be aware that such an arguement is irrelevent; we operate on notability &c. If you are arguing that the site is notable for and at least partly because of its large user base, I concur with you. — Beobach972 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:35, 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 Keep. All comments, including the nominator's, cite 3rd-party reviews. KrakatoaKatie 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Games

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

Unnotable "homebrewed" video game by an unnotable publisher. 99DBSIMLR 18:04, 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 12:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercars.net

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

This article still fails WP:WEB and WP:V is shaky as well, with the absence of secondary sources. A web search revealed no non-trivial sources and being well known is not enough. I would be happy to see it stay if someone has a non-trivial independent source that has dedicated some editorial space to this article, but it has lacked that for many months despite being tagged. Adrian M. H. 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Whstchy Adrian M. H. 20:34, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood (US band)

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

The article fails WP:MUSIC. There are assertions of notability but the claims of notability are hard to verify. For instance, the lead sentence claims that their first release was a huge success, but provides no citation to verify that. The article claims that the band contacted many labels, but again this kind of information is hard to verify. The article is very promotional in tone. Take away all of the unsourced material and all that's left is a stub about a non notable band. Delete'TheRingess (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've found interviews and reviews of the band on TruePunk, Absolutepunk.net (which apparently released an EP last year that caused quite some stir), PunkNews, and probably could dig up a few more with some more extensive Google-fu. They're also apparently the first rock album released by MySpace Records, and just wrapped up a national tour supporting Relient K and Mae (a review, to help meet WP:V on that statement). Definitely enough to work with here, but the article needs to be tidied and sources added. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep they have albums produced by recognized labels and are signed to a recognized lable. MySpace Records even has a wikipedia page...now that's notable! —Gaff ταλκ 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "oh god"? Every band under the sun now has a myspace page. It seems like a great idea for them to start a record label....unlike wikipedia, they are not opposed to "discovering" new talent. Here everything needs notability. —Gaff ταλκ 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Notable enough, just about. And I have to echo the above comment about MySpace! Adrian M. H. 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tony Fox. The whole article does need to be edited for a more encyclopedic tone and the NPOV removed. --Paul Erik 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i don't think that this article should be deleted. someone should be assigned to clean up and find whether there are sources for the information. some of this is true, or seems to be after my minimal research, and just needs citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyisstupid15 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questacon Madness

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

Acording to the trivia at the bottom, this is a SpongeBob episode. And the rest of the SpongeBob episodes don't have their own articles anymore. That's because it's impossible to prove if things are a pop up culture of something, unlike Family Guy. For example, I had hard times removing the silliness of Pranks A Lot that it's a reference to "Thanks a lot", when it wasn't. I say delete. TheBlazikenMaster 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I take it from your comment that Spongebob episodes have at some point been subject to a consensus that favoured deletion, so I'll go along with that. Adrian M. H. 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has. Check the talk page of the SpongeBob WikiProject. TheBlazikenMaster 21:11, 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. Content will live on for now at List of standardized tests in the United States (edit history will be preserved as I'll do a history merge). This discussion below does not indicate a consensus to delete any other test list articles and they will need to be nominated separately if people still want them deleted. W.marsh 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tests in the United States

