Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge to M-Pio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 10:46Z

Mpio

Another article M-Pio has more information, but perhaps the wrong name. That article should take the Mpio name, and the original Mpio article be deleted. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Requested moves is across the quad, in the small brick building. Uncle G 00:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, exists already as M-Pio. --MaNeMeBasat 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; merge would be okay too. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 10:48Z

Comparison of web application frameworks

Looks like this is likely to fail OR. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does Comparison of Linux distributions fail OR? If not, then why does this article? --N Shar 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the Linux list is too detailed to be merged in the main article. One can argue about WP not being an indiscriminate collection of information (e.g. list, trivia), and one way to avoid deletion is to take the comparisons out of the table format and write it just like an ordinary encyclopedia article. However, I think this would be a problem since there are many Linux distributions, and there can also be as many points of comparison; IMO, a table does the job better. This current list, however, is small enough to be included in the Web application framework article. Unless, of course, it can be either expanded or merged. --- Tito Pao 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem putting some of this information in the article as well, I thought it would be easier to add facts to a table for a quick summary first. Ian Bailey 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge with Web application framework.--IRelayer 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per IRelayer. I can't really see why this would be classified as original research. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Creator has stated that his goal is to make the article similar to Comparison of Linux distributions. This seems like a good article, perhaps even a future Good Article if it's well done. --N Shar 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reconsider at a later point. This should be no different than any other article in Category:Comparisons. Objective tables of verifiable facts should not be OR. If there ends up being a single table in which names do not repeat, then merge with List of web application frameworks. Pomte 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per N Shar and Pomte above. --Zeborah 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a mindless list Nardman1 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article cannot be expanded, then better have it merged to Web application framework. --- Tito Pao 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not relevant per WP:NOT.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Web application framework. Why have two when one will do? Philippe Beaudette 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Comparisons are not OR. Research into the original documentation to find the data for a comparison would be OR.DGG 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --MaNeMeBasat 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(Template?) - I think that while the information is useful it is not enough numbers wise to deserve its own article - however the size gives it an advantage as it could be merged into each of the articles (possibly through a template) since it would not be like putting a giant table in the aforementioned articles - but instead a small, notable piece of information.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:22Z

Bleach media and materials

A long cluttered list of Bleach information that is much better suited for a fan wiki. RobJ1981 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of an article series, but I don't see any particular policy problems with the lists nor does the nominator cite any. Voice actor sections should be removed as they should be included with the character descriptions, per guidelines by WP:ANIME. But overall, my impression of this nomination is the result of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media and release information is encyclopedic, and the title refers to the theme songs and episode lists and such. It's better to have it in one place than in a bunch of different ones. JuJube 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I don't like it, it's better to have this one article then have a bunch of others like JuJube said. Can you imagine how many AFDs all those would be?--M8v2 02:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fancrufty, but the equivalent of many N discography articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for lists, it is meant to be an encyclopedia of relevant information - with respect: this isn't.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And exactly what policy are you citing? Clearly lists are permissible, otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't have Featured Lists nor have established guidelines on lists. --Farix (Talk) 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abeg92contribs 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my WP:JUSTAVOTE above. As far as I can see, this is a major enterprise, and there's a lot of stuff related to it. Ab e g92contribs 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything, there is significant precedent for this in other anime pages, as well as music pages. Bleach is a very popular and significant work; while some anime may not warrant such pages, Bleach is a huge industry that has wide recognition. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst aware of the whole snowball/heck business I do want to say that I feel we have far too many lists. WMMartin 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I hate things like episode articles and many character articles, but the majority of these lists are ok, even if most people don't care about the subject matter. "Far too many lists"? As much as I hate to admit it, a lot of silly stuff has impact on our world where a lot of people made it and even more watched it, and markets formed around it. These lists are hardly the major concern for cruft cutting, anyways. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. We don't need to know every single somewhat related song/ whatever to Bleach, but most of this stuff is fine. Although, a good lot of it could easily be merged into other articles rather than independently listed. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Bleach is very popular, and most of this is pretty much important. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per List of RahXephon media and other featured media lists. They can be sourced. They can be pretty. These things are moved to secondary pages because of readability size limits. Try using clean-up tags. --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Onoes! You've fallen for my keep card!. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information

Yet another cluttered and crufty anime list. RobJ1981 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non-encyclopedic. Belongs on a fan site. Seems to fall in the WP:NOT#IINFO criteria. Maybe WP:NOT needs a new category called "Episode guide" in addition to "Travel guide". --JJLatWiki 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep -

(The above comment was added by User:MARromance) --MasterA113 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of an article series, but I don't see any particular policy problems with the list nor does the nominator cite any but uses an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rational instead. The episode lists would benefit by switching the the {{Japanese episode list}} template. I also don't see how WP:NOT#INFO would apply here as we have a number of other episode lists that are currently Featured Lists. --Farix (Talk) 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons mentioned by other users in favour of keeping the article. It's a list of episodes, which many series also happen to have (eg. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of InuYasha episodes, etc.) --Benten 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't expect it to be. Drake Clawfang 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media and release information is encyclopedic, and the title refers to the theme songs and episode lists and such. It's better to have it in one place than in a bunch of different ones. JuJube 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just trivia.
Keep, media information like this is pretty well grounded and not in the whole "zomg, fanboy/girl" territory. Granted we should keep an eye on lists for works of fiction, that doesn't mean ban any lists. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is on TV in multiple countries, so the series is notable. This list appears to be sourced. Less objectional than articles for every character and every episode. Edison 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A funny side note, that's one reason I like these lists, they can be an alternative to individual episode articles. Ironically, some lists lead to that.. You win some, you lose some. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on some of the nominators previous comments, I think he is trying to set a president here with these nominations. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is not encyclopedic in any way and wikipedia is not a place for media and upcoming information.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional reasons for deletion: WP:NOTE - I don't see any evidence that the subject, "Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information", has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This is just minutiae that lets fans avoid paying for and maintaining there own blog/host account. --JJLatWiki 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaching there. As I said above, this article is part of an article series on Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, which is undeniably notable. If the main topic is notable, then so are the subtopics. --Farix (Talk) 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media is the broken down units of the show itself. Much like individual books in a series. -- Ned Scott 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per List of RahXephon media and other featured media lists. They can be sourced. They can be pretty. These things are moved to secondary pages because of readability size limits. Try using clean-up tags. --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "it's a subtopic" aside. If anyone wants to make a subtopic in a separate article, that subtopic, not its parent, must pass WP:N on its own merits or be merged back into the notable topic. Toyota is notable. That does not mean my Toyota is notable or should be in an article. McDonald's is notable. That doesn't mean every individual restaurant should be in a separate article. If information is getting too thick in an article, but no subtopics are notable enough for an individual article, too much detail is getting provided. In this case, look to cut-not split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That logic might fly with, say, individual articles for each listed item.. but a single list of items is very different. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep we have pages like these to keep the info off the main article. There is no policy banning these lists as well, a lot have FL status. (Note: Nominator seems to be listing any list he can find for deletion. [1])--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MasterA113 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you choose to delete it because you don't like it? Because that is exactly what the nominator's rational is. But if you care to elaborate further as to why this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, please do so. Otherwise, your "per non" comment doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Onoes, keep card, blah blah blah.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information

Another cluttered list of anime information. This fancruft needs to end. Things like theme song listings are certainly better for a fan wiki instead. RobJ1981 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non-encyclopedic. Belongs on a fan site. Seems to fall in the WP:NOT#IINFO criteria. Maybe WP:NOT needs a new category called "Episode guide" in addition to "Travel guide". --JJLatWiki 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARromance (talk • contribs)
Keep Part of an article series, but I don't see any particular policy problems with the list nor does the nominator cite any but uses an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rational instead. The beginning of the list could use some cleanup and reorganization. I also don't see how WP:NOT#INFO would apply here as we have a number of other episode lists that are currently Featured Lists. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOT#IINFO specifies "Plot summaries" which account for the bulk of the article. --JJLatWiki 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The bulk of the article is just the episode list. Only a small portion of the article is "plot summaries". The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does happen from time to time, but that's a case where we should trim the plot summary, rather than delete the list itself. The list is there for real world things, like dates, involved people, noting the units/segments the fiction was released in, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOT#IINFO prohibition is against articles that are solely a summary of the plot with no real-world context or sourced analysis. Since other episode information is provided for real-world context and the summaries are very brief, it doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep media and release information is encyclopedic, and the title refers to the theme songs and episode lists and such. It's better to have it in one place than in a bunch of different ones. JuJube 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media information like this is pretty well grounded and not in the whole "zomg, fanboy/girl" territory. Granted we should keep an eye on lists for works of fiction, that doesn't mean ban any lists. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yu-Gi-Oh! seems to be notable, so a listing like this is permissible, but it does not appear to have a good source at this time. Could an independent reliable and verifiable source for the info be added to the article? How do the editors obtain the info provided? Edison 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above points. The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synopses and plot summaries should not be articles. They are just trivia.-MsHyde 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional reasons for deletion: WP:NOTE - I don't see any evidence that the subject, "Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information", has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This is just minutiae that lets fans avoid paying for and maintaining there own blog/host account. --JJLatWiki 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaching there. As I said above, this article is part of an article series on Yu-Gi-Oh!, which is undeniably notable. If the main topic is notable, then so are the subtopics. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does not follow that all subtopics of a notable topic are automatically notable. Can you cite multiple, non-trivial published works that refer to "Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information"? The article is a repository of miscellaneous trivia and advertising about Yu-Gi-Oh! --JJLatWiki 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic makes no sense. How can a series be notable, but at the same time not notable? --Farix (Talk) 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, there appear to be no published sources on "media and release information for Yu-Gi-Oh!", which means that the subject amounts ot a novel synthesis. Plus, why do we have more words devoted to Yu-Gi-Oh! than we do to the age of enlightenment? I know which is more important by any objective measure. This goes beyond picking the low-hanging fruit and into gathering windfalls. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Age of Enlightenment" is not the subject of this debate. If you feel another article on Wikipedia deserves to be expanded, do it. Deeming one subject more important than other is another fallicious WP:ILIKEIT-style argument. The anime publication Newtype and other have featured various apects of thise series, including episode summaries and dvd release information. These articles can be cleaned-up to be well-written, sourced and featured lists. (i.e. List of RahXephon media) --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:OTHERTHINGSAREMOREIMPORTANT argument is a good candidate for WP:ATA. --Farix (Talk) 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per List of RahXephon media and other featured media lists. They can be sourced. They can be pretty. These things are moved to secondary pages because of readability size limits. Try using clean-up tags. --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep we have pages like these to keep the info off the main article. There is no policy banning these lists as well, a lot have FL status. (Note: Nominator seems to be listing any list he can find for deletion. [2])--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Some of the "delete" voters seem to be confusing documentation of stereotypes (as is proper for an encyclopedia, being a tertiary source), with the stereotypes themselves. Splitting is possible (but too complex to decide here). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 10:53Z

Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims

POV pushing topic. This is another attempt to dismiss Criticism of Islam as racism. Sefringle 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect if possible to salvage the data. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some background: this is an article originally split from Ethnic stereotypes in American media with sister pages Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, and Stereotypes of American Indians. Stereotypes of this population exist and have been academically studied and should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Bias is not a grounds for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and can be corrected. I strongly disagree with your above statement. The purpose of this article isn't to claim that it's racist to criticize Islam. It is a fact that Arabs & Muslims are stereotyped. This stereotyping is the subject of the article. Whether or not you wish to consider the racial profiling & stereotyping discussed in the article to be racism is your business. --Drenched 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drenched. The article is of the type "Stereotypes of ..." and is distinct different from Criticisms of Islam. The article is well-sourced, NPOV, and NOR--it does not itself make any claim of racism and only documents the statements/analyses of various published sources. Black Falcon 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the general decision to split up stereotyping content into various "Stereotypes of..." articles may or may not have been a good one, once the general decision was made, lots of individual "Stereotypes of..." articles follow, and it makes no sense to try to rehash the general decision by picking a few off individually and leaving the rest. The article could stand improvement, but the existence of stereotypes is notable from common knowledge. That said, it's questionable whether "Arabs and Muslims" should be combined, since the latter is a much larger group than the former. --Shirahadasha 01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename This article can be saved, but first it has to be seperated. As Shirahadasha points out, it makes no sense to combine "Arabs" and "Muslims" as not all Arabs are Muslim (Druze, Christian, Athiests, Agnostics, etc) and non-Arab Muslims probably outnumber Arab Muslims. Ironicly, the title of the article reflects a stereotype.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although true that "not all Arabs are Muslim" or vice versa, the common stereotype (at least in the United States) is that they are. Although I am not opposed to seeing the separated, I don't think either one could be mentioned without noting the other. As the article currently stands, it is in fact more about stereotypes against Arabs than Muslims, so perhaps "and Muslims" should be dropped from the title. Also, I think "in the American media", "in Western popular culture" or something similar should be added to the title of this (and the other similar articles) as this is the actual focus of the article (the article does not, for instance, include stereotypes of Arabs among Israelis, among Africans, etc.). Comments? Black Falcon 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The grouping of peoples & their stereotypes is very complex, and I see no obvious best way to organize these articles. I just wanted to mention that the possibly related page Stereotypes of South Asians also exists, split off from the Stereotypes of Asians page. The current article used to be called Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs because that's what the mother page's heading was called, but was renamed to the current title as per its discussion page. Stereotyping is a complex issue first because there are so many layers of identity with regards to nationality and religion which each have their own stereotypes that may or may not overlap, and second because stereotypes are often created & perpetuated by ignorant people who mistakenly lump different identities together or substitute one for another. I agree that a discussion regarding how best to organize these articles is definitely in order, although my first priority is to save this article from deletion. --Drenched 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the title, the article should definitely be kept--I think the nomination was the result of a simple misunderstanding. I agree that the specific title is an issue for the talk page--the content and subject-matter pass WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, and WP:ENC, and that is what is really relevant at AfD. Black Falcon 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this is a violation of WP:OR: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It is possible to make a similar article for every ethnic or religious group because for every group one will find something that will support their position. This article seems to select a few authors and films to make a statement. This càomment may be striked when it can be proven that there exist a substantial academic literature about this subject, rather than selecting a few authors to advance an opinion. Also it seems to be a good idea to differ between Muslims and Arabs, and between American and Western European societies. As many muslims and Arabs live in Western Europe, it is possible that e.g. films show a less stereotypical image, see for instance Gegen die Wand, which can hardly be claimed to be stereotypical. Sijo Ripa 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into two articles on Stereotypes of Arabs and Stereotypes of Muslims. There may well be substantial overlap between the two subjects, and many items may warrant discussion on both pages, but they ought to be distinct. I suspect there already is a reasonable body of literature on the subject of these stereotypes to draw on. The text now present here is a reasonable beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant and could be seen as racist, even just by the title.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please clarify what you mean? Not relevant to what? Also, I'm genuinely curious as I can't see how the title could be viewed as racist--it makes no claim about the truth or falsity of the stereotypes. The fact is that stereotypes exist and have been the source of much scholarly discussion. I would appreciate your clarifications, Black Falcon 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why the heck are we giving people a place to air their stereotypes? Unencyclopedic. Philippe Beaudette 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the issue is one of airing stereotypes. The article presents a well-sourced summary of published works regarding the existence and character of these stereotypes. It contains no attack statements and all but one statements are sourced (the sole unsourced sentence has been tagged with {{fact}} and does not present a stereotype). Black Falcon 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your passion, I'm not sure it's necessary to answer every delete with a comment... Philippe Beaudette 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "every delete" you note amounts to a grand total of two. I sincerely hope the threshold for passion has not dropped so low for that would be a boring world indeed. In the first case, I was curious as to how the article title may be perceived as racist. In the second case, I commented regarding your unclear (at least to me) reason for deleting. If you wish to clarify it, I would like to understand your position. If you do not, that is your prerogative. In any case, my passion or lack thereof is irrelevant to this AfD. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Islam articles. Xiner (talk, email) 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprisingly the title is not "Arabs, Muslims and other Terrorists." Anyhow, unless we have somebody working on the suggestion by Smerdis of Tlön let's get rid of all the nonsense regarding Muslims being Terrorists and that you can recognise them by the Arab-like appearance.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that you misunderstand the article; it isn't saying that all Muslims are terrorists etc. It's saying that the above misconception & related confusion of identities exists in the form of stereotypes. However, I agree that the organization of the article is messy now; I think if clearer headings are used (we can give stereotypes of Muslims and stereotypes of Arabs separate subheadings & define each identity) and a paragraph explicitly explaining how the stereotypes of each group are associated or how identities are mistaken by those stereotyping, the points made above about Arab vs. Muslim identity can be successfully addressed. --Drenched 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Criticism of Islam, otherwise it's just a neologism that's coming from less than saintly sources. Violates WP:NEO. IZAK 11:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "less than saintly", but an LA times article and an article by a Professor at Southern Illinois Universit are certainly reliable sources. Also, how is it a neologism--the term has been used by scholars, journalists, actors, directors, etc., etc., etc.? And which part is a neologism--stereotypes? That's just a descriptive word. I would appreciate your clarifications, if you are so inclined. Black Falcon 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Shirahadasha, also nominator doesn't state any grounds for deletion. any problems with actual article are fixed by editing. ⇒ bsnowball 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Philippe Beaudette has I think misunderstood the article: it's not, so far as I can tell, aimed at perpetuating stereotypes, whether offensive or otherwise ( a couple of stereotypes that are not mentioned in the article are the rather positive ones that "Arab men are particularly able to (ahem) please women, both physically and otherwise", and that "Arab men make stern, but loving and devoted fathers" ). Rather, the aim of the article is to document the stereotypes, and provide a balanced view of them. I'd like to eliminate the smell of OR from the article, and it will of course need to be monitored carefully for balance and to ensure an NPOV tone, but that should not be beyond our collective wit. The topic is certainly notable. WMMartin 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srong KEEP (but possibly stronger Cleanup) - this article's topic is filled with potential, and it is obviously an issue - but the fact that the only section has "belly dancers" in its title disturbs me. And since when did we start articles out with, "This article..." This is a very important issue and deserves to be on Wikipedia - it just needs to be of a higher quality given its importance.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is very interesting topic. It may be POV just a little.Biophys 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:24Z

ITablet

Delete Yes there have been rumours that Apple were developing a tablet form computer. However Wikipedia isn't really here to report on rumours. And even if it was, recent events suggest that Apple are not.[3] AlistairMcMillan 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennisthe2 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about rumored concept of a non-existent product that has never been announced, and indeed only disavowed by Apple. If someone wants to write about Apple tablets, write about the ModBook, which at least is announced, demo-ed, and pre-orders being taken.--Jason C.K. 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has rumor all of it and its sources, as per WP:CRYSTAL.--Dacium 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic example of WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirahadasha 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystalball--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above: WP is not a tool for getting rumors onto the #1 slot on google. Danski14 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Not properly referenced and quite unreliable, as well as not written in a encyclopedic format.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come across alot of info going either way. It's all speculation and no fact. Bring it back only when it's announced, till then, delete. Whilding87 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Speculative, and all that pesky crystal ball stuff. Philippe Beaudette 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; this article has no sources and is very speculative. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All rumors; speculative — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HEY LOOK AT THIS YOU IGNORANT LADIES!!!!!!!!Redguard101 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that is just another bunch of rumours, right? AlistairMcMillan 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I emphasize the name of the site as "macrumors.com"? The name itself indicates that anything here is not going to be verifiable. --Dennisthe2 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as whats been said above --JakeParker 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Wodup 08:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol stapek

Possible hoax article. No verification for any of the claims about this "well-known Kantian scholar". ^{[Check Google hits]} brings up 10 results, a couple of them referring to Carol Stapek as a "world renowned asshat". Nothing in Google Scholar. The books mentioned don't exist. Contested prod. Delete. ... discospinster _talk 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, dubious, and the Google results are quite telling. Dar-Ape 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A substantially similar article speedied two days ago also contained claims that she has accused John Stossel of something called 'econo-pedophelia' and that she went to the prom with Kim Jong-il. Looks like some kids having a laugh. -- Vary | Talk 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. WP:BJAODN candidate. --Shirahadasha 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly dubious. Author's username is Foolyo (I've requested a name change, but the odds that he/she will respond are approximately 100 to 1 against.) --N Shar 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, obvious vandalism (it's just a hoax).-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I'll hedge a bet on an A7. --Dennisthe2 06:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, no objection to speedy.--John Lake 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graceba Total Communications

Disputed speedy deletion, article doesn't present evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Count me neutral, procedural listing. --W.marsh 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass WP:ORG under general criteria.--Dacium 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --Bill Clark 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the author nominated much of his work for "Strong Delete" after a content dispute with another editor Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet WP:CORP but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plant a stub, let it grow! Keep. --Dennisthe2 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing about this article suggests advertising or a conflict of interest. Local cable TV providers are almost always likely to pass WP:CORP, given that their quasi-monopoly status in many communities is almost certain to make their activities the subject of independent commentary. This one seems to have encountered some kind of semi-newsworthy and public regulatory hassle. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its best to keep the article for now. It is certainly not a spam page or any inflict of advertising, and I'm sure the page can be rewritten so it meets WP:CORP. Retiono Virginian 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes WP:CORP. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. Philippe Beaudette 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been around since 1912 and was involved in an FCC legal decision. Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please tell me we didn't speedy delete an article about this company. Lie to me if you have to. RFerreira 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G1 - patent nonsense --BigDT 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolcha-Ka Winksaerdon and Fartilicious Edna

Non-notable person; contested speedy {{db-bio}}; probable WP:HOAX movie. Alert for sock/process abuse DMacks 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling:

as non-notable movie created together as inter-related WP:HOAX. Parallel creation by same user, speedy-contest by same anon-ip (sock?). DMacks 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Leuko 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted both articles. For anyone who cares, the original author also created Barbie goes to Poo-Poo Land!, which I think pretty well settles any doubts. --BigDT 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Wodup 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Burgers

Clear hoax made by schoolkids. WP:NFT. Despeedied and deprodded without explanation. Related page Donny Chi has been repeatedly recreated probably by the same editors [4], may want to salt this one. Also recommend reporting this one to San Mateo Union High School District, where Donny Chi is apparently a student and from which three of the IP editors originate [5][6][7] cab 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism. Looks like this was literally made up in school one day. I don't really think reporting this to the authorities is necessary though... -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably not, I just feel like a real bastard today, and since we know the school district and likely the individual high school and the names of people involved ... cab 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Maybe even speediable as pure vandalism (G3). --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism and report to the high school. I'm also feeling mean. --N Shar 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious hoax. --Haemo 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax; but no need to get anyone in trouble for something that's doing no real harm.--Zeborah 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and report them. Nardman1 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 and protect Donny Chi from recreation. No need to report to authorities unless it becomes a real problem (i.e. disruptive, uncivil, etc)--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, patent WP:NFT nonsense. Krimpet 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and tagged myself) undoubtedly a hoax especially with quotes like "Wassup Yo, Burger Mothasucka?" Tagged it as patent nonsense.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:24Z

Steven Herrick

Notability not sufficiently shown. Delete unless notability is shown. --Nlu (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google for "Steven Herrick" poet [8] produces plenty of sources showing mainstream publication of a number of books. This one lists awards. Just needs a quick rewrite to remove copyvio from the second paragraph. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just rewritten with information from and references to publishers' websites, Children's Book Council of Australia site, and the Contemporary Authors Online biography. --Zeborah 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfills WP:N as the author of numerous books with mulitple, independant reviews (see here for one example). -- MarcoTolo 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some really good work this is now a keeper. The references are now strong. --Kevin Murray 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all aboveOo7565 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, referenced and properly sourced in the article as it stands Alf photoman 18:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no problems with it as it is now. Philippe Beaudette 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Search makes it seem notable enough. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. In the end, not even the nominator was arguing for deleting this article. The only remaining point of contention was whether or not there should be an article on Ebonics distinct from the article on African American Vernacular English. There was not absolute consensus on this point, but a number of commentators presented strong arguments that the two subjects are distinct, and many other participants seem to be agreeing, so this deletion discussion is closed without any AFD-mandated merging of the two articles. I encourage interested participants to discuss what content belongs at what article on the respective talk pages, outside the context of a deletion discussion. Jkelly 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonics

This article contains information that already exists in African American Vernacular English. The African American Vernacular English article uses the phrase "Ebonics" in a context that implies it is the same term as AAVE and vise versa. Any novel information in this article could easily be merged with the AAVE article considering the terms are synonymous. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Use merge tags and the talk pages of the articles in question. {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} are the ones you want. Cheers, cab 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's already been suggested that the AAVE page be renamed to "Ebonics". The "Ebonics" page has no justification for existing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for content or naming disputes. The article in question doesn't fail any policies. Merge the content yourself whichever way you want once consensus is achieved among the article editors, and ask an admin to do a history merge. Then redirect one to the other. cab 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Wikidudeman, should you be voting on your own nomination? I thought your vote was already implied by placing the AfD template. Pinkville 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - wait until the merge debate ends, before trying to delete it. Also, why are you calling for a speedy delete on this? It doesn't meet any of the criteria. --Haemo 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list it as a "speedy deletion". I listed it under "Articles for deletion". I just said speedy delete to emphasize how much this article doesn't belong. I didn't use the speedy deletion template because it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge Ebonics was a political effort to show that AAVE was not a defective manner of speaking. Anything to be said about Ebonics is short enough to be merged into that article. Edison 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're partly right, Edison. It was indeed what you say it was. But it was more, too. Please read the article, think about what it says, and reconsider. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, and redirect. Looks like the "merge" tamplate has been added, so I'd suggest tabling the AfD as unnecessary. -- MarcoTolo 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems pretty clear-cut--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's only three paragraphs of content, while African American Vernacular English is a whole article. Anything that's not present in the AAVE article could be easily and quickly copied and pasted. --FuriousFreddy 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That, FF, assumes that all within "Ebonics" is part of or very relevant to "AAVE". I'd agree that much of it is, and that's why the duplication is minimal. Much of it isn't, thus the article. Please read the article for yourself and reconsider. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ........ PS, ugh, that was terrible wording immediately above. Second attempt: That, FF, assumes that all covered by the term "Ebonics" is part of or very relevant to what's covered by the term "AAVE". I'd agree that much of it is, and that's why the duplication of material in the articles is minimal. Much of the original meaning of "Ebonics" isn't covered by "AAVE" (and it is based on linguistic premisses that for now I'll describe as idiosyncratic), thus the additional short article on the term "Ebonics". Please read the article for yourself and reconsider. -- Hoary 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There is no need for two pages that mean the exact same thing. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There certainly is not, but these two don't mean the exact same thing. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and allow people who are willing to read and think to consider redirecting it after an intelligent discussion. Dude Man claims above: The African American Vernacular English article uses the phrase "Ebonics" in a context that implies it is the same term as AAVE and vise [sic] versa. Obviously it's not the same term. Does it have the same meaning? No it doesn't, and if the AAVE article says that it does, this needs rewriting. (This is not to deny that the meanings overlap.) Any novel information in this article could easily be merged with the AAVE article considering the terms are synonymous. This is a clear demonstration that Dude Man hasn't even bothered to read the article he's so keen to have deleted. ¶ The attempt to delete this article should be seen with this discussion as a background. (In it, I suggest renaming "Ebonics", perhaps to "Ebonics (language group)", and leaving "Ebonics" itself as a disambig page. I wrote this without knowing that Dude Man had already put up "Ebonics" for deletion, a fact he oddly omitted to mention within that discussion. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. And, as Hoary rightly says, read the AAVE article and the discussion on its talk page before rushing to merge two articles that do not actually mean the same thing. This AfD has been precipitously brought in the midst of a very lopsided discussion happening on the AAVE talk page and so nothing should be done here before the dust has settled there. Pinkville 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate I think that the history of the word by itself makes this a keeper. Yes the word is practically synonomous with AAVE, but it has a history of its own. I think that we can afford a bit of redundancy as long as the two articles compliment each other. --Kevin Murray 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the words are practically synonymous then why can't they be merged into one article? What part of this article deserves to have it's own article that can't be made into a subsection of the AAVE article? I see none.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear it one more time. "African American vernacular English" is the linguistics term. "Ebonics" is not. It's a poltically-charged (i.e. non-neutral, non-scientific) term that is used by some for AAVE, but that has other overtones as well. "Ebonics" resides in a political and cultural context, "AAVE" in a linguistics context. Get it? Pinkville 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I get the fact that you have absolutely no evidence supporting those assertions. I get the fact that you're evading the actual question as well. Even if "Ebonics" is politically charged, that doesn't explain why this page can't be put into a sub section of the AAVE page.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion: "African American vernacular English" is the linguistics term. Evidence: Arthur K. Spears, "African American language use: Ideology and so-called obscenity" (in Salikoko S. Mufwene et al, eds., African-American English: Structure, history, and use [do you want full bibliographical details?], p.230. ¶ Assertion: "Ebonics" resides in a political and cultural context. Evidence: John Baugh, Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice [do you want full bibliographical details?], pp. xii–xiii. ¶ What other assertions need evidence? -- Hoary 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked for evidence for, I asked for evidence "Ebonics" is a politically charged word that has numerous other negative 'overtones'.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for evidence "Ebonics" is a politically charged word that has numerous other negative 'overtones' Yikes. John Baugh, Beyond Ebonics (full bibliographical details in the Ebonics article, even ISBN numbers so you can easily buy a copy): Due largely to its ideological origin (see chapter 2), Ebonics has come to mean different things to different people (Introduction, pp.11-12). Further: The combination of the media spotlight, race, language, education and politically correct dogma soon leapt beyond the political realm and became fodder for comedians, pundits, and editorial cartoonists (see chapter 8), and "-bonics" soon became a productive suffix as off-color Ebonics jokes began to flourish. Daytime and late-night talk shows began to lampoon Ebonics.... (Introduction, p.12). OK? -- Hoary 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion. --Dennisthe2 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Ebonics is a term in political discourse. Differentation between AAVE and Ebonics should be settled separatly, not through AfD. --Soman 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Ebonics describes a political-educational movement, although it is also often used as a synonym for the dialect. Phonics is not part of the American English article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ebonics is a political term, and its political context deserve a separate article from the linguistic AAVE article.--Pharos 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Probably influenced by the herd, but it seems different enought for its own article. TonyTheTiger 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure what circumstances an article about Ebonics would ever warrant deletion, but this is not one of them. (jarbarf) 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AAVE. One is just the colloquial term for the other.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, hello? Have you read the article? If you have read the article, surely you must conclude that either (a) the one is not just the colloquial term for the other, or (b) what the article says is wrong. Since I'm the main writer of the article so far, I would not be happy to hear that what it says is wrong, but I am most open to informed explanations of how what it says is wrong. Persuade me. And persuade your fellow editors. But don't, please, simply make assumptions on what the article might say, or on what the relationship between these terms might be. -- Hoary 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, in fact, neither term is colloquial. They are both technical terms, with distinct - and different, though overlapping - meanings. Pinkville 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CastAStone. Philippe Beaudette 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although my preference is to also merge it with AAVE, I believe that decision ought to occur outside of the AfD. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merge per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. No need to even explain this. Redirects and merges can be done by the editors of the articles in question. --- RockMFR 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge One umbrella topic split into two articles. JPG-GR 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. And what is the one umbrella topic? (Tip: If you haven't yet read the Ebonics article, please do so before answering.) -- Hoary 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to merge I'm changing my support of having this article deleted and instead supporting it to be redirected and merged to the AAVE article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree with that too, as I've explained on the talk page of AAVE. But putting aside my disagreement, I'd ask you to help people coming later to this AfD by crossing through your earlier requests to delete. The simplest way to do it is via the (old fashioned) HTML "s" tag, <s>like this</s>. Thank you for your consideration. -- Hoary 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term has a specifically political connotation, and the articles are distinct. I rather doubt the editors involved would think them mergable.DGG 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Please don't clog up AFD with nonsense nominations like this. RFerreira 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and keep separate - two different valid notable terms, two different articles. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 in lieu of deletion (there may be a better redirect, feel free to change). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:28Z

Armies of 40k

Delete - Unspeedied, but it is non-notable, WP:WING, WP:VSCA Avi 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it's definitely notable, we already have articles about all of this material. This is a useless list. --Haemo 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but the nominator's reasons are unsound. Warhammer 40K is absolutely notable, and so are the armies that are used in it. Nor is this in any way a game guide. There is in fact zero information about the mechanics of the game in this article. But I'm still saying delete because the existing articles on the game serve the purpose quite well. I'd have prod'd it myself, or gone with a redirect, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Manticore. Warhammer 40,000 is definitely notable. The article isn't a game guide either. However, it is poorly-written, act as a list, right now consists of original research, and is rather useless as the separate army pages serve its purpose for now. I'll create a page like this later this year when my WP backlog is done with, but right now this page should go. Shrumster 08:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These armies are notable. However the article requires clean-up (and possibly moving to a different namespace). Axl 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Rewrite as per FrozenPurpleCube. This would be a decent article if it weren't just a list of names. -Ryanbomber 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, rewrite It's notable if it's improved, otherwise delete. Whilding87 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending better sources and cleanup The article provides no independent references outside the game rules. As per WP:NOT#INFO, plot summary articles for fiction should include references and text containing a real world context or analysis, and should not consist of simply listing plot elements. If the article can be expanded to include sourced text explaining something about these armies outside of just the game rules, then I'd reconsider. As noted above, Warhammer 40K is itself a notable game, but that doesn't exclude subarticles about the game from needing independent referencing in their own right. Dugwiki 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Have you looked at this page? FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totall about plot make in violate WP:FICT. No relvance outside of its own fandom--Dacium 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this article has almost nothing to do with the plot or fiction of the Warhammer universe whatsoever. I would say absolutely nothing, but I suppose listing the armies by faction almost qualfies. Still, I'd say your objection is not applicable to this article. If anything, the talk page seems to indicate an intent to make the article about the game, rather than the story of the game. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. Wodup 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hongism

Uncited, unsourceable neologism with no meaningful Ghits. Removed PROD. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable sillyness, possibly speedy as attack page. --N Shar 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd un-sourced neologism.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. DMacks 02:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 (attack). So tagged. This sounds like some middle-scholars making fun of a classmate - and that is really, really uncool enough to make The Fonz cry. --Dennisthe2 06:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Wodup 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Bridges

I am not 100% sure but this appears to be a hoax. The non functional in line citations are links to pages that do not back up that facts asserted. For instance, the article claims that this person is worth 120 million but the link is to Bill Gates' net worth. The obvious hoax portion was removed after it was tagged as such and the creator removed a prod, so I thought this might be the best way to go about it for now. No Opinion at this point. Daniel J. Leivick 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article doesn't meet the criteria for notability adhering to WP:Bio. I also question it's accuracy and factual content. For instance it looks like the image came from here [[9]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax and/or failing WP:N. (I'm guessing hoax - the article fails the smell test.) -- MarcoTolo 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. References do not support content even remotely. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme hoax, article history is a strong enough evidence. i kan reed 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, {{db-empty}}. --Core desat 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bannisdale Beck

no content MsHyde 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant content, I checked the history and it never had any more then it does now. Jeepday 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Im going to tag it.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:29Z

DarwiinRemote

I think the software is not notable enough. Prod was contested SYSS Mouse 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears notable. Has 85,000-odd Ghits, and appears to be notable enough. For instance:

Keep I loaded the references above onto the article, that would seem to make it pass WP:N. Jeepday 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supplied sources as a whole represent notability in my book. There has been a buzz about the speed at which the Wii's controllers have been hacked for other systems, er, "wii did it!"? :P There's even mention of the activity in the latest issue of gamesmaster (though not this specific utility) - I'd like to see some development history for readers in the future, but this seems like a relevant topic. QuagmireDog 13:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I made this page because it was a notable and unique application, which it remains today. --Alegoo92 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep professional review in major publication, used as a reference. i kan reed 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links listed above by Haemo make the article, in my opinion, notable. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...ish. Wouldn't say this is too notable, but then... :P --Tunheim 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what the relevant guideline would be for this article, WP:SOFTWARE maybe? In any case I think it meets notability given the articles cited above. Make that 500,001 downloads, too. (jarbarf) 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Note that there are articles on singles off of this album, that may need deletion as well (Get 'Em Buck, I Know You Want Me, 4 Kings); one of them has a citation so I'm not going to delete them directly, but rather prod them. Use regular prod procedures to contest or upgrade to AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:38Z

Update. The article Buck the World had not been properly tagged, so I have undeleted it and nominated it separately. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck the World (3rd nomination). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 07:42Z

Get Bucked

Pages included in this listing: Buck the World, Get Bucked

This article does not contain any verifiable content. My suggestion is to delete per WP:V unless reliable sources can be provided, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buck the World, which is the correct page. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the previous assessment. --Haemo 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album has a release date, but the data is confusing. One should be redirected depending on the truth, and I'm concerned here because Get Bucked seems to be a lot of unsourced OR. Either redirect to Buck The World (which seems to be the correct path), or if indeed the article is to be named Get Bucked, transplant the contents from BTW into Get Bucked and redirect that. Either way, *Merge and Redirect. --Dennisthe2 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without actually coping any content) and Redirect to Buck the World as the real page is nice and sourced, but this page is screaming and contains identical information.--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify what you mean by "nice and sourced"? The page you suggest redirecting to also fails to cite any reliable sources. (jarbarf) 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and delete the Buck the World page as well, which is not reliably sourced as far as I can see. (jarbarf) 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, no reliable sources are cited in either article. RFerreira 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DanielCD 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe somebody can bother to check the website for the label? The label seems pretty notable, just starting, is part of Universal, and is operated by 50 Cent. I'm not all that big (read: not at all) on hip hop, but last I heard, 50 cent is pretty danged notable, so if he's signed on that label, I'd guess that the label has at least some info. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The official website for this artist, www.g-unitsoldier.com, makes no mention of this album. I agree that if something verifiable could be produced it would then be worth noting. (jarbarf) 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:42Z

