Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

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 Deleted by admin Radiant!. -- pb30<talk> 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Andy

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

NN Artist. Lacks RS. Sources include myspace, official site, and what appear to be fansites. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of already deleted content, and I have requested speedy delete on the article. I see little difference between this article right now and what I remember was deleted. It needs expansion by reliable sources before it can be kept. Do not salt the ground so it has the chance to grow later - I do see potential. Royalbroil 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note also: the text of the article was copied from [1]. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Leigh Adams

[edit]
Anthony Leigh Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He is a nonnotable filmmaker with 300 nonwiki Google hits. The top few are his own website, IMDb and such; nothing from a reliable source. The article has had cleanup tags for months. YechielMan 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprise Brescia

[edit]
Deprise Brescia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Major claim to notability is a non-speaking role in fitness shows, does not come near to meeting the guideline for notability in my opinion SirFozzie 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6

[edit]
Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - solid mass of plot summary utterly lacking in any real-world context, clear-cut violation of WP:NOT#INFO point 7. Otto4711 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply here, article has no content besides a summary.--Shadowdrak 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Also, requesting merger of the three related noms to here. --Whsitchy 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a merger. I just couldn't remember how to bundle AFD noms. Otto4711 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4

[edit]
Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure plot summary with no real-world context. Otto4711 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2

[edit]
Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

[edit]
Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just a mess about a non-notable subject. Part of the ongoing quest to clear up and tidy the many Arbuthnot pages. I suggest it is deleted, if anything further ever comes to light it always be re-created but at the moment it is an embarrassment to the project. Giano 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - He does not seem to have any notable accomplishments or reliable sources, other than his service record. Change to Keep - Gustav has provided some pretty convincing evidence, chiefly the obituary. If this man just died yesterday, he'd certainly have his own article. Let's not be victims of recentism, now. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'll actually vote Keep on this one as he has quite a long obituary in the Times-
  • "OBITUARY - ADMIRAL C. R. ARBUTHNOT. Admiral Charles Ramsey Arbuthnot died yester­day morning at his residence. Selwood Lodge, Frome, in his 64th year. He was the second son of the late Mr. George Clerk Arbuthnot, of Mavisbank, Mid Lothian, and entered the Navy as a cadet in September, 1863. In 1871 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant from the Royal yacht, and became a flag officer in 1904, retiring-in 1907 and being promoted to admiral in 1911. He served in the Arctic yacht Pandora in 1876-76 and was awarded the Arctic medal. From 1892 to 1895 he commanded the Orlando, flagship in Australia, and from 1900 to 1903 was in charge of the Cambridge, School of Gunnery, at Devonport. He acted as Naval Aide-­de-Camp to King Edward, and in that capacity was in attendance on his Majesty on the occasion of his Coronation. Since his retirement, Admiral Arbuthnot was prominently associated with the Unionist Party in Somerset and represented Frome on the County Council. He was a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Admiral Arbuthnot married in 1880 Emily Caroline who died in 1910), daughter of the late Rear-Admiral C. F. Schomberg, and leaves a son. Lieutenant G.S. Arbuthnot, R.N., and two daughters. The funeral will take place-at Frome on Friday, at 1.30.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even just from the article-- this is not trivial, but I am not sure just what it corresponds to in the US. "Aide-de-Camp to King Edward VII.", and from the obit, apparently an arctic explorer. The failure to properly highlight this information and show its importance did not help the article; as seems to be typical with this family, there is often something there. DGG 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm curious about the status and importance of a Naval Aide-de-Camp to the King, but unless that title has an exceptional amount of inherent notability, there still remains a serious deficit of notability for this individual. Changed to Keep, see below. --Hemlock Martinis 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment His specific title (aides-de-camp differ in importance depending on the era, the ADC's rank, their qualifications, and who exactly they're ADC to) is not exactly equal to any American title, but at the time it would have been a more powerful and important role than it is now. I'd say roughly equivalent to a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the modern US. More or less. --Charlene 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth have you found that information - ADC to the King is in no way equivalent to "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - it is an honory title given for a short duration to an officer denoting no huge power at all - in fact very little beyond cermonial duties - rather like a Lord-in-waiting and secratary combined wearing uniform. He was certainly not a Personal-ADC. See Aide-de-camp. Giano 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears notable due to his rank as ADC to King Edward, which at the time was a more important position than an ADC to the Queen in 2007. --Charlene 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, on Aide-de-camp it says: "Equerries are equivalents to Aides-de-Camp in the Royal Household, in which ADC's are restricted to senior officers with a primarily honorific role" so the role may be less significant than I thought. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have had to think for a while about this one, but I have come around to asking myself if a junior admiral should be treated any different from a junior general. Yes, he commanded a few ships and the Devonshire gunnery school; yes, he got a medal (probably more than one); yes, he was an ADC. But none of those is was really a particularly notable achievement. Did he actually do anything of note? We don't even have an article on his Australian command, HMS Orlando (the name ship for the Orlando-class cruisers; we do have an article on an earlier HMS Orlando, which was scrapped in 1871) nor the gunnery school (I believe this is HMS Cambridge), and it is is not clear whether the Pandora is any of the ones mentioned at HMS Pandora. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But since any naval vessel is considered notable, we could easily have these articles. DGG 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - close but no cigar. He obviously had a good solid worthy and unexceptional career, but on the basis of the article + the above obit he just doesn't seem to have done anything beyond the norm. ADC and RGS connections are red herrings: distinguished but not in themselves noteworthy enough to justify an article. HeartofaDog 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Milan squad

[edit]
A.C. Milan squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FC Barcelona squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This debate has occurred before. Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads. This is highly unnecessary and the squads already have a section in the club article. Punkmorten 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO - unnecessary collection of information. --Angelo 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot argue about the contents. This is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. The point here is the type of article itself, like Punkmorten proposed--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please stop your crusade? We are discussing about the need for standalone squad articles, so please accept what the Wikipedia community and users say. There's no need to answer to all the users supporting the deletion process, i.e. everyone but you. --Angelo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, no, I'll not stop it, because I have the right to defend my point of view. Also, it's rude to ask some one to stop defend his point of view. Second, no one have to accept what the community and users say, if what they are saying has no base. This is not a voting, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. Third, for sure there is need to answer all points, it's the only way to argue against that point. Finally, remember, just because I'm alone here, that does not mean I'm wrong. --ClaudioMB 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know, maybe I'm too biased to say something different, but you look more like attacking point of views of the others rather than defending yours. Anyway, let's stop it here, just let me lend you my hand with a possible proposal: why don't you make an attempt to create an article about the current FC Barcelona season as well as I did for US Palermo and include your own table? Football seasons for top-level teams are known to be absolutely notable, so don't worry about AfDs in the case. --Angelo 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, I'm not attacking, I'm contra arguing a PoV that is 100% against my PoV. Totally ok in a discussion. Second, thanks for you suggestion, as I said to Resolute below, I'm think to write some thing about the current squad, even though I prefer tables and data. Unfortunately, for the following days I won't have much time, I don't know if I will able to write before this AfD close. Maybe you could help on this, you write very well. Anyway, I still believe the way the article is now makes it valid. Finally, yes, I need to improve my keep argument below, I'll do it.--ClaudioMB 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't feel the real need to have the article. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with the respective team articles--JForget 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete as it completely lacks context, and is redundant. It strikes me that such an article could be useful if a lot of prose was added - perhaps writing about historically notable players, and including the current squad as an addition, but as it is currently designed, it is better suited to the main article. Resolute 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This information is already present in the main article; there is no need for a separate one. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~EdBoy[c] 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because there is real interest on detailed information about some clubs' squads. That's true, because detailed information already exist on the players' articles. The squad articles gather detailed information to release a club scope's view. It also allows to sort and compare players' information. A merge, perhaps, will be not good, because it'll bring to much detail information to the club's page and it could disturb those who don't want it.--ClaudioMB creator of FC Barcelona squad 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The two articles are formated differently. Please, take a look on both of them. --ClaudioMB 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing: First, the information added on the last couple days are relevant for a football club: start team, tactical formation and pitch formation. All of them related to the main purpose of a football club: play football. Second, relevant information not necessarily comes as text, it could come as tables, lists, graphics or pictures, as long they deliver the intended information. Nevertheless, including written explanations and facts will be a good improvement. Finally, because the article is less then 3 days old and, so far, edited just by one person, it will need more time and people to mature. So, delete an article like that will be wrong. By the way, I'm guessing the article's title should be "FC Barcelona Current Squad" instead of "FC Barcelona Squad".--ClaudioMB 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed - first AfD is still live. EliminatorJR Talk 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Masetelli (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Masetelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

IP user 167.104.6.43 has deleted the {{prod}} and {{subst:afd1}} tags unilaterally for both Masetelli and Yurubarya. Strodie 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following article is also nominated for deletion (both articles are unverifiable):

Yurubarya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For reasons and ongoing discussion, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masetelli . Strodie 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be a hoax involving a "time machine". See [2]. Professor water 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R6Messagenet.com

[edit]
R6Messagenet.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable motorcycle message board/forum. The one cited reference is about the bike not the forum, which is mentioned only in passing. Does not meet WP:WEB. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to noted verifiability concerns. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Global Warning Tour

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
WWE Global Warning Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was a non-notable wrestling event. Article creator claims it was on PPV (as did the author of the original article), but no proof has been provided. Article has been deleted twice before (once in an AFD, and then when an article it redirected too was deleted. Nothing to proove why this is any different from the many other international tours WWE does every year. TJ Spyke 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from other one off PPVs such as Tuesday in Texas and WWF One Night Only? Should those be deleted too? Amazon.ca and imdb list the the DVD of this show as a PPV. Also, the last AFD was improper, having the nominator close the multiple afds after just three days, they were actually undeleted as out of process but then speedied by someone else. Halfarmed 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No proof has been provided that this was ever on PPV. TJ Spyke 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof is being pursued. An email has been sent to WWE asked for a history of the Fanatic Series to be put on the website. If it is, Global Warning will definitely be included - and you'll have your proof. 124.180.195.212 12:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC) — 124.180.195.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep If proven as an Australian PPV, Delete otherwise as a house show (albeit with extremely impressive attendance). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • EXTREMELY Strong Keep TJ, you are wrong. I shall check my DVD records of the main WWE pay per views from late 2002 (I have them) to verify when Global Warning was shown in the US as part of the Fanatic Series, but it was DEFINITELY shown. Further, the show at what was then called Colonial Stadium (now the Telstra Dome) received mainstream coverage with a two page spread in Melbourne's Herald Sun. The story - titled "We were warned" (with the W in warned replaced with the WWE logo) - quotes the show as "being taped for DVD release and pay per view presentation in the United States at a later date." It also attracted an attendance of 56,734 which stands as the attendance record for a sporting event at the venue - and at the time was the record for the venue full stop (it was beaten later by a Robbie Williams concert). When I get the month that show was shown on the Fanatic Series I'll get back to this AfD (won't be today because of One Night Stand). Curse of Fenric 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curse of Fenric's statement Mal Case 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Curse has provided no proof that it was ever on PPV, or that's it's notable. How about people try citing policy and guidelines for their reason? TJ Spyke 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A two page spread in a major city daily newspaper doesn't make it notable???? Rick Doodle 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what i've seen in the past, even house shows sometimes get coverage in local papers. The newspaper in my city had coverage of the RAW event they had here (the one from last June when DX officially reformed) taking up most of the first page of the sports section. Also, WP requires multiple non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Show me a house show that drew 56,000 people, TJ. And in Australia a two page spread on one event is MAJOR NEWS! I think it's about time WP:IAR was applied in this case, but I'm about to check my DVD collection to confirm when Global Warning was show in the US as a part of the Fanatic Series. Curse of Fenric 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK - I can now confirm that Global Warning was shown in the US on pay per view in November 2002. It was advertised during the 2002 Survivor Series with a cute add that provided a typical Australian "Steve Irwin" style promo, followed by an American "translation". It was part of the Fanatic Series as stated. Sorry, TJ - you are wrong. It WAS show in the US on pay per view. Curse of Fenric 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. This article is a recreation, this was previously delete! Btw this is not a PPV it's just a tour DVD. Because of that note is why it was deleted last time. Govvy 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to firm delete Last night I took a break from looking for a new motorbike to Google this event (now THAT is commitment to Wikipedia!) and could not find any reliable source to confirm this as a PPV. I could be wrong, if so prove it! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suriel, you'll have problems finding any Fanatic Series pay per view outside of the last 12 months so that's hardly proof of your case Curse of Fenric 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware Google hits aren't an indication of notability but when it relates to wrestling, if it aint got a decent source on the net then often it aint got a decent source full stop. I managed to find legit online sources for WCW (now "History of" article) dating back 10 years ago so if it was notable it would be around. As yet no-one has proved this event was an Australian PPV. I see no compelling reason to Ignore All Rules. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I provided more evidence in my edit above, Suriel. And WCW is a bad example BTW. You could say the same for ECW and indeed the NWA pre WCW. On the IAR - I provided mainstream evidence with the Herald Sun quote (as stated it is a major daily here in Melbourne). Because of local notability, that has to be taken into account. It was issues similar to this that caused me to leave WP - I only came back because this AfD was brought to my attention as I was actually at the show in question. I know that fact isn't enough by itself, but I can at least say that it was said at the start of the show that it was being recorded as a pay per view (by Tony Chimel) - a statement confirmed as I quoted from the Herald Sun (they probably got it from Chimel as well). Curse of Fenric 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Khukri. MER-C 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris garling