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

This is an indiscriminate list of information that is better in smaller forms, i.e. List of standardized tests in the United States and List of admissions tests in the United States. WP should be accessible. - Freechild 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because after I created it another editor used it to fork the content of the original AfD; therefore, the same criteria apply to both pages. - Freechild 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made this page! Why are you nominating it for deletion? — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because after I attempted to make useful the info from the first page up for AfD, you instigated an edit war in order to use the page to fork content from the original page up for AfD. Your interpretation of the list's purpose shows me the inanity of the list, so they both need to go. And please, be civil. - Freechild 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the same argument, I would like to nominate the following page as well. It is most certainly a fork, and it belongs here as well. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The above article was added to this AfD as a vendetta; see this for more info. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was NOT added as a vendetta! I can't believe you! You forked this article and it belongs here. — Chris53516 (Talk) 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of a standardized test does not match the true definition. Standardized tests include admissions tests and tests created by private entities, such as the ACT and SAT. I do not mind your title for the page, but it misrepresents what standardized tests are. And another thing, if you even had the slightest bit of respect for other users, you would have discussed this change first before just moving things around. Perhaps then I would have agreed with you without argument. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See No Child Left Behind for the commonly-accepted American usage of the term. - Freechild 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: That definition is specific only to the discussion of the act, not for the general usage of the term. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is actually pointless because List of standardized tests in the United States now has the same information. Had User:Freechild explained his/her desired edits, this page discussion would not need to exist. — Chris53516 (Talk) 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the content of List of tests in the United States, I revised the parameters by creating the new List of standardized tests in the United States. However, the contents of this list were soon forked to mirror List of tests in the United States. I have refined the contents further to make the list usable as List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States. Merger tags have been placed on that page and List of admissions tests in the United States to bring them into List of standardized tests in the United States. All of these mergers further violate WP:WAI, and unfortunately demonstrate the inanity of lists. - Freechild 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Standardized tests does a better job than this list can. - Freechild 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My intent with the list was for "standardized test", not just any test. I was trying to be concise with the title, but apparently it was too concise and became too general. When Freechild changed the page to "standardized test", I restored the old page because he deleted content based on a faulty definition of "standardized test". I did not mind the new title, just the fact that he deleted content. He limited the definition of "standardized test" to only NCLB-mandated state tests, which is clearly disregarding the definition and history of the standardized test. Freechild has taken part of the new page and created List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States, which is obviously a fork and deserves mention on this page. I believe a list of standardized tests in the United States would be a useful addition to Wikipedia, for other users to find examples of tests and a complete list of the state tests. The content is listed in List of standardized tests in the United States serves that purpose. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree. I thought this whole thing was rather ridiculous. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the histmerge page, I'm not sure that's the best way to handle it. I think a redirect would be the simplest answer. If I understand correctly, we would have to delete the "List of standardized..." then move "List of tests..." even though it doesn't have the correct content anymore? That doesn't make sense to me. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect should be fine too, since the comment in the edit histories gives proper attribution to the copy-pasted content. What should NOT happen (and I hope the closing admin will take this into account), is for List of tests in the United States to be deleted and List of standardized tests in the United States to be kept, without doing a hist-merge. Doing so could be a violation of the GFDL. DHowell 19:26, 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will McBride (candidate)

AfDs for this article:
Will McBride (candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

This club does not appear to meet Wikiproject Football's notability guidelines. MTC 16:55, 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]

Durrus and District History Modern

Durrus and District History Modern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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:

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

List of actor-singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this list really necessary given the existance of Category:Actor-singers? PC78 16:38, 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 - Nabla 12:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed (2nd nomination)

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

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

The Crystal Ion, Arodynamic Air Turbine Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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. Mangojuicetalk 16:02, 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

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

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]

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

List of Portuguese books by title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

Malformed attempt to create a category, no real content. Carom 15:21, 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 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

Kahtmayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ardavan Anzabipour‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EXIR (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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]
  • 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)

White Star (hip hop group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

  • 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]

"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]

"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

CC-119 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft; non-notable character from Star Wars universe. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. -- Merope 14:08, 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]
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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

  • 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]

  • Speedy keep How is that not notable? I mean yeah, it's short, but it's good. Whsitchy 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
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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

Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

  • 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]
  • 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

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

Non notable referee with only non league amateur experience Cruccone, already deleted from it.wiki. 12:29, 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

Singapore Paranormal Investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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: 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]

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]

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

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

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]

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

Nextman stole my creps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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.[14] 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. - [15] - 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]
A measure it pretty clearly fails. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:17, 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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

Glenn A Christodoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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. Whstchy 17:53, 23 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. --Whsitchy 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.--Whsitchy 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. Whsitchy 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]
  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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

Fair trade jewelry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

Human Rights Abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

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

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

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

Tangeline

Tangeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

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 &#149; (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]

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]


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]

  • 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]


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]
  • 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 [22], 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]


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. --danielfolsom 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. WilyD 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 &#149; (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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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

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

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

When Corporations Rule the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

Early wrapt in slumber deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

Lee1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - trivia section masquerading as an article. Otto4711 06:03, 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)

Elizabeth Smart (abductee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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. ViridaeTalk 05:35, 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]
  • 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 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization not covered in independent,reliable sources. ([23] [24] ) 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]

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

Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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. ([25] [26][27]) 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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

Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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. ([28] [29] [30]) 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]

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

Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Author couldn't be arsed to cite indepdendent, reliable sources when writing the article and I cannot find any. (See [31] and [32].) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:16, 26 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 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

Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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 [33] and [34].) 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]

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

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]
  • 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:
      For the company formerly known as The Haloid Company, see Xerox.
      --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 AlfadorTalk|@ 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

Formula One Supporters Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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

Joe E. Holoubek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Not notable software with few reliable sources. 600 google results. few google news archive results. John Vandenberg 03:01, 26 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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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)
  • 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]
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

Ny'sera the Golden Watcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

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]

  • 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.