Ridwan Roslan

A last place contestant on some show? Please. Fails WP:NOTABILITY Nardman1 03:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contestant has a growing cult following amongst the Malaysian community in Australia. This page pre-empts his popularity boom. Feathers17
- AfD etiquette: If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. Jeepday 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage unlikely to exist; 5 non-blogspot GHits. cab 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and "My Space" is does not qualify as a reference. Jeepday 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:BIO, possible vanity page, so on and so forth --RaiderAspect 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the primary author's self defeating argument - this person is not notable at this time. Resolute 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V most importantly. I'd have expected to find more than 4 Ghits in English for someone on an Australian TV show. One Night In Hackney 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Contestant did not receive considerable air time relative to the top 12 contestants. His cult status stands regardless. Feathers17
Delete. No citations supporting on-going cult following. DMacks 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't generally keep articles based on claims of a developing cult. If in 3 months he has a verifiable following we can always recreate the article then. JoshuaZ 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Page will be retained due to the higher social standing of Feathers17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathers17 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 February 2007
Please do not insult other participants in the AfD discussion. See WP:CIVIL. If you would like to respond to others' comments, indent your response, or precede your response with '''Comment'''. Incidentally, I'm a Malaysian, in Australia now, and I've never heard of this guy. cab 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless I'm missing something major, I see NO CHANCE that this one meets Notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided and none findable via Google to establish any form of notability. -- Whpq 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources claiming cult status. Im australian and watch idol and can't even remember him as anyone significant. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Getting that far in idol might be noteable by there is nothing else significant.--Dacium 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Polymelia. This certainly reminds me of all the animals that have made their way into the Polycephaly article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 10:55Z

Henrietta the four-legged chicken

Title says it all. Speedy deletion was overturned on review, so is now here for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the criteria for notability.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AADD ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Though I haven't found it, I'm betting there's another source out there. Of course, the Associated Press could be hoaxing us, or be mistaken. --N Shar 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They did a story on the chicken on The Daily Show a while back...something about a chicken with another chicken up its butt. I think that this has the potential to be a worthy article, but I'm going to remain neutral because I don't think that I'm knowledgable enough on deletion policies (except for speedy deletion) to make a good decision either way. --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing that, merge as an interesting factoid into an article on chickens, genetic anomolies, etc.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I suppose Delete - genetic anomalies among livestock are actually more common that people think--there's probably thousands of four-legged chickens in the US (it might be rarer to find a chicken that has a name). However, the article does get over 1,000 unique hits in Google, including a number of news articles. I'm largely neutral because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion, and I can't think of a much better one (NN is debatable--I think the subject-matter passes it).
Changing again: Merge into Polymelia per Totnesmartin. Black Falcon 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to delete after seeing that most of the sources for this article are essentially reproductions of the same AP wire. Thus, the article fails WP:Notability (lack of multiplicity of coverage). Black Falcon 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ been merged redirect to Polymelia WP:N calls for multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Last time I counted one was less then multiple. I kind of like the story, nice human interest all that but... Jeepday 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed my vote, looks like the merge has been completed, I suggest a redirect to Polymelia at the end of the AfD. Jeepday 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources - here are some sources for the article (essentially the same story in all--4 legged chicken--with some differences). As you may note from my comment above, I am largely neutral. CBS News, MSNBC, [10], and USA Today.
- The CBS, MSNBC, and USA Today stories are all the same single Associated Press wire story, published by those news services. That's one published work, published by multiple publishers. Uncle G 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there seems to have been a spurt of media coverage when the chicken was born, but nothing further than very minor flash-in-the-pan notability. Compare Mike the Headless Chicken, which continued to gain media coverage for months afterwards, and is still considered a local icon. Krimpet 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Merge into Polymelia per Kla'quot, it's worth a blurb there. Krimpet 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Weakest of deletesor Merge into an article on genetic abnormalities. (Edited to add: On reflection, this story, unlike the hen herself, lacks sufficient "legs" to go from news story to encyclopedia article, since the coverage only lasted one day.) Added a video feature on MSNBC which was not duplicative of the AP story and shows her in action. 2 reliable sources is multiple (barely). This could also be merged to some article on genetic abnormalities or conjoined twins or whatever is going on. Hey, I know humans born with extra toes; practically the same thing. This is at the low end of showing something can be news but not encyclopedic. Edison 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the same reasons as the others above. Bigpoogenerator 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly un-notable weird news story. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an interesting scientific fact more than as a notable event or notable chicken. Strongly consider merging into other scientific articles on congenital abnormalities. Probably one sentence and a reference would fit nicely into Polydactyl Merge into Polymelia. Kla'quot 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. It does have major news mentions.-MsHyde 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple major news sources. --Candy-Panda 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep ever per substantial national news coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Reluctant Delete - can't have articles on every four-legged chicken/winged cat/talking dog <"sausages!">in the world, however cute. Totnesmartin 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Polymelia (the condition of having extra limbs), which has a "notable cases" section. Actually I'll put a precis of Henrietta there now. Totnesmartin 12:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Totnesmartin 12:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unconditional delete Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional sources provided Right now it appears there is basically one news story about this chicken. Doesn't quite reach the recommended multiple non-trivial coverage bar. If additional sources can be provided that are not simply a copy of the original story from the newswire, then I'll reconsider. I'd especially be interested in an article about the chicken published well after the original news story, as that would establish multiple sources covering it over a wider time period. Dugwiki 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Animals with more than the normal number of legs Delete. Semperf 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more sources can be found. Philippe Beaudette 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple indepedant non trival works. Mutations are not uncommon. Seems to only get mention on some local news site.--Dacium 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find some policy about Notable-because-made-me-guffaw-on-a-not-so-happy-day. --Goochelaar 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- it should be merged with something. I'm not sure what, but it belongs in Wikipedia. One day someone will writing a paper on Naturally occurring freaks of nature and this will be one of the items that will help them. MRoberts <> 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Sorry to repeat from above, where nobody will read it): I just discovered a suitable merge target: add to the list of examples on Polymelia. Kla'quot 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, ideally merge if someone can find a good place for it. Everyking 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial news item, wich WP:NOT for. Sandstein 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Congenital disorder or if not possible, delete This is trivial news that happens to have recieved coverage because it is slightly humourous, not the matter for an encyclopaedia article. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there was an article on notable animal mutants it would be a useful merge but there isn't. As a note in Polymelia it is okay, but that seems to be focused on humans, not animals, and doesn't provide room for expansion. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just for clarification, polymelia applies to all animals (including humans) as far as I can tell (although you are right that the article is presently focused more on humans). In addition, it currently containts the whole of the Henrietta article. If there is a unique article for non-human animal mutation, then it should definitely go there. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, appears to just meet N and V requirements. —siro χ o 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:00Z

Adam4Adam

Dating website for, well, Adam and Adam. Speedy deletion was overturned on review, so is now here for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple non-trivial media sources. Nardman1 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:WEB does not say: "A topic is not notable unless it has been the exclusive subject (etc)." An article discussing how Adam4Adam was used to lead a person into a situation in which he was murdered certainly does qualify as verifiable notability. An article about how Adam4Adam and Manhunt.net can lead to discharge from the Military qualifies as well. These aren't trivial mentions and these aren't trivial subjects. I bet most of us will think what we have here is verifiable notability. I bet a few will argue it isn't. We can discuss semantics and wikilawyer each other senseless. We could also use our best judgement a little. Are the references here a smoke screen or has Adam4Adam really gotten spontaneous media courage? Is this article spammy and pointless POV clutter or is it more in keeping with the sort of NPOV encyclopedic info we generally strive to present? Shaundakulbara 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article about how people being discharged from the military mentions Adam4Adam in one sentence and does nothing but mention the name of the site, I fail to see how that is anything but trivial. One Night In Hackney 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:N and has enough NPOV to make the owner cringe. Jeepday 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article was just spam originally, was speedied and salted, then brought back. It has come a long way and definitely asserts notability; there are even real sources! Im surprised it was speedied again at all.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And boy, that is one doozy of a deletion review.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that the version that was speedied was this one [11]. The article has been considerably expanded since then. WJBscribe 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. I've looked at every one of the sources (bar the NYT which is members only) and aside from the FlavaMen review (which is questionable) not one of the sources has Adam4Adam as the subject of the article, mostly they are just brief mentions. One Night In Hackney 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is somewhat misleading. For example, some of the references deal with the New York crime that involved the website. Of course these articles do not have the website as their main topic. An article that is about crystal meth use that refers numerous times to the website is still about crystal meth, not adam4adam, but nonetheless it is a valid source. The WP:WEB criteria are meant to help establish the notability of a site in lieu of other, obvious criteria. The fact that this site has been verifiably involved in several off-line news stories and that there is a steady accretion of relatively minor mentions of it seems to me to counterbalance the fact that we can't point to a single newspaper article that's about the site. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm using the main notability guideline, which states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." The WP:WEB guidelines didn't seem as appropriate as they state "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", and most of the sources make little reference to the content. One Night In Hackney 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:WEB per above. Alexa rank is 7,186. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shaundakulbara—indeed the murders themselves pass WP:N, and these murders are an element of this article. As for the other WP at hand, perhaps the unusual circumstances of this subject already bring it somewhat out of the intended scope of the more specific WP:WEB, even if not technically. --gwc 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Shaundakulbara's comments, we certainly don't have to bend the rules to keep this. It's verifiable notability could barely be clearer. The WP:WEB guidelines cited against this article are inclusionary guidelines, not exclusionary ones. House of Scandal 08:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gwc and Nardman. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple non-trivial media sources. --Candy-Panda 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are trivial; site doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB 〈RED VEЯS〉 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:WEB Philippe Beaudette 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several news articles linked are even titled 'such and such website does this' and make it clear they are talking about that website. It is clearly the subject of several newsworthy reports and seems to be notable enough therefore for WP:WEB.--Dacium 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - practically every mention is trivial, and some are exceedingly trivial. One somewhat noteworthy event connected to something does not make the place/thing encyclopedic. If someone was murdered at a local mom-and-pop shop, that wouldn't make that mom-and-pop shop worthy of an article. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have yet to see a reference to this site which was actually about this site. In all the references posted to the article and to the previous discussions, the reference was a casual mention of the site in an article which was primarily about some other topic. These do not meet the established standards for media coverage. I'll change my opinion if someone can offer evidence of actual coverage about the site itself. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete - WP:N states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Kennedy, Sean (August 29, 2006) The Advocate. They're peddling death. Issue 969, page 44 might be consider one source. In September 2005, San Jose Mercury News (September 11, 2005) "Busiest online matchmakers." Section: AE ranked Adam4Adam as number ten on the top 10 online dating sites based on traffic in the year prior to September 2005: 1 Yahoo! Personals, 2 Match.com, 3 eHarmony, 4 American Singles, 5 Gay.com Personals, 6 Tickle Matchmaking, 7 Webdate.com, 8 True.com, 9 Perfect Match, 10 Adam4Adam. However, I did not find multiple sources for Adam4Adam. Lots of interesting information, but the information should come from a Wikipedia source per WP:N to be counted as contributing to a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Added: Wikipedia:WikiLawyering includes asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. The article has come a long way and is one of the better Wikipedia online dating articles. As the number of references for the article increased during this AfD, there now seems to be enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, which is a principle behind WP:N. Keep as notable. -- Jreferee 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had no idea Adam4Adam was the #2 gay site (as your figures above indicate). I added material from The Advocate after seeing your mention. When I was done, I took a look at the article. Now I sort of hope the article gets deleted. Because it's free, Adam4Adam is used by many people without much money, and its also used by lots of non-White people. It has no cultural prestige and it seems to only get mentioned as part of blaming it for some ill or horrendous incident. Katie Fucking Couric isn't going to do a cute human interest story about how two boys met on Adam4Adam and are now dating steady. The owner(s) of Adam4Adam won't appear on The View. Right now the article looks like a litany of crime, disease and other troubles. People use it for dating as well as sex. Using it is not a character flaw. As is, the article looks like exactly what a hate groups needs to say "gay people are scum...this encyclopedia article even says so". House of Scandal 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Here are most of the headlines from articles that include Adam4Adam: * Connection between methamphetamine use and unprotected gay sex * Battling H.I.V. Where Sex Meets Crystal Meth, * Peddling death, * Hate crime charges in belt attack; Brooklyn men face bias slay counts if Web-Lured gay designer dies, * From Crime to Arrest, By Way of Computer, * Brooklyn prosecutor: Hate crimes charges for 3 in gay man's death. -- Jreferee 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment--the above comment indicates why the article should be kept and improved, not why it should be deleted.DGG 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)t[reply]

Comment The content of this site isn't too different than that of its competitors (I assume). The content isn't what's notable. Per WP:WP:

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...

It then says, "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use..." It doesn't demand that sources focus on the content. It doesn't demand we abandon sense and it doesn't order us to throw our babies out with the bathwater. It offers rough guidleines to use when notability isn't otherwise apparent. Here, notability is apparent if we use our best judgement. Can anyone say, "this is a waste of our servers...you shouldn't be able to read about this on Wikipedia"? Shaundakulbara 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added a review from About.com. Seems there are sources out there about the site specifically, though they make take some time to find when you have to wade through the articles about drugs and murder that mention the site... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "review" is little more than a reprint of the 'About Us' page of the Adam4Adam site. One Night In Hackney 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that SatyrTN didn't realize that the About.com review was mostly lifted from the site (I think all this means is that the reviewer is lazy and agress with what the site reports itself to be, but nevertheless...). While the fact that About.com has a review about Adam4Adam at all all seems to add notability, I excluded that review on this basis. I have, however, been bothered by One Night In Hackney's unexplained testimony that the FlavaMen review "is questionable". One rarely sees a review so neutral -- it praises and damns Adam4Adam almost in the same breath. House of Scandal 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also confident SatyrTN made the comment in good faith, however I was noting the content of the review for the benefit of any further contributors. In my opinion the FlavaMen review is questionable because of the lack of in-depth review. WP:WEB classes trivial coverage as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", and in my opinion the review is borderline trivial, hence my questionable comment. Other people may not view it as questionable, I hope that answers your question? One Night In Hackney 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the basis of your opinion. I completely disagree because the review contains multiple points of original information and far surpasses anything resembling "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site".--House of Scandal 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Shaundakulbara Jeffpw 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Verifiable sources list Adam4Adam as the #2 gay dating site in the world (or at least the English-speaking world) in Sept 2005 and as the #3 such site in December 2006. Is there no guideline anywhere that suggests a website, book, company, toy, device, whatever that appears on published lists as one of the most-used in the world has notability?--House of Scandal 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I got impatient and found an answer to my own query. A website is also a business and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says the following:

An organization is automatically notable if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications...The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

These guidelines explicitly allow for indices more specialized than mega-lists like the Fortune 500. Adam4Adam appears as one of the top ten dating sites (gay, straight or otherwise) in the United States (although not in the world as I stated previously). On Wikipedia we do not distinguish between a company and its services (look at McDonald's, H&R Block or anything you can think of). Therefore, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Adam4Adam is "automatically notable" and it would be so even if we didn't have over a dozen newspapers references. --House of Scandal 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A list of "top 10 dating sites" is hardly a "company ranking index", by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore the "broader or the more specialized" comment specifically refers to stock market indices, not lists of dating sites. One Night In Hackney 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A list of "top five online florists" is a ranking index. A list of "top twenty pizzerias in New York" is a ranking index. Stock market index is a narrowly defined term. "Company ranking index" is not. As was predicted above, we're Wikilawyering. The way this article looks now, it doesn't need me to say any more. --House of Scandal 12:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The provided examples of company ranking indices in WP:CORP are quite clear, and do not include "top 10 dating sites". One Night In Hackney 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this site and the controversial aspects of its usage have become newsworthy, I believe it should stay. The article is not a mere advertisement for the site and serves to highlight a particular group of crimes perpetrated against gay men through manipulation of the sites services. Since my own interest in LGBT studies is in the area of crimes against LGBT people, crimes perpetrated by LGBT people and cultural reactions to both, I will attempt to improve this article and maintain it's quality.Lisapollison 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is very obvious in this case Fotografico 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suspect that notability was better established in the article only recently, because currently the keep is a no-brainer. ^L_Wizard @ 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:43Z

Cryptos

not notable MsHyde 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability made and seems to imply it has none. Fails WP:N Jeepday 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability. janejellyroll 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Turgidson 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it also fails WP:WEB--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB fail WP:N no shown. Not verifiable outside of itself, fails WP:V--Dacium 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:01Z

Dimitris Mytaras

This article was prodded and the prodded removed with no change in text. I believe the article fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It has been suggested that the last sentence of the article "Mytaras has participated in more than 30 international group shows, including the 1972 Venice Biennale" asserts notability. But I believe policy requires that assertion be validated when questioned. I have made no attempt to assess the assertions of article, let this unreferenced article be considered for AfD. Jeepday 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failure to verify. Even if sources are added then I'd still have serious concerns about notability. --RaiderAspect 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources are easy enough to come by, although with little knowledge of the sites involved I'm unsure of their reliability. See [12] [13] [14]. I'm unsure of how notable he is, or what weight participating in the Venice Biennale carries, so no !vote from me. One Night In Hackney 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Venice Biennale is very prestigious.-MsHyde 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MsHyde. Participation in the Biennale makes the artist notable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ - The original article was probably violating WP:C as it was mostly copied from one of the above mentioned sources. Now it looks better and there are also two additional sources that should establish notability. Tikiwont 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Philippe Beaudette 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, one of the classic cases where there is a notable subject but references are not up to par Alf photoman 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Crash. Although someone might conceivably type this string into the search box, the redirect target has a superset of the information they want, and it is easy to find within the page with a text search. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:48Z

Crash (novel)

Let me explain the background of the situation. Initially, there was Crash (novel) and Crash (1996 novel). For the sake of uniformity, I moved "Crash (novel)" to Crash (1973 novel), and then corrected the inbound links to point to the correct article. In the meantime, I have made "Crash (novel)" into a disambiguation page, however it's not likely to be an accidental link and only disambiguates two articles, which is unneeded. I've created this AFD so I can get help in determining whether to delete this page, to redirect it back to Crash, or whatever. In the meantime, I am voting neutral. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think your current solution is fine. Bwithh 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is good. -- Ben 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People who know their way around Wikipedia might very well type in "Crash (novel)"... redirecting this to crash or keeping it as-is would both be fine. -- SCZenz 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the current disambiguation page. Axl 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crash (where both novels are already properly linked) or prefereably delete. I doubt anyone is going to type "Crash (novel)" as a search term rather than "Crash". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I might. Anyone who edits Wikipedia and knows our naming conventions might. And surely thre's no harm in keeping the page, is there? -- SCZenz 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with having a disambiguation page; as noted above there are people who know Wikipedia enough (especially those involved with the Novels WikiProject) who will type Crash (novels). This is also of use for wikilink-sorting. Plus, this will also assist anyone creating articles on any other novels by this title (and there are probably others). 23skidoo 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this novel disambiguation page, it is plausible that someone could enter this in as a search term. (jarbarf) 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good solution. Philippe Beaudette 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crash - disambiguation is a good solution, but this is redundant to the disambig that page does. GassyGuy 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I don't see a need to duplicate content for an unlikely search term. hateless 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirecting to Crash would be less helpful, obviously the reader is looking for information about a novel named Crash, not everything under the sun that might pertain to a crash. RFerreira 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:48Z

Tristar gym

Non-notable company, per WP:ORG. Does not assert notability. Reads like an advertisement of sorts. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOT a promotional tool. No evidence of coverage by multiple non-trivial published sources. Danski14 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an advertisement.-MsHyde
Delete per nomination. Turgidson 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philippe Beaudette 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notibility shown (WP:N). Nothing shown to pass WP:ORG or WP:CORP--Dacium 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, would think a gym around 16 years would at least assert that--Hu12 07:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:51Z

List of Messianic Judaism important figures

This article is simply a smattering of people who are important in the Old Testament and the New Testament. No explanation or citations are given for why any of them are particularly important for the Messianics, or for that matter why this importance isn't simply from the trivial matter of them being important in Christianity and Judaism. JoshuaZ 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(which usually means the anti-Messianic bandwagon is about to begin) inigmatus 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First, its not people important to Old and New Testament. It's people important to Messianic Judaism found in the Tanakh and the B'rit Chadasha. Second, just because the heavy hand of Jewish editors has discouraged the participation of Messianic editors in Wikipedia, I don't think is grounds to simply delete an article based off the idea "nominating for AfD. I said back in November that I'd nom this if concerns weren't dealt with. no attempt has been made to deal with them, so off to AfD we go" - your concerns are your own. You could have worked on the article first to actually improve it yourself, without deleting it - you had a good suggestion, so why didn't you follow through with it? As such, you've done nothing to the article to help it since November, and now all of a sudden because you participate in other Messianic VfDs, you're somehow reminded how you can attack other MJ articles, you're probably going to bandwagon the rest of the Jewish editing gang to delete this one too. You know what, the article is relevant to list important figures in Messianic Judaism. The reasons cited is quite obvious from the title headings "Figures from the Tanakh" and "Figures from the B'rit Chadasha" - and since Messianic Judaism is NOT Christianity, a separate page listing important figures to Messianic Judaism is just as necessary as Mormons listing important figures to their religion apart from Christianity. Shall I guess that there will be 40+ delete per nom, or "confusing" or "not needed" votes from blatantly obvious Jewish editors whereas the rest of us consensus-building non rabbinic Jewish wikipedians vote to keep? The only issue here is that you don't believe that Messianic Judaism is separate from Christianity; and that is the ONLY reason you have to delete this article; and to be honest, this article is not the place to inform the public of this. Messianic Judaism instead exists to do just that. This isn't a content issue you have. It's a religious definition one, and I wish you rabbinics would quit VfDing valid MJ articles and templates that you only have POV reasons to delete. inigmatus 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me say that you are correct in one minor detail- the TfD reminded me to look into this article's situation and see how if anything had changed since November. That said, I'm not sure I can find an otherwise remotely true statement in the remainder of the above. First, before AfDing this, I looked for sources to see if I could find anything like "X is an important figure in Messianic Judaism." I found none. Second, whether Messianic Judaism is or is not Christianity is irrelevant to why I AfDed this- a list of important people in the OT and the NT doesn't make anything unique to MJism when those people are only important by virtue of being important in those two texts. To be the stereotypical "rabbinic" Jew you think I am, there is no chiddish in this list. Third, I don't intend to "bandwagon" anyone and I would disagree with anyone who argued that this list should be deleted based on confusion concerns (such concerns may be legitimate in other cases, but they don't exist here). Fourth, for the vast majority of Wikipedians, the OT is nearly identical to Tanach and the "Brit Chadashah" is the NT (heck, the term even means "New Covenant)- I'm not going to use terms from other languages simply to obscure matters. Finally, I cannot emphasize enough that my personal opinion about the nature of Messianic Judaism had nothing to do with this deletion- the lack of sourcing and the inherent triviality of the list was the basis. If I thought that this was being used to push some sort of Messianism-is-Judaism I would have said so in my nomination. JoshuaZ 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Final CommentIn Template:Judaism, a list of important figures is included. To prevent bloating Template:Messianic Judaism, this article currently lists figures important to Messianic Judaism, just as the Template:Judaism template lists figures important to Judaism. No other inclusion criteria is needed. At this point I would say that the current list and this article simply provides a means to prevent bloating the current Messianic Judaism template with the same names. Furthermore, Hebraic names are used for these important figures; a source of which is quite easily found in the Orthodox Jewish Bible at http://www.afii.org/ojbible.html - one of many sources that use these names and others to the extreme, and is proof that these names are in use, notable, and useful for inclusion in Wikipedia as a list of important figures to Messianic Judaism. This is my final response. As the last regular Messianic editor on Wiki, I'm saying that these VfDs are consuming so much of my time that I have not contributed anything to any articles in months; and would feel that if I did, it would probably be VfDed ultimately anyways so as to render my contributions useless - and without other Messianic editors to help, well, I guess Wikipedia just won't be the place to find out about them. inigmatus 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. In my experience, there are two requirements for an encyclopedic list of "important" or "notable" things related to a topic. First, there has to be a (sourced) criteria that defines what notable means and second there has to be a source that has decided that the things listed are notable, unless it is blindingly obvious from the criteria. In this case, neither of these are present. The list is defined as: "A comprehensive list of historical and important figures in Messianic Judaism and the apologetics of its followers." Does that mean that anyone who a Messianic Jewish theologian thought was notable must be included? What happens when two apologetics disagree about an individual's notability? Unless the list is overhauled to address these problems, it is not encyclopedic. GabrielF 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ.--DLand ^TALK 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who says they are inportant to messianic Judiasm? The editor? Then it is original research. If a scholar published something that says they are important in that way, then add a reference to the fact and I will reconsider. Edison 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Reference: The Bible. inigmatus 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The Bible doesn't actually say in specific words that these specific individuals are important specifically to Messianic Judaism. That's the verification Wikipedia requires. --Charlene 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please, those are not figures important to Messianic Judaism, those are people important to Judaism or Christianity. This list SHOULD have people important to the rise of Messianism in modern culture; not Adam or Enoch. I am sorely afraid that this s just another method for certain people to try and use Wikipedia as a vehicle to grant the veneer of Judaic or Christian acceptance to Messianism; something wikipedia can not and should not countenance. Avi 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of persons mentioned in the Bible, which does not belong under this title. The author stated above that the reference was The Bible, but the Bible does not state that these people are important to messianic judaism. In fact, I don't think the phrase "Messianic Judaism" appears in the Bible. Saying that it is the interpretation that counts brings us right back to the problem of Original Research. Alleging a great Jewish conspiracy on Wikipedia, by the way, is not necessary. Remember that there is no Cabal. --N Shar 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a list of (Biblical) characters that are important to any Christians so that the names on this list could then be placed on: List of Catholic important figures; List of Protestant important figures; List of Evangelical important figures; List of Anglican important figures etc etc, and what a repetitive waste that would be. IZAK 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the importance of some of these people differs in Messianic Judaism from their importance in Judaism and/or Christianity, it would be better to explain that in a prose article than just giving their names. --Metropolitan90 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is only a list which does not make sense.-MsHyde 18:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, not clear guidelines on who's important. No one is likly to search via this list. If keep wins it needs to be renamed I think also to List of important figures in--Dacium 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have previously voted to keep every article on Messianic Judaism that has reached Afd, because I strongly disapprove of attempts to remove relative small religious sects in general, as WP is not a judge of theology. In this case, however, here is no actual content. These are simply some major figures in the OT and NT, with the NT spellings altered in the fashion of MJ. But the MJ articles cover this perfectly well, and there is no need of an incomplete and problematic list like this -- the suite of articles are stronger without it. DGG 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of the list was to prevent the inflation of Template: Messianic Judaism with such names and was created in response to demands that MJs were being "misleading" by not referencing Christian figures in the template. Man, I'm beginning to feel that meeting the demands of the non-Messianic Jewish editing community in these VfDs they constantly force on us to waste time with defending a perfect legit contribution, is a catch 22. I ask for the moderating admin to consider this. I know there is no Cabal, but to deny the blatantly obvious link at the top informing us that this VfD is on a notice page for a religion that claims to be separate from Messianic Judaism - just causes me to wonder.inigmatus 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I can't think of anything witty to go here, but keep anyway. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine incantations scripture

Smells fishy to me. I suspect a hoax here, though I can't prove it. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend toward keep and cleanup - as it is, it's just an OR interpretation of a primary source, but it doesn't necessarily seem like a hoax and if more references could be found that would be helpful.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and keep. Apparently part of the Taoist canon. --N Shar 05:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another source: [15]. This is a Google HTML version of a VERY LARGE pdf file. Minimal information, trivial coverage -- but not a hoax. Academic sources are needed. --N Shar 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this distinctive enough from the Taoist canon to have its own article? Either Keep if yes, or Merge and Redirect if not. --Dennisthe2 06:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cleanup and keep That the nominator was able to think it a hoax is testimony to the lack of context provided--the article needs further elucidation for the general readerDGG 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:55Z

List of flops in entertainment

I propose that this article is unsalvageable original research. It begins with a shaky premise (namely, failing to define "flop" or to defend use of the word from accusations of original research and opinion) and has since become a dumping ground for everybody to add what they think is a "flop", regardless of a) whether it actually was, b) if there's a source to confirm it, or c) if it's status as a "flop" meaningfully contributes to its notability. The article is written and indeed structured in an unencyclopedic gossipy tone with innapropriate editorial comments after nearly EVERY entry. There is no attempt at providing references. Furthermore, adding a reference to each entry (which I don't believe will ever happen) will merely make this a list of "things that one source or another has referred to as a flop," which is in indiscriminate-list territory. Please don't be swayed by the fact that a lot of people have spent a lot of time turning this into a humungous list. It is fundamentally flawed and at the very least should be blanked and started from scratch with specific criteria and citations for every entry. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think you're right about this article being flawed from its conception. fraggle 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments from here. At least for the anime listings, it was entirely U.S. centric and the proponent of the list wasn't able to convince anyone in WP:ANIME to add to it for exactly the OR and vagary that the nominator mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please get rid of this. Total OR and very speculative. Booshakla 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd never get people to agree on a definition of flop - If I made an album that sold 1000 copies I'd be delighted, but somebody else would be disappointed. It's all in the eye of the beholder, with no clear boundary. Cue endless arguments and edit wars. Totnesmartin 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wud hav 2 say most of this is true, and for the anime, in my pov, all 3 of them r totally shit anyway no wonder why they all failed and for a bloke to say how great Sailor Moon, well don't make me laugh, its a fucmkin gerls carton, all I say is keep the articel and keep up with this stupid edit wars, thats wot wiki is for, totally stupid retard edit wars. Jade Goody 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please be civil with your comments and avoid the use of profanity. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is only someone's opinion.-MsHyde 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over (per nom). Several of these entries can easily be sourced so that it doesn't come off as POV (e.g., newspaper articles with critical disdain about the 1983-1984 NBC season), but what started out as a simple list has snowballed by well-meaning editors who have made the article an unsalvagable mess. Also, I don't think there's a need to protect against re-creating this article; if someone does a good job, then the new version can be kept. [[Briguy52748 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List inclusion is too subjective. POV issues. Dugwiki 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not define the term correctly for some of them and the bigger thing is should the real Jade Goody be in a rehab by now or something rather than making scathing comments like she did or am I talking another namesake with a mouth full of crap sprouting off to the middle of nowhere like the real thing, one thing is how can somebody called Blade: The Series a flop when the reality is its the highest show on that channel as well as a young channel like Spike TV cannot afford to keep the show going. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Tobias Funke (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: So, Dr. Tobias Funke, what are you actually saying that is relevant to the argument, aside from the first part of the statement? [[Briguy52748 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment: What that question is saying, it is wrong to assume Blade is a failure. Dr Tobias Funke 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a number of things on this list that can not possibly be considered "flops" no matter what your definition.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I generally like lists of this sort, but as criteria for inclusion go, this is about the most indefinite imaginable. Possibly it can be rewritten as one of more more specific articles where there are specific criteria-- e.g. Major studio movies grossing under..., or TV shows with audience less than ... etc. etc. there are a great many possibilities. DGG 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I loved this article; it was entertaining and imformative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.116.176 at 18:25, 7 February 2007.

Of course it's entertaining, it just doesn't belong on wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Whoa, we're having celeb reality TV loser who will be stacking shelves at your local supermarket sprouting off some crap here, then a gay ex doctor turned actor off Arrested Development sprouting what a failure is, but isn't his show should be on the list as well, cos all Americans are too thick to understand this show for a start. Nominated as this nomination is as entertaining as the page itself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete show me the clear, crystal clear, definition of a flop and we'll talk. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Mr.Dolomite — Unfortunately, there might be a variety of definitions for flop, none of them crystal clear. The intro had stated it alright, IMO — "(shows or other entertainment forms) that had high expectations, large amounts of money or widespread publicity, but fell far short of success." That might be the crux of the problem — what one constitutes a "flop" might be a "success" to another, hence the disagreement spoken of. Believe it or not, there may be people out there that thought the Edsel (the poster child for "flop") was a complete success; there's probably some people who think that the non-NFL leagues (i.e., XFL) were successes, although I think that one could easily be verifiable. I think that there are some entries that are verifiable (e.g., newspaper stories detailing a highly anticipated show's sudden cancellation), but the list just seemed to multiply on its own with entries that may or may not actually have been flops. After all, some shows were simply "failures" (e.g., a show that probably was not critically expected to succeed in the first place and didn't), and not all TV shows or other entertainment programs are expected to succeed. That's where the problem with this article lies; this article contains both flops and failures. If this article is re-created, then the article needs to contain only flops and perhaps the spectacular failure (e.g., those shows that were cancelled after one broadcast, such as "You're in the Picture," which is verifiable), but definitely not general failures. The inclusion of general failures made this article a flop, IMO! ;-) [[Briguy52748 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)]] (P.S., sorry for the rant, but had to explain everything).[reply]

Neutral The topic has indeed been seriously studied. Consider Ken Mandelbaum's book, Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops. [16]. We also have a category Category:Entertainment flops. The article is way too long and needs serious re-scoping and cleanup though. Would anyone volunteer to userfy this, give it a clear mandate, and split it into different articles for each entertainment form? Kla'quot 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Entertainment flops may only be nomination away from deletion (it has the goals, more shows, and none of the references), if you check its talk page. "Flop" is just not well-defined, and seems POV and non-encyclopedic. - Chip Zero 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:56Z

David Bruno

No reliable sources for verification, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. The best coverage has been in a student newspaper, according to the talk page. Google returns no sources. Wafulz 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, while a student newspaper might help demonstrate that something exists, it can't really be a primary signal of broader notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. Turgidson 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose this is salvageable if its sourced, but as it is... Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference not sufficient-MsHyde 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient referencing. Takeru Kobayashi and Sonya Thomas are good examples of notable competitive eaters, but winning an eating competition at your local Pizza Hut is not. (jarbarf) 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:57Z

Paranoia_(online_reality_game)

Non-notable internet site with no alexa ranking, less than 100 members. It's a very little known fan site for an obscure interest on the Internet. There are many other smaller links associated with this, including fictional characters and events that happened within the site. This is my first time doing an AFD so I apologize for any errors in advance. SirSam972 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: for clarity, these are the additional articles to be deleted:
  Webisodes of Paranoia (Volume 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  
  Randy Milford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  
  Gage and Hunter Milford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  
  Scott Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- All are now tagged to here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Good job listing this stuff! You should also add all the other related article as this collection of fan cruft composes a nice walled garden. Someone obviously worked hard to create this stuff, but unfortunately this is not the place to list an online community with 18 members and no external sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ALL (or snowball, even). Fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NFT. It is shameful that this has been around for so long. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. --N Shar 05:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Delete. Axl 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, and above explanations. Turgidson 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.-MsHyde 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wow. JuJube 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Computer has determined that you have committed treason. Report to the nearest termination center for immediate Deletion.--UsaSatsui 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 21:00Z

Three(3) Word Names

Originally tagged for speedy, but doesn't fit any criterion. This is a list attempting to record all three-word names, which is textbook listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unlike most procedural nominations, this is not a no-opinion nom. Core desat 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator misunderstood the purpose of the list. It was not to list everyone who has 3 names. The persons are those who almost always are referred to by all three names, such that if you omitted the middle name most people would have no idea who you were referring to. Martin King? George Carver? John Booth? Robert Stevenson? William Bryan? Who? The list is a maintainable and defined one. They have to be notable enough in their own right and the usage could be Google checked if there were disputes. Edison 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this article? I know that's not a real AfD argument, but really? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This list seems very, very useless. This is not a reason to delete, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT for what it's worth. --N Shar 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on further review, this is just OR. Who says these people are most commonly known by three names? Thomas Edison? Franklin Roosevelt? If you use google as your yardstick, then you'll have to retitle the article "People who get the most google results with three names."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmz5. The two cases he cites there are great examples of people who are certainly "known by three names", but not necessarily "most commonly known by three names" (outside of the States, Thomas Edison's middle name isn't overly well-known). Additionally, mention should be made of the fact that the list doesn't - at least not in its current form - distinguish between those who are known by three names because that's the way they insist(ed) on being called and those who are known by three names because that was inflicted upon them (Lee Harvey Oswald is one example, I believe). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. (It's also hopelessly US-centric; where are David Lloyd George and Charles James Fox to pick a couple of random examples?) -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you assume the information is potentially interesting or useful, the list suffers from problems of verification and subjectivity. It is likely a subjective call and original research deciding whether a person is known by three names or two. How do you handle people that have been called both with three names and two names by different sources? There are also probably no reliable sources you can reference that say "so and so is known by most people by three names". Thus even if the information has potential to be useful somehow, it still needs to be deleted due to verification and subjectivity. Dugwiki 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-written nom; nothing more really needs to be said. JuJube 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is simply a fun list of famous people commonly (not statistically) called by three names. Many of these people would seem unfamiliar without their middle name included. Obviously there will be disagreement, but this list seems valid enough to stay --Skullknick069 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "fun" isn't a means of making something encyclopedic. Additionally, there's a serious risk of bias (in that, as I've previously indicated, Edison's middle name is only really used in some parts of the world). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the criterion as stated isn't helpful, because what is obvious to one person isn't clear to another. To me, two of the initial examples are as identifiable with or without. To do this right would really take OR. Possibly a nice sociolinguistics paper, if backed by some theory.DGG 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing particularly significant about being referred to by three names, and per nom. GassyGuy 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real purpose. Georgia guy 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Our policies on verifiability and our prohibition on original research mandate deletion in this case. The sources are patently unreliable, and their synthesis is original. Sandstein 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Brantford punk rock scene