[edit]
Chris garling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable reality television contestant. While the subject won the competition, I am not sure how much more could be written about him that would not be better included in the Biggest Loser article. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to redirect it to Tortoiseshell cat and to add a brief, cited mention of the term there. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money cat

[edit]
Money cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources were requested for over a year, then I added a WP:PROD request, which was removed with the claim that sources would be added soon. Really... how long does it take to say where the author got this information from? Also, some of the claims (about this being mentioned in "House of Seven Gables") have been debunked. Sources should be shown to exist before we decide to keep this article around for a few more years... promises of sources are not the same as sources. I find nothing confirming this on Google or Google Scholar, although there may be some sort of asian charm marketed as a "Money Cat", it has nothing to do with what this article describes (see Maneki Neko). --W.marsh 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some quick research about Money Cats and New England seem to lead that Money Cat is just a Massachusetts slang term having to do with witches or something, which you can find on the last page of this. [3] Certainly doesn't seem enough to create an article, maybe a redirect to Folklore of the United States or an equivalent article on New England is in order? --Korranus 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably isn't WP:NFT, as I've heard of a similar thing in the UK, but there's nothing here to say it couldn't be merged to a folklore page as above. Preferably with some sources. EliminatorJR Talk 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look on Google Scholar again, you'll find articles from the Journal of American Folklore such as this and this and from Western Folklore such as this that document the idea that a three-coloured cat is considered to be good luck in Japan. If you look on Google Books you'll find books that document the same folklore belief occurring in Maine. There's not much more than 1 sentence's worth of content to be wrung out of these sources, though: "A calico cat with three colours, known as a money cat, is considered to be good luck in Maine and Japan." Uncle G 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tortoiseshell cat. According to Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century, the term refers only to calico and perhaps tortoiseshell cats, not to all female cats. This can be mentioned in a sentence under tortoiseshell cat, alongside the similar Japanese folklore (though we should clarify that the term "money cat" is a US regionalism, not a Japanese term). —Celithemis 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Ross Buckley

[edit]
Elliot Ross Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This reads like an obituary, with nothing substantial that seems to qualify for an encyclopedic entry. Fresh 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:BIO - the most notable thing I can find on the guy is that he served on the US Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in the 80s, and that commission doesn't have a Wikipedia page itself. Other than that, losing a political race and being an oil company lawyer doesn't make him notable enough. --Korranus 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He did more than that, he ran for a US House of Representatives seat, and also for Mayor of New Orleans. I don't believe this is violation of WP:BIO. If you do a google search, see here, you will see there are about 1,100,000 results. Granted not all of those are of this person, but I would think a good portion are. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a Google search before commenting, and if you enclose the name in quotes, you get exactly ten results. Perhaps the question we need to answer here is whether the races for the House seat and the New Orleans mayor were notable. --Korranus 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While he held some fair profile positions, I'm not sure that these constitute notability. Near as I can tell, he never actually won the elections he ran in. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is an appellate body within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), so it's a legitimate federal appointive office. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mayors of large cities are considered notable, and New Orleans counts. running for the HofR isn't enough by itself, but together with mayor, and the other administrative positions, it is clearly enough. DGG 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that Mr. Buckley was never the actual mayor of New Orleans, he simply ran. From the vote of the HofR, it doesn't look like he was even close. I would agree that if he was mayor it would be notible, but simply running shouldn't warrant an article.--Fresh 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis. ~EdBoy[c] 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being simply a nominee for office does not constitute notability per WP:BIO, nor does the OSHRC office. Also of note is that almost the entire article is unsourced from reliable sources. The article reads like an obituary because that is the only source for almost all of it: his obituary. The author of this article frequently creates articles about non-notable individuals and sources those articles with nothing (or almost nothing) more than the individual's family-provided, small-town newspaper obituary. While reporter bylined obituaries (such as those found in the New York Times) would be acceptable sources, family-provided obituaries in small newspapers are not. Such family-provided obituaries do not indicate notability (anyone can submit one; they indicate that his family thought he was notable, but not that anyone else thought so), nor are they reliable sources, because they are not subjected to any extensive fact-checking by a reporter or editor. If what the family says seems plausible, then it runs. This appears to be the case with Buckley's obituary listed as a reference for this article, since there is no reporter listed as the obituary's author, and since the Las Cruces Sun-News is indeed a small newspaper that accepts and runs family-provided obituaries. If the article is kept, it should be reduced to a stub of info that is verifiable from sources other than that obituary: cousin of WFB Jr., that he ran for congress, that he ran for mayor, his tenure on the OSHRC, and that's about it. Mwelch 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - those five "references" are nothing of the sort. Two are laundry-lists of names, one is his son's wedding announcement, one is about someone entirely different and doesn't mention him once, while the fifth is his obituary from the local paper which, in light of certain other articles, I've no doubt would be suspiciously similar to this article were we to compare them side-by-side - and even if it weren't is in no way a reliable source. If he was mayor he'd warrant a weak keep, but this is a failed candidate - a very different thing — iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failed candidates are not automatically notable for that non-accomplishment. The plethora of non-notable biographies that this article's author continues to cut and paste into Wikipedia is frankly saddening. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dictionary of biography of every two-bit politician of the last century in two U.S. states. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AlexBot scored the article 100 points. How many points are needed for inclusion? It has six or seven links. Billy Hathorn 13:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konigsmark Upgrade

[edit]
Konigsmark Upgrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Author contends that his material is being stolen and is writing this article to protect it. But I can't find any hits for this on Google--why can't such obvious hoaxes be speedied? Blueboy96 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I realize that you gentlemen want to protect the integrity of wikipedia, but I am a comedian and I am trying to protect my material. You can view my material at my comedy page at www.myspace.com/andykonigsmark

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

The result was Delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Salmon

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

I'm not sure this person exists. Can't find him or his film The Grim Death on IMDb or google. Belovedfreak 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Directed one film, which the article defines as a 'flop;' no sources, no indication of him on a Google search (and if there's bad horror films out there, I'm sure Google would know about them if only because someone has MSTed them or tried)... Delete as NN. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 'Isto' White (American musician)

[edit]
Chris 'Isto' White (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable musician whose only claim to fame is that one of his songs has been viewed 400,000 times. Certainly not as notable as lonelygirl15. Has received no recording contract unlike the Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 63 unique Google hits, all of them posted videos someplace, blogs or something similar. No reliable sources to indicate that he passes WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leaving this in would result in a slippery slope for anyone who posts on YouTube. Also, no refs and nothing relible.--Fresh 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible for someone to become famous, even notable, as a musician through somewhere like YouTube. It is becoming more likely all the time. What we need to decide is — has this happened here? It seems that the commentators here believe it hasn't (I'm assuming they've all actually looked into the matter), and that the article should therefore be deleted. Fair enough. That's a far cry from "Oh no! YouTube!", however. 203.122.238.225 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the articles SOULJAZZ: The Heart of the Music and Michael Brewin. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst the majority of contributors (4:3) have argued to keep this, I am unable to find a valid reason to keep the article based on Wikipedia policy in any of their arguments:

  1. "I have added references." - This fails to address the primary cause for concern.
  2. "Armenian heroes should have their own list" - Not a valid argument (and violates NPOV).
  3. "Keep per the above two arguments" - above two arguments do not address the problem.
  4. "Just because there is an objection of one person being on the list doesn't mean we delete the whole article" - there was no objection to one person, the objection was to the article itself.

I don't often do this nowadays, but with not one valid argument to retain this article, and the 3 arguments for deletion being far, far stronger, I can only close this as a delete. Neil ╦ 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian national heroes

[edit]
List of Armenian national heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List is unverifiable opinion of editors and definite edit war bait. If an article of this type is not based on the opinions of an official entity like this one is: National heroes of Nepal, it really shouldn't stay. Richfife 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put up these two AFDs for your perusal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of the Nation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father of the Nation. These are two articles which contained lists of people that were considered either the mother or the father of their nation. They both were technically well referenced with news articles in which various people were called "The father of England", for instance. But, the term is too easily used. Any journalist can toss the term into an article to add emphasis, and they often do. One person was able to find 20 different people that had been called "the mother of Finland". The same problem applies to people being called a "Hero of Azerbaijan". It's too easy for someone to simply use the phrase in passing. For this article to work, their need to be good sized sources from large, respectable groups or publications that are dedicated very specifically to the idea that Babek (or whomever) is a "Hero of Azerbaijan". The articles need to be written for no other reason than to prove that point. Simply tossing off the phrase in the middle of a narrative isn't enough. No less a figure than Ronald Reagan referred to Oliver North as a hero of the United States. That's a reliable source, but if I created an article named "Heroes of the USA" and included Oliver North, I'd be laughed off of Wikipedia. Calling someone a hero to an entire nation is a serious business. You're speaking for every single citizen of that nation. Don't do it lightly. - Richfife 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from being featured in the List of Armenians, Armenian heroes (those who are venerated by the Armenian nation) should have their own list. -- Davo88 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "Venerated by the Armenian nation". What percentage of people have to venerate someone before they qualify. 70%? 80%? 90%? The term "heroes" is very slippery and you haven't addressed the points I made above. - Richfife 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the entries is considered a "hero" for assassinating a major Turkish politician. There's no way that's not controversial. - Richfife 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is at least one source (ArmeniaNow) which is a poll on who Armenians think their national heroes are (more names should be added in accordance with that poll). Alot of these people have statues dedicated to them in Armenia (all sourced). Also, what's wrong with controversy and being called a hero? Mind you that the so-called "Turkish politician" who was assassinated is actually the equivalent of Adolf Hitler (nicknamed the "Turkish Hitler"). He is the one who brainchilded the Armenian Genocide. - Fedayee 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Armenia Now article might possibly be a good start, however it seems that there was a list of nominees that the voters had to choose from. Still something that was selected by one or two journalists. Also, comparing anyone other than Hitler to Hitler is a really bad idea and will get you nowhere with me, for reasons discussed at length here: [4]. - Richfife 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If one is nominated to be voted by the population of Armenia, then it must mean that he can very well be a national hero. Anyway, all these men are considered "national heroes" already, the poll is merely giving it a ranking. As for the Hitler comparison, I don't know why you are being so defensive ... I am not attacking you or speaking emotionally, I am merely citing facts based on sources here and here. - Fedayee 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Fedayee and Davo88.--MarshallBagramyan 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armenian heroes are the notable people who have made a significant contribution to the creation, re-creation, defense, or well-being of the sovereign Armenian nation. They are corner-stones of Armenian statehood. Names such as Vartan Mamikonian, Haik, and Mesrob Mashdots are well known by Armenians because of their immense influence and great deeds. The definition of what is a hero is fairly simple. Perhaps you, User:Richfife, do not see the "heroness" in them because you're not an Armenian. -- Davo88 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, there is no firm criteria for the article and it purports to speak for all Armenians when it does not. Stating that any true Armenian will obviously consider a particular person a hero isn't addressing the problems with the list at all. And don't forget, we're not talking about the man himself, we're talking about whether the person who killed him should be considered a hero. - Richfife 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because there is an objection of one person being on the list doesn't mean we have to delete the whole article. Thats what the discussion page is for. VartanM 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian national heroes