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]
  • 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]

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

Jeff Tarango(tennis player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a copy of Jeff Tarango with no useful improvements made. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:02, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Linux

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

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 03:02, 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

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

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 02:55, 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 by Joyous! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (Non-admin close). cab 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Quinn

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

Not enough info, non-encyclopidic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007 02:42 (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 The result was No consensus Mallanox 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Said Bin Said Zaid

Walid Said Bin Said Zaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]
  • 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]
    • Further information: User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
      — 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]
  • 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 &#149; (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]
  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgression (Latter Day Saints)

Transgression (Latter Day Saints) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

  • 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 &#149; (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?
  • 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 &#149; (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

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

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]

"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]
"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]
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

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

Low-quality article on non-notable topic. Chealer 01:50, 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 delete! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Time!

Summer Time! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photogeno

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

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. Whsitchy 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:
Codependent Collegian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]
  • 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.

Victorian Speleological Association Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Side chain (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

Side chain (sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Animation

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

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]

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

Kazahana Family Mass Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

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

Landscape of archaeology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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:

Landscape of forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Landscape of roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Landscape of recreation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Landscape of energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Landscape of urbanization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Landscape of mineral extraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • 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 &#149; (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

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

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]

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

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

Bill Still

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

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 [41] 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 &#149; (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)

Troop 1 (Boonton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th Canadian Brigade

11th Canadian Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

information already available on 4th Canadian Division page. Kscheffler 07:33, 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 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

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

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]

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

Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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)

Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]
  • 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 now that the article has been sourced. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: The discussion produced no clear consensus for refocusing and renaming the article, but also did not yield a clear consensus against it. I think that issue would be best handled through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Barschak

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

The subject is not notable as he has only crashed one party of the Royal Family and notability is non-transferable. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not transferable, however. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability maybe not transferable, but use the same argument in Essjay controversy, and you have a big no go. Mike33 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that google hits can give an impression about one's notability, but 85 of those hits were the "Funnies" websites. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at this in a different perspective: He is a troublemaking anti-establishment comedian. Do you know how many of those there are in any given town? Most of them don't warrant inclusion, so why should this one? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok magnus - dont actually think it will survive the Afd. It wasn't my article, but the incident does need listing either as the (self loving anti-establishmentarian he is) or grouped together with a few other palace break in security breaches. British Royal Family Incidents or something. It a catch all and I agree, but if the media makes a star of somebody, we have very little we can do but echo those facts in a sourced way. But i could give an XXXX for his edinburgh reviews or his appearences on talkradio. I'll write a short article about buck house incidents (lol see WP:SPIDER), if they are covered seperately in wikipedia it would be wrong to leave this guys 15mins of fame out. (if you can offer any help and guidence on a new article please get in touch Mike33 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just as an afterthought, links to the page all seem to be dubious (however probably good faith links). Mike33 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would expect an encyclopaedia to be able to answer a question such as 'who was that bloke who invaded the royal party at Windsor Castle?' There are plenty of links that demonstrate he was newsworthy at the time. Nunquam Dormio 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
despite ur name (nunquam dormio - i won't sleep?!) Thanks and if you want to help creat a bigger better article that includes this dude (ignoring all the comments above about him) then cool. If this passes through Afd, i am going on a month of wiki-cleanup. Mike33 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore demonstrating that its target meets WP:BIO. The BBC news coverage is sufficient evidence of notability, IMHO. WaltonAssistance! 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/rename article to a title about the incident only, leave redirect, and refocus article. Lets face it, people, this is an article about the single incident which gives him his (albeit-marginal) notability - it is not a "biography" proper. The best thing is to move it to a header about the incident (I cite the precedent of Essjay, amongst many others), and refocus the article about the incident. Daniel 10:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little more than just the Windsor Castle incident so it wouldn't merge that well. There's the stand-up comedy, the Chapman 'attack', the film, and his stunt in Wapping. Nunquam Dormio 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - he's received press coverage for several incidents, not just one. I think he merits a biography in his own right. WaltonAssistance! 15:20, 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.com.org. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious domain names

List of fictitious domain names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. A list of every domain name, which isn't real, mentioned in a TV show is going to become unmaintainable! A domain name isn't notable for being mentioned in a TV show. Maybe we should have an article for every fictional building, no matter how minor, used in every TV show, ever? Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_1&oldid=135193822"