I was looking through contested speedy deletion candidates at CAT:CSD. An author of this article eloquently contested the speedy tagging on the grounds that, if I may translate, WP:NOT#PAPER and the group of bands is notable. I think the article should be deleted (the excess of links hint at spam, and I'm not sold on the notability), but I agree with this fellow that speedy is not the right procedure. (If I acted "out of procedure" by taking this from CAT:CSD to AFD, please let me know on my talk page.) YechielMan 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Downtown Brantford, ON, CA may have had a good punk scene, but this essay (ding one) doesn't explain the notability (ding 2) or verifiability (ding 3) of how this fits into something beyond its locality (ding 4). --Dennisthe2 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at 90,000 population Brantford seems large enough to have a music "scene" but I need convincing by reliable sources that it's at all notable. Almost every hyperlink in the introduction leads to Geocities or MySpace. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dhartung, RJASE1 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article might have been hastily prepared. The evolution of the Brantford music scene in the "Punk Rock" genre is a progressive one that starts at 1980 and slowly cumulated into people starting an arts venue much later (2002), now known as The Ford Plant [17] which has gained Canadian national recognition in the "indie rock" genre. Sources on validity of this are limited. The majority of the links are located on one Geocities site, the validity of the author of the site seems researched with printed local sources but much seems to be first hand experience. The individual bands might be notable. The call on "hint at spam" might not be true. Brantford is a town of 90000. This might be the only online source of information on this subject. The article might develop into something more substantial. A title change might be appropriate, "Brantford Punk Music Scene" *Delete if the phenomenon has existed since 1980 and is notable, there would be references. 26 years is long enough time for references to accrue.-MsHyde 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wow, what's the deal around here? We have sources, we have newspaper articles, we have enough to make this an interesting article (we will gather and contribute them). Did "Dhartung" follow any of those links to investigate the material on the sites before he dismissed them based on the domain that hosts them (geocities, myspace)? I would be surprised if they did. How can you practice this dismissiveness inside wikipedia, when wikipedia itself suffers such snobbery in virtually every academic and information institution in the world? What's the point of rushing to delete it? It is an article about a community, we'd like the chance to let the community members build it up. Is there no room for a gestation period on wikipedia? Why is there such a rush to kill this article? It is obviously not a prank, it is not offensive, it is not plagerized, it is clearly an earnest effort to tell a story. It is a legitimate subject, it is an article made for wikipedia, in that the subject exists in the memories of a disparate bunch who left the economically depressed city. If this original article doesn't stand, then what is the benefit to (or for that matter of) wikipedia? If you're in such a hurry to kill the story of kids who tried to make some art in the midst of a bleak situation (a situation that still stands, and new groups of kids still are fighting the fight) then who's stories should be told? Stories well documented, stories better and more legitamately documented in actual academic/journalistic sources? Wiki will never be 'legitimate' to those people, so why not allow it to fill the void they leave? 27 years is a long time, and a lot of people to gather and a lot of stories to tell. It isn't a well-told narrative we are copying and pasting like so much on wikipedia, it is an original story being compiled and told here for the first time. It isn't so easy to create a Historical narrative from primary sources as it is for you people (would-be gatekeepers) to kill it. Also, what is wrong with "first hand experiences"? In History such things are Primary Sources and are considered almost sacred (wiki "Primary Sources" or Leopold von Ranke for an education). For you to dismiss them, wikimandate or not, undermines wikipedia's potential and (wikimandate or not) purpose as a democratic source of information open to all perspectives and voices regardless of traditional 'standards'. It is easy to dismiss a budding article like this, why not let it grow? That is the point of wikipedia.
KEEP This article should be kept. There is valid research going on with the subject. There is a large amount of valid documentation on it outside the Internet. The Brant Museum and Archives does have a holding of part of this information on the Punk Rock scene. The sign of "Second Wave" is currently stored in their collection, and is an excellent example of a business that tried to survive in a cities economic depression during the mid 1990's. The Brant Museum and Archives is a valid museum that has been gathering the culture of the community of Brant County since 1908, in all its forms. All this information can be verified by museum staff, and is currently being researched by museum staff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.199.164 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Noone's going to contribute to the article in question, or improve it until the axe isn't hanging over it anymore.. so it is a bit of a catch-22. Improve it or it will be removed, & will it be removed? If so, why waste time writing it? Too bad...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.34.167 (talk • contribs)
- What makes you say that? Seems that AfD has provided the incentive for many an article improvement. At this point, if not you, who's going to change it? Please! Change our minds! Being dramatic won't help, following what needs to be done will! --Dennisthe2 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How long have we got?(!) I'm not trying to be dramatic.(!) (Please!) I'm busy getting my Masters' degree these days.(!) Will work on it when I get (if you give me/us) the chance. This has been an enlightening introduction to Wikipedia. (btw, it's just 3:2 delete:keep..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.90.10 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- One very important thing to consider before I give the links: this is not a vote, this is an attempt to build consensus. Now then, what you might refer to is this link for verifiability guidelines, this link for notability guidelines, and go here for good guidelines on what are considered reliable sources. In the case of punk music scenery... I'd almost be inclined to pull out WP:MUSIC from my hat for a reference. Now that aside, if you're working on your masters, I'd suggest this: take the content, put it in your userpage somewhere (you do have an account, don't you?). Being you have that degree coming up, I don't know what time constraints you have - but currently, the way this stands, unless we can't build a concensus, it has roughly three days. --Dennisthe2 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are a large amount of printed articles on the Punk/New Wave scene in Brantford from the local newspaper The Brantford Expositor [18]. Starting point is 1977 with current research. These can be found.
Comment They need to be cited though, do you have them handy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.90.10 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment They will be cited in time. I just discovered hard copies in a persons collection last night. I will be getting copies of these articles. I've personally seen many articles, this requires going through Microfilm readers at the local public library to get the information. Time is hard to find to do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.199.164 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I think on these three above comments, WP:LOCAL may apply. Be careful to pull something that points to notability beyond the city. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...erm, for what it's worth, a Myspace link is inherently unnotable. --Dennisthe2 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I am impressed. Nice job on the article, and that Academy of Learning ad is great in your Vic Moya page. Your archive is really, really good Rob. I guess you knew that, I'm just seeing it all now for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.90.10 (talk • contribs)
Delete Appears unverifiable so far. The references provided are Geocities, broken links, or Wikipedia. If it'll take time to get sources but they do exist, then consider userfying. ShadowHalo 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the information is verifiable. There are printed sources that are not on the internet. There are dozens of video interviews with people verifying this information that are not on the internet. This does exists. Does everything have to be on the internet to make it verifiable? To delete this article on that stand point is very pretentious. You might as well Nominate the Ford Plant [19] site for deletion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.199.164 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Not always, but in the case of the local publications...well, frankly, I for one am not going to travel to Brantford, ON, Canada to verify the information - so yes, it does need to be on the 'net in one form or another. See WP:RS for guidelines. Keep in mind, too, that if you can't find other resources, then like I pointed out, WP:LOCAL is what's going to apply here. Follow ShadowHalo's advice, and stick it on a user page for now if you have to get more time. --Dennisthe2 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's some hypocrisy, your was it Orange County Buslines (whatever you called it, I forgot already) article had just a single citation and has absolutely no relevance to anyone outside of that region. *None* it shows nothing especially unique from any other big area in the world and their bus systems. It is a totally regional, and far less interesting/necessary than the article you are trying to delete. How do I nominate it for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.132.146 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[article in question: Orange County Transportation Authority] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.132.146 (talk • contribs)

- - Go ahead, put it up for AFD - please, just try to prove a point. If you really think that you should try and prove a point despite reading that link (and really, you should), WP:AFD is your friend. --Dennisthe2 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 21:03Z

Hifishi

Ok, this is obviously a fake Pokémon, but that's not the main reason I'm putting this up for deletion - a fake Pokémon could in theory, be notable. The reason is that it fails WP:NFT: "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". After searching Google for a bit, it became clear that "Hifishi" is one of the fakes from the "PokéGods" craze a few years back (remember "MewThree"?) - a craze that consisted entirely of...kids making things up in school one day, and telling their gullible friends in order to trick them into glitching up their games. "Hifishi" wasn't even that notable as far as these fakes went, and to top it all off, the page treats "Hifishi" not as a fake, but as an "unused Pokémon" (although it does say that the most common code is fake). This does not belong on Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination. ~e.o.t.d~ 06:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. fraggle 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7 Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a list of hoaxes, either. Xiner (talk, email) 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pokemon is bad enough. We do not also need fake hoax pokemons.:-)-MsHyde 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:02Z

Comparison of IRCds

Wholly unsuited to Wikipedia: While I suppose that the bare listing of facts and laying them side-by-side is not in itself "original reseach" it certainly feels that way. No reliable sources are cited "comparing" these IRC entities. the "Not a weblist" mantra appears to be egregiously violated by the massive number of external links to other-wise unnotable IRC entities. The use of tables, while lovely and indicative of someone slaving over this, also means that it's completely n00b-a-phobic as well. This may be good information, and may belong somewhere, but I'm unconvinced it belongs here. Wikibooks? brenneman 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear this belongs here either, per WP:OR. Delete. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Verifiable, useful. Consider it a glorified list. See also Comparison of cricket bowlers, Comparison of file comparison tools, Comparison of temperature scales, Comparison of Toyota hybrids, et al. -- Plutor ^talk 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikie to Wikibooks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. Although it's potentially verifiable, it's WP:OR because of the choice of what criteria are important and relevant and how they are defined. It's also a link farm and spam magnet. If it must be kept, all non-notable entries and external links need ruthlessly removing. CiaranG 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is opinion.-MsHyde 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also Comparison of file systems - comparisons like this are common practice.
Keep even the nominator thinks that it isn't OR, though proposing to delete it because it "feels like OR." It fails none of the WP criteria. DGG 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. An invaluable resource to any server administrator trying to locate a suitable IRCd, as for trimming, it is probably worth separating out the historical ones into a separate article to avoid cluttering. Danielharmsworth 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is Wikipedia an encylopedia or a resource for server administrators? WP:NOT#DIRECTORY CiaranG 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an encyclopaedia, which is a resource for everybody, including server administrators. As for the reference to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, This is a consolidation of verifiable information into a meaningful format, in this case, a comparison, not a list. Danielharmsworth 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was started due to the deficit of reliable unbiased sources comparing IRCds unaffiliated with individual products or projects. Sources are provided in the form of external links to those IRC entities homepages - admittedly it may be more blunt to link directly to source repositories or file downloads. I am confused as to how this article could be described as a weblist with the bulk of it being devoted to "laying facts side-by-side".
Original research, as I understand in Wikipedia, does not include gathering information provided by product websites, independent reviews, usage of services utilising the software or examining publicly available source code and documentation. It especially does not cover criteria considered important to developers and users familiar with a subject that can and will be added to and adjusted over time - if you consider yourself to be an expert on the subject why not try adding important criteria? Should Comparison of wiki software likewise be deleted because it contains a huge amount of external links, a set of criteria that may not be obviously important to one not familiar with the subject and may attract links and spam? As for unverifiable: one need only connect to an IRC network utilising the software, or better yet: download/purchase a copy of the software to install and try, or read through the source code (if available), that is assuming you are unhappy with project/product website feature lists or questioning the authors - this applies to any article about a piece of software. -- Southen 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki software is an interesting example, because each entry is clearly notable (at least until consensus says otherwise) by virtue of the fact that it has an article. If you were to apply the same logic to Comparison of IRCds you'd be left comparing not very much to not very much. Perhaps some of the IRCDs there don't have articles but should, or perhaps they do and I can't find them (they're not wikilinked, so I assume not anyway), but either way, I still don't see how the majority of those are notable in any way. Regarding the original research point, the information gathered may well come from elsewhere (although I doubt if anywhere but primary sources, because the entries are mostly non-notable), but I maintain that the way it is compiled and gathered (e.g. the choice of what features to list) constitutes original research. CiaranG 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "deficit of reliable [...] sources" when used as the justification for creating an article really should be setting off some mental alarm bells, shouldn't it? - brenneman 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would set off mental alarm bells, when taken out of context, but as southen has stated it is not a deficit of reliable sources of information regarding any of the specific entries, its a deficit of reliable comparisons. Danielharmsworth 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to labour an obvious point, in particular since I say it in the nomination, but this article is Comparison of IRCds. If there ae not reliable sources on comparisons, than this article can't exist. - brenneman 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources on comparisons? lets have a look at what is is for a moment, a presentation of facts about each individual entry laid out in a manner as to allow a reader to quickly see what features are available on each IRCd and which features are not as compared to other IRCd's, now given this, what need is there to have other reliable comparisons when there are no new facts introduced or any determinations made by arranging the information into this specific structure. Now i do agree that the features compared should be determined through consensus to avoid any bias. Danielharmsworth 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe we need reliable sources that actually compare these subjects in order to retain this article. A (comprehensive) listing of details like this is appropriate as long as the presentation does not implicitly or explicitly show an unsourced relationship between the subjects. This is fundamentally different than something like Dead Playboy Playmates, as that article is 1) not comprehensive of all the comparable details of Playboy Playmates, 2) presents a significant amount of speculative and unsourced information, and 3) implies there is some sort of relationship between the deaths of Playboy Playmates. --- RockMFR 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:40Z

Chantelle Paige

Curious about Chantelle Paige? From this article you will learn that "the makeup she use" is Chanel. Her favorite facial feature is her eyelashes. Her name "literally means song" and "Her first love has always been music." Her high school GPA was 4.1. Fluff resume piece for a subject who may faintly meet WP:N, but there are absolutely zero third-party sources. The entire article ("Chantelle enjoys helping people") is sourced by her two myspace.com pages, her official website, and her profile at a site called "CHERRY TAP." I had placed the "likeresume" tag on this article, but it was removed by an IP editor whose only edits were to this article, claiming that the article was "fully and well written." janejellyroll 06:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It just feels like it's autobiographical, and it sounds very much like a resume and a sales pitch rolled into one. I could go Speedy A7 (bio) here, but this is a case where I forsee it being recreated - and so I really think a precedent to speedy in the future is needed. --Dennisthe2 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her IMDB page has no credits at all, though some nice pictures. Claims of being a "supporting" actress in The Rock and Bicentennial Man seem bogus or hyped (extra? crowd scenes?). Nothing on Google News except this non-WP:RS side mention as a MySpace artist.[20], nothing at all on Google News Archive. Delete, fails WP:BIO, article has serious credibility issues. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable MySpacer, WP:COI possible autobiographical self advertising.--John Lake 07:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See http://www.globalenquirer.com/ http://irwindalespeedway.com/chantelle.asp. 1800 g-hits. She is being talked about. --Kevin Murray 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Enquirer link is some sort of myspace.com thing and the Irwindale Speedway is a press release for one of her appearances. The press release mirrors a lot of the language in the article, making me feel that both were generated by the same person, or that the article was drawn from press release type material. janejellyroll 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GE did seem a bit hokey and the other would only be intersting if it supported some borderline notability. She may be the next Britany, but not quite there yet. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Dhartung, I especially liked the one in the blue top :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:COI. Agree with Dhartung about the need to establish precedent. --N Shar 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My vote to delete is in no way a reflection of the talents displayed on her IMDB page. TonyTheTiger 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She may be noteworthy, but this is her resume/singles dating service info. This is an encyclopedia, not MtSpace. MRoberts <> 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Consider. This is like my first time writing an article so there may be rules that I do not well understand what you meant. Janejelly, forgive me for deleting that resume box that you put, I didn't realize it was you who put it, I thought it was the computer. You are right, that still does not give me any right to remove it. But is there anything that you guys can do to make this article work. I promised this person that I will try my best to make an article about her in Wikipedia, I thought that she had met the notability. Is there any suggestions that you guys could give me, or anything you guys can help? I spent a lot of time on this including interviewing the person and researching. Thanks though even from this, I had learned some things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirknights2 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I left some info on your talk page. janejellyroll 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I deliberated over this one for some time -- the promotional text of the Wikipedia article seems to be written by the same person who authored her IMDb biography, including the exciting! use! of exclamation marks! She doesn't quite meet WP:BIO at this moment, but perhaps we'll be having this discussion again a year from now and things will have changed. (jarbarf) 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Dextromethorphan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:47Z

Non-medical use of dextromethorphan

This article is a mess, reads like a drug-abusers' manual, and in my opinion has no place in Wikipedia. The entire article is basically a reworded copy of the DXM Faq available at the "Vaults of Erowid" website, http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faq/dxm_faq.shtml. Sufficient information on recreational DXM use is already available in the main dextromethorphan Wikipedia article. Equazcion 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind everyone to please post your comments at the bottom of the page, below all other comments. For all intents and purposes this is a talk page and should follow similar rules. It changes often, so finding new comments is much easier if people need only look at the bottom of the page, after the last comment they read. Also, if your opinion changes, please ~~strike-through~~ your original comment using the <s> </s> tags and add your new opinion afterwards.
Thank you. Equazcion 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delldot and I have gotten to work on this, so I urge anyone who's already voted "delete" to go back and look over the article. It's substantially better now, with far more citations and less OR. Jolb 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is two years old with a long history. In 2004, the article apparently had an alarmist tone, which appears to have been corrected. The pendulum apparently has now swung the other way. However, I don't see inherent problems with the topic itself at all, balance in the article can be brought with some cleanup effort. There seems to be plenty of valuable information on this page still, and since Wikipedia is not censored, anti-social topics should not be banned as long as the big three content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR) are followed. Finally, the merge process does not involve AfD. hateless 07:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very real topic that deserves its own page. There's plenty of media coverage of DXM abuse, and I'm sure that some people might find this a useful source of information. It does require a rewrite, however, and I'd be happy to work on it. Jolb 12:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think it would be good to compare this article with the LSD article. That's a FEATURED article, and most of the sections and information in this article correspond with sections and information in the LSD article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Qualified-keep The article should stay, but should be stripped down to the key information, with some of the less scientific (talk of "plateaus", etc.) removed and remove advocacy-style text.Ryandaum 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)) Delete I'm changing my vote to Delete after reading Equazcion's comments below. I'd be content with the removal of this article and with the editing of the 'recreational use' portion of the main DXM page.Ryandaum 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's own talk page:

Though some parts are well written, this article reads much more like a "how to" guide for abuse than an encyclopedia article on the history of a specific substance non-medical usage. The message seems to be focused on detailing safe recreational usage protocol, riddled with weasel words and what appears to be original research. A complete rewrite may be in order. --NEMT 06:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:No original research and other content policies, all additions to Wikipedia must have sources - that is, they must be previously published by a reputable source. This article is subject to many edits that add nothing more than personal slang, personal opinions, and other original research. So if you're wondering why I'm reverting bogus edits, there's your answer. Peoplesyak 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Now from me: Almost the entire article is originally sourced or sourced from the DXM Faq at Erowid, which although it is widely used due to the lack of reputable information elsewhere on the topic, is still arguably not a reputable source in itself. Should the article be kept I would continue to help clean it up as I've already started doing, however I still question its merit as a standalone article. The actual reputable information that doesn't consist of original slang can be sufficiently represented in the "Recreational use" subsection of the Dextromethorphan main article. Since the Non-medical use of dextromethorphan article is basically just a rehash of the DXM Faq at Erowid, an external link to that site would be a better conformance to Wikipedia's "no original research" policy and quality standards, while still providing that external information to those who would like to judge its reputability for themselves. The content's merit as "encyclopedic content" is very questionable. Equazcion 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article has problems, this is not a reason for deletion, we can just fix them. Remove OR, unsourced statements, and text that is too similar to copyrighted text, stub down if necessary. From WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: "Article needs improvement | List on Wikipedia:Cleanup". "Article is biased | List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention". If all OR and other unsuitable info is removed and there's not even enough left for a stub, it can be redirected to dextromethorphan. But I find that highly unlikely. It's an encyclopedic topic; deletion is not required just because the article has problems. delldot | talk 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Merge with Dextromethorphan. Wikipedia is not censored but a how-to on OTC drug abuse is carrying things a bit far. Finding reliable, verifiable sources that don't read like OR or copyvio for the subject matter as it stands now would be a good trick. Flakeloaf 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum But then again the sources can be OR, and if they're reliable (Erowid is arguably reliable) then a rewrite for tone should solve our problems nicely by creating a solid section to merge with DXM. Flakeloaf 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion as I'm now involved in editing this article. There's a lot of good information there; merging it with Dextromethorphan would make that article too long and draw undue attention to the drug's recreational usage. Flakeloaf

The reasons for deleting the article exceed the simple low quality of its content, although I haven't properly stated that. Cleaning up the article will only produce a copy of the Dextromethorphan recreational use section. It simply isn't warranted to have two articles that describe a single drug. Although the LSD article may contain similar information on abuse (a point stated above), there is still only one article, rather than one describing the medical use and one describing the recreational use. If the non-medical article were stripped down to only valid, verifiable data, and rewritten so as not to be a "how-to" on abuse, what's left would be information that is already contained in the existing "Recreational use" section of the main Dextromethorphan article. Even the recreational information in the Dextromethorphan article is largely unsourced, although I feel much of it is worthy of being left in since it is largely common knowledge, and its lack of reliable sources is only due to its lack of proper public studies. In other words, clean up the non-medical use article, and you'll be left with the dextromethorphan article's "recreational use" section. A separate article for that purpose is simply redundant, and does nothing more than create a dumping ground for tips on abuse and more unverified information. Equazcion 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If cleaning up in this manner does produce a duplicate, I'd suggest a merge and redirect. That way it wouldn't have to be deleted, and the potentially valuable history 2 year old would be left intact. Also, folks that come back looking for the old article will still be directed to a useful article. Redirects are cheap, there's no reason to delete outright here. (For the record, though, I still think there's enough here to merit a separate article). delldot | talk 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge delete or rewriteMerge-- better suited for Dextromethorphan delete--Copyright violation and OR Rewrite-- need i say more? Maverick423 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any specific complaints? Maverick said that there's copyright violations, original research, and bad writing. Would someone point these out specifically so that I can fix them? Jolb 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier OR claim was unfounded; the article carries numerous links to apparently-reliable sources. Erowid, though far from ideal, could be thought of as a reliable source for reasons that are out of scope for this discussion. "Bad writing" ranges from inappropriate use of SI abbreviations ("mgs") to comparisons with other illegal drugs that are probably outside of the average reader's sphere of knowledge. I have some free time tomorrow to change this article's tone a bit, assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it. Flakeloaf 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few 'Citation Needed' tags and will continue to do so. Take a look through the article to find them as those are examples of specific complaints. In response to Erowid being a reliable source, Erowid itself is a collection of articles written by the community and sometimes cited with reliable sources. However the specific article we're talking about is not Erowid but the DXM Faq written by William White, which originally had nothing to do with Erowid; it is just featured there now, among other places on the web. Much of White's research, while it may make sense, is based largely on original experiences reported in by people who emailed him their stories or posted on forum message boards. No one even knows who William White is, what his credentials are (if any), or even if that is his real name. I admit the lack of genuine legitimate studies in this field makes the task of separating reliable from unreliable information very ambiguous. However without reliable sources, the encyclopedic content drawn from the DXM Faq should be very limited, and again, I think what's in the main dextromethorphan article does that job already. I've been reading through the non-medical use article, and fixing it would mean rewriting it to basically look like the dextromethorphan article. The history section is perhaps the only significant thing this article adds, so maybe if everything else were eliminated we could re-title the article "History of recreational DXM use" and save it for that sole purpose. Any thoughts? Equazcion 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or as a slightly different alternative, merge only the history section with the main dextromethorphan article, eliminating the remainder of the non-medical use article. Equazcion 00:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think renaming it to a more specific topic might make it harder for others to add more info later on; I'd opt for leaving it at the more general title. delldot | talk 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Additional recreational use info would go to the main DXM article rather than a separate article, and the separate article would just be for history. Equazcion 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-post (delldot deleted it): I noticed that the dextromethorphan article is very poorly referenced. Now that delldot and I added a bunch of citations to this article, I think it would be better if the recreational section of dextromethorphan was cut down, and any useful there was incorporated here. There is a total of ONE citation in the entire Recreational use section of the Dextromethorphan article, so it seems to qualify as OR, whereas this cite is very well referenced. Jolb 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check various other comments above you'll see that lack of references is just one of many reasons for possibly deleting the article.

I think you misunderstood me. I say that Non-medical use of dextromethorphan should STAY, while the recreational use section of Dextromethorphan should be deleted. The article nominated for deletion is very WELL referenced, while the corresponding section of Dextromethorphan is poorly referenced.Jolb 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while the addition of references is a good step forward, references weren't the only problem with the non-medical use article. Equazcion 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identify other problems and we'll fixed them as we go! Flakeloaf 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Read everything I've already said above. Equazcion 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cleanup tag as the article's quality has seen a vast improvement in the past couple of days. If the prospect of having the article deleted served as motivation for its improvement then it has served its purpose. I admit I'm not sure where that leaves us. I still feel merging is an option, as is making the article purely for the purpose of the history of recreational use, since the non-medical use's history section is still the main significant contribution that article serves. However as I see it, leaving the main DXM article as is, while simultaneously keeping the non-medical use article as a source of expanded recreational information, would be fine at this point. Please take a look through the 'newly renovated' Non-medical use of dextromethorphan and post your opinions on what should be done. Equazcion 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also proposed the deletion of Triple C in favor of replacing with a redirect to Non-medical use of dextromethorphan (assuming this article ends up staying) since all of its content has effectively been merged here already. It is also properly referenced here whereas the Triple C page contains no references. Equazcion 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the triple c article is HORRIBLE! Jolb 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reignbow 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple C Article Deletion: The 'proposed deletion' tag was deleted by a user so I've created a separate AfD (a page like this one to discuss deletion of an article). Please take a look at the Triple C article and go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple C to post your opinions on whether or not it should stay. Thanks. Equazcion 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect It is well-referenced but the article, at it's essence, is about the drug (without the drug, there could be no non-medical use). The info regarding use of the drug, regardless of prescription, should properly be on the page of said drug.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against merging is that it would make the main DXM article too long. As it stands now, if the non-medical article were merged into the medical article, it would make the medical article contain more recreational content than medical content. However, after the redundant information between the two articles is eliminated, there wouldn't be much left to merge aside from that History section; hence my suggestion to make the Non-medical article for historical info only, changing its name to "History of recreational DXM use," and leave the other scientific recreational info in the main DXM article. Equazcion 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that because the Recreational Use section of Dextromethorphan is so poorly written and poorly referenced, that section should be cut down. People will then click the "main article" link in that section and be directed to Non-medical use of dextromethorphan, which is more thorough, referenced more thoroughly (and therefore less OR), and more NPOV. Jolb 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of which to keep shouldn't regard the content itself but instead the merit of having two separate articles in the first place. Recreational use of a drug traditionally falls under the main article for that drug and not to a separate article. The history here may merit a separate article, but otherwise, there is no reason to have a separate article just to describe recreational use. Furthermore I don't think the Recreational Use section of Dextromethorphan is poorly written or poorly referenced. Even if both were true, it would be in the same state as the Non-medical article was just a couple of days ago, and similar corrections could be made there as they were here (and as far as references I've already done much of that). If it still needs additional references then please add appropriate cn tags, as was done for the Non-medical article before. The argument for keeping the Non-medical article was that a lack of references and poor writing is no reason for deleting an article, and the same holds true with the recreational section of the DXM article. Given the choice between fixing the recreational portion of the DXM article or simply eliminating it in favor of an outside article in order to correct the problem of it being poorly written/referenced, it makes much more sense to simply correct the recreational use section of the DXM article. There just isn't a need for an entire separate article about something that would normally be a section of another article.Equazcion 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, again, no merge at all would also be fine. Both could be kept, with the Non-medical use article as a source of expanded information on recreational use, for those who are interested, as it basically is currently. Now that the article has been fixed up I think that would be a legitimate option. Equazcion 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wiiliminate. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes of Virtual Console titles

This article is a great example of something better suited for a video game wiki and/or fansite. If people want to know about size, they can look on a video game site. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a guide to things like this. There is no memory size articles for any system, downloads for a console should be no exception. RobJ1981 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the grids mainly filled with 'Unknown'. I may be a Wii fanatic, but I can tell a Wii article that should be there from one that shouldn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. It is not specific enough.--Pupster21 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont know wether this would count as a merge or not, so i will add it as a comment, but couldnt we add a column to the lists of virtual console titles for size? Mattyatty 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia shouldn't have information like that. If people want to find size, they can search gaming sites. We don't have memory card size for GameCube games, PlayStation 2 and so on, Virtual Console is no expection. RobJ1981 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry a lot of work was put into this trivia page. Xiner (talk, email) 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. MRoberts <> 00:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' memory can very wildly for any system but the virtual console's are constant, and should be taken like disc sizes.69.136.128.185
Keep per 69.136.128.185 .Rlk89 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 69.136.128.185 .Wiivolution 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mattyatty. This belongs in the region-specific pages linked from List of Virtual Console games. It definitely doesn't merit a separate page, though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. [Was tempted to comment "merge with Donald Rumsfeld" given the large number of known unknowns in the article.] Edeans 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Mattyatty & Zetawoof. Including the info on the VC page was initially proposed, but at that time I indicated that the information might be in violation of WP:TRIVIA and/or WP:NOR and requested not to include the info on the VC page. So, that is the reason why a separate page was created. Please don't merge. Mausy5043 12:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refer to WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, this isn't really an encyclopedia article. Have a look at the first pillar in WP:5. Even if it was an encyclopedic subject, the article is unsourced and incomplete. Saying that it required effort to produce isn't a valid reason for keeping it. Nor for that matter is the view that "memory can vary wildly for any system, but the virtual consoles are constant, and should be taken like disc sizes", which again isn't relevant. Addhoc 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:50Z

Xuly Bet

This is an article on a non-notable fashion brand. I tried to speedy delete it, but the speedy delete tag was deleted by the creator of the article (which is a violation of policy). However, the creator is new. I decided to take it here anyway, knowing little about fashion myself. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Xuly Bet clothing is shown at Paris Fashion Week, and included in Victoria and Albert Museum. This article is very weak though and needs references.-MsHyde 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remame - I believe it is Xuly Bët not "Xuly Bet", there are enough notability references now Fotografico 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the sources it certainly seems to be Xuly Bët. If it is kept (and it looks like it will be), then we'll rename it to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sources suggest it's notable enough. Shimeru 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Wodup 08:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fog pump

Completely frivilous and non-notable, WP:NOT, indiscriminate information, or made up by someone. I twice tagged it for Speedy deletion and two different users removed the tag. - Denny 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as lacking context. So tagged. delldot | talk 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had twice tagged it previously for speedy. - Denny 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. This does not preclude a merger if consensus for one can be found. Sandstein 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson DUI incident

These sorts of pages sugarcoat the issue and make it unnecessarily hard to navigate. This information, at its core, involves one man, really. Mel Gibson. None of the officers are notable, nor did they do notable things. The article involves only one notable person. All of it should be at Mel Gibson. After the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident it seemed a good time to gauge consensus here, following my attempt at a merge several months ago that didn't generate much debate-M^ask 07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a major and controversial event that received widespread news coverage. The article is well-sourced and verified, and while I accept that coverage of news events has to be limited, there are plenty of news events that currently have their own articles. It's written in an encyclopedic style, and I can't see any reason to delete. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point- its not a delete, really, just a merge. -M^ask
  - Then you should not have come here. This is Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage of the process. Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you actually want. Uncle G 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC}

When more consensus is needed or if there are strong feelings involved, an AfD is perfectly suitable for a merge. kthxbye. -M^ask

Point. In order to point out how wrongheaded articles such as the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" and the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" are, consider whether there should now be a Wikipedia article on the "Lisa Nowak attempted kidnapping incident." Of course there should not be any such article. But her incident is receiving a lot of news coverage. Her relation to her incident is in many ways the same as Michael Richards' and Mel Gibson's relationships to their incidents. She too has celebrity status. Bus stop 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there should be such an article on the Nowak incident. There is an article, for instance, on 2006 North Korean nuclear test. Lots of other major news events are given their own article. So why not this one? If it were merged to Mel Gibson, that article would become ridiculously long, or else a lot of verified content and detail would be lost. Walton monarchist89 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nuclear test would be notable for any non-nuclear country. Would a guy blowing up during an arrest be notable if he were not a celebrity? this incident is notable solely for Gibson himself, and belongs at his article. -M^ask

Point. I don't think there should be an additional Lisa Nowak article, about her recent incident, and I don't think you think there should be one either. You haven't cited any reasons why you think there should be a separate article on the Lisa Nowak incident. What do you see in common between the North Korean nuclear test and Mel Gibson's arrest for drunken driving and his antisemitic comments? Mel Gibson is one individual. He is not a country. And I don't recognize the comparison between the antisemitic mumblings of a drunk and the very sobering fact of the detonation of a nuclear device. Bus stop 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment? Thats the same point I made. -M^ask

05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fairly well-known incident, the article itself seems comprehensive and well-referenced. fraggle 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fraggle -- But it doesn't deserve an article of it's own. The details of the incident that is the subject of this article can be handled perfectly well on the Mel Gibson article page. In fact it already is thoroughly spelled out on the Mel Gibson article page. Therefore, the only question is, why this separate page? Bus stop 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without merging. The article contains way too much material for it to make sense to merge it into Mel Gibson, and most of it seems to be worth keeping. None of the officers or other related parties need to be notable to be covered in an article about the incident. (Their relative non-notability would only preclude individual articles about them). –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sommers -- This is an article about a living person. And the person is not primarily know for anything nefarious. There is way too much negative material devoted to a minor incident in an otherwise productive and positive life. The reason he is notable enough to be in Wikipedia in the first place is that he has accomplished a lot and, of course, those accomplishments are well documented in verifiable, responsibly published material. You point out the quantity of material in this article -- but that is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living people clearly say that we don't go overboard heaping negative implications on the subject of an article. This is a thoroughly negative article. It is about drunk driving and antisemitism. This can and probably should be noted in a general article about Mel Gibson. But it is entirely improper (according to Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people) to focus on negativity to the exclusion of all other ingredients of a positive nature in a person's life. The content of this article may not be acceptable in the main, Mel Gibson, article. But it is certainly not acceptable in this article. That is because this article is totally focused on the negative to the exclusion of the positive. Bus stop 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not wikinews or wikitrivia or wikipeoplemagazine. The event is and can be more than amply covered in the main Mel Gibson article, and I see no need for every celebrity run-in with the law. Borrowing what User:Barno said in the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident AfD, the parent article can more than amply accommodate what will likely be a matter of little lasting significance. If “incidents” associated with Lenny Bruce or Jim Morrison are covered well enough in the article on those individuals, the same goes for Mel Gibson or Stephen Colbert. Like the Michael Richards article, most of “well-sourced and verified” “comprehensive” material in this article is mostly just a pile-on of media reports. A judicious copy-edit when merging whatever is savageable can deal with the fact there is "too much material". Agent 86 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Well-sourced" (or "well-referenced") is not an argument to keep this article; it can and should be just as well-sourced in one article under Mel Gibson. "Too much" information is too much information whether in this article or in the Mel Gibson article; judicious trimming back would serve either article well. Mel Gibson was driving drunk. Mel Gibson muttered antisemitic statements. That is not the subject for a stand alone encyclopedia article. The correct perspective is to see the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in the context of the life of Mel Gibson. The incorrect perspective is to see the life of Mel Gibson as an appendage to the "Mel Gibson DUI incident." Bus stop 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the essential information. No need to create entire articles everytime a "celebrity" does something.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merging. Still a major event that continues to have ramifications and is still referenced whenever a celebrity flies off the handle (see Michael Richards, the guy from Grey's Anatomy, and I even heard watercooler chat comparing Governor Arnold's office tapes to it). If there's an issue with how the content is presented and any so-called "sugar coating" (though one must be careful to not mistake sugar coating for an attempt at NPOV and avoiding WP:BLP issues) that should be handled via WP:BOLD.23skidoo 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. What "ramifications" does it continue to have? Bus stop 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one incident did incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation. Nardman1 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Fine -- it did "incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation." Isn't the question: in what context that "damage" is to be seen? Is that damage to be seen in the context of this one-day incident? No. The correct context in which that "damage" is to be seen is within the context of the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson has hidden his true nature from the public his whole life. This incident fundamentally alters how the public views him. It changes the context of what is really known about his life. It reveals his previous history as a lie. Nardman1 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. In point of fact Mel Gibson has long been considered by some to have antisemitic tendencies. But even if that were not so, I don't think biographies of living people should receive branch articles when some editors feel the subject of the article has reached a significantly different stage of life. I think we still have to respect the biological integrity of one person's life. Bus stop 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any info needed can be used in his main article. We are here for overviews, not every little thing he's ever done. Is the Tom Cruise couch jumping incident gonna get it's own page then. Booshakla 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently detailed and extensive enough to support a separate article although in general I am against separate articles for such incident's. TonyTheTiger 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This incident can easily be incorporated into Mel Gibsons article, I cannot see any need for a separate article•CHILLDOUBT• 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too big to merge, seen many other event articles; this is clearly notable, well written and sourced. Whilding87 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Essential information can be merged into Mel Gibson article. Much of the other data, while potentially interesting, is not important enough to merit a separate article. Keeping this would set a bad precedent for separate articles for every celebrity divorce case, as well. John Carter 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such articles are properly sourced to indicate that the incident being discussed is notable on its own, and has sufficient independent published references, then why is it a "bad precedent" to allow those articles if their text is too large to incorporate in the main article? I generally have no issues with articles that are well sourced and on notable events. Dugwiki 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be well referenced and sourced, and the article also seems to indicate the incident in and of its own right meets notability guidlines. So this article seems to be a perfectly acceptable and notable topic. Not a good candidate for deletion, just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. I think the primary questions involve context and perspective. Those are the things that shift whether the article receives it's own heading or whether the article is seen under the heading of an article on Mel Gibson. The incident written in this article does not stand alone, apart from Mel Gibson. It is firmly attached to the life of Mel Gibson. That is the proper heading. We should see this incident from the perspective of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Mel Gibson is the central character in the event, but that does not mean that the event isn't notable enough on its own to warrant its own article. As an analogy, the article John F. Kennedy assassination is clearly an article that is squarely centered on John F. Kennedy (or, if you prefer, Lee Harvey Oswald). However clearly that doesn't necessarilly imply that the article about the event needs to be merged with the articles about the people associated with the event. I doubt anyone is seriously looking to merge that article into the JFK main article, for example.