[edit]
List of Iranian national heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List is unverifiable opinion of editors and definite edit war bait. If an article of this type is not based on the opinions of an official entity like this one is: National heroes of Nepal, it really shouldn't stay. Richfife 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply The Philippine list should probably go (for the same reasons). The other three reference (at least partially) lists that were created by official entities. Those should probably stay, except... The "Historical Figures" section of Azerbaijan should go for the same reasons. See the talk page on that article. - Richfife 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realtime Interdimensional Passegeways RIP

[edit]
Realtime Interdimensional Passegeways RIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason Unnotable play by email game, unref'd, original researchy 99DBSIMLR 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Harvey

[edit]
Jane Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable editor and musician. Corvus cornix 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some debate and reading of the guidelines, as the originator of this article, I agree with Corvus Cornix Chrischmoo 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. -- lucasbfr talk 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America 2020

[edit]
America 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable play by email game, unref'd, original researchy 99DBSIMLR 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LooSE TV

[edit]
LooSE TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Student society at the LSE. No evidence of notability. Possibly speedy-able, but there is a discussion at the talk page where some editors defend the page. My vote: delete then redirect (possibly protected) to Nasta. AndyJones 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would like to ask abt the double standards on notability with regards to student media. why are student newspapers and radio stations considered notable, but student television not so? even when the exposure which these various media receive is similar. Susoctv 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about obscure american high schools? there is a whole list of them, with individual articles. i think this whole notability thing is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Susoctv 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Maine Goes

[edit]
As Maine Goes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned for the better part of the year, there are no outside resources to substantiate the author's claims to notability. I have this feeling it won't be updated in the near future. Postcard Cathy 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Harte

[edit]
Patrick Harte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable; violates WP:MEMORIAL Dustbowldiaspora 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not assert notability. I couldnt find and references to the subject. Google searchs of "Patrick Harte IRA" and "Patrick Harte Cork" returns no hits. 99DBSIMLR 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by MZMcBride. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post's Corners Public School

[edit]
Post's Corners Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic EvilOverlordX 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voy Sobon

[edit]
Voy Sobon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although this article says this poet is very notable, the off-wiki statistics do not seem to corroborate this. For example, his book Bad Words Dictionary: And Even Worse Expressions is said to be a "cult book worldwide" that sold "millions of copies," there are no reviews of it online as returned by Google. [5] and a search for "Voy Sobon Genet" returns 19 hits, none of which are relevant. [6] It appears someone is trying to promote a non-notable individual; the same person apparently wrote a corresponding article on the Polish Wikipedia. Resurgent insurgent 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. IronGargoyle 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Concert Instruction Manual

[edit]
Rock Concert Instruction Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. Content does not appear to be verifiable. Otto4711 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviews that mention the manual in passing as part of the larger review would IMHO constitute trivial mentions. Otto4711 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited my previous comment. Okay, so the concept of it exists; but is it an actual "manual", or is it just a concept that is used during a performance? If a "Rock Concert Instruction Manual" is only a concept that is referred to in passing durig Blue Man's performance, then it is still not notable unless someone has written about it in detail, or even until it's been published. Otherwise, this article is essentially on a make-believe topic. As an analogy: if Bart Simpson was reciting these rules during an episode of The Simpsons, I'd want to delete the article; but if there actually was a Simpsons book published telling all about this, I'd be in favour of keep. Right now, I'm still up for delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because only two opinions stated (including the nominator's) is a bit short. Plus the AfD tag was removed from the article on the 26th, so this AfD really did had much less than the expected exposure. - Nabla 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge if true. Abeg92contribs 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - This info is a big part of BMG's touring shows, and as people are introduced to the shows/music/items, finding the real list here is very beneficial. If it is not worthy of its own page, merge the info into the main Blue Man Group page as part of their themes and ideas. There is nothing better than finding interesting information right here on Wikipedia. --Mtjaws 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge intro at most with Blue Man Group. This isn't notable on its own. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Comment: I attended a BMG show in New York two years ago, and on a recent trip back to NYC, was able to recognize another group of people who had recently seen the show because they were talking about the one-armed fist pump on the subway (see entry). So, it has clearly been an enduring, and notable feature of the show, as noted by Mtjaws above. One possibility might be to merge the paragraph format information at the beginning into the main article, and then change the list of various rock-star acts into a list, in the same spirit as the List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (following on the theme above). That way the main list-y content is preserved, as a list, and the body is integrated into the BMG article. Edhubbard 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lack of sources is not a valid criterion for deletion. However, a lack of notability is, and that was what you asked for in the initial deletion nom. I did a search for some references, and while it is possible to verify the content, in doing this search, I have become less convinced that the list-y parts are notable enough to deserve an entry of their own. I am copying the results of my google search here, so that other people can see them and evaluate them:
http://www.miketoohey.com/bluemangroup/index.html This is a fansite which refers to the Rock Concert Instruction Manual, including a number of pictures of the moves, a listing of the standard ones in the shows.
http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewhotstar.pl?Artist=BLUMAN This review talks about the “Rock Concert Instructional Manual” and how it is integral to the show.
http://www.blueman.com/newspress/tour.php?id=76_0_7_0_C This review mention’s the “Rock Concert Instruction Manual” by name, and some of the elements in the manual as part of the Blue Man Group show. Note that this comes from The Columbus Dispatch, but is reproduced on the BMG official website.
http://mostlymodernmusic.blogspot.com/2007/03/concert-review-blue-man-group.html This from a blogger who seems to have found the current version of the wikipedia entry well done.
http://video.aol.com/video-search/Blue-Man-Group-Rock-Concert-Movement-1-and-2/id/1698345001 Here is a video that someone took from the show (probably not licensed, and not wiki-appropriate) showing the first two moves from the “Rock Concert Instruction Manual” and how they fit into the show.
Given this, my vote is to Merge the text into the main BMG article, and Delete the list. Edhubbard 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.. Navou 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Desai

[edit]
Preeti Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Advertisement" page for a model whose only notability has been winning a poll which appeared in a "lifestyle" section of a newspaper. The primary purpose of the article appears to be to direct people towards her website and "myspace" page Canderra 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not from Great Britain, so I don't know how the distinction between these awards is perceived by the general public. Still, a Google search reveals approx. 200 results that mention this person winning this particular award - to me, that seems to be a bit more than just a small note in a newspaper. --B. Wolterding 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Funk

[edit]
Le Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable album. No reliable sources can be found for the album, nor has there any evidence that it has appeared on any chart. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Kylohk 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Natalie 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Wilken

[edit]
Timothy Wilken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. The 4 external links are all from the "same" website and all appear to be written by the subject: There aren't any third party works. A prod attempt was contested in December which is why I'm running through AFD, otherwise I would have tried prod myself. It has been tagged as "questionable notability" since December as well. Little context in the article to notability and no references to support. MECU≈talk 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of globalization

[edit]
History of globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Propose delete on grounds of WP:POV fork. Reading between the (unfinished) lines, I think the creator started transcribing a summary of the book after which the article is named, peppered it with his own (random) thoughts, then abanoned the project. --Gavin Collins 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kelly (porn star)

[edit]
Kim Kelly (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The current version contains no assertion of notability (say by WP:PORNBIO), thus the article qualifies for deletion. I am sending it here rather than PRODing since there have been apparently controversial debates about previous unsourced versions of the article. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braemar Community Association

[edit]
Braemar Community Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article's subject is a homeowners association for which neither the primary author or myself can seem to establish notability. Braemar, itself, does not appear on maps, nor is it a census-designated place. The area is correctly located in Linton Hall, Virginia, which is CDP. I have moved relevant historical material from this article to Linton Hall. Mmoyer 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. This article asserts notability but does not establish it. Even if the statement about being the "largest para-government structure in western Prince William County" could be verified, it's a fairly dubious claim to notability. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article isn't perfect, it has notability, it doesnt establish it, but it can be improved. 10,000 people live there, it obviosuly wont appear on the census for obvious reasons, and it appears on google maps. 82.43.111.162 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give the author some time to add secondary sources (and Google Maps is certainly not enough here). There are some claims of notability, for example the awards mentioned. If this can be properly backed with reliable sources, then the subject is probably notable. If, however, sources are not added (or do not exist) then the article should be deleted. In the meantime, leave the notability warning on the article. --B. Wolterding 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been tagged for notability for a month prior to AFD. Mmoyer 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a homeowner's association isn't a neighborhood, it's a subsection of a neighborhood. There are no citations as to who gave out the awards claimed. As far as we know, they were given out by the town. DarkAudit 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not a place, it's an association, and there are community associations all over the world, as far as I know. How does this one stand out and become encyclopedic? The article doesn't really give us much to work with in that vein. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My vote would be otherwise if this were about a neighborhood rather than a homeowner association. Burntsauce 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neighbourhoods in major cities are notable, but community associations aren't. This isn't even the only Braemar Community Association around, so if it were kept it'd have to be disambiguated anyway. --Charlene 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was It would appear after reviewing the arguments presented, consensus is Delete. Navou 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer)