As another example, consider this from a reader's perspective. It certainly seems possible, I think, that a reader will be interested in searching for information about this incident without having much interest in reading about Mel Gibson himself or even caring much about Mel Gibson's career or biography. Since the amount of information about this event is large enough that it can fill its own article page, by splitting it off into a subarticle you are allowing readers to focus on reading about just the event without having to sift through everything else associated with Mel Gibson in his main article.

Thus I disagree with the assertion that an otherwise well sourced and sufficiently large article about an event that received extended international media coverage needs to be deleted, nor do I find any part of policy or in the guidelines that suggests it. Dugwiki 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Dugwiki -- The reader would not have to "sift through everything else" to find information about the DUI incident in the main article because it would all be found in one area. For what reason would the facts of that incident not be in contiguous paragraphs within the main article on Mel Gibson? The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald does not compare with Mel Gibson's drunken driving incident, even with the utterances of antisemitic sentiments. It is an incident of a totally different order. One is the president of the United States. The other is not. One is still alive. The other's life is not over. Bus stop 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint Bus Stop - I was not implying DUI = Assassination. I was saying that by your prior reasoning we shouldn't have the JFK assassination article either. I see no problem, though, either in policy or guidelines, with seperating a large verified section regarding a notable event of a main article into a subarticle when the subarticle contains sufficient verifiable references. In the case when there is enough seperate published verifiable information about an event that it can fill its own article in length, and the incident appears to have received multiple notable coverage, then it makes sense to split that incident off as a subarticle from the person's main article. So unless you're claiming that this article would comfortably fit in the Mel Gibson article, I remain unconvinced there is a non-WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason to delete. Dugwiki 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT specifically discourages the creation of articles on current events which may eventually become obsolete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a supplement to the National Enquirer. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI every year, and I would suspect that many of them get upset and say inappropriate things to the arresting officers. There is nothing NOTABLE about this type of incident. The only thing which is notable in this event is Mel Gibson. By giving this incident its own seperate article, Wikipedia is giving an undue amount of WEIGHT to a negative incident in this living person's life, which runs contrary to WP:BLP. Unlike other celebrity bios on Wikipedia which frequently contain ONE "Controversy" section; Gibson's bio is over run with sections which seem to push the POV that he is a homophobe, a racist, anti-semetic,a drug addict and an alcoholic. As IF that isn't bad enough - there is ALSO this free-standing article, which has provided an additional platform for editors to label him an anti-semite. The excessive amount of space that Wikipedia has dedicated to this type of material about this LIVING PERSON constitutes attempted defamation of character in my opinion. Clearly, more than 75% of Wikipedia's editorial "space" dedicated to Mel Gibson paints him in a very negative light and, therefore, cannot be considered NUETRAL and OBJECTIVE. This article's very existence creates a weight issue that runs contrary to Wikipedia's own policy on WP:BLP Cleo123 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, WP:NOT only talks about not writing opinions on current affiars that might quickly become obsolete. The policy, however, does not talk about the actual information and facts of a news event becoming obsolete. So while you shouldn't write an opinion piece about whether or not Mel Gibson behaved badly, for example, you can write an article about a news event involving Mel Gibson provided it has sufficient sourcing and is large enough and has enough detail to warrant being split from the main article. I also do not agree with the assertion that the article's existence in principle somehow "gives undue weight" to a possible negative aspect of Mel Gibson's character. So long as the article refers to the actual facts of the event, as reported by verifiable published sources, and doesn't delve into personal editorial opinion, there is no issue here in regards to undue negative impact. Dugwiki 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. The article should not have been created in the first place and it has become a platform for opinions, including those of a blogger for goodness sake! Of course, the article is detailed and well-sourced, I'm sure there has been considerable edit warring in its creation. I think Wikipedia should be steering clear of this type of article in general. It is not encyclopedic material. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI each year, why not write articles about them? Surely, there are reliable sources to be found in local newspapers. Just because there are sources to be found, it doesn't make the incident worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Is this current event continuing to receive media attention? No, it isn't, because it doesn't have lasting significance. Why doesn't Wikipedia have a Zsa Zsa Gabor slap incident article? Or a Brandy car accident incident? By singling out this one celebrity in particular Wikipedia is demonstrating an editorial BIAS against him. Cleo123 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument assumes incorrectly that the thousands of DUI arrests actually receive sufficient, reliable, multiple notable published coverage in news publications. Clearly the coverage of this DUI incident is much greater than a normal DUI incident. So noone is arguing that all DUI incidents should have their own article. I'm arguing that this DUI incident should. Dugwiki 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because he made racist remarks? Cleo123 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. I think that just judging by two articles of this sort, namely the Michael Richards article and the Mel Gibson article, it seems to me that the reason for both of those articles as separate, "breakaway" articles, to focus on one negative incident, is to heap a special dose of shame on these people. I feel that articles of this sort are motivated, perhaps unconsciously, by deeply held sentiments concerning what is right and what is wrong. I can't prove that. But I am cynical of alternate explanations. Many people are outraged by the things said by Michael Richards and Mel Gibson about certain groups within the larger society. It is not too far fetched a hypothesis that people are motivated to set things right by highlighting such shameful speech in a separate article. But Wikipedia should resist this. Bus stop 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I must disagree. Perhaps the extended news coverage was motivated by this, but the WP article should have been created (regardless of the actual reasons held by its creator) because the topic meets WP:Notability--due to the extended news and othre coverage. Black Falcon 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Setting up a separate article on Wikipedia highlights whatever that article is about. It is a judgement call on the part of editors. Whatever motivation you are attributing to "extended news coverage" infects Wikipedia as well. Wikipedia has readily available solution to this problem. The DUI incident can be put in the context of Mel Gibson's life. That is where it belongs. Bus stop 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - in that case, you are proposing a WP:MERGE, in which case this article should not have been nominated for AfD. Whether the article should be merged is a matter for the talk page, not AfD. So, for now, I will continue to argue keeping the article and may indeed support a merge to the Mel Gibson article later (as you do make a good, even if debatable, argument). Black Falcon 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My question above was a serious one, and I'm not at all surprised to see that it has gone unanswered. To answer this question is to be completely honest about what motivated the creation of this stand alone article in the first place. My question hits at the very core of this matter. The article is not about someone being arrested for DUI, it is an excuse for editors to elaborate on the theme that Gibson is a racist. By giving undue weight to such material, Wikipedia is not only defaming Gibson's character but aggrevating race relations by serving as a forum for debate among editors whereby individuals can be labelled racists. Cleo123 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a serious one and it has gone unanswered until now. But please, the reason that it was left unanswered is probably more that people went to sleep rather than that they could not give an honest article. No, the content of his remarks is not significant. It's the fact that it gathered so much news coverage (multiple, non-trivial, over an extended period of time)! It doesn't matter if he called for the destruction of the UN or expressed a desire to be sent into space upon his death. As long as it had received the same media coverage, it would pass WP:Notability. Yes, the article is about what he said rather than the DUI itself, because that is what the media coverage was mostly about. If there are any unsourced/defamatory statements there, by all means please remove them pre WP:BLP. Black Falcon 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Yes, the DWI incident is perfectly notable, in the context of a Mel Gibson article. We should not be setting up billboards of shame. In most instances, what happens in a person's life should be seen in the context of that person's life, in my opinion. The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald is an example of an exception to this. The difference (among others) is that John F. Kennedy is a figure of far greater prominence than Mel Gibson. We don't set up freestanding articles to showcase an incident despite the fact that we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation. Bus stop 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reasoned and specific arguments (I am a bit frustrated over the many "delete - awful article" and "keep - perfect article" comments that should up on AfD). In response to your comment: this is a billboard of shame only if it is NPOV (making claims without sourcing or making unbalanced claims). You are making a value-judgment (which I share) that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, but such value-judgments are not relevant to whether content is encyclopedic (which means passing WP:Notability). Although I agree that JFK is a more prominent figure than Gibson, that is still a value-judgment which others may or may not share. I personally like Mel Gibson as an actor and director (I can't say as a person, because I don't know him as a person). You say that "we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation", but it is quite likely that someone who is an anti-Semite contributed to this article and/or thinks it should be kept. It shouldn't matter what we feel (although I'm realist enough to admit that it does) as long as the subject passes WP:Notability. Also, a possible merger to the Mel Gibson article is a matter for the talk page (an idea for which a strong case can be made, in my opinion), not AfD. Black Falcon 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well-sourced (WP:V), WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and passes WP:Notability based on the multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I see no valid reason for deletion. Also note, please, that the nominator actually intended WP:MERGE of this article. However, I don't think it ought to be merged as the subject-matter passes WP:Notability on its own (the sources are about the incident itself, not just about Mel Gibson generally). Black Falcon 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- How can a source be about the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" without being about "Mel Gibson?" Bus stop 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I said "not about Mel Gibson generally". What I meant was that the sources don't talk about his life overall and mention the DUI incident in one passing sentence. They are about the incident itself. I hope this clarifies my meaning. Black Falcon 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge the main content to Mel Gibson (though most of it is already there), and the rest to Wikinews. There can be a link in Mel Gibson to the Wikinews article. The incident is not, on its own, notable enough that anyone will see it as major news in 2016. Argyriou (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86 and Nescio. Merge just the main facts to the main article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major notable incident that had international notoriety. And citing the deletion of one article, besides looking like a reverse-WP:POKEMAN, does not establish precendent. --Oakshade 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. -- Oakshade -- The deletion of the Michael Richards "breakaway" article is not "precedent" for deletion of this article. The facts in this article are properly a part of the article covering the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT. and all the arguments for delete. --MaNeMeBasat 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not need a separate article, merge to Mel Gibson. --Vsion 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, quite notable incident, definitely more to say about this than could be reasonably covered in the main bio article. Everyking 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point. -- Everyking -- Quantity is not quality. Bus stop 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need both. Everyking 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that the article isn't about someone being arrested for DUI, in the sense that another famous person arrested might not get a similar article. However, that doesn't mean it's just being used to call him a racist. People find the incident notable because they connect it to racism. But that's their business; Wikipedia only has the article because people find the incident notable, and should not say "some people find this article notable for an unacceptable reason". If it's notable, it's notable. Ken Arromdee 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Ken Arromdee The primary reason for an article such as this is to highlight a shameful incident in a person's life, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used this way. Bus stop 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that ignores notability criteria. --Oakshade 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Ken Arromdee It is not just "their business." Wikipedia is highlighting a "racist" incident. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to be balanced in reporting this. Having an unnecessary article to highlight this is tantamount to erecting a billboard for this purpose. It's purpose is to heap more shame on the individual than the single article could accomplish. The reasoning that there is too much material on the DUI incident to fit into the main article is roundabout thinking. Such reasoning justifies not only putting unnecessary information into an article but also providing that unnecessary material with a special showcase in the form of a freestanding article about one unfortunate and shameful incident. That is vindictive. In my opinion it is a test of whether such material is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia if it can fit logically into a general biography. Exceptions can be found for reasons such as prominence. But Mel Gibson is not as prominent as I would feel a person would need to be to warrant an article solely about a drunk driving incident. Indeed the editors should be wrestling with how to include this DUI incident into a generalized Mel Gibson article. They should not be affording themselves the luxury of going on endlessly, as they are prone to do in an article such as this one. Bus stop 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. -- Oakshade -- Not at all. The editorial decisions as to what should stay and what should be excised from this article should be made in the context of the main article, which concerns itself with the entirety of the life of the person named Mel Gibson. The perspective in this article is all wrong. It is not the content that I "don't like." It is the context that I take exception to. I never said it was not "notable." It is notable in the context of the main article. That is the preferable perspective, in my opinion. Bus stop 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree that it's unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted, but again, that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement to delete. As WP:NOTE states "...the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable." When there are multiple published works primarily about a topic, "the world" deemed that topic notable whether we think its sad or not. And there's too much subject-specific information in this article to be included in the Mel Gibson article. --Oakshade 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. -- Oakshade -- It is not "unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted." The highlighting of the shameful event is deliberate. Deliberate and unfortunate are two different things. It is the freestanding article that accomplishes the "highlighting." You say there is "subject-specific information." Yes, I agree, and the subject is: Mel Gibson. Bus stop 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint I am going to disagree and say that this is not a deliberate attempt at shaming. It is, rather, a deliberate attempt to organize a large amount of information about a noteworthy event into a single article. The article's purpose is not to defame or shame Mel Gibson, but to report the facts of the event in an encyclopedic form. The fact that you might be uncomfortable with those facts doesn't alter the purpose of the article, nor does being uncomfortable constitute legitimate grounds for deletion of an otherwise well sourced article. Dugwiki 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GassyGuy is correct. You are confusing news worthiness with notability. This event has no lasting significance. Although there will be more biographies published about Gibson, I sincerely doubt that any books will be written on the DUI incident. Regardless, no author would dedicate 75% of a biography on Gibson to the incident. Why should Wikipedia? The incident has no lasting notability or impact on anyone other than Gibson, possibly, and does not belong as a seperate article in any legitimate encyclopedia. Cleo123 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if this event isn't "lasting". Please see WP:Notability is Generally Permanent. And many would argue that is is much more than about soley Mel Gibson but a very notable and high profile case of modern anti-semitism that's coming from an extremely influential individual. But putting that aside, this still easily passes WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're really reaching. If I were to follow your logic, we should create a seperate article on the Paris Exposed.com story or any other news item that receives global news coverage, based upon your interpretation of notability. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you see it as a case of modern anti-semitism. I think, however, that you defeat your own argument with your candor. Wikipedia reports facts. It is not a repository for cataloging the racial opinions of the well known. It is a misuse of Wikipedia, for ethnic groups to use it as a tool to label and catalogue racists and anti- semites. Potential damage and defamation to the character of living people outweighs any legitimate "need" for this sort of article. Cleo123 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what sort of "damage" you're talking about here. If the article is objectively stating the verifiable published facts, then it is not a tool for slander or libel. If there is a specific part of the article that you feel is original research or original editorial opinion, then feel free to dispute or remove that part of the article. But that would not earn the deletion of the entire article if most of it is factually accurate and objective. Dugwiki 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now the argument to delete is the article is defamation of character??? When an article is very well sourced following strict WP:BLP guidelines such as this one is, there is nothing slanderous. Unless you can show a case that the Los Angeles Times, BBC News, Associated Press, ABC News etc. have all printed unfactual slanderous material, the case that this article is "defamation to the character" is outright nonsense. --Oakshade 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agent 86. I don't understand why everyone wants Wikipedia to do the job of Wikinews. Newsworthiness is not notability and this is covered in the article about Mel Gibson. GassyGuy 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of this article makes a fine example of systemic bias: we tend to fix too much our attention to what happens just now, to famous, mostly American, people. This incident is very important in the life of Mel Gibson, and perhaps in the life of people especially liking or resenting him. As for the world at large, it is just one of millions of similar accidents happening every day, affecting just the life of the people involved. So, this is an event pertaining to Gibson, and as such should be covered in the article about him. --Goochelaar 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I always compare this logic to pulling up the first plants that sprout, because for the sake of symmetry they all must sprout at the very same time. You don't counter systemic bias by deleting what people have already written; you counter it by writing more in underdeveloped areas. Everyking 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The simile about sprouts is nice and useful, but not relevant to my opinion (which probably did not transpire in what I wrote): I am not saying, for instance, "Delete the article about Mel Gibson because there is not an article about (obscure 15th century icelandic poet)". This would be plain wrong, of course. I am just saying that by some kind of optical illusion due to living here and now we might tend to consider as notable events which are not, and in my opinion this is the case for the DUI incident. --Goochelaar 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although it is "one of millions of similar accidents happening every day", it is one that happened to be noted in hundreds of non-trivial papers, news channels, and other sources over the course of several weeks. Plenty of other celebrities have had DUIs, but none of them have articles about it because they didn't get so much coverage. Black Falcon 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to agree with Black Falcon. There might be millions of accidents a day, but the vast bulk of them don't receive nearly as much international attention as this incident over a wide spread of time. I would not support articles about a random DUI which received only a momentary blurb in a paper, but I do support this article about this DUI. Dugwiki 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- No one is claiming it is not notable. But Mel Gibson already has a page devoted to his life. He is not so prominent, nor is this incident so prominent, to warrant a separate article devoted to it. His DUI incident is properly seen in the context of his life, where his accomplishments can balance his missteps. That, in my opinion, is consistent with our intention of maintaining a neutral point of view -- not by providing a less than flattering incident with it's own freestanding article. Editors need to debate what is worthy of inclusion and what should be discarded, on the page that is the article about Mel Gibson. In my opinion this freestanding article gives editors the green light to include too much. Wikipedia editors should be disciplined enough to write a concise article about Mel Gibson that covers the DUI incident with the inclusion of appropriate information. Bus stop 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a strong case, but as I have noted above, this is a matter for the talk page. I personally don't think this incident is as notable as, say, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria "incident", but that is my personal opinion. If the article can be reasonably merged into Mel Gibson (by reasonable I mean so that the whole biography is not dominated by this DUI), then by all means either build consensus for such an action or be WP:BOLD and do it. But wanting to merge an article is not a reason to request its deletion. Black Falcon 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an attempt to sort out the problem of news items on wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). I'd recommend delete on this article as it isn't encyclopedic, it should be a footnote to an article on the notable Mel Gibson. MLA 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above Comment would appear to be a Delete Cleo123 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To say that something is or is not encyclopedic without reference to WP:Notability amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What one person doesn't finds interesting, others may be fascinated with. Black Falcon 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for pointing that out. Might I suggest that you engage with the discussion at wp:notability (news) as my comment is in relation to minor items such as this failing to be sufficiently covered in WP:Notability and so an unencyclopedic news item such as this is not sufficiently covered by current guidelines so reference to them is not appropriate given that they do not address this particular issue. MLA 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding the proposed guideline are at Wikipedia:Notability (news)#Please consider the following (changes). I would support the guideline if my suggested criterion was added--otherwise it's just too restrictive and would exclude many featured articles as well as hundreds/thousands of historical events for years/decades. Black Falcon 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the discussion referenced above clearly establishes that WP:Notability is not a valid argument for keeping this free standing article. The current policy proposal speaks directly to this issue in saying: "News items that do not meet the above criteria but involve notable subjects should be included in the article of the subject, if such an addition is considered noteworthy to the article concerned." Cleo123 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion referenced is, as you noted, a proposal only, and would (if accepted) be a guideline and not a policy. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is an accepted guideline, and according to it, the content of this article should stay (although personally I think a strong argument can be made for merging into Mel Gibson--I don't think a good one can be/has been made for deletion). Black Falcon 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is that the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one, that really aren't specifically addressed in the current guidelines and not covered by Wikipedia:Notability. There are already four paragraphs in Gibson's bio discussing the DUI incident. I suspect that if this article is deleted, some of the discarded info will undoubtedly find its way back into his bio. In this case, I believe a merger would be improper and unmaageable. There is far too much detail in this article. Cleo123 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one" seems like trying to create a guideline based on a prior personal (subjective) conception of what is and is not "encyclopedic". WP:Notability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT already establish which articles are and are not encyclopedic, allowing WP:Consensus to make a final decision in controversial cases. If this article is "not covered by Wikipedia:Notability", as you note, then that means it is by default encyclopedic. I support the idea of creating a specific notability guideline for news items, but I do not favor one that automatically assumes exclusion to be the default--I think this is an elitist notion that goes against the principles on which WP operates (my suggestion for an additional criterion is in the "Please consider the following (changes)" section of Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)--if you are willing to read it, as it is a bit lengthy, I would appreciate your comments). If an article passes the 5 policies and guidelines listed above, the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the article. If it does not, the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. Noting that, a merger is still an acceptable solution for me as long as significant (in quality, not quantity) is not lost--of course, in this case I think it would be prudent to discuss it on the talk page. Also, a merger does not have to be full-content, it can be selective (if a full-content merge was performed, the DUI incident would overwhelm Gibson's biography). Cheers, Black Falcon 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, please do not misunderstand my remarks. I am not trying to create anything based upon my own subjective opinions. I was simply providing cursory summary of statements made by Edison & others on the project discussion page, as to their objective. Unfortunately, I'm working a deadline right now so I haven't had the time to read through the entire discussion, yet. When I finish what I'm working on, I look forward to reading your remarks and joining in this valuable discussion. Whatever consensus is reached will surely be helpful in providing clearer guidelines for this type of AFD discussion. I am not adverse to some content being merged back into the main article. I understand that editors have worked very hard on this. My objection is to a free standing article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then, for the misunderstanding. Yes, this article would be deleted by the standards of the proposed guideline, but I still maintain it meets WP:Notability. My concern regarding a possible merge was not the contributions of various editors (although perhaps that should have been part of my consideration as well), as I did not even know this article existed before this AfD, but rather the loss of content that even on its own passess WP:Notability. I would not mind seeing this article being selectively merged into Mel Gibson, but I do not think that should be done based on this AfD discussion--rather, as part of a consensus on the talk page (consensus on whether the merge ought to be performed and, if so, what content should be transferred). I am generally of the opinion that some kind of news guideline would be useful and intend to contribute to (or at least comment on) its creation. Best of luck with meeting the deadline, Black Falcon 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. It is improper to lift one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display it for the world to see. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. The facts in the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article may be notable, but the article is not notable. It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame; that is the opposite of neutral point of view, and it is an abuse of the power vested in the hands of the editors of Wikipedia. The incident is far too inconsequential to deserve an article of it's own. If the editors lack the discipline to hack the facts down to a form that reflects the DUI incident's proportional relationship to the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson, that is a separate and different problem. But the article is primarily improper. The Mel Gibson article already covers the DUI incident. Therefore this article is redundant, and should be deleted. Bus stop 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Point. Bus stop, the media lifted this "one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display[ed] it for the world to see" before this article was created at WP. This article is simply a response to the great volume of media coverage. You say that "It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame", yet you are making a prior subjective judgment that what he did was shameful (I agree, but that is irrelevant). The article does not condemn Gibson--it only notes the facts as they occurred. If you wish to see a merger of this article into Mel Gibson, then by all means go ahead and propose it with {{mergeto}}. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- There is no "subjective judgement" that drunk driving and antisemitism are shameful. They are fully frowned upon by most people. With qualifications, these behaviors are unlawful. You say that the article "does not condemn Gibson." But that is not necessary, since the focus of the article is 1) drunk driving and 2) antisemitism. Those behaviors, in and of themselves, are normally associated with condemnation. The DUI incident was already covered in the Mel Gibson article before this article was created. This article was created by a cut and paste from the Mel Gibson article. There are presently four paragraphs on the DUI incident in the Mel Gibson article. No article on Wikipedia is ever "finished." Whether this article is deleted or not the editors of the Mel Gibson article will continue modifying that article, including their coverage of the DUI incident. I see little reason to propose a merger of this article to the Mel Gibson article. I find this article offensive and I'm not inclined to start a process that will take longer than the delete process that is presently underway. The end result is the same, anyway. Bus stop 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Bus stop, actually, any judgment that something is or is not shameful is subjective (even if most people consider them as such). Legality has no bearing on the shamefulness of an act (remember, slavery, apartheid, witch trials were all legal at some time in some place). You write that it is not necessary for the article to explicitly condemn Gibson as drunk driving and anti-Semitism are already condemnable. Notwithstanding my point above, I believe the murder of over 800,000 persons is a condemnable act, but Rwandan Genocide is and should be a separate article from History of Rwanda. Our role at WP is not to judge whether particular facts (as long as they meet WP:BLP) are beneficial or harmful to the reputations of various individuals. The fact that there was so much media coverage means this passes WP:Notability--and thus, so long as the information is reported in an NOR and NPOV manner, it is encyclopedic. Your finding the article "offensive" is no reason to delete it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). A neo-Nazi might find the Holocaust article offensive, but that is no reason to delete (and please don't interpret this as me accusing you of neo-Nazism). And the merge will not have the same outcome as deleting the article as deleting means all of the content is lost, while a selective merge implies cutting out extraneous/repetitive parts. Black Falcon 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Rwandan genocide should be a separate article from History of rwanda. Agreed. But should Mel Gibson DWI incident be a separate article from Mel Gibson? Bus stop 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Bus stop, my point was that the fact that a particular incident harms the reputation of a person or country (you wrote that the article only adds "special shame" to Gibson) is no reason to delete an article on that incident. As for the question you pose, I will answer somewhat long-windedly. The DWI incident certainly can be a separate article as it passes WP:Notability. Whether it ought to be a separate article is a different judgment and involves personal preferences on style. If you do not think it ought to be a separate article (as you clearly do not), propose that it be merged to Mel Gibson. I might support a merge if valid reasons (including stylistic ones such as user-friendliness, compactness, etc.) were given on the article's talk page. However, even if the article were to be turned into a redirect, AfD is not the appropriate venue for accomplishing this. Black Falcon 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- The Mel Gibson DWI incident article serves no other purpose than to harm Mel Gibson. For what other purpose does it exist? Mel Gibson is not a country containing millions of citizens. Notability, in this instance, means worthy of being included in the Mel Gibson article. Notability does not mean provision with a showcase to facilitate better display. What purpose does the stand alone article serve for a merely notable incident in the life of an individual such as Mel Gibson for whom there already is an article on Wikipedia? Bus stop 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It does serve a purpose, but that is not to disparage Gibson. Rather, it is to document an incident which has generated a great amount of media coverage. The reason why I think the DWI incident article can stand on its own is this: the incident has received extended non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. The news reports sourced in the Mel Gibson DWI incident article are primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself (i.e., his life, family, history, etc.). Thus, the incident is by itself the primary subject of the news coverage. If Gibson was not a celebrity, then of course this would not have gotten this much coverage. That, however, is irrelevant as Gibson is a celebrity and the incident has received a great amount of news coverage. Black Falcon 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson is not an appendage to the Mel Gibson DWI incident. The Mel Gibson DWI incident is an appendage to the life of Mel Gibson. How can the news reports be "primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself?" Do the news reports refer to him as the unidentified person? The name serves as the representative for the person. If you mention the name "Mel Gibson" you are referring to "Mel Gibson himself." Can you tell me how "Mel Gibson" does not imply Mel Gibson? Bus stop 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - when I wrote that the articles are about the DWI incident itself, I meant that they are about what Gibson did, what he said, what other said, what happend to him, etc during (and in relation to) the incident. They are not about when Gibson was born, what movies he's starred in/directed (these are mentioned trivially), his family, etc. The articles are about the Mel Gibson DWI incident--they are not biographies of Mel Gibson's life. I am not saying that the sources don't mention Gibson--they do, of course (after all, it's the Mel Gibson DUI incident)--however, they mention him in the context of the DWI. Black Falcon 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Of course there is no explanation of the wider details of Mel Gibson's life in the news reports of the drunk driving incident. That is unremarkable. I don't think that supports a rationale for the existence of a separate article for a DWI incident. What you are describing is simply the normal way in which news reporting agencies cover news events. They do not write entire biographies. They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event. Bus stop 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Bus stop, you wrote that "They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event". Individual events in a person's life usually do not receive this much attention (sure, movies Gibson has directed/starred in have, and they have their own articles). But this one has! Thus, the subject of this article, because of the amount of coverage it has received, passes WP:Notability. Black Falcon 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson's celebrity is not really relevant here, I don't think. What matters, as you have been pointing out, is notability. Notability qualifies the material to be on Wikipedia. It would be acceptable to extract certain facets of Mel Gibson's life for separate articles, but such extraction can not be indiscriminate. The discrimination called for, I think, concerns whether or not we find wider influence. The question one has to ask oneself is: Does this aspect of Mel Gibson's life have influence beyond his life? Mel Gibson's movies take on a life of their own. His acting role in a movie can be propounded upon because it takes on a life of it's own. It becomes a part of the popular culture. But drunk driving and the particular form of antisemitism displayed by Mel Gibson in the July 2006 incident, are core issues in his life. When one expounds upon those issues one runs the risk of distorting Mel Gibson's life. This is because these issues do not have wider influence beyond the core identity of Mel Gibson. And what I am of course further saying is that a separate article devoted to issues that do not have influence extending beyond the person's life certainly would have the tendency to place undue emphasis on those issues. Bus stop 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Bus stop -- I do agree that extracting certain parts of an individual's life should not be done indiscriminately. As you have noted, one criterion (and in my opinion the superior criterion) is whether an event has influence beyond that person's life. Another criterion (inferior to the first but still valid) is whether it receives non-trivial coverage from multiple sources over an extended period of time, where such coverage discusses the individual primarily in context of the event (as opposed to in context of the person's life overall). As I have noted previously, I am not opposed to a selective merge if someone is willing to do it (whether through consensus or by being WP:BOLD--although, in the latter case, I suspect the merge might be quickly reverted). I do, however, oppose simply deleting the content of this article. Black Falcon 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Bus stop 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not refer to news articles at all. It is, rather, a section that describes certain specific types of information and articles that Wikipedia tends to discriminate against. See the talk page for WP:NOT for a discussion on that topic. The only portion of WP:NOT that discusses news events is WP:NOT#OR, and it only discusses them in the context of Wikipedia not being a primary, firsthand source for news reports. Since this article is not acting as a primary source, that section does not apply either. Dugwiki 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Dugwiki -- While you are correct that "WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not refer to news articles," it does say at that page that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries." I think this leaves open the possibility that there are other classes of "indiscriminate collection(s) of information." I think this may be such a case. The Mel Gibson DUI incident article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Discrimination, in this instance, means fitting these facts into an appropriate context. The appropriate context I think is the life of Mel Gibson. Without that context, I think it can be argued, the facts are an "indiscriminate collection of information." Bus stop 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Bus stop - I'm going to partially agree with you and say that, yes, the treatment of news event related articles is one of those "up for debate" areas that hasn't yet received strong consensus one way or another. WP:NOTNEWS, for example, is a current attempt at a proposed guideline to help editors deal with exactly this sort of debate on a broader level. Unfortunately, in the meantime, that still means we can't simply refer to WP:NOT#IINFO and say "well, I think it should apply to news events too, so it does." That's not how the policies work. The policy says "here are the areas where we have strong consensus", and intentionally leave open the question of whether other things should be added down the road. Perhaps this type of article should be discriminated against? Maybe, maybe not, but at the moment WP:NOT doesn't handle it. Dugwiki 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Dugwiki -- One can't choose to be ignorant of the existence of another article. There already exists the Mel Gibson article. The question is not whether the material is sufficiently notable to deserve an article of it's own. The question is whether there should be an additional article covering similar material, but with a different emphasis. I say there is not. I find that the July 28, 2006 DWI incident, and the antisemitic comments, are all a part of Mel Gibson's life. To separate out that negative incident is to highlight it. The more recent article provides a showcase for that one incident. My argument is that it fits in with the entire life of Mel Gibson. To set up an article to focus on a negative incident is to give undue emphasis. I find that the recent DWI incident, including the utterances of antisemitic comments, has no further implications beyond those things which pertain only to Mel Gibson's life. Therefore I see no reason to project that incident out into the additional literary space of a separate article. Bus stop 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article was created because the original section that this article stemmed from outgrew the the main article and its existence there had become an example of undue weight relative to the rest of the article. This event was particularly notable given Mel Gibson's stature as an internationally recognized media force. If this article was based solely on Gibson being arrested for DUI then I would agree with others that it should be merged back into the main article. However, an event where an individual of such a stature is making antisemitic comments that recieves such worldwide coverage (and continued citation) merits having a standalone article about it. (→Netscott) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. (→Netscott) -- The very existence of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article gives undue weight to this incident. This incident only exists in the context of Mel Gibson's life. There are no extensions of this incident outside of Mel Gibson's life. There were no individuals harmed. There were no pedestrians run over by his drunkenly driven car. There were no children irreparably harmed by hearing his antisemitic comments. There were no laws changed in California as a result of this incident. The highway patrol in California has not set up a task force to deal with drunk driving antisemitic film directors. The swallows have not decided to boycott Capistrano. This incident had no repercussions beyond and outside of the life of Mel Gibson. If this incident is of such great importance in Mel Gibson's life then it should be allotted more space in the Mel Gibson article. By your reasoning we would have to assume the DUI incident is presently being given insufficient weight in the Mel Gibson article. All weight issues only exist in relation to the life of Mel Gibson, because this incident affected nothing outside of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If everything significant in the life of Mel Gibson received as detailed treatment as this, would it be undue weight then? I mean, are you saying the coverage is disproportionate to the rest of our coverage on him, or are you saying it doesn't deserve this level of coverage regardless of anything else? As someone who would like to see everything significant pertaining to him receive a detailed level of coverage, it seems very unrealistic to delete this and expect people to develop the content at the same rate all around. Everyking 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Everyking -- Can you tell me why there are presently two Mel Gibson articles? One is a general article on the life of Mel Gibson. The other focuses on the DWI incident of July 28, 2006. Is there a logical reason for the existence of the one that focuses on the DWI incident? If not, then the existence of the article on the DWI incident is giving undue weight to the DWI incident and consequently Mel Gibson's antisemitic utterances. It is my contention that the DWI incident can be covered adequately in the general Mel Gibson article. Bus stop 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try to think about a lot of people in the past or in present, who are notable for our development, art, ... And they have been mentioned in several encyclopedias, but with very poor articles in Wikipedia. I can see that in this discussion quite a lot of people are capable to write long descriptions why, what for and so. But the whole story is a kind of yellow paper story, and every movement or act of some so called famous person (famous person now!!) is not important, I think. I can be sarcastic, too, but I don't want to, it's not the proper place for that. --MaNeMeBasat 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. MaNeMeBasat -- We should just have one article on Mel Gibson, not two articles on him. Bus stop 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think where we're disagreeing here is that you feel it's a duplicate article about Mel Gibson, while I see it as one article about Mel Gibson and another about a notable DUI incident. Theroretically, you could delete the Mel Gibson article entirely and the DUI incident would still be notable enough to have an article (and vice versa, of course). Both articles appear to be capable of supporting themselves without the other. Dugwiki 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Dugwiki -- Allegations of Mel Gibson's excessive consumption of alcohol and of his antisemitic tendencies were already noted in the Mel Gibson article prior to the July 28, 2006 incident. How is the more recent article's existence justified? Bus stop 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Dugwiki: how could the incident be notable in itself if it protagonist were not? It is not as if it caused a war or a new law or something... --Goochelaar 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is notable (irrespective of whether the person involved was Gibson or John Doe) because it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself (quoted from WP:Notability). Black Falcon 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know that bit, as everyone here. But of course it would have not been the subject etc. etc. if a notable person were not involved. On the other hand, and more to the point, every marriage, childbirth, injury etc. involving famous people is object yaddah yaddah: every newspaper, magazine and tv channel in the world covers it. But I presume nobody is suggesting we have an article for each such event. --Goochelaar 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD would be much more readable if User:Bus stop would quite replying to every single delete !vote with the same damn Point.. Argyriou (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Argyriou -- It is my reasoning that this is not just a voting process. Perhaps it could be called a reasoning process. Sorry if I've jumbled anything up -- it was not my intention. Bus stop 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop is responding to every "keep" vote with the same point (not to mention adding the readability-distorting boldface to the word "Point" every time). --Oakshade 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Oakshade -- I don't think the boldfaced word "Point" does any damage to "readability." Do you confuse the word "Point" with either the word "Delete" or the word "Keep?" How does the boldfaced word "Point" cause a deterioration in "readability, in your opinion? I'm surprised that you are getting so petty, but I guess there may be validity to your criticism, and I will try to keep an open mind. Bus stop 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is news and belongs in his article where there is already an entire section devoted to this topic. We should also not lose sight of WP:NOT. What happens the next time he gets arrested? Do we have a second article? If the decision here is to keep, one must assume that anyone who has an article on this wiki and gets arrested for a similar charge should also get their own article. This is simply not someplace we want to go. If the article needs to be split, then a whole section. or two, should be split out and not just one incident. In the end, we really need to look at this from the position of editors writing an encyclopedia. Does an article of this size, or detailed coverage of a single incident really need to be here? I think not. Vegaswikian 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:52Z

Path To Nowhere and Shannon Holliday

not notable, no references, haven't released an album MsHyde 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, future events, even those somewhat confirmed, are Crystal Ball-ery and unacceptable. Add Shannon Holliday to the deletion as well. -M^ask 07:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the creator seems to be a member of the band - I agree that Shannon Holliday needs deleting too. fraggle 09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two year away? Xiner (talk, email) 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Do Not Delete its not like the band is not big , its a big Australian band that most Americans havernt heard of , thats why its on this site, its the free encylopedia. Shazzza101 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Shazzza101 (talk, email) 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining why a google search for "path to nowhere" australia band [21] doesn't return anything about the band in the first page aside from the wikipedia entry? Last I checked Austrailians used the internet as well. -M^ask 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Won't release the album for another two years (assuming the unsourced information is correct), fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:52Z

Jackie follett

Contested speedy A7. Fails WP:BIO or if you prefer WP:MUSIC. YechielMan 08:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no references.-MsHyde 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no discography, no coverage by third-party sources; no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Walton monarchist89 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no references.-Fotografico 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and erase the porno collection. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Colquhoun

There is nothing here to support any sort of notability of this individual. It's asserted, but certainly not supported by any sort of reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unverified, notability not demonstrated. A pornographic film director isn't inherently notable anyway, unless there's evidence of coverage by third-party sources (e.g. film reviews). Walton monarchist89 09:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - sources have now been added verifying the awards won by Colquhoun. This may constitute adequate evidence of notability, although more sources are still needed, ideally. Walton monarchist89 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close discussion. The page should stay. If you go through Harrys website www.relishxxx.com you can see how many awards they have won. Just go to www.bgafd.co.uk and see his rave reviews. The guys wedding was featured in Harpers magazine and he attended Harrow. More source evidence here http://www.relishxxx.com/relish.asp He is in business with someone who is in line to the thrown of Great Britain and is making porn flicks. I think that is reason enough.
This is pathetic. The only reason why Ryulong is doing this is because we had an arguement last night and he banned me. Only yesterday he was working on the article.
Please refer to this page which is his business partner. The magazine articles put the two of them together. You cant have one without the other. http://bgafd.co.uk/search/results.php search for Hazza on this page and you will see tons of reviews of his films raving on about him. If you have Ben Dover listed then you must have Harry as he is more famous in Europe.
There I have started to add sources for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krome007 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Sources, maybe? I mean independent links, not just a link to the guy's site. --N Shar 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N unless verified by the end of the AfD. I don't think it's likely to be.No vote. The references don't seem to be relevant, but I can't be sure, and I will leave this up to other users. --N Shar 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references.-MsHyde 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the three votes by the author.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. JPG-GR 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not verify any claims made. Colqahoun is only mentioned once as Duncombe's business partner, and Relish won "best packaging", which has nothing overtly to do with the Colqahoun. Moreover, externals violate WP:EL. MSJapan 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there are no neutral sources establishing notability i.a.w. WP:BIO, and as long as that is the case this discussion will be opened over and over again Alf photoman 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would prefer to see the article expanded more than a little, and it needs much better citing with more than a single source, preferably, but the awards and such are, I feel, sufficient to establish notability. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until this article made properly with references verifiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fotografico (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No real reason to beleive he's notable -- feb^talk 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches... Addhoc 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:53Z

James L. Larocca

Fails WP:AUTO, and probably also WP:PROF. YechielMan 08:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, this also seems to violate NPOV. fraggle 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTO, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Could be notable, but articles written by the subject are not worth investigating IMO. John Vandenberg 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AUTO grounds, and also not notable. - Denny 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:55Z

James L. Mohler

Like Mr. Larocca, this fellow fails WP:AUTO and WP:PROF. In addition, it was a contested speedy A7 back on Sept. 2006, where the dissenter wrote "not A7, try prod or afd." And then, drum roll...nothing happened. Please forgive me, because I know it's not the forum, but this is one thing that really irks me about Wikipedia - when people say to do something and don't actually do it. I'm guilty of that too, but seriously, if you contest a speedy deletion, be bold, put it on Afd yourself and don't wait for some depressed university student who can't fall asleep at 3:30 AM to do it for you five months later. YechielMan 08:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems non-notable. fraggle 09:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who? Delete. Axl 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took the liberty of looking at his vita at Purdue. He received his PhD in 2006 in education... hardly notable when he doesn't have a PhD in his field. Seems like promotion to me. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep First of all, he's a faculty member in computer graphics education, and this it is perfectly reasonable that he has his PhD in education. Second, he has written quite a number of articles in the standard professional computer science journals, and the article says so and names the journals. third , he has written 21 textbooks in his subject, and that is way more than the average by any standard. WP:PROF is just a guideline under development, but one of its standards --and any one is enough-- is that the professor has written two or book textbooks in the subject that have been adopted by two or more universities. When I saw the nature of his books, I knew checking them would be fun, and so it is. He's written what seem to be the standard books on Flash and related subjects, and I put into the article a few of the many places that have adopted them.

As arguments go, "Who?" is presumably a shorthand for I_NEVERHEARDOFHIM, which is a confession of ignorance, not an argument. I wikified the article, too, and removed some of the many relatively minor awards--wikification was the only real problem. But I do wish that people submitting articles in this of all fields would have some idea of how to format them so they look right on the web. 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(The above comment was made by DGG). This guy still isn't notable. Axl 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment why do we have standards if we dont use them? DGG 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. The books are not in an academic field, but he an expert at writing books about Macromedia/Adobe products. Lots of books that are bought by many people makes a person notable. John Vandenberg 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. This apparently wasn't brought here as a deletion recommendation or even a procedural nomination of a PROD/Speedy tagged article, so I'm going to take the liberty of closing this early with no predjudice against another AfD in the future if someone wants to advance a deletion rationale.--Isotope23 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Sabow

notability questioned; article a stub; to promote discussion Simon Cursitor 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further, I came across this page on my ramblings, and noted that a previous editor recorded that they had cut the page down to a bare stub. I suspect that this means that, formerly, there was substantive text here, and while I could go for a revert, I would be unable to source myself. In the circumstances, I have brought it here, so that those who want the page kept can sort out what it needs to have on it, beyond the present somewhat "conspiracy theory" text there. No Vote -- Simon Cursitor 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close discussion. For everyone involved, let me explain what's going on. On Feb. 2, 2007, the article under discussion was created as a stub for a US marine who died in 1991. Fair enough. Then the original creator decided to add a whole essay about causes of his death, which you can read here. An alert user tags the expanded article as POV, and another user reverts it back to a one-line stub. Then the original author added some new content again, and Simoncursitor nominated it for deletion.

Okay, let's all take a deep breath. It could be that this person fails WP:BIO and should be deleted; I have no evidence of that, so I'm not expressing an opinion. However, the nominator did not ask for the article to be deleted. He asked for a discussion. Afd is generally the wrong forum for discussions of this kind - that's what the article's talk page is for. If discussions on the talk page lead nowhere, go find an admin and leave a message asking for help. I can see from the nominator's edit history that he's fairly inexperienced, and most of his work is in the deletion sector. So he naturally assumed that this is where discussions take place. The fact is that discussion take place on many different pages in Wikipedia. I extend an offer to the nominator to discuss this further on my talk page if it might be helpful. YechielMan 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yechielman. There is sourcing, and it seems like the controversy over his death is adequate evidence of notability. Keep, but obviously expand (I don't know why it was stubified in the first place). Walton monarchist89 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was stubbed because what was there before the stubbing was an WP:OR essay and went against a whole slew of policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NOT to name a few). I'd say there is no evidence whatsoever this individual meets WP:BIO...--Isotope23 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:56Z

James Marvel

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. YechielMan 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - his theatre credits may constitute an assertion of notability, but the article is currently unverified, and there's no evidence of independent coverage by reliable sources. However, if the article is improved/sourced I will change to Keep. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this also seems to fail WP:AUTO. fraggle 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed it's horrible currently and needs work, especially verification, but a quick look here ([22]) indicates such verifiability is possible. Some of those reviewing papers citing him by name are pretty good sources. --Dweller 12:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, heavily clean up. keep - Denny 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:59Z

Jang iksu

I can't put my finger on what's wrong with this article, besides its lack of references. Is it a hoax? Is this guy good at a game that's not itself notable? I'll let you folks decide. YechielMan 09:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half the article is an interview and it also violates WP:NPOV in some pretty nasty ways. I think you hit the nail on the head with "being good at a game that isn't itself notable". fraggle 09:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable sources to establish notability. Interview is almost certainly copyright vio. Lack of any attempt at Wikification adds insult to injury. Shaundakulbara 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm open-minded as Korea and Japan treat videogame champions as media stars, and a Google confirms the broad outline of the article, but unless we get some reliable sources in there ... --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interview may be a copyvio, but can't confirm (if not a copyvio, then it's WP:OR anyway). The lead is also unquestionably a copyvio of [23], so I've removed it. cab 11:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 654 GHits for "jang iksu" tekken; 121 GHits for 장익수 철권. None are WP:RS. cab 11:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an interview, not an encyclopedia article, and it is entirely without sources. (jarbarf) 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Complete Rewrite per an AfD I started on another famous Japanese videogame player that was kept. JuJube 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INN. That article also fails to cite reliable sources in pursuit of establishing notability, so I don't quite understand why so many people voted Keep. cab 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mostly because the fanbase mobilized to dig up whatever they could. :/ JuJube 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I've decided to be the bastard trying to kill that article again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (third nomination). cab 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changing vote to Delete. JuJube 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Band Geeks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:06Z

Sweet Victory

Not-notable; about a song from a music library; most info already mentioned in associated Band Geeks page Mshake3 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — This page seems to be reduntant to this, doesn't it? Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduntant, that's the word I was looking for. Mshake3 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, isn't Merge the word you were looking for? :-) Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, really and truly, you meant "redundant". :) A Train ^{take the} 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 'Band Geeks'. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC) A Train ^{take the} 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Band Geeks, which I see someone has already done. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Seems like article's been merged. Xiner (talk, email) 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 23:59Z

James Fitzmaurice(Coventry)

I was starting to clean it up, till I realized, when I'm done there won't be anything left. I really don't want this deleted, but I don't see a good cleanup option, so it may be the best choice to delete. YechielMan 09:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. No external sources other than his own website and MySpace; no evidence of external coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could become notable if signed up by one of the "two interested companies", but per WP:CRYSTAL it's difficult to argue keep. --Dweller 12:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:04Z

Racing To The Rainbow

It presents itself as a Jim Jones studio album, based on one link which could very well be an error. A search (which did not find any Jim Jones CD's called "Racing To The Rainbow") found that Racing To The Rainbow is a CD/DVD by The Wiggles, which is much more kid-friendly than anything Jim Jones would do. Tom Danson 09:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify as a Wiggles album. Looks like a hoax, as Jones has released one album each fall the last three years, now a new one after four months? Isn't the last one still charting? --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL may apply here. If not, then WP:V certainly does. Walton monarchist89 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as based on an error, WP:CRYSTAL. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT AfD closed early because the article has already been deleted for copyright reasons. If the article is recreated with a new version that isn't a violation, it would need a new AfD listing. Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (NCIS)

Non-notable, possible WP:OR violation, extensive quotes may be copyright violation

No references, no notability, mostly quotes and original research. There are approximately 85 articles like this devoted to episodes of this tv show. List of NCIS episodes details them all. That article serves the required purpose, these articles are not needed.

According to WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed"
According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, "Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research."
According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, "Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use." These quotes are most of the article's content.

Several supporters of these article have argued that these guidelines don't apply, therefore AfD debate is needed. Probably all 85 articles need to be deleted (and perhaps some info merged) but I am testing the waters first. Shaundakulbara 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what you should do before nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability. Did you do the research to see whether any sources on these subjects exist? What did you find? Uncle G 11:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unverifiability is not specifically one of the reasons for this AfD. The reasons concern WP:R, WP:OR, and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Two editors involved with these articles have said the bullet points above do not apply here and any tags requesting that editors establish notability etc have been promptly removed. My efforts to encourage improvement have been rebuked. Not every episode of every show deserves an article, agreed? I respectfully say I am under no obligation to research and improve upon 85 articles that I don't think should have been created in the first place. Shaundakulbara 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On this basis, I nominate half of Wikipedia for deletion. Especially for the violation of Redirects. Lars T. 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation- respectful of your suggestion I looked and found [24]. From this source, www.tv.com, this and other articles in this series have been copied word for word. Shaundakulbara 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case then this should probably be listed as a copyright problem rather than an afd. Even if it's decided that articles should exist, they would all have to be completely rewritten from scratch. Jay32183 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's an episode of a TV show. The show is running with good ratings. How the hell does it lack notability? And how the hell do the quotes both prove OR and copyright violation? Could you make up your mind? Lars T. 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be stay cool and be civil. Comment on content, not on contributors. As it turns out these articles are cut-and-paste copyright vios, the discussion has changed anyway. Thank you. Shaundakulbara 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notable television series, episode is inheritly notable. Consensus is episode articles are perfectly legitimate, nominator has been disruptive with canvassing, etc. I'd like to point out the discussion page the nominator quotes also states "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)" – nor does it appear to be (completely) non-sourced, an episode articles is the source, the primary source, although yes, it does require secondary sources, that is, of course, not a valid criterion for deletion. Addendum: nominator states "Several supporters of these article have argued that these guidelines don't apply" - this is actually an argument ad ignorantium, no one has suggested they do not apply, just that you are not totally interpreting them correctly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an article on a TV series episode and it has already been estatblished that individual episodes of notable TV series are admissable. Any content issues can be resolved without deleting the whole article (i.e. if there are too many quotes or copyvio material, then delete this material and replace it with new, original text). The nominator will find that there are far more than 85 articles -- not to mention a Wikiproject -- that would have to be nominated for deletion of one feels episode articles are improper for Wikipedia. In which case, a better plan would be to lobby for a policy change, though I think WP:SNOW would apply. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's a TV episode like many others. The "List of..." article couldn't have more than a short paragraph on each without being absurdly long. What's the original research involved? The Quotes section does run on some. —wwoods 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect to the parent article. Per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, articles for individual episodes should not be created until there is enough independently published, verifiable information on which to base the article. The current contents of the page are a short plot summary and a series of quotes which are 1) excessive, 2) inappropriate (per above) and 3) ~~probably violate fair use~~. No sources (other than the primary source of the show itself) have been offered either in the article or here. We may use the primary source as support but it can never be the sole basis of an article. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: On investigation, it appears that this entire article is a copyvio of [25]. I have replaced the copyvio content with the standard copyvio warning. Users may still see the disputed content in the page history pending conclusion of this debate. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation As noted above, article appears to have been a cut-and-paste copyright violation. I'll reconsider if a new article is written about this episode, keeping in mind that WP:NOT specifies that plot summaries should include "real world context or analysis" and not simply list plot details. Dugwiki 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect. Episode is not notable enough to warrant an article. Salad Days 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete plot summaries are not sufficient articles.-MsHyde 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why do we still pretend to have a discussion after the article has been deleted? Lars T. 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I've never seen NCIS but I'll rewrite the article with a non-copyvio :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:04Z

Blue Flannel

Non-notable band, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC. Attempted CSD already, removed with a very amusing reason. Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't asserted, I can't find any evidence of notability with google search. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no assertion of notability, nothing either here or at the webpages linked to that would lead me to think that this group pass WP:MUSIC. If some RS are provided, of course, that support notability, then things could easily change. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted (unless receiving some radio airplay 10 years ago counts -- I don't think it does), no reliable sources cited. Per Moreschi, no indication this group passes WP:MUSIC. Shimeru 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Le Van Vien. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:06Z

Le Paul Vien

Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article currently describes a Colonel who was killed. Hardly an unusual thing to happen to a Colonel. Without any assertion for notability, it's difficult to argue for keep. --Dweller 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no assertion of notability, and I can't find anything on Google that would support notability per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Google brings only 14 results. - Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Le Van Vien or Binh Xuyen. Since his father was the head of the Binh Xuyen, something about his death could be worked into one of those articles. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Rabbi Yeroham Simsovic. Please do not modify it. The result was "Delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:08Z

Jason_Mc_Menamin

Subject does not meet notability criteria and does not provide any verifiable sources. DoktorDec 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First hit on google is the Paul Noonan article, second is about a second grader with the same name who participated in a Martin Luther King Jr day march. Notability is not established per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with 0 relevant ghits. SkierRMH 00:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:11Z

Law IV

Nothing remotely important in this final-year undergraduate event. Worth a mention in the Law Faculty page, not a stub.Mandel 13:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as profoundly non-notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Faculty of Law article. Xiner (talk, email) 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Edeans 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:14Z

Miranda Yap

Civil servant, prof, head of a section of a civic Board. Is this notable enough. [[User:Mandel|mandel 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)mandel]] 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a Foreign Associate to the United States National Academy of Engineering, which according to the NAE article, is one of world’s most accomplished engineers. --Vsion 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you define 'world’s most accomplished engineers'. Mandel 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the National Academy of Engineering, and it nominates its new members as the most exclusive possible form of peer-review, and I for one am not prepared to second-guess them. --this is the foreign equivalent of membership for those who are US citizens, except that the standards are even higher for the foreign associates than the US members. It's the highest level engineering society/honor in the US. It's the equivalent of the National Academy of Science, except its for engineering. --go read the article on it. WP has always accepted memberships in the 3 major national societies as intrinsically conferring notability,and for good reason. The only possible higher award than membership in the national Academies in the US is the Presidential Medal of Science, and then the Nobel Prize. She's not eligible for the Presidential Medal, and there is no Novel Prize in engineering. DGG 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It fails, however, to explain why she is more accomplished than her fellow engineers. mandel 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, citing "her outstanding achievements in education, research and management in the field of mammalian cell culture". Reference is given in the article. --Vsion 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very strong keep holder of the highest possible honours in her field. DGG 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edeans, what are your objections, for perhaps they can be answered, or the article improved accordingly?DGG 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more references have been added.DGG 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator had doubts, and the one clear voice for delete did not give reasons. DGG 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Shlomo Helbrans. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:14Z

Lev tahor

This group is a tiny cult that has been denounced by all groups within normative Hasidic Judaism that even bother to take note of its existence. Its leader Shlomo Helbrans (also nominated for deletion) has been accused of various crimes, see articles about Helbrans on Google. This article (actually it's a three line stub) says it has "around a dozen families" that is meaningless. A block association has more people than that and they don't get articles on Wikipedia. This is a clear case of WP:NN and nowhere nearly enough WP:V. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Helbrans. Seven NYT articles mention the yeshiva and that's prenty of WP:V, unlike any old block association, but the mentions are weak and only connected to Helbrans. Therefore, an article about the organization is probably not feasible, whereas an article on the individual is perfectly feasible. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Helbrans unless there is an article instead of a line by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shlomo Helbrans. Based on the reliable sources Tragic Baboon has identified, agree that this topic and Helbrans are interconnected and notability appears to focus on Helbrans. --Shirahadasha 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep/merge--whichever fits best. I think WP should accept any organized religious group as notable, because otherwise we are making a distinction that is perhaps somewhat beyond our capacities--we are not the ultimate Judge in theological matters. DGG 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, as a religious movement it's beyond insignificant. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reposting my response here as it applies: Hi DGG: While "Wikipedia" may not have the "capability" to judge -- yet knowledgeable editors about the subject of rabbis, Jews and Judaism, do have this capabilty. If someone were to say that the Earth is flat or that there is life on Mars, would you then say "oh well, Wikipedia does not have the capabilty to judge if the Earth is flat or round or oblong, or that there is or is not life on Mars"? Obvioulsy not! It would be the editors and writers, most known to their peers on Wikipedia, as having reliable knowledge about the subject at hand to venture and give forth either credibility or plausibity about that subject. If one were to follow the logic of your argument to its ultimate conclusion then NO article would ever be deleted from Wikipedia because, after all (using your argument) "Wikipedia does not have the capability of judging, or the ethical merit" of the subject/s -- which would then in effect mean that once editors write anything it cannot be nominated for deletion, 'cause after-all who are we mere mortals to judge articles on Wikipedia about anything. Finally may I say, the biggest rebuttal to your argument here is that Wikipedia assumes the exact opposite of what you argue, because in cases of doubt, there are in fact templates like {{Expert}} and {{Expert-subject}} that opnely request and admit: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject... [a relavant]] Wikiproject... may be able to help recruit one..." See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting. And indeed we have a very healthy and active Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism with about a hundred members to help us do so. IZAK 12:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Group is not notable in and of itself Avi 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:16Z

Revenever

Article - It is as of yet a relatively young and unknown band in the local Singapore indie band scene. Self-explanatory.

Mandel 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself describes the band as "relatively young and unknown," so it seems unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete May I be bold to nom for a speedy under CSD A7? Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable -- no discography yet! JPG-GR 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:MUSIC. - SpLo T // 12:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per WP:BAND. Terence Ong 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Assertion of non-notability (calls itself "unknown"). Also doesn't appear to have released many, if any, songs or played many, if any, gigs. ShadowHalo 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a promotional article in my opinion.

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

The result was Merge to Twin Peaks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:18Z

Twin Peaks in popular culture

Delete - this is an indiscriminate, unreferenced collection of every time a particular show was parodied, mentioned or possibly referenced in any TV show or magazine, regardless of the importance of the reference to the source or to Twin Peaks. We don't need a list of every time someone says "twin peaks" on TV. Otto4711 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the more noteworthy items to the main Twin Peaks article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this goes far beyond the stated intent of assessing the cultural impact of the show and has reached the territory of pointless trivia. Andrew Levine 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, instead of criticising it, why not help to improve it? Lugnuts 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't believe it can be improved, because as a concept for a Wikipedia article it is fundamentally flawed. Otto4711 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Trying is the first step towards failure, eh? Amazing. Lugnuts 12:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. Otto4711 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, lame. Lugnuts 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is trivia.-MsHyde 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced The list is almost entirely unreferenced. Delete, and merge the one or two items that might be referenced into the main article. Dugwiki 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wrap in plastic, and throw in the river. Edeans 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:16Z

Shlomo Helbrans

The entire basis of this article (actually it's a six line stub) is fraudulent. This person is neither a recognized "rabbi" nor is his "Hasidic group" of Lev tahor (also nominated for deletion) recognized by any normative group within Hasidic Judaism. He is simply a fugitive from the law (see Helbrans mentioned on Google) who runs a small cult. He is WP:NN in the Jewish world and has no standing to merit WP:BIO. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He appears to have been covered in some detail in the New York Times in the context of his criminal activities, and the article will need to be dramatically improved to make it clear that he is not a representative of mainstream Judaism, but seems to just barely qualify under WP:BIO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. A search in the Westlaw "nyt" database for (rabbi & helbrans) returns 39 hits from 1992 through 2001. That's just one major newspaper. There must be hundreds of non-trivial published sources! - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then somebody should include them in the article Alf photoman 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep at least as notable as all other splinter fraction cults we have on Wikipedia Alf photoman 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been identified by Tragic Baboon and others to meet WP:V and the notability component of WP:BIO. That's all that's required. --Shirahadasha 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shira: That is a very shallow and "based on technicalities" type of perspective. So any guy with a beard who looks like a Hasid and gathers around him a few dumb suckers can get to call himself a "Rebbe" (and to the world-at-large all the Hasidim look like "rabbis") and if that "Hasid/rabbi/Rebbe" was reported for crimes they are worthy of articles on Wikipedia on such ridiculously based arguments that his actions were reported over and over again in the media? So then, do we go and look up all the police blotters and the daily crimes section in local papers and if it involves someone who looks Hasidic, he thus ergo is turned into a "notable" and "verifiable" "rabbi" on Wikipedia 'cause Wikipedia has "magical rules" (like magical thinking???) that can make "something out [a] nothing" (somewhat in a self-presumed God-like fashion, no?) I do wish we could all keep perspective in cases like this and not simply revert to spouting "the rules" when some good common sense should come first. Many people from all walks of life have verifiable information from multiple sources available yet they do not merit article/s on Wikipedia, just see the daily toll on WP:AFD and WP:PROD to prove it. Thanks, IZAK 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is a notable and verifiable individual, nothing more. The article should definitely reflect that his claim to be a legitimate rabbi, run a legitimate Hassidic sect, etc. are disputed if this can be reliably sourced) as well as other reliably sourced criticism of his activities. If the dispute is extensive, I would certainly agree the intro should be reworked and should not present him as being a rabbi etc. without referring to a dispute. But all this is about the content, not about whether the topic is encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shira: He is only notable because the media latched onto him. There is nothing notable about him per se -- not as a "rabbi" not as a leader of Jews, not as anything, just a scumbag. There are literally thousands of legitimate and notable shtiebel Rebbes with hundreds of congregants each yet there are no articles about them, nor should there be. Simply because someone has been written up in the papers for accused misdeeds does not make that person notable. Not every petty thief and pickpocket deserves articles merely because it's gotten into the papers and is available online in multiple articles and links. Wikipedia should not reflect a false sense of reality by misapplication of the "rules" Shira. Wikipedia should have article about a subject if and when that subject is truly notable in and of their fields. Helbrans is neither a "rebbe" nor is he anything. At most he maybe gets to be on something like List of Jewish-American mobsters, and I don't think that Helbrans makes the cut for that either since he is small fry, and if that's your cup of tea, then it's a sad day for Wikipedia and lovers of knowldege. Finally, Helbrans fails WP:BIO since no-one writes "biographies" about nobodies. IZAK 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - While I couldn't agree with you more that "He is only notable because the media latched on to him." But unfortunately, that's the definition of notability Wikipedia has. Wikipedia's decision to use news media coverage as a criterion for notability produces just this result: A person or a band or a video game or a brand of chewing gum is notable because the media latches on, regardless of any intrinsic merit or value (or lack thereof) it may have. This may be unfortunate, but Wikipedia has thousands of articles on people and topics that are verifiably notable for what might seem to me to be no good reason. --Shirahadasha 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think WP has the capability of judging among the various Hasidic sects, or the ethical merit of their Rabbis. . DGG 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG: While "Wikipedia" may not have the "capability" to judge -- yet knowledgeable editors about the subject of rabbis, Jews and Judaism, do have this capabilty. If someone were to say that the Earth is flat or that there is life on Mars, would you then say "oh well, Wikipedia does not have the capabilty to judge if the Earth is flat or round or oblong, or that there is or is not life on Mars"? Obvioulsy not! It would be the editors and writers, most known to their peers on Wikipedia, as having reliable knowledge about the subject at hand to venture and give forth either credibility or plausibity about that subject. If one were to follow the logic of your argument to its ultimate conclusion then NO article would ever be deleted from Wikipedia because, after all (using your argument) "Wikipedia does not have the capability of judging, or the ethical merit" of the subject/s -- which would then in effect mean that once editors write anything it cannot be nominated for deletion, 'cause after-all who are we mere mortals to judge articles on Wikipedia about anything. Finally may I say, the biggest rebuttal to your argument here is that Wikipedia assumes the exact opposite of what you argue, because in cases of doubt, there are in fact templates like {{Expert}} and {{Expert-subject}} that opnely request and admit: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject... [a relavant]] Wikiproject... may be able to help recruit one..." See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting. And indeed we have a very healthy and active Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism with about a hundred members to help us do so. IZAK 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable person. Not a notable rabbi, or group, but person. frummer
- Hi Frummer: What makes a person notable? That they have their names on the Internet or that they are mentioned in newspapers and court papers? If that is the case, then we can put another billion people on Wikipedia some time very soon. Go for it man! IZAK 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, cool it. This guy and his group is notable by both standards you set out. Remember the article does not and will not lend credence to his beleifs. Quit it. frummer 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Severe acute respiratory syndrome. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:20Z

The Sar-vivor Rap

This is a government disseminated 'rap' purely for instructions during the SARS epidermic. The Singapore releases tens of such VCDs/CDs per year. There is no artistic merit for notability - it is certainly not a limited edition, as claimed - it's totally free. 99.9 per cent of families dump this after the outbreak. mandel 13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main SARS article, or perhaps a new article about the outbreak in Singapore. Nardman1 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC or have sufficient reliable independent sources to stand alone, but it might merit a mention in an article about the outbreak. Shimeru 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:23Z

Two Paws Up

lacks notability Lars T. 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An apparently self-produced show of three episodes that has never been broadcast. No remote possibility of notability. Edeans 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why don't we at least wait until these jokers have their web site up? --Brianyoumans 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up in school one day and/or crystal-balling, depending on how you look at it. No sources. Appears unverifiable, at least by online sources according to an admittedly-cursory search. Shimeru 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of former bus stations in Singapore. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:24Z

Somapah Bus Terminal

Are bus terminus encyclopedic? This is defunct, closed 1989. mandel 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-ish but only by apparent precendent. Bus terminals seem to have their own articles quite frequently. Defunct bus terminals is somewhat pushing it though. i kan reed 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not even remotely notable. Edeans 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a rule, a bus terminal is a pretty big building and far more fixed than a regular bus stop. I would place the notability of such subjects on par with that of a train station. If any sources were cited I could easily say keep, but without them I can't. I cannot see that it is that easy to find sources either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is a very small shed/end-point for just two bus services. Also, as mentioned, it's hard to verify a 17-year defunct bus 'terminus'. mandel 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional point - what is the practical point of keeping info on a defunct bus terminus？ Other than nostalgia？ mandel 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'll admit that I know of only a few bus terminals, and they are major transportation hubs with as many passengers as a large railway station. (For the record, I am thinking about the central bus terminals in Bergen, Norway and Oslo) I am not too disturbed about things being "defunct", because that does not change the notability. A person notable enough for a biography does not become less notable after his/her death, and by the same token a bus terminal does not become less notable after its closure either. However, I will grant you that a small shed for two bus routes is pretty much a regular bus stop, and not the large type of bus station that I had envisioned, so I will say delete on this now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, found a link, probably could merge with List of former bus stations in Singapore. mandel 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:N. Edison 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Defunct has no bearing on the notability, per WP:N#Notability is generally permanent. I might add a smidgen of WP:BIAS (for the opposite effect of WP:RECENT) as well. Neier 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge into List of former bus stations in Singapore. This topic has been argued before.--Huaiwei 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wikipedia should be "timeless", without a preference to current events. --NE2 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:24Z

Devendra Tanwar

Speedy Delete - As an unsourced, vanity page that that advertises a company of questional notability. Speedy removed by a potential COI user as well The Kinslayer 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity. Nardman1 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ad. --N Shar 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam/bio/vanity/ad/nn/etc. SkierRMH 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:25Z

Ibackup online backup

disputed PROD for NN-software delete Cornell Rockey 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant spam. Nardman1 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, apparently non-notable. CiaranG 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --MaNeMeBasat 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:25Z

Veredus Laboratories

Company notability not established Mandel 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the multiple sources satisfy the new version of WP:CORP. The company is getting independent recognition from Red Herring[26] and theWall Street Reporter[27]. I've added a link to another source in the article. --Mereda 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources. With advanced technology, has a test lab on USS Kitty Hawk.[28] --23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep The references demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independent sources have since been cited. Meets WP:CORP criteria. Terence Ong 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, seems reasonably notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:26Z

Four Million Smiles

A 'campaign' launched by Singapore government to encourage smiling. Its notability is very debatable - it is one of the hundreds, nay tens of thousands, social compaigns - do this, do that - launched by the Singapore govt. Essentially asks everyone to smile for tourists and foreign delegates. Arguably, it has zero impact on Singapore life. mandel 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To be exact it encourages Singaporeans to smile for a certain specific event, delegates of the world bank. It's a special one off thing, not like say the annual courstey or speak mandarin campaign. Which makes it notable! Aarontay 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, independent sources are cited, notability is established. Terence Ong 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the same as being verifiable. That I can prove someone's existence does not mean he deserve an article. How has this campaign impacted on Singaporeans' lives as a whole？Does it deserve a separate article, or a mention in, say, the Singapore 2006？ By the way naming the main World Bank 2006 Convention article 'Singapore 2006' is plain silly. Mandel 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge? Aarontay 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that name "silly"?--Huaiwei 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Possible, but Singapore 2006 itself needs a new name and judicious editing. Mandel 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC
Keep. Thousands of campaigns around the world dosent mean you delete this one. Millions of humans on earth dosent mean you delete an article on one person either, would you? This campaign may be one-off, but it was related to a major event in Singapore's contemporary history, and did receive its fair share of controversy which is worth documenting.--Huaiwei 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that there are millions (more like 6 billion?) of people around the world means you definitely delete articles on people unless they are notable. But the second part of the argument is worth reading.Aarontay 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:31Z

DDRUK (Second Nomination)

Website does not establish notoriety as the sources given seem to be frivolous. It has been up for an AfD before as well, and it had been established that it would kept in that. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the media sources are substantial. There's no reason this should have been renominated. Nardman1 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are two of the "media sources" broken links? --N Shar 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the owner of the website, I won't vote out of etiquette, however in reply to the above, the links were moved and I have updated them. I also have more to add to the In The Press section, I'll hopefully have them up by the end of the day. Mystcb 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have noticed the incorrect header for the AFD has been put up, as this is the second time it has been nominated, can this please be updated. Mystcb 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reading up on the Conflicts of Interests page in regards to this article. If you feel my additions have been a conflict of interest, then please do say in the talk page, so that I can either correct myself, or get another person to add it. I apologise if I have over stepped any line at any point. Mystcb 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable media sources are cited for referance, and broken links are in the process of being fixed. Ninja Steve 15.34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sources are sufficient. Nifboy 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As a member of the website, I'll abstain from this one, however it looks as if the sources are reliable and sufficient. VegaDark 08:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:28Z

John Dailey

Seems to be a not-yet-notable local politician. I'm not yet clear on Wiki acceptance/rejection of articles on local politicians, so I'm hesitant to put a speedy tag on it. SmartGuy 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concern about the notability. Do you know what the qualifications are to have someone on Wikipedia? How known do they need to be? Statewide, national, interntional? Just curious on how that works. Kim Culpepper 10:12, 6 February 2007

Hi Kim - see here: Wikipedia:Notability for some basic guidelines. - I'm not 100% sure what the criterion are on politicians either, though, so we'll let other users talk about it here. SmartGuy 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County commissioner with no notable achievements does not equal notability. The second ref seems to be a tribute to his father, or something, as the subject of the ref died in 2003, but the other refs indicate the subject is alive. Argyriou (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mot notable. References not sufficient.-MsHyde 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:29Z

Keith Olbermann 24 controversy

Olbermann's comments were originally included in both the Keith Olbermann and 24 (TV series) articles and were almost immediately deleted after discussion on both articles' talk pages confirmed the comments were not notable enough to include. Since the comments aren't notable enough to include on the subjects' main pages, I believe they certainly aren't notable enough for a separate article. Even the title is ridiculous, as no attempt in the article is made to demonstrate that an actual "controversy" resulted from Olbermann's criticisms.Hal Raglan 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to have been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Doesn't appear to have actually been a controversy either. Recury 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, it is mentioned it the criticism section of 24 (TV series). It's not notable enough for an entire article devoted to it, though. BryanG^(talk) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's a one-sentence mention at 24_(TV_series)#Criticism, and that's really all this deserves. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not really a controversy. It's already covered sufficiently in the criticism section of 24 (TV series), and this just looks like a POV fork. ShadowHalo 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this merits a comment in 24 (TV series), it's not sufficiently notable to merit an article in its own right _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:30Z

Turtle F2F

Original research, non-notable, and reads like an advertisement Nardman1 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of substantial coverage by third-party sources; no demonstration of notability. Walton monarchist89 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Noteworthy because unlike many other anonymous P2P software that provide no proof that they are really anonymous, this one is backed by research papers available as references at the end of the article. Including a paper from the 2005 Usenix conference [29]. A quick Google Scholar shows that this software is cited by other papers as well: [30] from the "Applied Public Key Infrastructure: 4th International Workshop: Iwap 2005" .

And [31] from the "11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS'05) " Touisiau 12:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. I agree the article is mostly drawn from the project's website, but that can be remedied. It does seem to be the least notable F2F project, but I think any P2P or F2F project is notable enough to rate an article. Tualha (Talk) 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose Andrew Tanenbaum's involvement makes it a bit more notable [32]. Tualha (Talk) 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:31Z

Blackdog foundation

This has been heavily tagged for a short while now, and no one seems to want to do anything about it. The corporation appears to be non-notable, certainly no assertion of it, google throws up nothing. Delete from me. J Milburn 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems non-notable. It also reads like an advert. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; no evidence of notability, no coverage by third-party reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:33Z

Danity Kane's Third Single

not enough info, no title, no confirmations cited, another speculation article from same person

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - speculative, unverified, uncertain. Walton monarchist89 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. When one of the options is confirmed as the single (rather than a number of different choices being potential singles) and gets released, we have an article on our hands. Not before. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is a forum. And even if the source were reliable, there doesn't need to be separate article saying that the next single will be one of three songs; rather, there would be a brief mention in the Danity Kane article. ShadowHalo 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ditto. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs).