[edit]
Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fairly standard British officer who got a few medals- considering we don't even know when he died he can't really have been that notable. Delete Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have now actually found his death- he died May 3, 1961 (aged 86) described as "colonel commandment of the First Division, R.A. from 1924 to 1928. After his retirement in 1929 he was commandment of the N.E. district, Kenya Defence Force, until 1933.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Please note he was not a Brigadier General but a Brigadier which was the highest Colonel rank not the lowest General rank. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional (if I can use that word without being part of the {{irc}}) Delete — although it says he was a Brigadier General - who in WWI might well have done something notable - on closer reading it seems he was a Major in WWI and consequently doesn't get the "get out of gaol free" card under WP:MILITARY#Notability by virtue of having "commanded a large body of men in combat". Let this one have its full five days (at least), though, since Kittybrewster's currently still serving out a 48 hour block, and he's the one best placed to give possible reasons to keep. The Order of the Star of Karageorge is potentially a "highest military decoration" — as with the Order of Leopold, with which I suspect some of the editors here are somewhat more familiar than they were this time last week, it comes in multiple orders of which only the "Grand Cross" is a highest-military-decoration for WP:N purposes. If it's the highest one, than change to keep as per the discussions ad nauseam last time — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is unsure when a lot of people died in wars, so moot point, he was awarded an important medal, there is no reason to delete. 82.43.111.162 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more information comes to light regarding the possible "save" from the OS Karageorge. The "thousand or more people" referred to above as receiving awards from Serbia may have been receiving considerably lesser awards, making them irrelevant to the comparison, or similar awards, making the award itself less notable. I'd like to know more on that one. Otherwise, it's a referenced article about a chap I'm very grateful to for his service, but still not sufficiently notable unless we change our notability policy and decide that we want every decorated army officer ever to be considered notable. – Kieran T (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bearing in mind that this is just info from one lot of awarding (maybe their were others?), three people were awarded Order of Karageorge 2nd class with swords, ten the Order of Karageorge 3rd class with swords, and thirty three the Order of Karageorge 4th class with swords (what Arbuthnot got). Stangely the Order of the White Eagle is listed first in the honours which might seem to indicate it is senior (which would conflict with Wikipedia's information)- lots of senior officers were awarded that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As I read it, the two are equivalent - the White Eagle is for high-ranking officers & the Karageorge for "normal" soldiers and ranks. As with other Arbuthnot articles, it would be a lot easier to decide whether the award was important if there was the slightest hint as to what he won it for — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per below Carlossuarez46 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Weak keep a general officer in the UK military seems notable if RS's can establish that. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The worst thing about these pages is that they are so bad one could not make it up. " He was an honorary game warden of Kenya" referenced to "Shooting Of Elephants In Kenya". And as for that info-box highlighting for us his equally un-notable relations - words fail me. Delete as fast as possible. Giano 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Brigadier is an OF-6 (1 star general) rank, and he won the DSO and CMG, so may have done something notable (the latter suggests he was a civil servant of some sort), but there is currently nothing particularly notable here. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Brigadier article states: "from 1922 to 1928 the British rank title used was that of Colonel Commandant which, although reflecting its modern role in the British Army as a senior colonel rather than a junior general, was not well received. Until shortly after the Second World War, it was only an appointment conferred on Colonels (as Commodore was an appointment conferred on naval Captains) and not a substantive rank." Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also I don't think he was a civil servant it just says: "After his retirement in 1929 he was commandment of the N.E. district, Kenya Defence Force, until 1933", then as far as we know he spent his time as an honorary game warden in Kenya. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, had not realised he retired before brigadier acquired its modern meaning. I would not be surprised if commanding part of the Kenya Defence Force, or being an "honorary" (?) game warden counted as a civil service (Colonial Service?) post. (Oh look, redlinks. CSB, anyone?) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps they might have been, but I imagine honorary game warden was more of an informal thing? Re:the CMG he was awarded it on January 1, 1917 "in connection with military operations in the field"- 6 were made KCMGs, 113 CMGs (mostly Cols., Lt.Cols. and Majors) (11 more from Australia, Canada and NZ, 22 from the India Office). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence of encyclopedic notability. --Hemlock Martinis 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the role of Kenya Defence Forces and game wardens, see the article on the country--these were quasi-military, sometimes in unpleasant ways; they were typical professions for semi retired military men. and yes, Game Wardens in Kenya at that did shoot elephants. We have to evaluate his career in terms of the period. Regardless of the details, Brigadier was always between Colonel and Major general--there have never been lower ranks of generals in the British army. DGG 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with his father Charles George Arbuthnot. A paragraph on AGA can easily be accommodated at the end of that article. Pharamond 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic notability. These straight-arrow bog-standard career officers who panned it out in colonial Africa are a dime a dozen, even a stock character. We don't need articles on all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Pharamond *Keep, Automatically notable under: The following types of military figures are always notable: Recipients of a country's highest military decoration. The Order of Karageorge was the highest Serbian award at the time Kernel Saunters 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the country's highest military decoration- he received the 4th class officer award- the Grand Cross is the highest award with Grand Officer and Commander under it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the award makes him notable - exactly how many British military personnel were awarded this award is what is needed here and at what level? i.e. was he a leading figure in the Balkans campaign? More research needed. Could this become a stub pending further research. Seems a bit over the top to rip this out prior to a good look Kernel Saunters 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already done the research- on the same date as his award was given, three people were awarded Order of Karageorge 2nd class with swords, ten the Order of Karageorge 3rd class with swords, and thirty three the Order of Karageorge 4th class with swords (what Arbuthnot got). A hundred or more high ranking officers got the Order of the White Eagle which was actually listed preceding the Karageorge which might seem to indicate it is senior (which would conflict with Wikipedia's information). Note he got the lowest officer award - the only lower awards are for soldiers -see this page for more information [13]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were the recipients you list at the same grade British? Kernel Saunters 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 from British Army received 2nd class, 6 received 3rd class, 21 received 4th class, and a thousand or more soldiers got lower awards i.e. the award in itself wasn't unusual and Arbuthnot got the lowest award for an officer. The other numbers were the Indian Army which was really part of the British Army at that time. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. IronGargoyle 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hicks Building

[edit]
Hicks Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable building. Adambro 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debagging

[edit]
Debagging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From PROD. The reason given at the PROD was "This article shows no specific encyclopedic merit. Debagging is, quite simply, not meant for a dictionary. If one were to pick up a Paper Encyclopedia, one would never find Debagging or Pantsing. In addition, part of this serves as a type of instruction manual (Debagging#Methodologies), which also has a broken link."

There was formerly a seperate article called Pantsing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantsing, closed just a week ago, this was merged and made a redirect to this article (Debagging). So in a way deleting this article would be an overriding of that AfD close, which I guess is alright Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain as nominator, this is a procedural nom. The orginal PROD was by User:IloveMP2yea. I would say that if the article is kept it should definitely be Moved to Pantsing, as this is the common term in the USA while Debagging appears to be possibly mainly limited to Oxford. The article states that they also use "skanking", "kecking", and "kegging" in the UK. Since the UK can't seem to get its act together on a common term, "pantsing" must be by far the more used term. I think the current article name is an artifact of the AfD at Pantsing, which perhaps should have been argued as a mergefrom Debagging. Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shouldn't base your argument on the part of the article that wasn't sourced. How do you know that there isn't a common term? If it's solely from the (now removed) bottom half of this article, which was a load of unsourced rubbish, you should treat that knowledge with suspicion. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep at this name too. This isn't something made up in school one day but it probably happens in some school every day and the argument that it wouldn't be found in a paper encyclopedia seems to defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Nick mallory 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- featured in Evelyn Waugh novels. Rhinoracer 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - debagging is a recognised British term. I note that the definition has been trasnwikified to the dictionary already. The latter part of the article is excessively pretentious in its use of headings. The section on methodology has little value, but a list of literary references and notable instances might be useful. I would oppose a move to "pantsing" which is meaningless in British English - you cannot remove a man's pants (i.e. underpants) without first removing his trousers! Peterkingiron 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've zapped the transwikification at Wiktionary. That was yet another example of an editor not bothering to check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. That there was and is a prominent box at the top of the article linking to the articles that Wiktionary already has, and has had since 2005, almost two years before this article even existed, only made it yet more egregious. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-brainer Keep, and leave it where it is. "De-bagging" is a well-known British public school tradition, whether one likes it or not. The article is not brilliant, but sufficiently well referenced, and indicates that it is notable within the definition of wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Certainly should be back at pantsing, where it had been for some time. The AfD was not handled well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references don't include the term, and it sounds like a (slang) dicdef (so leave it in the wiktionary). -- Ratarsed 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a pretty article, and there's much room for improvement, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. The nominator's reasoning is not very convincing. One of the reasons for Wikipedia's existence is to provide a place for articles which would never find room in a paper encyclopedia. EthanL (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Ratarsed. Or move to Unknickering. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Deleat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.20.149 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber Music Connection

[edit]
Chamber Music Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am sure this is a laudable effort (giving students aged 8-21 the opportunity to practice and learn playing chamber music once a week in a smallish town), but I am having doubts about the encyclopedic notability. There are no hard facts about the number of students etc. Note: The article Opus string quartet by the same author has been speedily deleted. High on a tree 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Huber

[edit]
Joseph Huber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: non-notable; PRODded previously but tag rv with no improvement. Dustbowldiaspora 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tytus Maksymilian Huber

[edit]
Tytus Maksymilian Huber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable in English wikipedia; PROD tag removed without authorization by anon IP. Likely vanity piece. Dustbowldiaspora 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by Limp Bizkit

[edit]
List of songs covered by Limp Bizkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - it is not notable that a band played a particular song in concert. Verifiability of such songs is unlikely if not functionally impossible. If a recorded cover version is notable, it can be noted in an article for the song and/or in a Limp Bizkit discography article. Otto4711 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phish Covers

[edit]
List of Phish Covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - has been tagged as unsourced for a year. Reliable sources probably can't be found that would satisfy verifiability concerns. It is also not particularly notable that a group played a cover song at a concert. Otto4711 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – more claims to relevance than other of these "list of covers by..." artists as they're a jam band, very prone to covers, have covered whole albums for Hallowe'en, and whatnot. However, this is a double-edged sword as it also makes a definitive list of covers almost completely impossible to maintain, update, or ever make comprehensive. Thus delete as covercruft per my reasoning @ Hendrix. tomasz. 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought on this tomasz., but since Phish is no longer a group, it would be conceiveable to complete the list. However, the list would be so long and it seems non notable. Just throwing in my two cents. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and replace with Jessops (photographic retailer) - though these requests are I think better listed at requested moves. WjBscribe 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessops

[edit]
Jessops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Need to delete to move Jessops (photographic retailer) in here, as this is an unnecessary disambiguation page; Instead the reference for Jessops of Nottingham should be an {{otheruses}} or similar Ratarsed 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Christmas

[edit]
One Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable event, written like an advert for the project Cheers, Afluent Rider 11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Smerge to craniopagus parasiticus. The condition is notable, but the name of the child is not necessary in order to document that. Keep arguments are not invalidated by this; the coverage is of an example of the condition not as a biography of the child. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Maged

[edit]