Languatron

This seems to be a vanity page, as well as a conflict of interest (one of the editors is the user Languatron.) It's also entirely non-notable and fails WP:WEB. Having a bunch of forum accounts does not equal notability. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reinstated the above discussion after it was deleted by User:Languatron. Tim 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated again. I have notified admins to monitor this page. Further interference with others' comments should result in a speedy delete. I also vote delete. Tim 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Portal Boy, there are several standards for determining notability in Wikipedia. Being a controversial user on web forums is not part of the notability criterion. The most general standard is "Are there reliable third party sources talking about this subject?" There's nothing about Languatron other than a bunch of web forum hits. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated discussion again. Interestingly, it appears that User:Languatron is effectively encouraging the deletion. Tim 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello V, as I mentioned before, this article is no different than than the Supershadow article. It's currently at it's stub stages and I can't finish it if the user Languatron continues to vandalizeit. Languatron's antics goes beyond Battlestar Galactica related discussion forums. Other forms non Battlestar Galactica forms of media took noticed of Languatron's contoversial actions such as scifi.com and filmjerk.com . Even actor Aaron Douglas has gotten into a war of words with Languatron at the Ragnor Achorage website. Like Supershadow , Languatron has done serious harm towards Galactica fandom as did Supershadow has done to Star Wars fandom. Languatron is not just merely a troll on an internet discussion forum but rather a negative entity that has done serious harm. I hope this article can be both an insightful and a non biased informative to help reverse the tarnished reputation of Battlestar Galactica fandom. Thank you --Portal Boy 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - there should be no question about this one. I will tag it A7. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:35Z

List of Brisbane suburbs

This article contains duplicate information to Category:Suburbs of Brisbane. Debate on Talk:List of Brisbane suburbs completed in November 2006 under heading 'Direction of Article'. The reason for deletion is that the list already exists in the category (exactly identicle). Rimmeraj 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this encyclopedic list. It's like List of Brooklyn, New York neighborhoods. Maybe I should read the nom's comments properly next time. Yes, Redirect and Merge to avoid duplicate. --Oakshade 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with the category. Nardman1 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - duplication is not a reason to delete. Besides, this could easily be made into a proper list with dates of gazetting of the suburb, council area, etc. JROBBO 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion on talk page which could not find any such listing that would be of any importance. Rimmeraj 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council area may not be relevant (although do Logan City Council suburbs count as Brisbane?), but dates of gazettal as suburb, postcode, etc. could be relevant information as a list. This could be easily made into a Featured list with some of the extra information. JROBBO 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JROBBO (personally I'd delete the category, but I feel about categories the way some folk feel about lists.) Jcuk 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JROBBO. Note this deletion does not really come under any particular deletion policy, except maybe duplication. Also I'd note that such a list exists for every Australian city (see Category:Lists of places in Australia for examples). Brisbane has the unique feature that over half of its suburbs fall under one local government authority, which skews the debate in that city - there are suburbs beyond it (Pine Rivers, Redland, Logan etc) which in any other city, and certainly according to the ABS, would be included in such a list, but are not included by Brisbane editors. By deviating from the Australian consensus on lists of suburbs for cities, in such a way that one city does it one way and the rest all do it another way (while recognising that this is a consensus amongst Brisbane editors), it seems to go the opposite route from forming standards for Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places to begin with. Orderinchaos78 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suburbs within the Brisbane City Council area is generally included in the Brisbane Wikiproject. However, the surrounding shires suburbs, although part of greater Brisbane, is not included. (as technically Brisbane suburbs is within the council boundaries, as said earlier, Brisbane City Council is one of the largest councils by area). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very inconsistent with what's in the Brisbane page which mentions that the Brisbane metropolitan area now encompasses parts of Logan City, Beaudesert Shire, the Gold Coast City, some of the councils to the north, etc. The List of Brisbane suburbs should have all the suburbs within the Brisbane metropolitan area, not just ones in the Brisbane City Council; although it would be fine for the category to continue to reflect the council's suburbs, so long as that difference is made clear at the top of the page. JROBBO 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why it says that, but the wording should be changed to reflect the greater Brisbane area, not the Brisbane metropolitan area (which is the Suburbs within the BCC). As the metropolitan Brisbane area does not include Logan City suburbs, Redlands Shire (eg Capalaba, Cleveland), Beaudessert, Caboolture (more closer to Sunshine Coast than Brisbane, but is inbetween those areas). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at all the other 4 major cities and several minor ones, and seeing a very different definition of metropolitan. If it's based on city council boundaries, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide would be tiny areas with populations in the 4 and 5 digits. Yet they count areas more than 60km from their CBD (32 in Adelaide's case, as a smaller centre). Some parts of Pine Rivers and Redlands in particular aren't even 15km from Brisbane, a city of comparable size to Perth. Orderinchaos78 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been stated before, the suburbs you refer to that belong to Logan City and other areas are not considered to be part of brisbane by anyone who actually lives here. Unlike the 4 cities you mention where the other areas are considered to be part of the main city. Ask a resident of pine rivers shire 'where do I live', and they will not reply 'brisbane'. Rimmeraj 12:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it short (as we are well and truly off-topic), but just to say I do know people in both Redlands and Logan who describe themselves as Brisbane residents, the ABS does not differentiate between Brisbane and other cities, and that forms the basis of my belief that the situation isn't so different that it requires a radical departure from Australian norms. This discussion, however, should as cj said continue elsewhere. Orderinchaos78 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion elsewhere, preferably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places.--cj | talk 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think having duplication across lists/categories is a bad thing here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless consensus is established to delete equivalent lists.--cj | talk 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think if this list can be "value added" to distinguish it from a category, it's worth keeping. Order the suburbs by LGA instead of alphabetically, as suggested above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canley (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops, forgot to sign! --Canley 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Brisbane is a special case, they control the largest area by LGA, and thus the Brisbane suburbs are by the ones within the BCC area. As suburbs in Logan City, Redlands, Caboolture (Caboolture is considered Sunshine Coast sometimes) are not considered as part of metropolitan Brisbane, but rather greater Brisbane. As rimmeraj said, ask anyone from the outer LGAs where they live and they will NOT reply Brisbane, but the appropriate area (eg Logan, Pine Rivers, etc). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note that to "ask anyone" would be WP:OR, Gnan garra

Keep DanielT5 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add value as per Canley. Aye-Aye 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the issue about what is Brisbane needs to be clarified Gnan garra 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:36Z

Matthew JA Wood

Should be deleted. Not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Nardman1 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet. He is not even mentioned on the research portion of the website listed in the article for his research group. He is on the teaching portion. A university lecturer in the UK corresponds roughly to assistant Professor in the US, and except in unusual cases they are not considered notable academic yet. There are exceptions because of notable early research accomplishments, but there do not seem to be any for him so far. DGG 06:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:37Z

Mohenis

This appears to be nothing but advertising, but I am not entirely sure. Stizz 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only 1040 google hits for "Mohenis." I found a source, but it may be unreliable; has anyone ever heard of Industrial Launderer Online? --N Shar 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Edeans 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a perfectly nice company, but I got a bagel on a Lexis-Nexis search, and the only relevant thing on Google News's archive was an obituary for one of the company's workers. I don't think the source in Industrial Launderer is enough to meet WP:CORP. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --MaNeMeBasat 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:38Z

Nigel Roshin

DELETE - I did a phrase search for the name "Nigel Roshin" on google and it returned zero results. How can this guy be notable? - Big Brother 1984 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep he did created a teen britsh tv series thats enough proof for me he noteableOo7565 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to some website that verifies this information. - Big Brother 1984 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i was wrong i wanted to change my vote sorry do not how to thurOo7565 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The TV programme he supposedly created is a hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tele:Six therefore with that removed he has no stated claim to notability if he even exists at all ChrisTheDude 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I know there is no notable British TV channel called tele 6, the one in Tunisia does not have British writers. Don't know about the rest of the world but it still would make this article either highly inaccurate (reason for deletion) or a hoax. Alf photoman 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems to be a hoax.-MsHyde 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (second nomination)

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:40Z

Silvia Helena Cardoso

Seems like a classic vanity page. This person has not accomplished anything noteworthy and is not notable per WP:BIO. I have never heard of any of her ejournals. Mnemopis 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I'm from Brazil and never heard of them either. Maclaine 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dozens of published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Nardman1 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion Apparently "Brain and Mind Magazine" is run by Ms. Cardoso.[33] Sources are non-independent. Nardman1 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ , there are enough references on the web, somebody should just bother to put them into the article and clean it up. The tone strikes like it goes against WP:NPOV and WP:COI Alf photoman 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After brushing up my Portuguese a little and checking around I am changing to DELETE , most of the references I have found are self published and hardly a third party mention, and with those I cannot establish neutrality Alf photoman 12:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to make clear. Also, I cannot find any peer-reviewed publications from this person. Her Brain and Mind ejournal arguably cannot be taken seriously since it seems little different from a blog. Mnemopis 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reference in the Portuguese wiki, although she is from Brazil. The list of publications looks like a collection of external links. Mr.K. (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nobility looks possible with "She has been honoured as the first female Brazilian scientist to be invited as a lecturer by the Royal Institution of Great Britain.", but sources for that will be necessary, and the remainder may need to be significantly trimmed to what is WP:V. John Vandenberg 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this exactly notable, even if it were verifiable. Consider that the purpose of the Royal Institution (not to be confounded with the Royal Society) is the diffusion of science. According to this purpose, they hold many lectures every month. Mr.K. (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:46Z

Tele:Six

Can anybody living in the UK confirm that this is a real television station? I can't find any mention of it anywhere else - Big Brother 1984 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and can confirm this is a definite hoax as is its supposed programme Crack Pack therefore delete both ChrisTheDude 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if exists no satellite carries it in Europe and that allone would make it not-notable Alf photoman 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be part of a walled garden of hoaxes. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax (obvious to anyone in the UK, at any rate) - 84.69.45.120 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Oh, I'm going to catch hell for this deletion.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hedonistic Imperative

The Hedonistic Imperative reads like a sophomoric philosophy essay and does not meet encyclopedic standards. Mnemopis 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is 5 years old and has been edited by many different editors. There must be some reason it has survived this long. - Big Brother 1984 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - David Pearce may be a notable subject, but his manifesto is not. The article cites no commentary or criticism on the manifesto from non-self-published reliable sources. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Look up deletion policy before you add a deletion template and before you vote "delete" please. A poorly written or cited article does not warrant a deletion template unless its complete nonsense. Rather it warrants a clean-up tag. I'm tempted to remove the template because it is such an egregious misuse of it. Please read the policy on nominating an article for deletion before you use the template.

I didn't nominate for deletion just because it was a poorly written essay on a great idea. The concepts behind the essay are sophomoric and lack originality. Mnemopis 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the essay is irrelevant. There are plenty of essays and manifestos that aren't very good but certainly deserve Wikipedia articles because they're famous, oft-cited, influential, etc. This manifesto appears to be none of these. The article does not make any claim that any one of any importance has ever critiqued or even considered The Hedonistic Imperative. Most of the article violates WP:NOR by drawing novel comparisons to other essays by other, more notable people that will need to be removed if the article survives deletion. The article shouldn't exist because there are no third-party reliable sources to cite on the topic of Pearce's manifesto, and thus the article can never have any content. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any Joe Blow can write a "manifesto". N0n1in34r 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir to David Pearce, or maybe abolitionism (bioethics). A founder of an international organization very notable in its field isn't exactly "Joe Blow", but this work isn't yet notable on its own. ~~ N (t/c) 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I agree with Nickptar. --Loremaster 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brainsynth 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The Hedonistic Imperative is mentioned in a number of published works on transhumanism--see Google book search on "Hedonistic Imperative" +"David Pearce". Hypnosifl 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, also take a look at this Google Scholar search on the same thing, showing that the HI has been discussed in a number of scholarly journals and websites. Hypnosifl 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to make the matter clear. Also see the discussion page for additional info. Note that The Hedonistic Imperative is not even a published book. It's only an online post, similar to a blog post. This is not notable and should be promptly deleted. Mnemopis 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an online "post", but a book-length work published online by a philosopher. And it is discussed in published books, as I showed above. Hypnosifl 07:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blog post. It's only 6 pages long. Most New York Times articles are longer than this. Mnemopis 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a blog post, because it was not published on a blog, but rather on his website. And there's no way it would be six pages long, unless you are misleadingly comparing a "page" on an internet site (which can be arbitrarily long, thanks to scrolling) with a printed page. Most New York Times articles are definitely much shorter than this, just do a word count...I put the complete text of the HI into a text program and got a word count of 54,183 words, by comparison the current NY Times top story, New York to Test Ways to Guard Against Nuclear Terror, had a word count of 1,257 words, less than 1/40th the length. For a few other comparisons, The Communist Manifesto is 4,567 words (without the footnotes), Edgar Allen Poe's short story The Pit and the Pendulum is 6,186 words, and the H. G. Wells' novel The Time Machine is 32,134 words--all significantly shorter than the Hedonistic Imperative. In any case, length is not relevant to notability, and the fact that it has been discussed in a number of published books and academic journals is sufficient to demonstrate its notability. Hypnosifl 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it is 6 pages long, and it's 6 pages of the sort of drug-induced ravings that you will find in abundance at deoxy.org. We should be asking ourselves, should Wikipedia be endorsing drug use? The Hedonistic Imperative, besides being insignificant philosophically, endorses drug use, and is the result of drug use. You think this is significant? Hardly. Again, go to deoxy.org and you'll see the same type of crap there. It's not notable. It's commonplace. Mnemopis 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your strange criteria, H.G. Wells' book The Time Machine is only 12 pages long, because when put online in HTML form each chapter is given a single scrollable page. In any case, both the length and the your personal assessment of the quality or moral value of the work are completely irrelevant to the question of its notability--you should not be using nominations for deletion as a way of expressing your personal qualitative judgments about a work, perhaps you should review the criteria for notability again, particularly notability is not subjective. Hypnosifl 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that The Hedonistic Imperative has not been cited in any peer-reviewed journals (check Google Scholar) and it has only been cited in 3 non-notable books (check Google Book Search). This is not notable. Mnemopis 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books, Citizen Cyborg, is notable enough to have its own wikipedia entry, and another, Enough, is by a notable author, Bill McKibben. In any case, the Wikipedia:Notability entry does not specify that the "published sources" must themselves be notable (although they should be reliable and independent of the subject itself), the definition is fairly wide: What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. As for the google scholar results, are you certain that the journals Australian Biologist and Northwestern University Law Review are not peer-reviewed? Hypnosifl 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your criteria validates blog posts and is hardly acceptable. Neither the Australian Biologist nor "Northwestern Univ Law Review" are internationally recognized journals. Show me a widely known news source that has cited the Hedonistic Imperative, or an author in an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal that has cited it. There aren't any, and that is one of the things that makes it not notable. Mnemopis 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indenting) When you say "your criteria validates blog posts", what criteria are you referring to? If you're talking about the statement What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc., this is not my criteria, it is wikipedia's official policy as expressed in Wikipedia:Notability (and I don't see how it would validate blog posts). There is no requirement that the subject be mentioned in "a widely known news source" or "an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal", I recommend that you review wikipedia's notability policy carefully and then explain why you think the published sources already given do not meet wikipedia's criteria. Hypnosifl 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why The Hedonistic Imperative does not meet notability guidelines ad infinitum. Your windbag approach to discussion is not convincing. Reread the guidelines yourself if you don't understand. Mnemopis 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not given any explanation that specifically refers to the notability criteria given on wikipedia, instead you have given a lot of your own personal criteria that have nothing to do with wikipedia's criteria, like that the journals must be "internationally recognized" or that "widely known news sources" be used or that the books used as sources themselves be "notable" or that the "page length" be above a certain number or that wikipedia should not include what you believe to be "drug-induced ravings". Can you quote a section of Wikipedia:Notability that justifies any one of these? And can you quote a specific criteria for valid sources from Wikipedia:Notability that the sources I mentioned fail to satisfy? If not, then you are using your own subjective notion of what it means to be "notable", not wikipedia's. Hypnosifl 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. A passing reference to the Hedonistic Imperative in 3 non-notable books, and no references in notable peer-reviewed journals means that it is not notable. For some reason, you are setting the bar for notability far too low. Mnemopis 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see where the criteria given on Wikipedia:Notability say anything about it being important whether the sources are notable or non-notable themselves (although if you think the book Citizen Cyborg is non-notable, you should ask for references for its notability on its discussion page), nor does it say the sources must be "peer-reviewed journals", nor (as far as I can tell) do the sources have to discuss the subject in great detail, at least not when the subject is an idea or manifesto like "The Hedonistic Imperative" as opposed to a person. If you think any of these requirements are present in Wikipedia:Notability, please provide a specific quote. Hypnosifl 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So having 2 or 3 citations from non-notable, possibly non-independent sources makes a subject notable? This does not meet encyclopedic standards. Mnemopis 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the "possibly non-independent" part (and if you have evidence of that, please present it), then I'd say yes, 2 or 3 citations from non-notable but reliable sources is enough to make a subject notable according to wikipedia's policy. If you disagree, please quote from the policy to support your case. And incidentally, as I keep pointing out Citizen Cyborg is in fact considered a notable source. Hypnosifl 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's mentioned in passing in Citizen Cyborg, it's notable according to you. That's weak, and it seems few people agree with your opinion. Mnemopis 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mischaracterizing my argument, I've said that I don't think it matters whether a source is itself notable according to wikipedia's guidelines, but since you keep saying all the sources mentioning the HI are "non-notable" I just wanted to point out this was incorrect (and incidentally, although the three references in Citizen Cyborg are indeed fairly brief, on p. 270 Hughes does refer to the Hedonistic Imperative as 'the principle transhumanist thinkpiece on hedonic self-determination'). As I said before: yes, 2 or 3 citations from non-notable but reliable sources is enough to make a subject notable according to wikipedia's policy. If you disagree, please quote from the policy to support your case. Hypnosifl 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the back and forth of those other guys and the lack of external citations. If there is some external reference to this thing shown that's notable, i'll change my vote, but it'll take alot, I get a WP:OR vibe on this puppy. Just H 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not demonstrated nontrivial citations from nontrivial and independent external sources. Medlat 09:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the above searches that indicate plenty of hits, but very few, if any, non-trivial mentions. Addhoc 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:52Z

Alexandra Shpakova

Contested A7 with assertions to notability present. I can't find any evidence for her on the net, with the given name or "Sharapova". No opinion yet. Kchase T 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable sources. Nardman1 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was on the cover of Teenage Vogue when she was nine years old? This doesn't even get past the sniff test. Also this article was speeded earlier in the day and recreated. NipokNek 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Teen Vogue wasn't even launched until 2003 (with four test issues since 2000.) Nothing in 1999. [34] NipokNek 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, no reliable sources, even the Myspace page doesn't exist. The Rambling Man 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing showed for a search on text or images, which is why I speedied it in the first place --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a hoax, and like everybody else, I can't find any evidence to the contrary.. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity of a teenager. KNewman 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : speedy delete

Damien Candelaria

Speedy Delete - Blatant attack page. User User:The Cool Guy22 keeps removing speedy tag with no reason. The Kinslayer 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Same as above. --Neigel von Teighen 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant attack Computerjoe 's talk 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:55Z

County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)

Is a county route a notable enough road to be included in the Wikipedia? Computerjoe 's talk 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is no different than a secondary highway, and it's been established that secondary highways are notable enough to be included, as are local freeways, etc. 23skidoo 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if a policy/guideline/similar past AfD existed. Would you mind linking to it and if it seems valid I'll withdraw the nomination :) Thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: although they weren't the links I had in mind, the citations by V60, below, suffice. 23skidoo 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do links to WikiProjects suffice? Computerjoe 's talk 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the rationale provided by 23skidoo. (jarbarf) 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:USRD, WP:NYSR, and WP:NYCR. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per V60 et al, but see my comments on WT:USRD. --MPD^{T / C} 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks can be deceiving. While the article is currently a stub, it is one of the main roads through the area of Dutchess County known as the Oblong, specifically in the historic Quaker Hill hamlet. This article needs to be expanded, not deleted. --Polaron | Talk 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time to clear out the roadcruft. Edeans 06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you advocate deleting the 5400+ road articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Past time to get started. Edeans
  - Still, some roads are truly notable. Edeans 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me? How un-wiki is that? And how do you respond to the over 25 WikiProjects that have been started for U.S. state highways? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither passing trivial mention: "On Friday nights, traffic backs up on Route 22, the main north-south highway" in the newspaper articles nor appearing on a road map along with all the other roads satisfy the requirement for being "a primary subject." Also there is no policy that all secondary roads are notable absent having multiple sources where they are a primary subject. It is great that some Wikipedia editors are fans of roads, but others may be fans of city streets, television masts, or games show episodes, and they won't get articles for them either. Start a "Roadapedia" and put this material there. A road going through an historic town in no way makes the road notable. Edison 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think Pennsylvania Route 999 is notable or not? Sure it is, and it better not be listed here. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the ones who vote Delete Wikipedia is not paper. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:USRD/P for other such debates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll go by precendent per WP:USRD/P.--Oakshade 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:USRD • master_son^{Lets talk} 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was against having a New York county routes project from the beginning (even if it would sort of allow me to write an article on the street I live on), but since we already had a county routes project for California I felt the issue was settled. As such, this comes close to violating WP:POINT, as others have indicated. Daniel Case 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability of secondary highways and county roads has long been established and respected as precedent. Alansohn 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as failing to provide evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stewart (AKA Control)

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:N. User:Upside frown removed Speedy for no reason, and persists in removing clean-up tags without actually doing any clean-up. The Kinslayer 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Upisde frown is now persistently removing AfD notice. The Kinslayer 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - troublesome article; per ~~WP:NOTABILITY/WP:BIO~~nominator - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertation of notability, and the apparent persistent defence of the article makes me suspect vanity/COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability JoJan 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per A7 and WP:SNOW. Why did no one warn the creator, by the way? --N Shar 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he removed the speedy, removed the clean up tags and then removed the AfD notice. I think we can say he's aware. The Kinslayer 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:56Z

List of stereotypes in The Simpsons

I find this page unencyclopedic and incomplete. --Maitch 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Maitch 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can you delete per nom if you are the nom? Anyway, delete because it is original research. It also wouldn't be suitable for the encyclopedia even if it were cited and not original research. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Cream147. Massive OR and POV, unencyclopaedic, and not important, its hardly even informative in any way. Gran2 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cream147. -- Scorpion 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cream147. -- Clerks 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous. Otto4711 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, POV, OR; the term "stereotype" is subjective. Walton monarchist89 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced Appears to be unreferenced original research. Dugwiki 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton monarchist89 (and btw, I am flabbergasted that the completely obvious Bart vs. Australia isn't on the list. JuJube 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:56Z

List of Homer Simpson's lifelong dreams

This is basically just a summary of what happened on the show. When an article only contains in-universe information it can't be considered encyclopedic. --Maitch 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Maitch 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it interesting, but it's a pretty clear WP:NOT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, i can't say theres a lot of information on the page. And it's kind of useless.--Andy mci 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Clerks 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no real-world notability whatsoever. Otto4711 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the list of Homer's jobs. Natalie 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an actual instance of something I'd call cruft. The lifelong dreams of Homer Simpson have had no major impact on society or any subset of society. Not encyclopedia material. Not verifiable. i kan reed 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gran2 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor running gag. JuJube 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JuJube. Really, it's just a joke. --UsaSatsui 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:58Z

Minnesota State Highway 127

This unreferenced stub about fails to show that it is notable. It is a 2.4 mile (4km) road connecting Interstate 94 with a small street in a small town. Nothing but a few farms are located on it and apparently nothing of significance has happened on it. It is not a Route 66 by any stretch of the imagination. There does not appear to be potential for expanding the stub into an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says: WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Also per Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles are not :WP:NOT#IINFO Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual and verifiable, but falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. Perhaps this could be placed in a Wiki devoted to every section of pavement in the world, but it does not appear to be notable or encyclopedic. I am not aware of any policy that all sections of pavement are inherently notable. Inkpaduta 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand. All active state routes are inherently notable. See here, here, and here for precedents. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HowardSF is mistaken. The three examples he provides were kept because No Consensus - default to keep. Nothing has happened on this stretch of road. Expand it with one article on "traffic fatalities" or "nations biggest pothole" to show that something is happening there and I might change my mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The Rambling Man 17:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this have to do with that? This article is not a travel guide. See my comment below. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedents. The highway was improved and marked by the state for the use of motorists, making it notable. According to [35], it is part of Constitutional Route 3, taken over when old US 52 east of Osakis was given to the counties. --NE2 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming that this can be verifiably referenced in the next few days. (jarbarf) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just referenced most of it. The creation date can be referenced from old state maps, which I don't have. --NE2 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a highway is important enough the state DOT bothered to assign it a number, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per Scott5114 and NE2. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per V60 et al, but see my comments on WT:USRD]. --MPD^{T / C} 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says, regarding "Transportation and geography" the following:"Highways and interstates (major roads and motorways) are, at the moment, disputed." There is no policy that a short connecting road such as this has notability without meeting the requirement of multiple sources which are reliable and which have nontrivial coverage of it as a primary subject. Hiway fans keep claiming there is precedent that a numbered state hiway is inherently notable, but the precedent is lack of consensus and strong dispute that anything, least of all this 2.4 miles of pavement, is automatically notable. The only references anyone has found during this debate are a map and a printout of a bid list, both exceedingly trivial covreage. Lots of improvements costing $600,000 like the bid shown are also not notable, even if the government paid for them and they bear a number. Firetrucks and airplanes cost that much and also have numbers, but we do not have an article for every individual one. Inkpaduta 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of Minnesota state highways, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial references". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia. --NE2 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not what it said a few months ago. During November, there was no such dispute going on; I have contacted the editor who made the change to see what was going on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, highways are notable. Apparently the precedents page was changed in November[36], but I can't find whatever discussion is being referenced. BryanG^(talk) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the editor (Radiant!), it was a reference to WP:RFAR/HWY. However, that had to do with naming conventions, not notability. Thus, the change should be reversed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highways are notable; I would support a merge, however, if 127 is considered a minor spur of a larger road. 23skidoo 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. We would need to find the proof of it being a spur of a larger route. If it is obvious enough yes - merge. • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't mischaracterize the precedents given, please. While the first one is, yes, no concensus, the other two were keeps, including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota_State_Highway_91, which is very similar to this case, which the result was keep. Moreover, more precedents can be found here and here. Note that the latter is route that no longer actively exists. If a state finds a route notable enough to number the route, then it should be considered notable. Using this test is much less arbitary and more consistent; it's either numbered by the state or isn't, as opposed to the myriad reasons given for deleting state route articles in the past. And numbering by the state doesn't change because different people contribute to a AfD. In addition, state highways are found in government reports, atlases, travel guides, etc. Hardly unencyclopedic by any means, and even if it's only borderline encyclopedic, m:Wikipedia is not paper—articles can be created that would not appear in a paper encyclopedia. There's thousands of little small towns that have articles here, yet would not appear in anything but government reports, atlases, gazeteers, etc. Should those be removed as well?--HowardSF-U-T-C- 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highways are notable per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A project talk page cannot create policy that the project's subject is notable. And all I find there is Scott5114 stating that they are notable. That cannot by itself suspend the requirements of WP:N for notability. Lots of things have numbers put on them but are not notable.Inkpaduta 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to see the point here, reasoning is given concerning the notability of highway articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 300, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Route 900, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Route 118, and others at WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, roadcruft. Edeans 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not that this will be the consensus, but i think it might begin to be time to start questioning this earlier decision on notability--it must strike any outsider as absurd.DGG 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State highways are part of the main skeleton in a state's road infrastructure and valid enough topics in covering the transport system. Trying to establish a minimum length for notability will be an arbitrary condition, so we are better off just keeping all of the numbered highways. The number of short numbered highway sections are not all that overwhelming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all numbered highways per Scott5114. Dismissing something as "roadcruft" is not providing any meaningful to the closing administrator for consideration. RFerreira 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nor is it helpful to the closing admin to make false claims of Wikipedia policies that 'all numbered pieces of pavement are inherently notable' so policies per WP:N do not require multiple independent reliable sources with substantial (non-directory, non-hiwayfansite, non-statwhiwaymap, non bid-list) coverage. Saying "Highways are all notable" is just another way of saying "ILIKEIT!" and can be discounted in tabulating comments. Inkpaduta 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It instead implies that this route is part of the Minnesota State Trunk Highway system, and therefore is notable. Sure, U.S. Route 66 is very notable, but how about Pennsylvania Route 999? Should that be considered roadcruft and listed on AFD? I don't think so. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. DGG and Inkpaduta are merely pointing out what should be a blatantly obvious absurdity. Edeans 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this is how this came to be... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, you should be able to throw out the vote above saying "roadcruft", or essentially "I don't like it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Wikipedia is not paper. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Articles exist on Wikipedia for much more obscure items than a state highway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This article contains no room for expansion or inclusion of notability; it's just a desolate stretch of asphalt. Indescriminate. Salad Days 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what indiscriminate means; restricting articles to signed numbered highways is very discriminate. --NE2 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suggest limiting articles to subjects which have detailed sources. Salad Days 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are detailed sources about Minnesota's state highway system, of which this is a part. Please read Wikipedia:summary style and think about whether it would be a good idea to create one article, several hundred kilobytes in size, with information about all the highways. --NE2 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2 sources are only trivial ones: it is on a map. and the state paid a contractor to pave it. Has there been a magazine article about the road's importance to the ecnomy, or about sights you can see along it, or about controversy because of some ecological effect it has? So far its existence is proved, but there is nothing to show it is of any importance or notability. It looks like there are only about 6 farmhouses located along it, so it is hard to see how it is any more important than a very minor city street. Inkpaduta 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above:

"Think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of Minnesota state highways, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial references". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia."

--NE2 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since (as least currently) the trend seems to be that state routes are notable. I suggest that the people involved in this debate over the notability of highways take it someplace else and discuss just what makes a notable highway before AfD is blasted with a bunch of disruptive nominations. We have a lovely dispute resolution process, I hear. --UsaSatsui 21:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not disruptive to nominate an article for deletion when it does not satisfy the general criterion WP:N even if several editors say "ILIKEIT." There is no policy or guideline which says that all numbered roads in the world are inherently notable. Please do no make unsupported accusations of disruptive editing, as that is incivil. AFD is the appropriate forum for deciding which articles should be kept, not "dispute resolution." Inkpaduta 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this nomination was disruptive, but if all of a sudden people go on a tear of nominating road articles to prove a point, that would be disruptive, and it seems some people have already taken the first step down that road. There's obviously a disagreement on whether or not state routes have inherent notability, and the place to settle that is in dispute resolution, not by throwing out AfDs. --UsaSatsui 04:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The state highway series of articles is a good example of the tyranny of the majority, even in a setting that strives for consensus. A large number of people simply believe that all state-designated roads are inherently notable, and so much "precedent" has built up that even in obviously deletable articles like this, keep will always be the default result. See also articles on the haigiography of science fiction and fantasy authors, and the infamous pages of pokemon characters. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've given well-reasoned reasons for the inclusion of such articles. Thus, the majority is being effective. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but the only reason I see given is exactly the one I stated: "the consensus is that all roads are notable, therefore this road is notable."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The highway was improved and marked by the state for the use of motorists, making it notable. According to [37], it is part of Constitutional Route 3, taken over when old US 52 east of Osakis was given to the counties"? "State highways are part of the main skeleton in a state's road infrastructure and valid enough topics in covering the transport system. Trying to establish a minimum length for notability will be an arbitrary condition, so we are better off just keeping all of the numbered highways. The number of short numbered highway sections are not all that overwhelming."? "Wikipedia is not paper."? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The arguments for keeping articles on highways, (some articles are about "highways" as short as 0.3 miles} could be applied as well to mailboxes. Should we have articles on each of them? "The mailbox was installed and marked by the U.S. Postal System, for the use of persons wishing to send mail. It is part of the U.S. Postal system, established in the 18th century. It is a part of the main skeleton system of the U.S. Postal Service and a valid enough topic in covering the mail system." The same arguments could be applied to city streets, power pylons, bridges, drainage ditches, salt trucks, school buses, locomotives, railroad tracks, airport runways, undergound pipelines, television masts, fire engines, schools, libraries, dormitories, municipal wells, sewage plants, and all other infrastructure. They were installed by authorities to benefit the puiblic and given identifying names or numbers. Would you vote to keep all such articles absent independent reliable sources with substantial coverage? Or don't you LIKE them as much as roads? Inkpaduta 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were a group of mailboxes so important that the state declared them "State mailboxes", numbered them, maintained them, and wrote them into law...then sure. The argument isn't for all roads, it's for a particularly important subset of roads. Regardless of whether or not they're notable enough to include in the encyclopedia, state highways certainly aren't trivial. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like the others said - see "Wikipedia is not paper." • master_son^{Lets talk} 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "keep" side keeps using that argument. I do not think it means what you think it means. The argument isn't "there's no room for roads" or "roads aren't a suitable topic.". They're arguing whether or not state highways are notable in and of themselves, without anything else going for them. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at your laundry list, of those that are individually designated, I answer yes. Many schools/libraries have articles on WP. All runways are mentioned on their respective airports article. Dormitories are also mentioned on their respective universities article. Many of your examples such as power pylons and drainage ditches are not indiviudally identified so making an article. --Holderca1 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there were hundreds of millions of these state routes that were very short like this one, then yes, your mailbox or drainage ditch analogy would prove apt. If Minnesota labeled every stretch of pavement as a state highway, then your comparison would prove apt. But there aren't, and Minnesota doesn't. We're talking about a part of limited, specific system, not every single foot of pavement. Here's a more valid comparison, look at the thousands of little podunk towns that have just one source, census data. Those have the same amount of outside coverage and locality as this route. Yet we have thousands of those articles! However, note that those incorporated towns that have articles are all a part of a subset of a much, much larger group of locales--they're incorporated towns, recognized by the state government. We don't have articles on every single crossroads, every single subdivision, every single spot in the state. In both cases, we're talking about a specific group of geographic entities (state highways and incorporated towns) that the state has recognized to be significant enough to place into a specific subset (by numbering or incorporation) out of a larger group (of all of the roads or all of the named locales, subdivisions, etc). --HowardSF-U-T-C- 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Most of these articles are sourced and referenced. There are WikiProjects for many states' highways. The Minnesota goverment decided long ago that highways were important enough to be laid out in the Constitution. If state highway articles did not belong here, the very first ones would have been deleted long ago. Why is this just now coming up? The "road is too short" argument is ridiculous. How long is long enough? How about we delete all municipality articles if their population isn't high enough? --Sable232 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as stated by many before me, ALL state highways are notable. Gateman1997 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As stated by others above, numbered highways are notable. Are they any less notable than most of the articles on WP? See specific episodes of the Simpsons, or Pokemon characters. Are we running out of server space? --Holderca1 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of secondary highways is clear, in a well-sourced and referenced article. This is yet another case where WP:NOT#DIR is being abused to mean "anything that I think doesn't deserve an article for which I cannot or will not provide an actual reason". Alansohn 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see my comments here for same reasoning. Also, we can't delete ~~votes~~ articles just because you don't like it. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manger Babies

A show within a show on King of the Hill that isn't notable for it's own article. It only appeared as a plot point in one episode, and the puppets appears in another episode or so briefly. Gets around 800 ghits, most mention it in passing. Booshakla 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Meet the Manger Babies and use as a starting point for an article about the episode. I imagine this would have happened eventually anyway (a lot of the KotH episodes have articles). No time like the present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Andrew L. The Rambling Man 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:59Z

Jack Hamish Rennershmit

It's a really nice obituary. My condolences to the family, but its not an encyclopedia article. I googled the name and came up with nothing. Clerks 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any kind of notability is asserted, this is a memorial which WP is not for. The Rambling Man 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per above. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not more than a stub. No more references found about Jack Hamish Rennershmit.Mr.K. (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced nn obit. SkierRMH 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Crews Hill. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 01:00Z

Turkey Brook

Non notable river, just a small brook that runs through a couple of towns. This was originally prodded, but the prod was removed. The author left a note explaining why on the talk page, which I don't fully understand. However, I think the editor is arguing that Wikipedia should be about everything, which, alas, is not the case. Delete from me, unless notability can be establised. As the author admits that the subject is non notable, I think it unlikely that it will be. J Milburn 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as author claims non-notability The Rambling Man 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Crews Hill; this geographical area is too minor to merit its own article. Walton monarchist89 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally would say that a merge is not appropriate, due to the lack of sources in the article. J Milburn 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of recurring Metal Gear characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:34Z

Patriots (Metal Gear)

It's six months later, and few of the critical issues raised in the last AFD have been resolved. This is still extremely detailed plot summary, with no claim of real-world notability whatsoever, organized entirely in an in-universe way. The bulk of the article is still original research, synthesizing details from the relevant video games into an essay. No article would benefit from a merge; several of the game articles are GAs or on their way to GA (with one FA), and none of them need this indigestible lump of plot summary plopped onto their plates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless real world context and analysis provided Per WP:NOT, plot summaries should include information on real world context or analysis with suitable independent references. Articles which only describe plot details do not meet that part of policy. Delete unless the article is modified to include independent references (ie published sources beyond the games themselves) that discuss The Patriots in a meaningful way. Dugwiki 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's beign worked on it takes time. What if someone looks up this key element to the Metal Gear story. †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, worst case, you can always put the article in your user space temporarilly and have some sources and context and I mentioned above. That way you still have a draft of it available without having it in the article space until it's ready for inclusion. Dugwiki 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dugwiki. Sources from outside the game itself are desperately needed. If The Bread or anyone wishes to Userfy to correct this issue and others mentioned here, I would agree to that. Ripberger 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Metal Gear Solid 2 - Have to agree with AMiB on the in-universe perspective/original research here. This article feels more like something out of a fansite than an encyclopedic article. If it doesn't get deleted, at the very least it needs a serious rewrite.Jonny2x4 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a thought about it, why not merge it into List of recurring Metal Gear characters, this way it can be easily redirected somewhere without having to loose the info. You could summarise what they do in each game fairly shorter than what's done now, i'll put up an example soon †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. How about, no matter what the outcome (save for keep, I suppose), I move this page to your userspace? I'm not sure any version similar to the current one is particularly worth saving, but if you think you can hack it down into something that would benefit the character list I don't want to stop you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. I can cut it down to three paragraphs easy an I remember comming across some commentary from Kojima about their role in the series so I could add that also. †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:46Z

Renate Thyssen-Henne (2nd nomination)

Delete Not notable, POV ("Renate Kerkhoff inherited her grand-father’s entrepreneurial talent.", a copy of her official bio, Wikipedia is not a trivia collection ("At the age of 24, the young entrepreneur moved into a villa at Lerchesbergring in Frankfurt and gave birth to her first child"), a vanity publisher("Following her own motto of “light, young, fresh”, she revolutionised the restaurant’s cuisine and ambience" Mr.K. (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable. The first AFD is here. Nardman1 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"She invented the modern refreshing tissue “Seifrisch” ", "she founded the restaurant chain “Zum Gumpelmann” ". Ever heard/read/found something about it? What else is notable in her bio?
And what about the other flaws?Mr.K. (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Nardman1 admits that he is just playing Devil's advocate. Mr.K. (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious puffery, and not yet N. DGG 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The Aga Khan's mother-in-law? Not a claim to notability here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Tupac Shakur. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 01:19Z

Tupac Shakur Tattoos

I can't image a reason why this article should be kept. The title speaks for itself. Non-notable at the top.Merging is possible, but in my opinion ii doesn't even deserve a footnote entry Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Tupac Shakur. The person may be notable, but his tattoos aren't. Walton monarchist89 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge again carefully. This has already been brought to AfD once, and the result was merge. It was merged in its entirety, then cut out entirely again. Looks like some discussion on the talk page for Tupac Shakur as to what of this is appropriate, and then a careful merge of something people can reach a consensus on, is needed. Pinball22 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pinball22. Mathmo ^Talk 10:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 01:57Z

Neil C. Vipond

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BIO. No substantive 3rd party sources found. Otto4711 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references.-MsHyde 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --MaNeMeBasat 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This definitely needs closing (relisted, and no one added any more comments!). I would like to point out a few things:

Alexa rankings, while a useful indication of the notablility of a site, are not necessarily formal nor binding in AfDs. We wish to point out lack of notability, but an Alexa ranking is probably not the way to go to achieve that goal (no offense intended toward MER-C, just a friendly pointer).
Universities link to the site: [38], [39]. This is, usually, a good indication of notability.
The article, however, does read as an advertisment. Therefore tagged as {{ad}}.

Cheers, Yuser31415 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OttoBib.com

After initial prod, sources confirming notability lacking since 19 December 2006. ∴ here…♠ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa = 453,033: [40]. MER-C 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the current rating of 453,033 is irrelevant. The notability claim in the article is that it reached a much higher Alexa rating at the time of year that people frequently want to produce citations. I wasnt able to find a reliable source for the ranking of 166,653, however the traffic graph does indicate its ranking would have been much higher last October, and implies that it will be higher again when this seasonal service is needed. Even if it doesnt reach that height again, the notability claim still stands for once-famous subjects. John Vandenberg 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Alexa test is misapplied in this case, since this is an educational resource, and MacOS is more common in education than in general, but Alexa is MS Windows specific. Aside from this, the Alexa ranking of a Web tool, where people visit for a specific need cannot be compared to a news or information web site. Dhaluza 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one overlooks the Alexa numbers, the article still misses The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, from Wikipedia:Notability (web). I also do not find the award listed to be well-known enough to satisfy the award criteria. ∴ here…♠ 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I had some involvement with this article, so Im not voting. I first saw this as an attempted external link in one of the search engine pages. These attract a good deal of spam, so before I'd edit out a new one, I'd try to see if it was for real. (One reason I go to that length is because it is an inarguable way of getting rid of the worst, and another is that I have a RW need to know about these things.) This one looked very simple--but it didn't function right, at least for me. So I deleted it and had some talk with the ed., who was I believe not the programmer but a friend. Sooner or later it worked, and I didn't delete it, on the basis it was useful even if little known. I advised against the creation of this article, for it really wasn't known at the time, about 4 months ago, but I said I wouldn't move to delete it because of my own COI. Many people have been writing simple devices with various combinations of features to search library catalogs, and its hard to say what's notable except by what people use. I haven't checked since. ( it does work now, and very fast--I haven't tried the features or the detailed accuracy )

I do think that to judge the notability of programs and sites like this, or many blogs, etc. by the criteria we are using is not in my opinion always appropriate. By the nature of the things, they get widely seen and widely used long before there are reliable sources in the WP sense. The Web documents itself. The place where people look to find the earliest information is WP itself, because of our presumed special interest in web related matters. We can't help it, if we have become the opinion leader. The basic N provisions are 3 or 4 years old now. The part of the world we live in is changed a good deal. I'm not suggesting rewriting, for i wouldn't know what to rewrite them to, and using Alexa rank for special interest material is like using Amazon rank for special interest books or ghits for material in Hindi -- possibly relative use among similar products is a criterion. This of course gives us the responsibility to do a little OR in establishing N, but most of the lengthier N discussions are in effect OR. We've grown up. Until we come to terms with adulthood, the best way to go is to make reasonable exceptions.

What would help in this case is some evidence that 2 or more universities have linked to it from their library or research help site--the same sort of criterion we use for textbooks. That technically does meet the rules. DGG 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful contextual comments. One correction: I was the original author, but I had no contact with the web site author prior to discovering this tool in my work on other Wikipedia article references, so the assumption that I am a friend, and this influenced the article content is incorrect. I did carefully consider your advice on not pursuing this article, but after further research decided that this was a new and useful tool, and other knowledgeable people said this on the record as well, and that should be enough to establish notability in this case. I agree that the guidelines at WP:WEB are overly restrictive and not suitable for special interest topics like web tools. So I tried to very carefully structure the article in accordance with the policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If some think that this attempt fell short on the last one, perhaps the involvement of other editors will improve it over time. Dhaluza 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; with a little googling I was able to find two universities that link to the site, technically satisfying the requirements as DGG said. As-is the article definitely sounds like an advertisement though, it needs a thorough NPOV overhaul. Krimpet 09:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. You may want to relist this since there was an error in the listing that made this section not directly editable from the AfD article. I just fixed the listing. Vegaswikian 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Actually it was listed twice, the first incorrectly and the second correctly. I deleted the incorrect listing. Vegaswikian[reply]
Keep. Based upon DGG's suggested criteria and Krimpet's demonstration of the standard being met. Vassyana 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 02:42Z

List of cult film actors

Very similar to the afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films. This list is completely unreferenced and likely unverifiable, and it would be necessary to objectively verify that each of these individuals is generally considered a "Cult actor" or "Cult director" by the industry. Appears to be a subjective collection of opinions by individual editors on who is or isn't identified with cult films, which is itself a highly subjective term. Recommend deleting both List of cult film actors and List of cult film directors. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films for similar discussion. Dugwiki 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as indicated above:[reply]

Delete - "cult" is a subjective POV term and is not defined in the article at all. The article only says "the following are considered to be cult film actors by the industry", which, as it is unsourced and unverified, is a case of WP:WEASEL and/or WP:OR. Walton monarchist89 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V --PhantomS 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reasons for deletion are amply set out above and at the List of cult films AfD. Agent 86 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy Keep. Please read WP:BIO and WP:POINT.--Isotope23 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Hartung

Delete There were over 16,0000 people who have played Major Lague Baseball. Having the same last name as an editor does not meet the Wiki guidelines for notablity. Ballog 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination, clearly meets Wiki guidelines. One Night In Hackney 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "Bad faith nomination" is an abusive and accusatory comment. Please keep disussion civil or you risk being banned and/or blocked. No evidence given as to why this one of 16,000 major league ballplayers meets notability requirements. Ballog 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog[reply]

Yes... yes there is. It is called WP:BIO.--Isotope23 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the notability requirements for people, WP:BIO - Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. One Night In Hackney 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Wiktionary. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:10Z

Kurdish Wiktionary

I see no reason to have articles for individual language editions of Wiktionary. None of them are particularly notable and they're all part of one site: Wiktionary, for which we have an article. —msikma (user, talk) 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on Wiktionary. Walton monarchist89 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging them, too, but there isn't really anything to merge. —msikma (user, talk) 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section in the Wikitionary article, or if that becomes too long (which it might, considering all the possible languages), spinoff to an article on Non-English Wikitionary or Languages in Wikitionary or whatever title might be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just plain redirect. Not a lot there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge par above. --MaNeMeBasat 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary, nothing really to merge. VegaDark 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now meets the 'multiple independent sources' standard. Yuser31415 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford Native American Association

Local association of no evident wider significance. I am sure it is a worthy endeavour, but it does not seem to haveben the focus of any non-trivial indepednent coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability to satisfy WP:ORG. As nominator says, no evidence of independent coverage; only link is to their own website. Walton monarchist89 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would caution against reliance on WP:ORG, which had never reached consensus and which was recently merged into WP:CORP. Whether or not the organization generates a lot of press or garners a lot of media attention ought not be the sole criterion to assess a charitable cause. As a registered non-profit organization, this organization is the oldest of its kind in North Carolina and one of the oldest in the United States.[41] I've added that to the article. The organization certainly seems to have a significant impact despite its size and has major local impact. Agent 86 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several additional refs - mostly from North Carolina state government sites; should meet the 'multiple independent sources' standard now. -- MarcoTolo 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Gogo Dodo 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig symes

Speedy Delete Non-notable vanity page per WP:BIO. Author removed speedy from two different people The Kinslayer 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Mikha'il Na'ima. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:12Z

Mikhail Naime

Not that he's not notable in himself, but this article is most obviously someone's school essay, or it was plagarised. Nekohakase 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable copyvio. Even includes disclaimer copied verbatim from Google. Walton monarchist89 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stubbify there is an obvious dump of something from somewhere. Still, it looks to me like this guy is notable. Semperf 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment is now a redirect to a perfectly good stub (which doesn't have afd template btw) can this either be abandoned or restarted as the afd for Mikha'il Na'ima? suggest nom think a bit more about their afds, you could have stubbed it yourself or put on appropriate template. hey, you could even rewrite it youself... ⇒ bsnowball 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:13Z

Netcee

Non-notable term of some sort Nekohakase 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; no evidence that the term is in widespread use. Walton monarchist89 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Semperf 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:14Z

Frank van Harmelen

A professor. Has a reasonable number of publications (as you'd expect) but Factiva and Google News turn up nothing. Added by a WP:SPA Special:Contributions/Bonzodoggy

Delete no outside references about him.-MsHyde 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears at least notable due to these books , one of which has a bunch of Amazon editorial reviews that indicate it's being used in classroom settings. The "about the author" blurb He is a member of the joint EU/US committee on agent markup languages (who designed DAML+OIL), and is an active member of the W3C working group on Web Ontology languages, responsible for the OWL Web Ontology Language. He was the 2002 Program Chair of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, and will be the General Chair of the 2004 International Semantic Web Conference. sounds impressive enough. But the lack of sources is a problem. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep books used in multiple universities are a sufficient criterion, based not just of precedent but the general conditions for N: multiple outside sources recognizing it. DGG 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this guy is an influential international scientist and professor with many high-quality peer-reviewed publications, (see DBLP link) hence I don't think this page is a candidate for deletion .-User:Bonzodoggy
Keep per DGG. John Vandenberg 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bonzodoggy. Duncan Hull
Keep and expand and put stub on the page. Someone has to expand the article. --MaNeMeBasat 14:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by another admin, CSD A7. Gogo Dodo 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dave Armstrong

Speedy Delete - Non-notable vanity page per WP:BIO. User has removed speedies from myself and another editor. The Kinslayer 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:16Z

Tandy (band)

These are the closest to claims of notability in the article:

The article claims the band has released five albums, three in one year, but does not mention a label. Dave Van Ronk supposedly plays on a track of one of their albums. Steve Earle likes them because he played them on the air once.

According to the article's talk page, Cody3019 (talk · contribs), who wrote the article, is now the band's webmaster.

This is the result of a disputed speedy delete. -- Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all albums are self-published. Fails WP:BAND. i kan reed 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, no record label, no coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails WP:BAND Semperf 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cody3019 added more documentation about the labels the band has been released under, also more alt country press info and link to Steve Earle quote, also info about Dave Van Ronk guest spot. Cody3019 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Penn Radio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:17Z

Pull of the weasel

neologism, prod'd and prod2'd, prod removed by author, no sources i kan reed 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; non-notable neologism used only by one talk-show host. Walton monarchist89 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either WP:NEO or WP:NOT a dictionary Semperf 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Redirect it to Penn Radio and be done with it. --UsaSatsui 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Penn Radio. Obviously not notable enough for its own article. Dylan Lake 08:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; possible merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations -- please work out whether to merge and if so, how, on Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:07Z

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

Non-notable subject, silly given the stipulation of using "independent" evidence, and original research. Lunokhod 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puttin this article up for deletion for numerous reasons.

It is non-notable (see Wikipedia's definition of notability here). A quick internet search shows that all the topics related to this subject are about the "Apollo Moon landing hoax". The act of refuting these claims by using "Independent evidence for human and non-human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" is not one of the common ways to refute these hoax claims. Such arguments, if they exist, could easily be incorporated into a pre-existing article under the domain of wikipedia. Such evidence would probably be no more than 1 paragraph long, and would not be an undue burden on, say, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.
By "Apollo Moon landings" any reasonable person would infer that this refers to the Apollo program to put humans on the Moon, and not the possibility that Apollo might have landed on the Moon, but with no people inside the LEM. As the article states, the only proof that can be used to definitively show that humans walked on the Moon is to take pictures of "boot prints" from orbit (but only if these come from an non-US governmental agency spacecraft!). However, it is quite clear that such evidence does not exist now, nor will it for a long period of time. Thus, there is no possible proof that humans walked on the Moon (given the constraints of this article).
I know of no reputable publications that are primarily concerned with "Independent evidence for human and non-human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" Any attempt to make an article based on primary sources that are only tangentially related to this theme would constitute original research. In the words of Wikipedia policy, original research includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."'
As has already become clear from the talk page, the definition of "independent" is sufficiently vague that almost anything, or nothing, could be placed under this article. For instance, would the results of a European scientist who analyzes "Moon rocks" supplied by NASA be considered independent? Would evidence from ESA be independent, even though they collaborate with NASA and rely on NASA to participate in the ISS?
Any independent evidence that might exist could easily be refuted by a skeptic. For instance, let's say that telemetry data was collected at an Australian station. How do we prove that this telemetry stream came from the Moon, and not from "over the hill", or from a tape recored souce that was plugged into this instrument?
Finally, this article is trying to make a point (see WP:POINT), and the intended audience is not going to believe it!

Lunokhod 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith nomination by a POV warrior who has tried systematically to disrupt the page. Evidence for the Moon landings is non-notable? I've never heard anything so stupid. Dividing up evidence from NASA and from others is useful, especially given the quantities involved. This article was started from a series of repeated discussions on the Apollo Hoax page, but is also a stand alone article not linked directly to the hoax accusations. A list of observations, tracking, testimonies etc that confirm the landings is appropriate and useful. Not one bit is original research. It is ALL well sourced, and published to death elsewhere. Gravitor 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Assuming the information in this article is true. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are certainly a noteworthy concept worthy of an article, and a rebuttal of them seems natural to me. In fact, the nomination seems to want a merge anyway. So I suggest going that route. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would not be too bad, except that the evidence for it does not presume a hoax accusation. Listing the evidence is a useful tool for anyone, not just hoax enquirers. Also, that page is already tagged as being "too long" and in the process of being split into sub-articles. Gravitor 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind if the merger is elsewhere, that's not a sticking point in my book. FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could merge it into Project Apollo? Gravitor 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. That's a more natural location for this, 23skidoo 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's nothing about the hoax in this article, and the hoax article is already too long. Gravitor 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is actually an omission because, otherwise, there really is no need for the article since all you need is to cite the New York Times or whatever's coverage of the applicable manned moon landings. The only reason why people feel the need to cite evidence is because of people citing evidence to the contrary, so this topic is better served as part of the hoax article. I'm actually tempted to change my vote to delete as unnecessary, however, I'm content to leave my vote as is having looked at the article again as requested. Reconfirm merge. 23skidoo 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. My interpretation of WP:NPOV does not provide for making separate articles for cited POV's. If the information is notable, then it should be cited and reside right next to the contrary position's notable and cited content. By making separate articles each catering to a particular POV, you may avoid conflict between editors, but you do the reader a disservice. Some readers are likley to read just the one article, which devoid of a balanced NPOV, is unfair. If the article is too long, then consider trimming out the fat... if there is no fat to trim, then maybe it is ok to be long... or maybe the article needs to be split up, but not based on the POV of the content. Jerry lavoie 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article catering to a point of view, it is a list of evidence. Carfiend 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disgree. If you want to neutral article, you should call it "Evidence for Apollo Moon Landings." Within such an article you could give the official NASA story, as well as the "independent" evidence. The two types of evidence could be clearly separated, and it could be mentioned that some people do not believe the official evidence because of conspiracy theory reasons. If such an article were to grow so large that it needed to be split in two, so be it. As is clear from the present state of this article, though, this will probably never happen. Lunokhod 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominated. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (if there's anything salvageable) to the hoax accusations page as apparent POV fork Bwithh 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect Mathmo ^Talk 10:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Keep. Changed my mind, but there needs to a a link in each direction pointing to the other article. So I'll add that in under a See Also section. Mathmo ^Talk 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone saying 'merge', for one thing, the Hoax accusation page is flagged as 'too long', and the consensus is to create sub articles. In addition, this is NOT a sub article of the hoax page - it has nothing to do with the hoax. It's odd to suggest that only hoax advocates are interested in evidence for the Moon landings. Gravitor 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is nothing to merge, so I don't think that there is need to worry about the hoax page becoming too long. A merge would end in having a redirect to the hoax page, whereas a delete would not. Lunokhod 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since you want to suppress factual, verified information. You are also convinced that the only reason someone would want factual information about Apollo is if they are hoax proponents. This article is not about the hoax, it is about evidence. If anything, it should be merged into Project Apollo. Both of those pages are too long already though, and there is consensus to split them into sub-articles. Gravitor 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a factual, neutral article of interest to anyone interested in the Apollo program - it is not a hoax article and should not be merged. I am disturbed that people seem to think the only people interested in evidence for Apollo are hoax enthusiasts - Apollo enthusiasts too, are interested in this - that's where most of the well cited evidence on that page comes from! Carfiend 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge (Apollo moon hoax and Apollo program page) This isn't a separate topic. This is a a spur of the apollo moon hoax article began as a way to 'prove' some point about independent evidence of the moon landings. This birth is documented in the moon hoax articles archive. see WP:point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2007

Of course it's separate. Just like the facts of JFK's murder are separate from the suspicion of foul play. Gravitor 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right facts belong in the apollo program article and suspicions in the moon hoax article. The inclusion of sweeeping factiods like this (essentially the first statement in the artiticle)prove it:No independent evidence of human landing currently exists - see future plans for missions that might, in the future, provide this. The purpose of the article is obvious. It's a spur of the hoax articles. Numskll 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has information that a reader may be interested in, which is its purpose on Wikipedia. Branson03 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very interesting subject about no easy findable information .- Jor70 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and some original research. Anything verfiable can be added to the main Apollo Hoax page. Teiresias84 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. However note that I don't think that this is POV since the Apollo Moon landings are facts. You can't call POV an article which explains that hoax theories are plain lies. And please do a real merge, sometimes I have the impression that the information of one of both articles evaporates in the process. Hektor 12:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that this material originated from the hoax page itself. In fact, part of the motivation for creating this topic in the first place was to shorten the Hoax page. I have not followed every edit and discussion on that page, so please correct me if I am wrong. Lunokhod 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by the idea that the only people interested in facts about Apollo are the hoax proponents. If you want a merge, it should be merged with Project Apollo. There is nothing on the evidence page that talks about a hoax. Also, would those proposing a merge like to remove the too long tag? Gravitor 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us some reputable references showing that this topic meets wikipedia's notability criteria? Perhaps you are right, in which case I would happily withdraw my AfD nomination. Lunokhod 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle Creek - "An independent recording of the Lunar Landing" [42],

Bill Keel - [43] "In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon."

Pine Mountain observatory at the University of Oregon has pages devoted to independent tracking of Apollo [44]. Gravitor 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are just web sites and are not peer-reviewed. I am not debating as to whether there is independent evidence or not. The question is to whether this subject matter is (among others) notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. Lunokhod 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. You've demonstrated your bad faith. Since when is the only evidence in determining whether a subject is suitable peer review? Never. These are credible, non-hoax sites that are concerned with independent evidence of the moon landings. That's what you asked for - now follow through, or be exposed for the POV-warrior you are. Gravitor 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at wikipedia's policy as to what constitutes a reliable source? Lunokhod 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Honeysuckle Creek observatory is a reliable source? University of Alabama astronomy dept? I think you're grasping at straws. Gravitor 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your ridiculous crusade. This page is already too long to merge into any other page, and is filled with well sourced, reliable, factual information. Gravitor 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirm prior delete or merge salvageable info !vote I was asked to reconsider the article in the light of further revisions. In my opinion, it still seems to be a POV fork. We shouldn't have competing separate "For" and "Against" articles on the same subject unless there are severe practical space issues (I don't see that here - the use of space and formatting could be far more economical especially with the pruning of unnecessary information). Furthermore even in the same one article the case for each side should be summarized but the article should not be turned into an evidence collection space for each side's cases. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bwithh 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a POV fork, any more than Project Apollo is. It is a list of undisputed evidence, there are no POVs in it. Gravitor 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then start a NPOV page called Evidence for Apollo Moon landings, as I have suggested to you several times already. While such a new entry would not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and might be nominated for AfD, it would not suffer from the other points raised in my AfD nomination that you have so far failed to address despite your large number of posts to this debate. The title of the current page implies that NASA's evidence, as well as that of the thousands of people that were implicated in Apollo or the analysis of data afterwards, are not reliable for some unknown reason that is apparently not related to the Moon landing hoax. Lunokhod 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunokhod, please consider keeping your word as above. Your blatant bad faith is not helpful. Gravitor 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is merged, the only suitable page is Project Apollo. This evidence has no direct relevance to the hoax. Gravitor 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirm prior delete or merge salvageable info !vote I was also asked to reconsider the article in the light of further revisions. I want to reiterate that I do not have a problem with the content or context or notability of the article in question. What I do have a problem with is segregating it from the hoax article. Maybe this AfD would have been more tolerable to more people if the other article was nominated for deletion and we all voted to merge it's contents here... I dunno. But I am reconfirming my !vote to merge these two articles, under any name the merging admin chooses. Jerry lavoie 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Christofurio 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FACTUAL article for people interested in how various 3rd parties verified or failed to verify the moon landings.24.7.34.99 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compilation and dissemination of 3rd party evidence is of interest to anyone making a serious study of this issue. Petersoncello 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. It seems to me that much of the info here is indeed notable/valuable but that anyone looking for this stuff is most to go to the Apollo Hoax page, therefore that seems the best place for it. --Nebular110 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations or Apollo Moon Landing bono8106

bono8106 has only made one edit to wikipedia. This account is probably a sock puppet. Lunokhod 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:18Z

Fuzzlum

Speedy Delete - Patent nonsense invented religion. WP:NOT for something made up in school. Speedy was removed for no reason. Fails WP:V, google returned 7 hits, none of which referred to a religion (3 for example were user profiles from various sites)The Kinslayer 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom; no assertion of notability. For future reference, it might have been easier just to replace the speedy-tag. Walton monarchist89 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-verifiable; probably a hoax. Semperf 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly disturbing you would take light of someone's religious belief. I am a Fuzzlum, and I am offended you think my religion is a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.103.224 (talk • contribs) — 207.173.103.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I too am disgusted that you are considering to delete this article. Have some respect for those of other faiths. --John, Ohio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.112.26 (talk • contribs) — 205.121.112.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You people are SICK. How could you do this to people! You are dragging the name of a good organization through the mud by treating us with contempt! Carol, Ohio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.112.68 (talk • contribs) — 205.121.112.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[45] Speaks for it self really. The Kinslayer 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your depravity knows no bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.103.210 (talk • contribs) — 207.173.103.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia-please keep this article. You must respect our religion. Harry, Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.112.22 (talk • contribs) — 205.121.112.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete CSD A7. skip (t / c) 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:18Z

Teddy Lo

No indication of notability, none given after requests for such DanielCD 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrote it to remove all the autobiographical peacock language, and added sources for some of the remaining statements. Seems notable, has coverage in mainland Chinese newspapers for an installation he did in Shanghai[46] [47] as well as a profile in an HK newspaper [48]. cab 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, multiple sources. Solo exhibitions at prominent sites. --Vsion 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:20Z

The TimeSplitters Wiki

Delete Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I feel that this Wiki isn't necessarily notable enough to have its own article; the series it belongs to isn't one of necessarily critical acclaim. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT a directory Semperf 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. --- RockMFR 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Timesplitters is a very popular video game series. However, this wiki, is non-notable, no matter what series it's based on. There are many more notable wikis that don't have an article on wikipedia. 84.64.146.53 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very well then, please go ahead and delete the article if it does not adhere to requirements. --- Xylaquin 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:10Z

Ulster Young Unionist Council

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG: no multiple, non-trivial coverage. Most hits in Google are WP and mirrors. Leuko 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Semperf 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under crierion: Non-commercial organizations

Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. Cain webservice BBC Profile Northern Ireland Assembly profile academic resource profile Giving evidence at a National legislature national legislature mention

This organisation is the youth wing of one of the largest political parties in Northern Ireland and features regularly on political profiles - the article needs expanding not deletingWeggie 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the links, but only one of them is actually about the organization, and even then its only a directory listing. The rest are profiles of/statements by former members, etc. Unfortunately, I still don't feel it satisfies "multiple, non-trivial" media coverage of the organization specifically. Leuko 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BBC is an authoritative media source : Specific coverage = [49] Weggie 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, that's one... We still don't have "multiple, non-trivial." Sorry to be such a stickler, but we need to be more uniform in our application of relevant policies and guidelines. Leuko 21:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if such you are a stickler regard the guideline: Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. This meets the criterion 100%; I have to go now for 14 hrs unfortunately Weggie 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your third party source is a paragraph on the results of the vote. It does not verify that the organization's activities are national in scale at all... Leuko 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment votes are what make political organization notable, right?DGG 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ulster Unionist Party. Weak assertion of notability in its own right, but part of a notable organization. —Dgies^t c 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My mistake - they changed their name to Young Unionists which is whay you need to search on for details fo this organisation for example : [50]Weggie 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This org has been extremly infulencal during its 50 years, with links for pages on Bill Craig and I think Austin Currie.Traditional unionist 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep The Young Unionist Council has played a major role in Northern Ireland politics and history, both present day and throughout the course of the Troubles. This can be verified by the numerous references to them in historical sources such as Jonathan Bardon's "History of Ulster". Their role has been distinct to that of the Ulster Unionist Party, as on numerous occasions their policies and outlook have differed from that of the UUP. In the early days of the Troubles Young Unionists were to the forefront in bringing down the "Sunningdale Agreement", against the policy of the UUP. Similarly, after the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 Young Unionists played a highly prominent role, again acting against the UUP. They certainly deserve an article in their own right as their influence on Northern Ireland has been both significant and distinct. --Pondersomething 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty good justification for keeping. Can you find some references to this to add to the article? —Dgies^t c 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ulster Unionist Party Seems like a good idea. The organisation has little real political influence in it's own right, but it would be appropriate to make reference to it on the main party page. Quarkstorm 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Little real political infulence? Is that why it caused the downfall of Jim Molyneaux? Is that why its Chairman was at the St Andrews talks last year?Traditional unionist 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on whether you consider the current organisation to be the same organisation as the one that was present at the time of Molyneaux. Personally I believe that the organisation which wound itself up 2-3 years ago was a seperate entity to the present organisation. As for Michael Shilliday's attendance at the St. Andrews talks what did he do apart from post a few blog comments, for that matter what did the UUP do at St. Andrews full stop, weren't they just invited out of politness??? Quarkstorm 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flattered as I'm sure Michael Shilliday would be at your mistake, it was Mark Dunn who attended. It may have been legally a separate orginisation, but for all practical and political measures they are the same. SDLP Youth have a page, which is less worthy of an entry, but should still be kept as they are both major component parts of major political parties.Traditional unionist 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Max Payne. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:11Z

Address Unknown (Max Payne)

Delete or Merge into a suitable article. Otherwise, it's non notable and neeeds to be removed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If you check the category attached to the article, there are quite a few articles on such fictional TV shows and aren't any more or less notable than this. 23skidoo 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, 90% of those fictional shows are way more notable than this one; those shows are either attached to a very popular show or gained popularity on its own; this show is nowhere near that and appears in only one game in the series, to boot. It's basically fancruft and needs to be added to an article addressing these, if anything at all. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - attached to a very popular show, this was a running theme through an entire series of games that is very popular. Same thing as what you said. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I don't necessarily know where you were going with that, but, unless this element is extremely prevalent in the series, then it should be deleted. I don't see articles for the "Zip" clothing brand from GTA or any other similar game element. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - A whole game's notability dwarfs that of a simple in-game element. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you ever played the game you would realise this was done in the game like a proper tv series, quite like anything else I've ever seen before. This at least makes it notable. Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Even then, it's not worthy enough to get its own article; needs to be merged, if anything at all. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bust out the chainsaw and Merge to Max Payne and perhaps Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. Plot summaries etc. have to go, but I guess it's worth mentioning in the articles. After all, it's a rather major element in MP2. However, it's not really remarkable enough to be covered in an article of its own, though arguably more so than the other fictional TV series in the games... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:24Z

Ian Maxwell

Tagged for deletion as WP:CSD#A7. Ian Maxwell was, at one point, a household name, due ot the collapse of Cap'n Bob's house of cards and his brother Kevin's subsequent bankruptcy, but I am unsure how much of that coverage is independent and covers Ian. I suspect a redirect to Robert Maxwell is the best result, but am far from sure. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the poor article, undeniably notable per WP:BIO even from the range of 'external links' already in place. Also, if he was "once a household name" then he is without a doubt notable. CiaranG 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kind of, but is he the primary subject? Most of them are an adjunct to Kevin. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he's the (or at least a) primary subject of this one at least, though I take the point about the others links in the article. CiaranG 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Maxwell was the high profile brother, however Ian Maxwell is an important figure no matter how you look at it. He replaced his father as acting chairman after his death and held senior positons before that in Maxwell companies. Mark83 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ian Maxwell gained major notoriety in the early 90's after the death of Robert Maxwell for being indicted, tried and acquited for masive pension fraud with Mirror Group Newspapers. It only takes a G-News Archives search to see many published works about him and this very high profle case. [51] --Oakshade 05:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Isn't the practice here that N once, remains N.? DGG 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. Notability can't be lost. Mathmo ^Talk 10:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as newsworthy, if there's insufficient material for an article, it can be merge until there is (but that's an editorial decision) -Doc^g 11:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and no merge. There is acres of newspaper coverage alone. I will try to expand it a bit soon if I have time. Mark83 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , I am satisfied with references for notability Fotografico 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - household name, therefore notable.--A bit iffy 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:28Z

BabyTV

Tagged as spam, but not spam. On the other hand, evidence of notability and non-trivial independent coverage appears to be absent. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This being the 4th recreation of this article after 3 deletions by different admins. one deletion due to notability WP:CSD#A7 [52] and two due to Spam WP:CSD#G11 [53]. However if non-trivial independent coverage is added to establish notability I'll reconsider. --Hu12 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a run-of-the-mill service, but its case is not helped by the fact that there are two services (the other at babytv.com) of the same name, doing similar things. Sadly, plugging babytv along with the name of its owner "Elite Sports" generates a total of 7 unique hits. If someone can find something in print, I will tentatively take it at their word, and withdraw. Chris cheese whine 01:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:30Z

Darren Drysdale

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Sort of. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. Note that I referenced and slightly expanded the article before forming that opinion. Plenty of potential for further verifiable expansion from reliable sources. CiaranG 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - definitely seems notable to me, but the mentions could be more non-trivial in the given refs. Let's try to find more mentions in news. delldot | talk 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A referee with a mention in a news story regarding an incident... mmh. Still, CiaranG has done a good job with the sourcing so far, and if he thinks he can further expand it, I trust that enough to keep it for now and see. Shimeru 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said there was potential, i.e. there's plenty of further information available that can be verified from reliable sources. I didn't say I had the inclination to do it, so please don't say keep just on my account. CiaranG 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That's a pity. Sources're still good, though, so I don't see a need to change my !vote. It's a borderline case for BIO, but it's better-sourced than many questionable articles; I'm inclined to let it be. Shimeru 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete for lack of sources. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:13Z

List of Protestantism by US State

Unreferenced since December 2005. No meaningful edits or clarifications from the author. ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft and fails WP:V. The Rambling Man 14:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looking at a number of other "Protestants in X" (e.g. Protestants in Puerto Rico) this article could be merged only if it was completely re-written, as it is it's just a list, so modify my delete to include without prejudice, if written as per Protestants in Puerto Rico. The Rambling Man 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no content as it stands, there is only an unsourced list. If Protestants in the United States was created and looked like Protestants in Puerto Rico, I would certainly have no objections to it. But that is not this article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, that's why I'm going for delete without prejudice of recreation should a more appropriate varient of the article emerge. The Rambling Man 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protestantism by country - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main complaint is that this list is unsourced. Merging would not address that. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary and unverified listcruft.-- danntm ^T _C 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see this as "listcruft". I see nothing wrong with a list of the states in the US ranked by their percentage of Protestantism. However, this list is unsourced, and no reliable sources appear to be available, so delete bu I would not oppose recreation with proper sources. -- Whpq 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article shouldn't be deleted just because it's unsourced -- that would take out 90% or more of wikipedia. It just means it needs to get references. Moreover, it's pretty obvious that this is pulled from a source, somewhere, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to find the source. Finally, there are certainly reliable sources on people by religious denomination, even much more specifically than Protestant; there's a lot of this kind of data. This sort of statistical abstract information is actually pretty useful & helpful. --lquilter 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving people one more chance to find some sources, if nothing else. --W.marsh 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to lquilter: This article is only statistics, no context, no prose. It is different from most unsourced articles because they should at least be providing context, or could easily be edited to do so. If the article is only data, and we can't even verify if the numbers are correct, then there is no point in having it. The information is only useful if it is correct, and I doubt that it is. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to source this and cannot. Statistics without sources, or information about the method and definitions that the statistician is working with are not only useless, they are indeed dangerous. -Doc^g 11:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not almanac or world book of facts Fotografico 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Avi 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major storylines of Coronation Street

I'm not sure this level of detail is relevant to a general enyclopedia. In particular, I'm concerned about who decides what is a major storyline and what's minor. kingboyk 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand your reasons, but at the moment this article has been created mainly as a place to remove excess content from the Coronation Street article, which was becoming a dumping ground for new information after each episode. Most of the Coronation Street articles are a work-in-progress, since a lot of useless information generally gets added after 'recent' events in each episode. I am moreorless solely trying to bring articles to a higher standard and to decide what's useful and what is not. I would instead suggest a merge with Most controversial storylines of Coronation Street and Coronation Street timeline. I also agree that definition of what is 'major' is very important, the lead of 'controversial stories' tries to define what is controversial. I don't think that deletion is the way to go, but surely you can understand the time implications which exist in doing such work? Ben 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a dumping ground for new information after each episode — You are implying that editors are watching a soap opera and then writing never-before-published documentation of it in Wikipedia based upon no sources at all. That's counter to our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Readers should be able to check everything in Wikipedia against sources outside of Wikipedia. How are you expecting readers to be able to check what happened in the storyline of this soap opera two months ago, let alone in 1983? Cite sources to show that the storylines of this soap opera have been documented in books or in articles, and you'll have an ready-made answer as to what storylines are major: The soap opera historians who wrote the books and articles will already have decided this, in what they have chosen to document. Uncle G 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - UncleG I couldn't agree with you more but surely you realize that this is one of the biggest inconsistencies on wikipedia; if a television show (or series of fantasy novels, or comic book) has enough fans online, "dumping ground" articles appear by the hundreds and its virtually impossible to AfD them all.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - UncleG, I am implying that yes. All 'soap' related articles are popping up out of control, sometimes with new articles after each episode. Just look at Hollyoaks and see how much gets added after an episode. I am working singlehandedly (with bits of help here and there) in an attempt to bring Coronation Street articles up to Wikipedia standard. Please look at the Coronation Street main article before[54] I began editing and after I'd done some work. The article was transformed, with information properly sourced via print reference, video reference or the Internet (piror to that there were few citations). I follow WP:FICTION guidelines when I write, ensuring that anything written is based on the programme's achievements, impact and historical significance, not a summary of the plot. I have a wide collection of print & video sources which I have used so far in the main Coronation Street article. I am strongly against masses of soap-based articles being created (especially character articles) and have already had some successful AfDs with a number of Coronation Street stubs being deleted. There seems to be a train of thought among some soap-editors that everything should have an article on Wikipedia regardless of its significance, and I must say that Coronation Street-based articles are not the worst contenders for AfD. I hope that you understand my perspective on this, and I'm sure that you also understand the time implications of such work. Ben 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This can't be good. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's happening then? Everyone seems to have fallen silent. Ben 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether to say keep or merge with another article, but I don't believe it should be deleted. (I'm sure I already made this comment a couple of days ago but it's not here for some reason). — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete define major. Belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is delete then I think it only fair that the majority of soap-based articles are nominated for deletion. As I stated earlier, there are many more articles which have less basis such as numerous EastEnders character stubs (some of whom only appeared in a single episode in a minor role), a similar 'major storylines thread' for Emmerdale and a wide collection of individual EastEnders storylines articles. The point I am making with this is that one article should not be singled out if many others exist for other serials. Delete them all or keep and improve them. It's only fair. Ben 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it has been created to take the weight of the Coronation Street article, presumably some editors have thought this through and may be prepared to clean it up further. I see no problem with keeping this type of material. If it was deleted, so should a lot of the encyclopaedia. Mdcollins1984 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence again. Ben 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the argument of "if it was deleted, so should a lot of the encyclopaedia" is mentioned in the essay WP:AADD... Addhoc 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a lot better than an article for each episode like some other series have. These do look like appropriate plot summaries, not drawn out fancruft considering how long the series is. They form "an aspect of a larger topic". Note that the article had been merged into Storylines of Coronation Street, so the 'major' being subjective argument is void. Now this doesn't mean the article will contain every 'minor' storyline, because they're likely not notable for inclusion. Pomte 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't an encyclopedic article topic, refer to WP:NOT... Addhoc 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under which criterion would you class this as non-encyclopedic, I am assuming this section? I am working on developing the article with sourced analysis of the impacts and historical significance of each storyline as opposed to just a plot summary. This article also forms an important aspect of the larger topic, per WP:FICTION. Ben 12:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:32Z

Dinotorrent

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Unsubstantiated claim of importance, no secondary sources, starts with a correctly capitalised web link (the hallmark of vanispamcruftisement). Guy (Help!) 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB Semperf 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:35Z

Ashwak Saleh

Nonnotable subject of a news story. Prod has been contested twice; see the talk page for an argument in favor of keeping the article. YechielMan 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability besides a single (unreferenced) arrest for acting suspicious. —Dgies^t c 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! no references to show if its even TRUE nevermind notable Fotografico 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Luckyherb 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Bella Morte. Avi 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed The Grey Sky Black

I see no reviews or references for the album. It is listed in the band's article already, but I do not think it needs a separate article. MsHyde 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no interest in, and no knowledge of, the band but I can't see how this deserves deleting. I'm not sure precisely what you expect in the way of references for an album, things like Employment (album) seem to be surviving perfectly well without. It's on AMG which seems sufficient, and the notability guidelines for albums read: "Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." --YFB ¿ 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References for an album--reviews in any music publication, major or minor, might indicate that an album is notable. This album is barely even mentioned on blogs.-MsHyde 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to debate notability policy, I suggest you do it at the village pump or at the Wikipedia:Notability talk page. I see no grounds for deletion under the current guidelines. --YFB ¿ 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline, not a policy. I see that WP:MUSIC is disputed. The page referring to notability of albums is historic. It says: "An album is notable if the album has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the artist or publisher of the album."-MsHyde 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed in ReGen magazine. I feel it would be inappropriate to delete an article on the basis of a disputed guideline, under the current version of which there are no grounds to delete. --YFB ¿ 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReGen Magazine appears to be a little known blog run as a hobby by a handful of people who are employed fulltime elsewhere. As I said, I do not think blog mentions meet "multiple, non-trivial" sources. I do not see a compelling reason for this album to be separated from the article about the band.-MsHyde 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not disputing whether Bella Morte is a notable band. Including the album's information in the article would be messy and pointless - it's not as though there's a limit to the number of articles we can have. The information in the album article is verifiable and encyclopaedic. The current guideline for albums makes no mention of multiple non-trivial sources if the band is notable. I do not see a compelling reason for this album not to be separated from the article about the band. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. --YFB ¿ 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put an unreferenced tag on Bella Morte. I think they might be borderline notable, but their albums are definitely not notable as separate entities, and there is no reason to have articles about them.-MsHyde 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above searches. Addhoc 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Bella Morte. No verifiable information found, inappropriate per Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of information. Other than the title, already mentioned in the Bella Morte article, there seems to be nothing verifiable that could be said here. WP:V and WP:N don't require third-party non-trivial coverage as a {{shrubbery}}, but because without it it's very difficult, if not impossible, to write an encyclopedia article otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:17Z

Bernie Cullen

Non-notable.

Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Bernie's not as notable as John Carpenter, Kevin Olmstead, or Nancy Christy, but he is still more notable as a game show contestant than many of the other Who Wants to be a Millionaire winners (from the US or otherwise) for whom articles were made. S@lo 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article were to be deleted, then it would be logical for other "million winner" articles, with the exception of John Carpenter, Kevin Olmstead, Ed Toutant, and Nancy Christy (and other very notable winners from other countries) to be deleted (Also, this probably goes without saying, but the Million Winners section in the Who Wants to be a Millionaire article is notable within the subject of that show, so that section should certainly be kept). Note that million dollar wins are notable within the game show community, however (mostly because of their rarity), so I actually oppose such a mass deletion. As an analogy, consider perfect games in baseball. Some pitchers became notable because of that one feat alone, but articles are still made for each pitcher due to the event's rarity. S@lo 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes Bernie different from any other person who won a game show, other than that the stakes were higher? I don't see him meeting any criteria of WP:BIO, specifically him being a subject of adequate media coverage. S@lo, I would argue that perfect game pitchers are an inaccurate analogy -- precedent and consensus shows that any player who has played in the Major Leagues meets notability guidelines for athletes, so Charlie Robertson and others would be worthy of an article whether or not they ever threw a perfect game. Slic e NYC (Talk) 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search. Addhoc 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:17Z

Out of the Park Baseball

Non-notable computer game. Only one article cited that discusses this game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but the game has been the subject of pretty widespread coverage, and I'll be glad to expand it once things aren't quite so crazy here at work (maybe in a week or so?). This review in the San Francisco Chronicle is pretty extensive, as is this review in PC Gamer, and this article in the Washington Post cites it as the leading baseball front office sim. There are also off-line articles on the game in Computer Gaming World (7/7/01), Macworld (October '06), as well as web reviews in sites like Gamespot [55], GameSpy [56][57], etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hit bull, win steak's reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand per HBWS. — brighterorange (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close There is a big and phat list of sources provided above, here is a gamesindustry.biz article covering Sports Interactive's acquisition of Out of the Park, so even that can be referenced. QuagmireDog 11:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this game is more notable that you might think. Updated every year (OOTP2007 being released in March) and subject of press articles as noted above. --CPAScott 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, a household name in the UK. Poor article, but unquestionably notable. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mothercare

it could be notable, but I did not see multiple non-trivial references which say so MsHyde 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Could not possibly be more notable. I'll add some references. CiaranG 22:22, 6 February 2007(UTC)
Speedy keep One of the most well-known stores in the UK. --Folantin 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - You must, surely, be joking? Turnover of £483m in 2006, 391 stores (inc. 18 in Russia and 10 in India), listed on the London Stock Exchange, 5255 employees and still non-notable? Listing this for deletion without at least basic fact-checking is bordering on disruption. --YFB ¿ 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is good reference--http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20089-2054547,00.html. But you cannot find by seraching for Mothercare, only Mothercare and UK. I will agree with speedy keep, but the article is very poor, reads like an ad, and has no good references.-MsHyde 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about fixing it, rather than going on a prod/AfD spree? --YFB ¿ 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy a micronation created two weeks ago. `'mikka 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludia

Non-notable and unsourced vanity article. I attempted without success to locate any independent third-party references to the subject. The edit history suggests WP:CORP/WP:AUTO issues. I am also nominating the following related page because it is nothing but a redirect to Ludia:

PubliusFL 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:18Z

Mama Jama

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Assertion is weak and references lacking. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Keep Assertion of notability is substantiated by reviews on their webspace dating back to 1988, but these are not verifiable. No Allmusic.com entry, no major indie label (CD Baby will sell anything), no verifiable notability claims. On the upside, the non-verifiable reviews on their webspace date back to 1988, and they do seem to have a steady touring gig. Flakeloaf 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I would like to see proof of the Washington Post article, and that they tour steadily.-MsHyde 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe Washington Post review is fabricated, as it does state an author's name/date [58]; however, the remaining "reviews" are trivial. I don't see a "touring" schedule, only 4 gigs scheduled so far between now and next August, given - it is early in the year of course. [59]As interesting as this band seems, I don't see clear evidence of notability per WP:Music so far. Cricket02 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Waterloo, Ontario. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.F. Carmichael Public School

The school's main assertion of notability is that a famous person was a student there. My prod was contested, with a rationale given on the talk page. YechielMan 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source for the very weak notibility. The prime minister in question I believe went to Berlin school which is not renamed to anything like JR Carmichael school. 1 famous student does not make the school notable anyway.--Dacium 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable school. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentHad King gone there, one pupil of such fame would be enough. But I see no sources for that. Although this one isn't listed in the WP bio, that's hardly definitive, for he might have gone to several. If there's evidence, the school is N. But not until there is. DGG 07:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waterloo, Ontario unless significantly expanded using reliable sources. RFerreira 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Waterloo, Ontario. Article does not meet either the WP:SCHOOLS3 or the genuine WP:Schools proposal. One of the few issues the two proposals agree on is that articles that don't meet retention criteria should be considered for merge/redirect to a school district or parent community article. While the article does quote the school custodian, usually the most reliable source of any information in a school, additional reliable sources (even better if they were verifiable sources) should be added. Alansohn 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waterloo Ontario pending better sources. (jarbarf) 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the prime minister mentioned had been there, I don't buy the "famous alumnus" argument: everyone gets educated somewhere. What does the school do that its peers do not ? The article doesn't say, which leads me to the view that the school does nothing notable. Alansohn is right when he says that the school custodian is a great source of information about a school, of course, but unless the custodian has written a book or contributed to another public reference source we can't use this information, as it's just hearsay. If we decide to allow undocumented hearsay into Wikipedia we will turn into a gossip column. ( Though if we do decide to go down this route I'm looking forward to spilling the beans on several famous people ! ) WMMartin 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, not encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Waterloo, Ontario or Waterloo Region District School Board (if it exists) per WP:LOCAL. Google offers plenty of verifiable information about the school. Yamaguchi先生 07:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yamaguchi先生. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only claimed source isn't. If it's real terminology, it's obsolete and will never be more than a dicdef. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bifurcated channel signaling

Dicdef, I don't see much room for expansion. It's been here since March 2005 and there has been nothing added since. Contested prod. Sable232 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Nobody has said there's anything wrong with the information. Might or might deserve a separate article. I contested the deletion proposal, writing "This article is a valid stub. It can grow beyond a dictionary definition. The solution is to expand it, not to delete it." Wikipedia allows stubs (there are about a million) and has no deadline. Fg2 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not clear that this term has *any* Google hits (as a fully quoted string of three words), except those derived from Wikipedia. Probably it's an obsolete terminology. No need for us to have an article on it; it could be misleading to our readers if we offer the term but can provide no context. EdJohnston 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, but with what? The definition appears to be correct but without more of an article to clothe it with not much can be learned from it. Flakeloaf 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ a huge number of similar jargon nano-articles sitting in Category:Telecommunications stubs into the Glossary of telecommunications, since they are copied from glossaries of Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188, as these nano-articles say. `'mikka 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them are stubs with potential for expansion. The FS 1073C articles require a more discriminatory approach than that. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up has been a slowly on-going project for over a year, now. I suggest that editors read read the prior discussion to familiarize themselves with the whole issue before commenting. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fg2 is quite right that we don't delete stubs simply because they haven't been expanded yet. We only delete stubs if there is no possibility for expansion of the article beyond perpetual stub status. Furthermore, as stated, if editors want to deal with the FS 1073C articles, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up first. Blanket mergers and blanket deletion nominations are not the best ways to proceed.
However, having said that, this is not an FS 1073C article. The article claims that it is sourced from FS 1073C. But I've just checked the two on-line versions linked to from Federal Standard 1037C#External links, and this concept is not listed. Several different searches lead me to no other sources.
It's worth noting that many of the the FS 1073C articles were created en bloc by 213.253.40.156 (talk · contribs) in 2002. This article was created by Wanton creation (talk · contribs) in 2005, and is that person's sole contribution. It is possible that it is hoax.
Therefore: This is a stub that has no (valid) sources, and for which no sources can be found after a reasonable search. It cannot be expanded beyond perpetual stub status; the only sources that it cites prove to be false; and, looking, I can find no alternative sources to use. Therefore this is both an unexpandable stub and unverifiable, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that means delete. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking a closer attention and investigating. Now that you suggested a potential vandalism, I did some more nosing around and see that the article was created by a slight tweaking of the Separate channel signaling. So I am changing my vote. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:42Z

Sydney University Liberal Club

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. A student society, replete with namechecks. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another non-notable Australia article full of non-notable people. Soltak | Talk 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would hardly call the Prime Minister of Australia a non-notable person, and the club that was responsible for his early political development surley is worth mentioning. Similarly, the club forms and essential part of the history of state leaders of the Liberal Party like Kerry Chikarovski & John Brogden, as well as prominant Federal cabinet ministers like Malcom Turnbull, Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott. There exist many other campus political clubs that have pages on Wiki, eg Melbourne University ALP Club, and the history of SULC surely ensure its place here is warrented LibStu 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to get over the line, although it could use a cleanup. It's 77 years old, four of it's former members are in the current Federal Cabinet including the PM, as well as being the biggest component of the Australian Liberal Students' Federation. --RaiderAspect 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for its long history and notable affiliated. But remove list of past presidents, instead, list notable past presidents/members with articles. --Vsion 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Student clubs are often not notable, but some are and I think this one gets over the line as per the two points above. --Bduke 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with a request for a Rewrite to improve the painfully smug tone. We're an encyclopedia, not a recruitment brochure. The organisation itself is notable as the oldest surviving Liberal Club, and is clearly doing something right if it is managing to produce politicians of such high calibre. WMMartin 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Have made a number of changes to attempt to make tone more neutral and less 'smug' LibStu 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I think "politicians of such high calibre" goes way too far and is heavily POV, the club has had several notable politicians at state and Federal level in it, and should be kept, pending a rewrite. JROBBO 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WMMArtin. Suggest re-write into NPOV article --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep irrespective of a rewrite -- we can tag it as requiring a rewrite and add it to the Australia WikiProject if it passes the Afd. Requiring a complete rewrite while an Afd is in process is asking people to potentially waste their time. None of the "Club Presidents" appear to have become notable other than Ted McWhinney. I suggest we replace it with a Notable Alumni" section. John Vandenberg 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs quite some work. Jeendan 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it has produced many notable politicians, including former president and federal health minister Jim Carlton 220.233.65.141 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:43Z

Robert Curtis-Brown

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO, not finding any sources to support an article. Otto4711 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 80 movie and tv credits. 60 or so google hits. Multiple wiki links. I recognize him. MRoberts <> 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with major expansion including incorporating imdb information and 3rd party coverage from ghits. SkierRMH 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs to be properly sourced and referenced, the article is not up to par with the subject Alf photoman 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Gogo Dodo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:46Z

438 wrestling hotlines in Detroit

The article is confusing. I know what it's about, but I can't figure out why it would belong in an encyclopedia. I assume the numbers in the article are long-dead (didn't try any of them; the article says they are), so it's not WP:ADS/{{db-spam}} stuff. It's not {{db-web}} because it's not a website, and I don't think {{db-corp}} or {{db-group}} could be stretched to cover it. So, brought here for your consideration. Probably WP:OR, not obviously WP:N, although I may be looking for entirely the wrong stuff. Any historians of Detroit wrestling hotlines in the house? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as Original Research, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not notable, not verifiable, and it is a recreation of previously deleted material (2 speedy deletions on February 6th under CSD G1). Scottmsg 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I strongly recommend that this article be salted after deletion. Soltak | Talk 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deleted, future recreations which are "substantially similar" (I read that as "similar in substance", but some people might think that the intention is "pretty much the same") can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD G4. Three deletions isn't usually enough to justifying protecting the deleted page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Author's blanked the page with a request that it be deleted. Nobody else has edited the article significantly, so a speedy seems to be in order. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:47Z

Rolly Dalmation

Article about one of the One Hundred and One Dalmatians. Article doesn't establish how this character is significant outside of the series. Fails WP:V and WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, possibly OR. Flakeloaf 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Flakeloaf. MRoberts <> 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:48Z

Brian Gendece

Likely vanity articles that reads like a resume. Searches for Brian Gendece/Gendece Entertainment produce very few relevant hits with one at IMDB that's completely blank. Soltak | Talk 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from notability, which is doubtful, it would require a complete rewrite to comply with NPOV. —Dgies^t c 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and re-written to compy with WP:NPOV by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:49Z

Lewis Epstein

Tagged for speedy deletion, but asserts notability. Whether it's a valid stub or a non-article based on an unsupported assertion is hard to call. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The assertion of being an author does not constitute an assertion of notability. —Dgies^t c 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:PROF or WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Do Not Delete This author is the first person to make Einstein Relativity easy to understand. His significance no doubt qualifies with wikipedia's guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.182.73 (talk)
- If this is true, can you provide a reliable reference for it? —Dgies^t c 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This almost reeks of spam. Vegaswikian 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Allan Kramer

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films". That's a funny rule when the word "notable" is used in the definition of "notability." So he is halfway there by being in several notable films. Well how prominent does he have to be in the films? I think that is less clear. WP standards ask that a topic be noticed, not be important or famous. I'm basing my vote on playing a memborable/noticed charachter, Little John" in Robin Hood MIT, with the rest of his resume fleshing out the notablility. Now all we lack is verifiability. I'm sure that there si something in the over 13,000 g-hits. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO goes on to say that "Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers; A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following; An independent biography; Name recognition; Commercial endorsements." He does not appear to meet any of these criteria. "I saw him in a movie" strikes me as a flavor of WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples of how to demonstrate not specific thresholds of proof. --Kevin Murray 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ILIKEIT, I've never seen the movie nor heard of the man. But I've heard of the movie and I'm familiar with Little John as a central character in the Robin Hood legend. You seem pretty anxious to get rid of this. What's the harm here? --Kevin Murray 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could turn around and say you seem overly anxious to keep it. It's not a question of harm, and I don't get why people pose that question like it means something. Otto4711 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us joined WP to write and share knowledge; shouldn't preserving that effort have some priority? --Kevin Murray 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me making the statement: "doesn't appear to pass..." is using a weasle term. It means you aren't sure so you'll throw it to AfD anyway. Were you too much in hurry to make the nomination, to do you due dillignece? I think that you owe the community the effort to look to see whether it does or doesn't pass BIO and have some certainty in your conviction before you spend our time. This is a very borderline case which should have been left alone. --Kevin Murray 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, you're upset because I said "doesn't apeear to pass" instead of "doesn't pass"? I said "doesn't appear to" because I googled the man and checked several dozen of the results and none of them were beyond cast lists or his name in a review of a film. As sure as God made little green apples, if I'd said "does not pass" then someone would've been in here criticising me for that. I found the guy's article while cleaning out a category where he was listed but didn't belong. Looking at his unrefernced article I decided to see if there were any references that could be incorporated. Finding none, I put him up for AfD. Sorry if that offends you in some way, that I used AfD to try to remove an article that doesn't belong here. Otto4711 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I'm not offended, but I'm increasingly concerned about poorly thought out AfD nominations. However, I'm impressed with the amount of thought that you put in here. Thanks. I still don't agree with your conclusion, but we are all entitled to variance in opinion. I know that it is extra work to explain the nomination, but it certainly helps those of us who are evaluating your choice when you tell us why. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would temper the use of throwing out "ILIKEIT" as a defence for an AfD, as I think that can be a bit condesending toward the reviewer's opinion, and far more applicable to a Brittany knock-off than a mature character actor with a diverse but not famous career.--Kevin Murray 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although as written the article multiply exaggerates "appearances" into "guest starring". Fie on that. But he was in quotable scenes in True Romance and American Wedding as well as RH:MIT, per IMDb, so that's probably enough. No features or interviews, but gNewsArchiveHits show his characters being singled out in movie reviews, so he isn't just playing background characters. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some cleanup, so it's a bit more obvious. My "exaggeration" comment seems unwarranted. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, there still is a problem with WP:V due to lack of quality sources Alf photoman 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on some sources later today -- the article looks much better thanks to Dhartung. --Kevin Murray 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:54Z

Timeline of the Fall of the Russian Empire

Unnecessary and POV fork of the Timeline of Russian history `'mikka 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork of the Timeline of Russian history. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, changing title to Timeline of the Russian Revolution and trimming content~~
~~per discussion below~~ I'm sorry for being so dense. I'm usually better than this, honest. I was sloppy in my original reading of the nom and didn't understand the argument without a bit of clarification from the nominator. Now that I understand better, I'm changing my vote.
Delete because the entire timeline is in Timeline of Russian history and this is an unnecessary repetition (and arguably POV fork) of part of that timeline. As pointed out below by Mikka, it is hard to maintain multiple timelines without a good reason. Subsets of the big timeline can and are repeated in articles that deal with periods of Russian history such as Russian Revolution of 1917. This timeline does not seem to have a good reason for existence so delete it. --Richard 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator - What makes this a POV fork instead of a legitimate subsidiary article to Timeline of Russian history? Seems to me that it would make sense to have a more detailed timeline of a pivotal event such as the Fall of the Russian Empire. --Richard 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case you don't know the history, the Fall cannot possibly last from 1825 to 1924. At best it was from 1905 to 1917. But for this time frame in would be something like Timeline of Russian Revolutions: a non-poetic (i.e. neutral) and meaningful title. `'mikka 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I admit I hadn't looked closely at the table. Yes, I agree that it's a little weird to argue that the "Fall of the Russian Empire" began in 1825 although one can see the seeds of change and revolution back that far.

However, I don't see how this is a POV fork. To be a POV fork, there would have to be a POV being pushed by the separate article. As you say, a more appropriate title and content would be Timeline of the Russian Revolution which redirects to this article. My suggestion would be to trim the content to 1905-1918 (or 1905-1924), delete Timeline of the Russian Revolution and then move this article to Timeline of the Russian Revolution. I have changed my vote above accordingly.

--Richard 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV fork exactly for the reason mentioned: why would fall start in 1825 or at any other days. As for "seeds", with some resourcefullness they may be traced to Rurick times. Fruthermore, it is a fork, because (a) Russian Revolution of 1917 already has its chronology and (b) wikipedia already has its established periodization of Russian history based on tangible milestones, see {{History of Russia}}. A minor stroke, it is "Russian Revolutions", not "Russian Revolution". Finally, this extensively commented "timeline" is in fact an alternative version of Russian history, with some dubious and outright false statements (starting from the very top: "decembrist revolt... against Imperial Russia"), i.e., a clean-cut fork: one may take, say Russian history, 1892-1917, convert it into a tabulated format, ordered by dates and events, and you will get something like the discussed one, and not really much larger, by the way.

Concluding: this article is a fork, with all problems known for wikipedia:content forkings: verifiablity, maintainability, unnecessary duplication. `'mikka 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
OK, I'm willing to believe that this article "might" be a POV fork. Let's leave out the question of starting in 1825 vs. 1905. Please provide some examples that show that this is an alternative version of Russian history. Without evidence to show this, then it is not obvious that this is a POV fork. For example, what is it about the "Decembrist revolt" entry that is a POV fork?
I dont' want to be dragged into the waste of time related to the discussion of the actual content: this is exactly the 'harm of forks: one has to waste time to keep things in sync. Out of personal courtesy, I will answer this one, but refuse to discuss other problems. "Decembrists" did not revolt against "Imperial Russia"; in fact they pledged their allegiance to Constantine of Russia. `'mikka 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving out the specific content of the table for a moment, I think it is better to have a Timeline of the Russian Revolutions article than to have the timeline be in the Russian Revolution of 1917 since it seems reasonable to have a timeline that extedns from 1905 to at least 1918 or 1924.

My recommendation remains as stated above with the proviso that any content that appears to be POV fork in nature should be reconciled with the other articles. --Richard 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, respectfully disagree. A timeline is a timeline is a timeline. The discussed article, rich in text, is a tabulated version of a segment of the Russian history with a pretentious title. Of course "Fall of the Russian Empire" is a valid topic and a summary article which discusses opinions of experts what went wrong in Russia makes sense, but I am against splitting the Timeline of Russian history by "rises and falls". By the way, do we have any other "Fall" timeline in wikipedia? Look into Timeline of British history or into any from Category:Nation_timelines. I understand, it makes sense to have, e.g., the Timeline of microscope technology, which may be safely considered isolated from what else happens in the world. But a history of a country is one continuous flow and any "rises and falls" are necessarily post-factum POV. E.g., in opinions of many, the period of 1907-1913 is hardly a fall (sorry, no details), and no big wonder it is conveniently omitted from the discussed article. `'mikka 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I believe I covered all aspects of my position in quite a detail, and I am retiring from this discussion. I will not cry into a pillow if the majority will disagree with me here. Tschuss, `'mikka 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary fork of the Timeline of Russian History. Kingfish 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 21:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Fabian

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Enough substainal credits and has appeared in a number notable acting projects. QuasyBoy 13:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recurring roles look notable enough, just. WMMartin 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the commercial endorsements criteria in WP:BIO. Phleg 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting in a commercial does not make for a "commercial endorsement." Unless he is identified by name (a la Alex Trebek for Colonial Penn or Lindsay Wagner for Sleep Number beds) he doesn't have "commercial endorsements. Otto4711 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets BIO with adequate references. --Kevin Murray 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what references are you referring to? The article is sourced by IMDB, another wiki and TV.com which do not meet WP:RS. Otto4711 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, give it up! --Kevin Murray 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I'm not going to "give it up" on your say-so. Your the one who wants to keep the article, that makes it your obligation to properly source it. Otto4711 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One among four. Why am I the target of your ire? --Kevin Murray 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a joke or a pest? You're AfD submissions are weakly stated and overturned like clockwork. Go write some articles! --Kevin Murray 08:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please don't edit my or others' comments by inserting your editorializing in the midst of them to subvert their meaning. I have removed your inserted comment from mine. Secondly, "you're" is a contraction of "you are." The word you're feebly struggling for is "your." Third, if you have references for this unreferenced article, then add them to the article. Just saying "keep" in an AfD means nothing. Finally, stop being a dick.

I know that I shouldn't feed trolls, but seeing you melt down is kind of fun. Keep up the good humor! Cheers. --Kevin Murray 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does has credentials. Robert Moore 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:58Z

Markus Flanagan

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this actor currently has regular role in a television series that is currently on the air, in addition he has enough substanial credits to be considered notable. QuasyBoy 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Markus is a notable character on Unfabulous and it should be kept and there are enough sources already available so NO need to delete this article--Cometstyles 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable actor who has a recurring role on an active show. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Tigard-Tualatin School District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:58Z

Hazelbrook Middle School

Non-notable middle school, suggest redirect and merge to Tigard-Tualatin School District Katr67 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No assertion of notability. —Dgies^t c 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious notability, and inadequate references. WMMartin 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable school — MrDolomite | Talk 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiley McClendon

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- multiple movies and tv credits, a few dozen google hits, seems to have a fan club with young girls, I recognize him. MRoberts <> 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I recognize him" seems like a form of WP:ILIKEIT. What reliable sources are there that support inclusion of this article? Otto4711 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - with expansion, needs imdb type materials incorporated and some of the info from the ghits added. SkierRMH 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has had major starring in two Disney Channel Original Movies, appeared in a number of notable television series, plus the article can be improved. QuasyBoy 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennette McCurdy

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand- multiple tv and movie credits, several wiki links- plus I recognize her. MRoberts <> 00:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I recognize her" seems like a form of WP:ILIKEIT. What reliable sources are there that support inclusion of this article? Otto4711 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with major expansion - including referencing the imdb info into the article. SkierRMH 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has enough substainal credits to have her own article. Plus I'll take the liberty of expanding it. QyasyBoy 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Combat Extended

Fails WP:V, not one source is given in the article and none could be found. Notability: DCX a mod of a mod, it hasn't received any press and having a "feature" before another mod does not make it notable. This article has already been put up for deletion once but no good reason were given and most votes were annons and new accounts. I think it should be deleted or merged to Desert Combat if it is rewritten as the current page is utter trash. BJ^Talk 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has previously been on AfD, view the past one here. Mathmo ^Talk 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's too ugly to be merged. MRoberts <> 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (-ish), the article does at least make a claim to notability. (certainly the parts near the end of it). There are a lot of google results, which means I'm kind of struggling to find them easily. So for now I'm unfortunately just going to go with my gut feeling that they exist. Meh, I know. Kinda weak reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 19,200 for "Desert Combat Extended", 696,000 for "Desert Combat" -Extended. BJ^Talk 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Naturally there would be significantly less, it is a mod of it. Mathmo ^Talk 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also the first 3 pages of google results are download sites and this article. BJ^Talk 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgotten Hope (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of Destruction (game mod), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Conquest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlefield Pirates. All are more notable BF1942 mods, all had their articles deleted. BJ^Talk 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, I'm shocked they were deleted. It more indicates something is wrong with wikipedia, besides just because a page does or doesn't exist doesn't mean another page should or shouldn't exist. Anyway, I'm only slightly leaning towards keeping this page but the others I'd have strongly supported. Mathmo ^Talk 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Salty Dogs Productions (http://www.saltydogsproductions.com/projects.php) is the official owner of Desert Combat Extended. all facts in the article are verified since they come from the original programmer himself. --Zeuser 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again you must cite 3rd party sourced, not yourself. BJ^Talk
    - Did you bother investigating? Salty Dogs Productions is not myself. Any why do you insist on getting 3rd party info when the only person that actually knows everything is me? So what's more important for wikipedia? Neutral and erroneous information from a 3rd party or getting the right info straight from the horses mouth? Wikipedia is really starting to border on the edge of stupidity. --Zeuser 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is why I feel this article should be deleted, if no 3rd party sources exists we can't verify the information and it proves not enough people care thus is it a non notable topic. BJ^Talk 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What classes as a 3rd party source? As a lot of people could verify this information, i am a big fan and could be a 3rd party source, there is also 3 clans who could vouch for this, Zeuser is the creator and founder of DCX. DCX is mentioned on alot of sites. DCX has had over 100 unique players playing in the last week, this shows it is popular(source http://bftracks.net ) I feel that this article should be kept as it provides good informative information, from a reliable source. Surely be deleting this it is contradicting the point of wikipedia to provide a large free open source knowledge base designed to inform the global population and communities?? - dcx_badass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.247.132 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - A reliable 3rd party website, news publication or magazine would be a good source, you would not be. 100 people playing a game in a week is hardly popular and I'm not even arguing that it's not. BJ^Talk 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come on people... common sense! We do not have or need articles for every single mod for every single game out there. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information belongs on the Salty Dog Productions website rather than here. The requirement of independent third party sources is critical to Wikipedia as a way to ensure that information is accurate and unbiased and also to measure notability. If we don't have a mechanism to benchmark notability, then we become an indiscriminate collection of information.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Delahanty

This one is a bit funny, because it does fail WP:BIO, but the individual is an editor that I know, PDelahanty (talk · contribs). Of course, I have no clue to whether or not he has read the article, but I am sure he'll agree that it doesn't belong here--at least that is my take. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I kinda like it...and there are a fair number (and wide variety) of pages that link in. :) --PatrickD 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Pat, we know you're an attention whore. :) Why else would you destroy anime toys? :P --Farix (Talk) 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD (no hard feelings I hope... just my standard quirk) Alf photoman 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom MRoberts <> 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete, above searches don't yield any results that have relevance. Addhoc 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't yield any" isn't accurate. There are multiple articles from major newspapers such as the Boston Globe (usually related to my participation with Anime Boston). You just have to filter out the guy in Kentucky.--PatrickD 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fair enough I didn't see those, revised search. Addhoc 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anime Boston per above search. Addhoc 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, but I'll be checking out the toy-hurting site. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ...since the page is referenced from a fair amount of articles on several different subjects. Also, I can provide more sources for verification if anyone wants them. I just can't add them to the article due to WP:COI. And hell...if Mike Tatsugawa and Richard "Pocky" Kim have a page... --PatrickD 14:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Add the sources to the talk page. It's as good a place as any to store them until someone is able to use them. -Farix (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Rewrite - I'm not going to insult Pat by saying he's not worthy of a Wikipedia page. But let's be honest, this article needs a massive rewrite to be NPOV and relevant. The first paragraph alone is utterly ridiculous. The Mike T page is brief and only states the facts of why he's relevant. I think it's only fair to give an editor a chance to make changes before going off half-cocked with a RfD. Kensuke Aida 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a redirect? I thought it was an article. --Farix (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Pancake

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a stub. Pancake has around 40 tv appearances, links from several wiki articles, and two dozen google hits. MRoberts <> 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with inclusion of imdb materials and some of the 3rd party ghit information. SkierRMH 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the added sources; he seems to pass WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the ghits would you consider non-trivial references in reliable sources? Otto4711 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just scrapes over the notability barrier - recurring roles probably count. Darn silly name, though. WMMartin 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food of Southern Puglia

This article is badly written, but that in itself doesn't justify AfD. However, it doesn't seem to assert nobility and it's not coherent. Delete unless it can be cleaned-up and notability asserted. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Plagerism, the material comes directly from this site. MRoberts <> 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So tagged Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Opentopia is a mirror of wikipedia, so that is not plagerism. This article is still up for debate Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is certainly not established for why this needs an article separate from Italian cuisine. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly Merge with Italian cuisine. I prefer the first option, because in due course it would be appropriate to have articles on all the regional cuisines, so any merge would be followed in due course by a de-merge. Is the article well-written ? Clearly not, though it's a start. Is the subject notable ? I'd say as notable as Sicilian cuisine, Soul Food and Chiuchow cuisine. Is the article well-referenced ? No, it's badly referenced, but it seems to me that references should be available. This is one of those cases where I'd rather keep the seed and allow it to grow. WMMartin 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for having a "Cuisine of Puglia" (which is a whole region of Italy, like Sicily) page, but "Food of Southern Puglia" is too esoteric, and has not been shown to be notable on its own. Moreover, the original creator of the article has mostly been active adding [60] cooking school links to articles, and this article merely appears to be a hodgepodge/tweaking of writing from pages on the cooking school site. - AKeen 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. This is real food, (I've tried southern puglia food) but it is not encyclopedic. Page is sophomorically written. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:20Z

Quest Network Services

Not Notable Selket ^Talk 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first I thought this might have been affiliated with Qwest Communications, but it's just a small time internet cafe which ran a BBS and got two tangential mentions. —Dgies^t c 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a small local business and the sources don't seem to meet WP:CORP. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not obviously notable. WMMartin 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)

The only assertions of notability are that school was closed (as part of a larger movement), and it was the setting for part of one episode of a TV show. The only claims of notability are very tangential. Was the subject of a previous AfD which was borderline keep. The school has since closed permanently, so I prodded but it was contested by an anon. —Dgies^t c 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources are available or (that I can find) are available. Therefore fails WP:N. Seraphimblade 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability --RaiderAspect 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better notability claims can be made -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps merge with Thornton, Colorado. Deleting the article because the school has closed makes no sense. It is like deleting a biography because the subject has died, the subject does not become less notable because of a closure. Quite a decent source about the school can be found here. One final note, prodding an article which has previously been on AFD is not appropriate use of the WP:PROD process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the subject was never notable, but an AfD on an active school tends to draw a lot of people making the dubious assertion "all schools are notable". —Dgies^t c 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've incorporated the source fround by Sjakkalle into the article - but must point out that it describes the change more than the school itself. I think with a bit of work though, more sources could probably be found and a decent article made out of this. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious notability. I also feel the references are inadequate: the Horace article certainly talks about the school, but it's just discussing what happened and reporting news. The article is actually a good example of why we should take newspaper and journal articles with a pinch of salt when looking for references: there's no reason why an educationalist should care about this school more than any other... WMMartin 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable content of historic interest, but would not be opposed to a possible merge to Thornton, Colorado or an article about the school district. If people wish to research what happened to this school, they should be able to do so on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 07:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian stereotypes

Unreferenced original research `'mikka 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic might be suitable for inclusion if it had references, but it has none. Also half the article is just definitions of subjects handled much better in their own articles. —Dgies^t c 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As it stands, it's both unreferenced and original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR unless valid references can be provided (not referencing the factual statements contained in the article--e.g., "A balalayka is a traditional Russian stringed instrument."--but that these are indeed stereotypes). The topic deserves an article, I think, but this one doesn't pass WP:NOR or WP:V. Still, interesting article. Black Falcon 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedic article could be written on the topic, but this isn't it. —Cel ithemis 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks really funny. Indeed, these are very common and at least partially wrong stereotypes about Russians. One could find some references if time allows.Biophys 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) So, I included one reference - just for starters. People, do not you have sense of humor? If you allow me, I could develop this article a little.Biophys 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is topic for Uncyclopedia or similar sites. Pavel Vozenilek 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Garbage inciting ethnic hatred. Should we create US stereotypes based on Lyndie England from Abu Graib? Totally fascism based on someone's original research.Vlad fedorov 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who incites ethnic hatred? Kalashnikov, Pushkin, or Borsh? By the way, just on the topic (Russian) (see [61]:

Тазиком Союз накрылся -

Нету на земле его!..

Но макетик сохранился

В голове Тулеева.

Составляли наш портрет -

Водка, kazachok, балет!..

А с Владимиром на троне:

Литвиненко, чай, полоний… Biophys 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, Biophys is publishing texts from blog La Russophobe in Wikipedia and you are asking who is inciting ethnic hatred? Russian stereotypes are original research and depending on contributor could be damaging and defamatory.Vlad fedorov 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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