This article is about a victim of circumstance... there is no need for Wikipedia to be the tabloid in this case. If there is anything truly notable here, merge it into Cojoined twins and leave a redirect. Doc's speedy was proper, and the restore was, in my view, not. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The condition is notable, not the individual. I think the most constructive strategy would be to relocate this case story to TwinStuff (also a wiki), which maintains a list of hundreds of conjoined twins. Una Smith 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my nom. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is 'tabloid' about this article? It's written in a perfectly proper fashion and it's got multiple sources. The facts of this case are unusual and notable from a medical point of view and there was plenty of publicity surrounding the events at the time so this article is hardly an invasion of privacy. I don't see the rationale for deletion and none is actually given by the nominator. Nick mallory 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason given by me? The very nature of the article is tabloidish and sensationalistic... see WP:NOT, policy is changing. Merge it and leave a redirect, at best. In 100 years will this info be needed? ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you even guess whats important in 100 years, let alone a year from now? Thats called crystalballing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q. For the mergists. Would a merge improve the target?--Docg 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC
"The case illustrates that there is a continuum from craniopagus parasiticus to the phenomenon of the conjoined twin." - so probably yes, in this case. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this wasn't just a rare medical condition, it was also a rare and notable surgical procedure. MoodyGroove 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to conjoined twin. —Phil | Talk 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conjoined twins. The argument for deletion seems to be not that notibility fails due to a lack of multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, but that editors find the subject distasteful and "tabloidish." Wikipedia is not censored. The medical condition is clearly a proper subject for an encyclopedia and rare medical conditions are in fact discussed in well known paper encyclopedias. This would improve the article on the medical condition, by showing the state of the art in surgical attempts to separate the conjoined twins. Edison 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Remove actual names where appropriate and feasible (and perhaps delete all if not feasible). I'm concerned that we're not really delineating Wikipedia from a tabloid newspaper archive or a freakshow. It's neither. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to craniopagus parasiticus, removing anything prurient along the way. Nothing to do with censorship, eberything to do with drawing a distinction between tabloid freakshows and biograpies. The responsible way to treat this is to discuss it as an example of the condition, not to pretend that we have a biography (which we don't). Guy (Help!) 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate in some fashion - clear BLP violation. People who do not see this should go and reread BLP several times until they understand the policy. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read the actual article just once. She is dead.
The only living person mentioned is the fraternal twin Noora. Are you saying that BLP applies to Noora because it sure can't apply to Manar! Thus deleting the name Noora would stop the violation. violet/riga (t) 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take your own advice. This is not a BLP violation, the references are there, it is critical of noone and undue weight is only placed on the subject of the conjoined twin because that is the only notable thing about her. (hence it shouldnt be a biographical article, but an example in a higher article) ViridaeTalk 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - She (they) were the subject of major media coverage, including television appearances, ergo (they) were notable, despite for all the wrong reasons. The refs do need some work, however. Changed my recommendation to Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with a redirect per WP:BLP. Mmoyer 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to craniopagus parasiticus per Guy, some of the information/refs can usefully improve that article. There's certainly no reason to have a separate article, though. EliminatorJR Talk 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, prefer merge The case appears medically significant and the article focuses on the medical aspects of the case, rather than the sensationalism. Even though it was mentioned on Scopes, it does not appear to be the subject of an abusive internet meme. Although WP should respect the privacy concerns of non-public persons (which I think is what the invocation of WP:BLP above refers to), where the individuals involved do not appear to be concerned about keeping the subject of the story out of the public eye, privacy issues become less of a concern with respect to the information that the individuals are themselves making public. If I had a child with a rare birth defect I doubt I would take the child on Oprah, but the parents made the choice to do so. There is no need for WP to be more concerned about the privacy of a subject than the subject herself (or in this case her parents) is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly opposed to a merge. The arguments above are sound, this meets all relevant policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conjoined twin as per Mackensen and Tangotango. The article in question isn't a biography, but instead a medical history. FCYTravis 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to conjoined twin. This article isn't very valuable by itself, but parts of it could make a good addition to another article. --Carnildo 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The BBC is not "tabloid". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point. Prurient coverage is different from scholarly coverage or coverage which seeks to document an issue dispassionately. The BBC are just as capable of being sensationalist as anyone else. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "sensationalist" is subjective. I base my opinions on the record of the medium. The BBC isn't being sensationalist in its coverage at all, and doesn't have a history of being sensationalist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, applicable content already merged. This is a case study, not a biography. The article for the specific condition (craniopagus parasiticus) was poor, little more than a mounting platform for links to this article and the one below it on AFD. I have taken the liberty of redirecting that article to the broader parasitic twin (which was also dismal), rewriting the content, and referencing the material. I see no compelling reason to delete as opposed to redirecting; these names are in case literature and media coverage, and BLP concerns (such as future impact on Google placement) are unfortunately not applicable in either case. Serpent's Choice 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a substantial amount of non-trivial third party coverage of this subject such that it meets and exceeds both WP:A and WP:BLP standards, and I say this as someone who spends a good portion of my time upholding such policies. Burntsauce 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if not fully completed) This is basically a fork, a notable example that is very useful in an appropriate higher article but barely notable enough on its own to warrant an article. Examples such as this are very useful to casual readers of the higher articles but not very useful randomly searching the encyclopaedia. It has no hope of ever being featured, its only hope of ever being featured content if it is merged. So from the point of view of not having a biographical article on every single person who has done something remarkable once and from the point of view of improving the net quality of our articles I think a merge is appropriate. ViridaeTalk 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep had TV show dedicated to her story, that certainly passes our bar for notability. I do not see any BLP concern here as content is well referenced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see the point of a redirect or a merge; I seriously doubt any Wikipedia readers are going to be searching for this person, and any relevant content is already in the appropriate articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never know what people are going to search for, though. The name is out there. Someone might see it in another source, and come here expecting more info. Zagalejo 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep victim of circumstances? That applies to most notable people. Go ahead an delete the article to G.W.Bush, because he became president because he was a victim of circumstances, respectively born into a high profile ex-Presidential family. Genius also comes in part with birth too. Delete the article about Mozart, because this poor guy was also a victim of circumstances. tsts. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being afflicted with a medical condition this rare is notable (only 10 recorded cases). First operation of its kind in the Middle East. The article is well sourced and would be of interest to anyone doing research on conjoined twins. MoodyGroove 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with redirect sounds reasonable, although comments the refer to this as a freak show or like a tabloid are completely off base. Conjoined twins are a perfectly legitimate subject for an encycolopedia. As for WP:BLP is it privacy issue? I'm all for the presumption of privacy, but the medical aspects of this case are central to the subject's notability and the case is well documented. I'm not clear on how this article harms anyone. MoodyGroove 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Delete This and other relevant cases can be noted in Parasitic twin while being sensitive to the family and the impact of being listed in a top-ten web site in perpetuity. Do not maintain as a redirect. Thatcher131 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not maintain as a redirect? I can imagine someone using this name as a search term. Suppose they had seen the name over at snopes, and came here expecting more info? Zagalejo 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete in the name of human dignity and our own self respect. It might be appropriate to include a reference to this case [14] in conjoined twins, but the name of the unfortunate infant should not be used on this encyclopedia. Writing from that external reference would not incur any licensing problems. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the most appropriate action would be to merge the information about this clearly notable case, without using names, into the "parasitic twin" article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Martínez

[edit]

This article is about a victim of circumstance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and there is no need for the article to exist. If you must, redirect the name of the victim to Cojoined twins but I don't even see the need for that. Wikipedia is, I beleive, moving in a more ethical direction, and removing this article will be part of that change. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing to do with censorship. WP:NOT censored is about the inclusion of frank portrayals of sexual or other content, this is not about that, it's about an agglomeration of tabloid news stories masquerading as a biography. There is a core if intelligent content, on the procedures used to separate these twins, but the twins themselves are not culturally or historically important other than by reference to their condition, so the logical place to cover the information is in the article on the condition. Please do not bandy the term "censorship" about, since that is absolutely not what motivates this debate; this debate is motivated by concern for human dignity. Even if you disagree on the approach, I woudl ask you to respect Lar's motives in initiating the debate. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but when someone says an article must be removed not because it lacks sources satisfying WP:A and WP:N but because it seems to them "tabloid" and "unethical" and they wish to make Wikipedia not have articles they find offensive, that IS censorship per se. The dictionary says a censor is a person who removes "what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable." Edison 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per numerous well-reasoned comments below, specifically that there is no evidence that the cultural or istorical significance of this case is sufficient to overwhelm the pressing WP:BLP concerns it raises. Concern for process is all very well in its place, but poorly sourced biographies of people who were "apparently" a kidnapping victim once would not seem to me to be that place. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delimar Vera Cuevas

[edit]
Delimar Vera Cuevas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

10-year-old girl who "made headlines early in 2004" and should not have to live the rest of her life with a Wikipedia article reminding everyone for all eternity of what she went through. There's no evidence of long-term encyclopedicity demonstrated here. FCYTravis 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. I see no lasting notability here, and no need to sensationalise the plight of a victim. I think the speedy is in order per WP:BLP... and the undelete is OUT of order. that this was around for 3 years is more of a thing of shame than a reason to prolong the mistake. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately there are hundreds of kidnapping cases every year, but this article fails to establish what made this instance unique or worthy of being an encyclopedia article. --Ozgod 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Lar. Cary Bass demandez 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic - not even violet riga seems to claim it is. She appears to have restored this 'out of process for process reasons - which is insane. -Docg 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not be afraid of following process in deleting articles. Do not refer to the actions of admins in following process as "insane." Whise this kidnapping case might technically have two or more newspaper articles with substantial coverage of the case, it is, sadly, an all too common event. The unusual part is the mother using CSI-style techniques and actually getting her child back. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive, and not all news stories are encyclopedic even with multiple stories about the events and people, I do not see a loss to the Wikipedia project in deleting this. The argument for deleting it because it might cause embarrassment to the subject later in life is not convincing, since Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly merged to List of one-off characters on South Park by myself. Non-admin closure; I'm just cleaning up here. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 10:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat abbot

[edit]
Fat abbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The character this article refers to only features in one episode of South Park, therefore the character is hardly notable. The character is already dealt with on the page referring to the episode. Finally, the script that makes up the page is copied straight from this website Jorvik 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Corley

[edit]
Jackie Corley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, about Jackie Corley and created by User:Jackiecorley, appears to be about a non-notable author, using WP:BIO guidelines. Author does not appear to have produced any major works, outside of a handful of short stories and her own website. A recent post on her personal website (using the link on the article) states that "I finally signed up for a Wikipedia account and have gone into Wiki-insanity. We’re talking Word Riot plugging everywhere (though I still have to make an actual “Word Riot” entry)", suggesting that these Wikipedia articles are primarily being used for advertising purposes. Sjb90 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging market business

[edit]
Emerging market business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is difficult-to-judge case because it may seem OnTopic. It seems relevant or useful at first glance, but I think the intent behind it is basically to pitch for consultancy services. Had the author included the content in Emerging markets, I would have more faith in the sources cited, such as the consultant's own research. I propose delete on the grounds that this is thinly disguised spam, namely source soliciting. --Gavin Collins 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, quite strongly. Reads like an essay; uncertain what it's trying to be about. The prose seems deliberately vague and gushy. Parts of it would read like a how-to manual but for the fact that the counsel given is so vague as to be wholly uninformative. (Companies that hope to improve or maintain their global market position must have a strong presence in developing economies. However, the products, services and skills used to achieve market leadership in mature markets do not automatically transfer to emerging market economies. When creating an expansion strategy, companies must consider many important differences between mature and emerging markets.) Prose this full of empty abstractions gives me a headache. Agree with the nominator that this bears all the hallmarks of consultancy crypto-spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiversity, per the tag on the article. This is clearly an essay and thus beyond the scope of Wikipedia, but seems to go deeper than pure original thought, so it may work well as a learning material. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my apologies to Vital Wave Consulting, but this really looks like a spam fork of emerging markets, which the author previously tried to spam. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was this problem didn't get solved either. There's a lot of text here, and good arguments on both sides, I ultimately can't see a consensus one way or the other. There's a transwiki request up to move it to Wikiversity. I hope discussion on that is productive, it does indeed appear that Wikiversity may be a better home for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in chemistry

[edit]
Unsolved problems in chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Such a page is inherently PoV. Who decides that a problem is "unsolved"? Who decides that a "problem" is a "problem"? If this page is kept, I would wish to add "Why doesn't Physchim62 earn enough?" as the greatest unsolved problem in chemistry... Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional scientists can decide what a great unsolved problem is. Just look in the literature. Some common sense is also needed. Certain colleges even spend parts of their courses talking about what the unsolved problem are in disciplines such as physics and chemistry. It helps to establish what we know and we don't know and what type of new research is required in the future. Heliumballoon 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a professional scientist, I have given my "greatest problem in chemistry"; my partner agrees we me, should we place it on the page? :P Physchim62 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unsolved problems in chemistry page suffers from exactly the same problems as the unsolved problems in biology page, which is currently nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination).

The mere concept of "unsolved problems" does not really apply for chemistry. Famous single unsolved problems exist in the formal sciences like mathematics (see unsolved problems in mathematics) and in the applied sciences. For natural science, the "unsolved problems" are hidden in -and dictated by- the respective objects of study and nature.

The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in an accumulation of randomly selected and often minor chemical topics, vague questions, non-chemistry topics, already or partly solved problems, pseudoscientific problems, and problems that could never be solved by scientific methods. The current version is a good example for that and the mentioned problems are obvious for any biologists or chemists. While readers who are not experienced in this field might find that collection interesting, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to keep purely entertaining articles (beside those eye-catchers on the main page).

An introduction into chemistry topics and an impression about research in this field is already given by our chemistry article the respective subdisciplines linked from there. A complete list of all possible chemical topics would not be useful and is beyond an encyclopedic article. A random selection of topics would be inherently biased and would thereby violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and, perhaps, Wikipedia:No original research. It is also immanently impossible to find reliable sources for a certain selection or inclusion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Also judging from the contents on this page during the past years, this article is not manageable and can never become an encyclopedic article and should be deleted (the only alternative to deletion would be a precise definition of what belongs into this article and what not, but after thinking about this for a long time now, I could not come up with one). Cacycle 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While this information is not cited, if it is valid, it could be potentially quite useful, and would be useful to someone. It seems a waste to simply delete. --Remi 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - there is consensus about this is scientific journals and textbooks. It also helps to define what new areas chemistry is exploring. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am still not sure if you can imagine (after being here for only 14 days and 36 edits mainly in edit wars and policy discussion), how difficult it is to keep articles manageable if there is not the slightest agreement on what belongs there and what not. The big problem is that there is not any agreement on what makes a notable "unsolved problem in chemistry". But feel free to provide reliable sources to back up your claim. Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alas my username is so young and tender and so wet behind the ears..... Here are some specific peer reviewed articles that talk about an "unsolved problem" in chemistry. Defining the frontiers of science is something scientists do all the time and is very useful to know - surely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
  • 1. Science magazine devoted a whole issue to 125 unsolved puzzles and questions. First 25 [15] Next 100 [16] Here are a few that are relevant to chemistry. What is the structure of water? Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes with its nearest neighbors. What is the nature of the glassy state? Molecules in a glass are arranged much like those in liquids but are more tightly packed. Where and why does liquid end and glass begin? Are there limits to rational chemical synthesis? The larger synthetic molecules get, the harder it is to control their shapes and make enough copies of them to be useful. Chemists will need new tools to keep their creations growing. Can we predict how proteins will fold? Out of a near infinitude of possible ways to fold, a protein picks one in just tens of microseconds. The same task takes 30 years of computer time.
  • 2. [17] CHEMISTRY: Polymers Without Beginning or End Tom McLeish (20 September 2002) Science 297 (5589), 2005. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1076810] "Natural polymer molecules dominate biology, while artificial polymers are used as plastics or emulsifiers in countless modern products. Many characteristics of their crystalline, glassy, and fluid states can be traced back to the special properties generated by the ends of the molecules. But what would happen if there were no ends? What would be the properties of polymers composed entirely of closed loops?.......The new polymers may not immediately result in new, competitive products, but they stand every chance of clarifying some unsolved puzzles of polymer science.
  • 3. [18] Chemistry: Enhanced: Putting Molecules Behind Bars Steven C. Zimmerman (25 April 1997) Science 276 (5312), 543. [DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5312.543] One of the most fundamental unsolved problems in chemistry is predicting, based solely on its molecular structure, how a molecule will pack in the solid state....
  • 4. [19] presented here [20] Unsolved Problems in Nanotechnology: Chemical Processing by Self-Assembly - Matthew Tirrell - Departments of Chemical Engineering and Materials, Materials Research Laboratory, California NanoSystems Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. The title of this paper says it all. It was presented at the department of Chemical Engineering at The Ohio State University - Centennial of the Department’s founding - April 24-25, 2003
  • 5. [21] The French Chemical Society has a list of 10 problems with various sub-categories for Chemistry in the 21th Century that needed solving. Among them are questions such as: Why CO2 does not form a network like quartz? Devise structural methods that allow you to see how enzymes work in real time. N2 activation 70% of the air. Can we use it selectively and cost-efficiently to make organic compounds, e.g. amino acids? (Really) stable amorphous or glass materials. Stable for ever, whatever the Tg (i.e. fight thermodynamics) "Steath prodrugs" In order to, for instance, solubilise insoluble drugs (other than CDs, micelles, nano suspensions, super solvents, emulsions etc): a prodrug that would be formed only when the active is placed in contact with water (so that there is no need to describe and characterize the prodrug, but only the active), and would release the active immediately after administration to patient (so that there is only the active circulating in the plasma). Heliumballoon 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment- If this is kept, there should be some other inclusion-criterion. Should any little problem be inclduded? What makes a problem "large enough" that it merits a mention on this list? At the cutting-edge of any dicipline there will be a near-infinite amount of unsolved problems. Some of these will be solved after being "unsolved" for only a short period of time, since the reason they are unsolved are more because they are NEW problems than DIFFICULT problems. Only including problems that have been unsolved for say, five years, will give the list greater stability, but the number of unsolved problems will still be too large, I think, to include them all. My vote therefore must be delete in its current form, or keep with more restricitive and less arbitrary inclusion criteria.Dr bab 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This will never become an encyclopedic article, it is not manageable, not the slightest clue and agreement exists for inclusion (and exclusion) criteria, the list title is a misconception about the nature of chemistry, and it violates many Wikipedia policies (see nomination). Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as per heliumballoon. clearly mentions why this is notable and verifiable. in addition, i don't see why this editor's particular edit history or time with wikipedia has anything to do with the validity of their vote or argument. i'm CERTAIN after reading numerious writings by Jimbo Whales about how this is a democratic community that is entirely out-of-line. In the U.S., your vote doesn't count any less just because you're 18. Kudos to heliumballoon on responding very well and good-naturedly to it, but I still think it was out-of-line. Barsportsunlimited 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is interesting how this discussions attracts voters that have been around for only a week and that have not made a single article edit. Cacycle 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also interesting that instead of making statements to refute the arguments for keeping the article, you instead choose to attack the editing records of those who support keeping the article. -Interested2 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Cacycle's comment above is really out of line. Ad hominem is not a suitable way to discuss this. The real solution to edit issues in the Unsolved Problems series may be to identify people who will keep an eye on the articles, but fundamentally agree with the concept itself, rather than to delete the article. I sense frustration over having to edit out had entries to the point where even reasonable entries ones are reflexively deleted without proper consideration or justification. Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments and suggestions. The concept of chemistry having unsolved problems goes back a long way and it is something that is defined and accepted in the scientific community. Linus Pauling, the nobel prize winner famously lectured on it in his time [22] Let us turn to day. Many colleges lecture on it today. The University at Buffalo has a course (Chemistry 455-Advanced Organic Chemistry I (3)) that spends some of its time with unsolved problems in chemistry. Harvard's Chemical biology department says that "the courses offered by the program will emphasize concepts, unsolved (or partially solved) problems". Daniel Raleigh, Professor at Stony Brook University while describing his research says "An understanding of how proteins fold is one of the major unsolved problems of modern biochemistry" I hope at this point I have convinced people that it can be well defined.
So next how to define it? Well how about either one of the following:
  1. That which in the scientific literature is seen as being an major unsolved problem.
  2. The frontier of chemistry (what it is that people are trying to do but have not done yet) - eg the use of gold nano particles to deliver drugs.
  3. Conceptual problems where empirical results contradict theory or areas where one theory contradicts another.
  4. Areas where we do not understand why something occurs empirically (we have no theory at all). eg Why do fluorines have such unusual properties?
All arguments would need to be justified by quoting the appropriate literature. So one could either show that the literature says 'X' is a major unsolved problem. Or one shows that the literature says that one of the other categories apply and that the case is not trivial. Thus it would be recommended that this is something that would be left to practicing scientists. Heliumballoon 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this very first suggestion of possible criteria. But with this you essentially say that anything that is a current research topic can go on this page. There are hundred thousands of such topics, and every second introduction to a scientific article mentions an "unsolved problem". We need notability criteria. Your "everything goes" approach has been proven unmanageable over the last years and has led to more than one deletion request.
These would be my minimum requirements for an "unsolved problem in science" article:
  • It should be well known as an important unsolved problem by everybody graduating in the respective field
  • It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline
  • It should have traditionally (i.e. over a certain timespan) be referred to as one of the important "unsolved problems" in that field
  • It should be a well defined significant single problem and not just an incremental and gradual increase in knowledge
  • It should not be just the rephrasing of the topic of an existing subdiscipline in that science
All list entries on unsolved problems in physics, unsolved problems in mathematics, and unsolved problems in philosophy pass this test easily. Now try to find the "unsolved problems in chemistry". Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a problem with the requirement "It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline". People who are not biochemists are not well aware of major problems in biochem. They may not be aware of the protein folding question. Similarly people who are not physical chemists may not be aware of the relativistic problems with element 137. People not in the nano field may not be aware of its big problems. Unlike physics, chemistry is a field where you need to actually "know" and memorize a lot of material. Additionally each subfield requires quite different skills. Physical chemists are quite different from everyone else in the field for instance. Biochemists have to have memorized a lot and also conduct their research quite differently. The same kind of thing applies to organic, inorganic, anylatcal, nano, environmental and polymer chemistry. Physics in this regard is different in that the fundamental qualities of each sub discipline are quite conceptually similar. Everything is built directly on mathematics. Of course they use different equations, but their approach is very similar. Their is also much less to memorize. However people should not think that just because other chemists do not know about a physical chem question, it is trivial. That may not be the case at all. The problem would still need to be something that is major jump. Indeed when people in one field solve a major problem in their area it can be of great use to other areas of chemistry.
Let me be clear. I am not saying that incremental advances should be included. However I think that it should it is possible to show that something is conceptually a big deal and show examples in the literature of people discussing the problem. A possible way (but not the only way) to know if a problem is a big deal is to ask "what are the consequences if the problem is solved". For example the biggest problem with fuel cells is that they require platinum. There simply is not enough platinum on earth to provide even a significant fraction of all automobiles with it. People have been working on alternative catalysts for years now. If someone solves this problem we really could go ahead and use fuel cells on a mass scale. Let me also say that this is an area where 'appealing to authority' alone is concerning. Any argument made for why something is a big advance should come with a conceptual explanation as well as with articles in the literature explaining the problem. Consensus would need to be achieved that this was a major problem in the field. But people would need to be convinced at a conceptual level as well. eg People need to be able to understand why its so important to solve the protein folding problem. Again I suggest that chemists or those with a strong background in current chemistry be involved with this. It is difficult to define what exactly is a big problem in chemistry - it is not 100% precise. But, just because its hard should not prevent us from making as high-quality attempt as possible. I see no evidence that trivial problems have been posted on the article in the recent past and have stayed their for a long time. The article seemed to have worked quite well in practice. Of course it could do with further improvement. Heliumballoon 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per the previous deletion debates on these series of articles. No new reasons for deletion have been added. -Interested2 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Once more a user that has been around for only about two weeks with 7 edits total (1 single minor edit to mainspace) who directly jumped into deletion discussions. Just wondering.... Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...Wondering what? You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering why I should not have an opinion on AfDs purely because I have only recently begun to add to / edit wikipedia... But whatever, for an admin who claims 10k+ edits to use ad hom handbags and innuendo against any new users that disagree with them is a certain way to stifle authentic discussion. Just quietly, it is also suggestive of someone with their own personal pov-axe to grind and subtly undermines any other contribution you make.--Scriblio 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I see it, the proper definition is the series is that this series of articles is about the areas which are currently the subject of research by scientists in the field and to use the Wikipedian phrase are "notable" areas of research. This is a practical reference for people interested in pursuing a career in science to see what the current live issues in the field are and if those are issues of interest to those persons. The editing process also allows Wikipedia to exclude settled issues in a more timely fashion than a print source could, making this a good forum for it. In particular: Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in
- minor chemical topics (certainly O.K. to delete for lack of notability in a clear case);
- vague questions (not fatal if it captures the essence of the issue, the solution is tighter wording)
- non-chemistry topics (thus, move to the proper unsolved problem category)
- already or partly solved problems (already solved problems should obviously be deleted, but almost all problems are partly solve, this is no reason to complain about inclusion)
- pseudoscientific problems (Wikipedia should be accurate so removing these makes sense),
I agree that this must not be allowed in the article. I suggest that by restricting sources to scientific ones we will be ok. Eg - peer reviewed journals, science magazines, textbooks, websites of researchers, etc. Heliumballoon 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- problems that could never be solved by scientific methods (how often is that really true? also, some insoluable problems never the less attract lots of serious research interest because even getting close to an ultimately insoluable problem is interesting -- for example, a list of all chemicals existing in nature is inherently impossible since we can't search it all, but never the less, getting close can be very worthwhille) Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish delete This article is certainly better than the corresponding article for biology, but I think the same logic should apply - *Delete Almost all problems in chemisty are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted repeatedly, the "...in mathematics" and "...in physics" articles have logically-definable criteria on which to base such a entry; chemistry doesn't. (Not to mention the difficulty of writing such an entry with proper references and without POV problems). -- MarcoTolo 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Ohwilleke. Ezratrumpet 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Zginder 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) UIf this gets deleted then the physics one must be too. Just because you didn't major in Chemistry doesn't mean the article should be deleted.[reply]
    • You would be surprised to learn that most users who would like to see this article deleted are actually scientists and heavy contributors to chemistry articles on Wikipedia. Please read the nomination and the discussion above to see why many think that chemistry is different from physics. Cacycle 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was asked to give my comments, but I don't want to vote either way. I'm by nature a strong inclusionist, but I am a little uncomfortable with this article. As has been pointed out, the list is too open-ended and subjective, though if the list is simply a distillation of the key literature on the topic (which it seems to be) then that makes me much happier. Does it belong in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure. On balance I don't think I could vote either way. Walkerma 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment No opinion on deletion/inclusion, but this article as it stands has serious fundamental flaws from a Wikipedia article standpoint, namely what criteria is determining that a particular problem should be listed here and where are the reliable sources establishing that these are "persistent questions with deep implications"? I've tagged the article and if it is indeed kept these problems need to be addressed.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't see any changes since the previous deletion debate, where the consensus was to keep. I hope this is not one of those articles that people nominate 16 times just to see if they get lucky. --Itub 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may not be perfect now, but its existence is justifiable. It could be improved by adding references that show why a problem is considered an important unsolved problem and by whom. Heliumballoon gave some possible examples above. I also remember seeing books about "the future of chemistry" that could be useful for this purpose. --Itub 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated this after seeing the biology version; simply because this is is second nomination doesn't mean that I have a personal crusade against it. However, I do think that it is false, worthless and misleading: I hope that those editors who wish to keep it will improve it to the high intellectual caliber of their other Wikipedia contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just started the long process of finding references and of cleaning up the page. Heliumballoon 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just in case that this list article survives this deletion request, I suggest that we first try to to reach a consensus on its talk page on what belongs there. That will prevent frustration on both sides. Cacycle 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's more than a good suggestion — Wikipedia guidelines actually require lists to have specific criteria for inclusion. -- MarcoTolo 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even assuming that the article is false, worthless, and misleading, that is not reason enough to delete it. The questions should be: is the topic notable and are there reliable sources about it? We can still disagree about that, of course, but I think that the topic is notable and sources exists as mentioned above.
Commment. The closely related page unsolved problems in biology has now been deleted as an "inherently subjective list", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination). Cacycle 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Careful analysis of the references and strong arguments against this article meeting any group notability criteria hold more weight than the counter-arguments. IronGargoyle 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Dreadful Players

[edit]
Penny Dreadful Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent advert (see early revisions), no assertion of notability. The Anome 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity piece as it stands, needs sources. --Oscarthecat 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm..."See early revisions"? You mean, if someone writes something stupid, and I fix it, it should still be thrown out, because the early revisions are bad? Yes, the group doesn't get wikipedia. Yes, I tried to help them in spite of themselves. The fact that they're clueless shouldn't affect how we treat an article about them. For notability, the very fact that they're a 15 year old theatre group at a well-known university would count, wouldn't it? There is a huge shortage of articles in Category:Student theatre. If this isn't an appropriate article topic, what would be? (sorry for the snippy tone, I seem to have wasted a lot of time on this group) Stevage 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement to the article since early revision is considerable, but looking at the current version of the article, does it meet the WP:BIO criteria, in particular the sections on "entertainment groups" and "creative professionals" ? For example, if they have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment let's get this added to the article and a source cited. --Oscarthecat 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think BIO applies here, it's an organisation, not a collection of named or otherwise related people. Stevage 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then WP:CORP would apply, with the same effect. -- The Anome 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask that our page not be deleted. If an individual can have a wiki page, so should a group at a well-known University. We are currently working on getting more sources, but already have more that we originally did. This group is relevant to topics such as University of Illinois and student-theater, and will be a good source for prospective students wondering what activities there are to do at the University, as well as the 40,000 current students, and countless alumni. If anyone has any other suggestions for the page, we'd love to hear them. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.8.12 (talk • contribs)

The rules for inclusion are quite clear -- please see WP:CORP -- and at the moment the supporting cites supplied don't seem to me to meet the WP:CORP criteria. For example, self-published sources cannot be used to ascertain notability, and student magazines are typically not regarded as mainstream sources, or we would need to have an article about every student society at every college. Six of the external links that you have supplied all appear to use the same publishing software and page layout and all appear to be online student publications which are affiliates of one another. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Penny Dreadful Players for an analysis of the external links provided.) What Wikipedia is not has more information about using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. -- The Anome 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that the Daily Illini , from which a number of the sources hail, is a legitimate newspaper in existence since 1871. In the champaign-urbana community it is mainstream media. the buzz magazine is a weekly entertainment magazine inserted into the Daily Illini. whether these articles are enough to ascertain notability, i don't know.-- Supermackin 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a student-run newspaper (albeit a long-established one), reporting on its local student drama society. Anyway, regardless of all this, no-one has yet, as far as I can tell, made any assertion that the Penny Dreadful Players have had any "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" outside their local community, other than that which might be expected of any university drama society, of which there are thousands worldwide? -- The Anome 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, advert, vanity, etc. G1ggy! Review me! 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Colleges are generally notable, though college-affiliated groups need to show that they have received special coverage in external media, in my opinion, before they deserve articles. The sources provided so far don't appear to meet the test, since they amount to saying 'This group is famous all over campus.' I'm impressed by the analysisis of the sources done by User:Anome above and reported on the Talk page of this AfD. His quotations from policy are convincing as well. EdJohnston 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Consensus is to keep per improvement PeaceNT 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calerway

[edit]
Calerway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject has performed with a number of notable bands but does not appear to be notable itself. The only sources provided are not independent of the subject. Mattinbgn/ talk 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Such bands as Heavy weight Chanp are basically in the same boat as Calerway, the band is pretty big over in Perth and has toured across Australia and Singapore and is releasing their proper album in the coming weeks.
  • Comment Please think over the dealtetation, i would add more to the page but the offical site is down currently.
  • Comment 30/05 7:54pm - I've read over those articles, but i'm still stuck on which points to clear up for the article? (beginner at this)
  • Comment Link to the TripleJ playlist that played a Calerway song and interview with JP
    • Comment the link is dead or at least it doesn't work for me. I will look at the TripleJ website myself. I have taken the liberty of formatting your contributions to the discussion. Please sign your comments using ~~~~ at the end of your message so others know who is commenting. Mattinbgn/ talk 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can't see it here. I still don't think it is notable, sorry.Mattinbgn/ talk 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Weak keep based on recent edits. I would withdraw but there is at least one other vote to delete, so probably should run its course. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By WP:MUSIC, the band must have released at least 2 albums with major labels in order to be considered notable. The article only mentions one album, and Valet Records does not seem to be a major label (rather a startup indy label). So the subject fails notability guidelines, unless someone comes up with sources that support other criteria of WP:MUSIC (secondary coverage of tours, charted hits, etc.). --B. Wolterding 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the improvements in the article during the AfD, I am changing my vote to Keep. --B. Wolterding 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability guidelines under WP:MUSIC requires that the cirteria for musicans and music ensembles are notable if they meet one of the criteria not just that it has to have released at least 2 albums. It should be noted that the band has not only toured Australia - performing in Perth and Victoria but has also toured South-east Asia (which has been referenced via a independent source). The band have recieved airplay on Triple J the national youth broadcaster for Australia and their video clip has been aired on rage. All of which justifies the articles inclusion. Dan arndt 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC by virtue of overseas tour (to Singapore). Lankiveil 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, obscure but notable by virtue of criteria per WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The article fails to prove its notability, and does not describe the website in a encyclopedic manner (contrary to Faith Freedom International who also received significant independent coverage). -- lucasbfr talk 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pojo.com

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

Article about non-notable website. Article is unsourced (WP:A), doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notable web content (WP:WEB), and is written like a guide to the site (WP:NOT#IINFO). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, just in case this interests anyone: Pojo.com Alexa rank 22,696; Faith Freedom International Alexa ranking 49,816. It didn't make up my mind but it's a good idea to compare to other articles (that have survived many AfDs). gren グレン 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources, fails WP:WEB. Alexa is not notability, and neither is Google, though a mere 377 unique Ghits [23] is worth noting. EliminatorJR Talk 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline A7. It's a well written article and such, but I can't see any claim to why it's notable and as mentioned above, no references. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, strictly going by their own site (not preferred, but it's the simplest way to show this), the assertion of notability is "Pojo.com is the Internet's premiere location for the most popular of Gaming issues" . If so, it'd certainly merit inclusion. However, I don't know if it is so or not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that 1) There's no reliable sources to back up such a claim, and 2) the description as a "premier location for the most popular of Gaming issues" is way too vague. Do they mean tabletop or video games? In either case, I'd say there are bigger and more notable sites to deal with issues from either medium. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, that would be why I said "If so" and pointed out that it's only them saying so. It is however, still an obvious claim to notability, even though self-asserted. Whether or not you disagree or consider it vague isn't the issue. It's whether any reliable sources also say so. And I mostly bring it up to refute the speedy deletion claims. That would not be an appropriate action in this case. But beyond that, there is the book publication issue to consider as well. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable website that is a blatant violation of WP:WEB. Speedy if possible. -=Elfin=-341 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, well besides a website, they've published books/magazines with H&S Media, Inc. (Which may merit an article itself, given that it's had sales over 50 million $ a year) and more recently with Scholastic. These books are available at retail stores like Wal-mart, Target, and B&N as well as online from Amazon.com. I'm not sure if that means the site merits inclusion or not on that basis, but it does need to be examined. In any case, though, google searches and alexa rankings are flawed, especially so when you have to exclude the website itself. Therefore, I suggest not making any decision based on that. In any case, this should not be speedied, but given the full five days for folks to discuss this. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. Encyclopedias have articles to inform readers, and regardless of how "notable" or "valuable" it may be, someone will probably come along and want a wiki on Pojo. You should look at some of the useless articles we have on here. We have tiny little stubs on some of the most unimportant subjects but I'm sure someone must want to know the history of a pencil. Fock Yeah Seaking 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are actually many concerns about the existence of useless and stub articles on Wikipedia, but that isn't a good argument to keep an article. It would be better if you took a look at WP:WEB or WP:CORP and see if you can meet any of the criteria there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heaven Shop

[edit]
The Heaven Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) guidelines Calliopejen1 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Dozier Tha Phantom

[edit]
John Dozier Tha Phantom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Musician active for less than two years, still attending highschool. Valentinian T / C 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cummings (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Rebecca Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was previously kept on some pretty sketchy argumentation, mainly that editors liked her apparent accomplishments. However, I can't find a single reliable, independent source to verify any of it. Google doesn't turn up a single biography on her, a single newspaper article, trade magazine article, anything. The one article cited is down, and it's not even about her, it's about the fact that the Wikipedia article exists (according to our old signpost article mentioning it). So all we have is her own site and a webcast radio show. The article has been written by either Rebecca Cummings or someone closely affiliated with her, but without sources, writing about yourself is just original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear from the article to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. No attribution for any of the claims. --Charlene 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This never should have been kept in the first place, and there's even less reason now. —Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and lack of multiple independant sources about the subject. -- saberwyn 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to satisfy WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad for an escort service. JJL 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 53 unique ghits for '"Rebecca Cummings" pornography -wikipedia', none of them from anything approaching a reliable source (although there may well be some relevant hits that don't include "pornography" it seems likely that any reliable source on her will include the word or a close-enough derivative of it that google will pick it up) JulesH 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I the original editor of the article. Along with my comments for keep in the first AfD I would like to add the following.
    • Rebecca's article has gotten two stub ratings since it was originally given a stub rating by an administrator, as well as others, who helped me get it to the point it was a complete article. With the last two stub banners that were posted by a bot one of the banners says, "(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)". Not one comment was left and I was left searching the guidelines and policies to try and find out why. Then when I ask for an Administrators help the article gets put up for deletion. (To clarify I should say Night Gyr posted a message in the same Administrator talk page and is not the Administrator I was asking for advice from.)
    • I must say writing a Wikipedia article has been an experience. At this point I will never write or help edit another article for Wikipedia. It's not worth the wasted time after the article is written. Rebecca's article became a complete article with the help and support of several administrators and users that treated me with the respect someone writing their first Wikipedia article should receive. It was even improved by a suggestion during the first article for deletion debate. I've read a lot of the endless whirlpool of pages about Wikipedia and the processes, guidelines and policies to writing good articles and porn bios just to have other guidelines and policies buried inside Wikipedia that contradict the ones I read brought up. I've addressed issues as they came up while I was writing the article, after I wrote the article and also the first time the article was put up for deletion just to see the exact same issues come up in this AfD. That says there wasn't very much research before putting the article up for deletion the second time or posting a comment.
    • To address the comments above:
    • 1) I would ask that you expand on why it does not meet criteria so I can better understand. example - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO because ____ instead of just Does not meet WP:PORNBIO.
    • 2) Please show verification that the newspaper article doesn't contain personal information about Rebecca that was used in her Wikipedia article. (The main thing that comes to my mind is her home town which I left out because it was original research and was added by User:TrojanMan after the newspaper article was published.)
    • 3) Is a webcast radio show any less of a reliable source then a TV or newspaper story?
    • 2) The original research issue was dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar when I first started the article and in the first AfD.
    • 3) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says an article cannot be written by someone closely affiliated to the subject of the article? (The issue if I was Rebecca was also dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar)
    • 4) Where does it say WP:BIO is the only standard for articles involving people in the adult industry instead of including WP:PORNBIO?
    • 5) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says the number of Google hits determines notability? (Someone notable in Rhode Island will have fewer hits then someone notable in California. Does that make them any less notable and unacceptable for Wikipedia?)
    • 6) I would also like to see verification that Rebecca is an escort or works for an escort service or that Heart Throbs or HT Productions is an escort service which would make her article just an "ad for an escort service".
    • The only new argument for deletion since the first AfD is the that the link to the referenced newspaper article is down and becasue of that parts of Rebecca's article cannot be verified. I agree the link is down but from the discussion in the first AfD it is obvious the newspaper article was there. (<~~ Chowbok - I think I found something we both can agree on.) To help me understand Wikipedia better can someone point me in the direction of a policy or guideline about what happens when a link used as a reference in an article is down and that the article should be put up for deletion. The other option and I cannot find the format to use in Rebecca's article is the newspaper (and possibly the Des Moines public library) should have the article in the companies library or on microfiche. I'm still searching but if someone let's me know where to find the information on how to reference the newspaper article by using the contact information of the newspaper or the public library I will change it in Rebecca's article which will eliminate the verifiability issue.--HeartThrobs 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is pretty simple. When you write from firsthand experience, you end up writing facts that haven't been published anywhere before. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that, because everything written here needs to be verifiable to a reliable published source. The facts in the article need to be supported by reliable, published sources, and that's non-negotiable. It just wasn't enforced as strictly before. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing in the article that is original research. I was informed about original research when I first started the article. (see home town example above) That is also why I asked for help in being pointed in the right direction on how to cite directly to the newspaper's office since the article was online but the link is now broken. I'm still trying to find it in the Wikipedia guidelines but haven't found it yet. --HeartThrobs 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I also edited my prior comments to indent the numbered comments so it is easier to read. The only changes made were two astericks added before 1).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Federation of Young Republicans

[edit]
Michigan Federation of Young Republicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article makes no assertion of notability for its subject. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

[edit]
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor campaign by the Discovery Instuitute, just over a thousand ghits, does not appear to have been picked up by any major news source. Also, is the debunking original research? There's so little on the PR stunt online... Adam Cuerden talk 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Notable. But the numbers of people signing that statement should be related to the number of physicians who know about the statement and declined to sign it, not to the total number of physicians. Any data on how widely this statement is circulated among those professionals?Northfox 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, just as with the other 10 or 15 similar petitions that have been circulated on both sides of this issue, there is no way to determine this. This statement is no different than Project Steve or A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or any of the others in this respect.--Filll 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Spaniel

[edit]
William Spaniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a vanity article, written at the subject's request by his fans, and based almost entirely on his column, written for a minor fansite (which he runs). He's never been the subject of significant commentary written by anyone other than himself; there are two links mentioning him in the external links, but both of those are responses to his critical articles, by the subjects of those criticism. There's no sources we can use to write an article about him, save for his own all-but-self-published column. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona

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

An apparently non-notable, web-based constructed language. This article has a long history, created way back in early 2002; the history of this constructed language and its online community appears to be highly intertwined with Wikipedia, as it it was invented in "mid-2001," less than a year before this page was created, the creator of the language has extensively edited this article, and the apparently there was even a Toki Pona Wikipedia that has since been deactivated.

This article was previously nominated for deletion 2 1/2 years ago on the vague grounds of being "unencyclopedic"; it was kept, with most of the "keep" arguments on the grounds that it has a following on the Internet with several fan sites, a Yahoo group, and the now-defunct Wikipedia.

However, the original AfD did not deal with a very important point: the lack of available reliable sources to demonstrate notability and ensure that all of this information is verifiable. I've scoured the Google News archives, as well as my university's Lexis-Nexis search, but have been unable to find a single reliable source myself. Attempts have been made on the talk page to find sources, but the only ones that have been added are an article about constructed languages with a small sidebar entry about Toki Pona, and an article about the speed of thought that cites it among other examples of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, neither source addresses the language directly nor in detail, as WP:N defines. Additionally, the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible to confirm crucial details such as the assertion that the language's creator Sonja Elen Kisa is actually a linguist, for instance, or to verify that the number of language speakers and "enthusiasts" is accurate. Krimpet (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject is not notable. The grammar information composing most of this article has never been published in any reliable source. Toki Pona has received no attention from academic linguistics. This language seems to only exist in Yahoo groups and websites published by its creator, who does not seem to claim any credentials as a professional linguist. -- Schaefer (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia could stand to be cleaned out of a number of Conlang articles, which, like other internet-based topics, got in early when standards weren't so strictly enforced. This just doesn't meet the standards for having sources that support the text. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think this might be as notable as many of the books we have. I do have a problem keeping it in this form which makes it look like a language when it's a study/book/research paper. Maybe it should be kept on this merits, although it would involve some work. gren グレン 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as failing WP:A and WP:N. Although it makes someone a fine hobby, and a few other people seem to like it, Wikipedia is not here to publicize things an editor made up which failed to demonstrate notability in the larger world out there. Edison 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Toki Pona is in fact quite well known among esperantists and indeed does give interesting insights in the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis. And there are a lot of people who did not come across Toki Pona through the author's website or through Esperanto meetings where Toki Pona is often taught as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And Toki Pona certainly is one of the well-known and wide-spread planned languages (the fact that it is only some 5 years old makes it of course less known than older projects such as Volapük, Esperanto or Interlingua). In my opinion, Wikipedia should be kept from "private conlangs" spoken by only one or a very few persons. For Toki Pona there are certainly a hundred or more speakers. I'm sorry that I cannot prove this, it's just based on personal experience. But it's absolutely not true that the editor just made it up for the article (this would be called "Original Research", wouldn't it?) — N-true 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The issue is not whether an editor "made up" the content or whether there are 3, 30, or 300 speakers. It's whether the reader can verify that the information in this article is compiled from reliable third-party publications. Once all the information that cannot be thus verified is removed, how much content do you expect will be left? -- Schaefer (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if that is the case... then why are we arguing about notability? It's obvious that the language is notable (there was a Wikipedia in it, once, 12 links from other articles, dozens from talkpages and userpages, 30 interwiki links which are not just stubs, various TP-groups on Yahoo!, StudiVZ or LiveJournal, just to name a few...). The facts about the language's structure can easily be checked with the official website or can even be verified/corrected by Sonja E. Kisa herself. Merely its usage and speaker count is not as easily retrievable. — N-true 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability doesn't flow in circles: a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia can't be justified by its inclusion in Wikipedia. Groups on Yahoo! and LiveJournal are not encyclopedic sources. The grammar information on this page concerns a "language" with a dictionary of 118 words, and no literary works of reasonable length. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the claiming there exists anyone who can express themselves fluently in a language limited to 118 words is extraordinary enough to warrant the attention of professional linguists the world over. No such attention has come. Not one word of Toki Pona has been published in any physical book, ever. I can't see where this "obvious" notability is coming from. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The facts about the language's structure can easily be checked with the official website or can even be verified/corrected by Sonja E. Kisa herself. — If the only source for an article is the sole word of a Wikipedia editor, then that article is unverifiable. If the only source for knowledge on a subject is what is documented about it by its inventor/creator/author, then that subject is not notable. Uncle G 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are factual sources for the contained material, several academic articles and even books make reference to the language. A Google search is an insufficient test for notability! Canderra 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please name some of these academic articles. I've done searches on both LexisNexis and EBSCOHost for "toki pona" with no results, and the results on Google Scholar (4 results, none of which is in English) don't seem to be written by professional academics or published in any printed journals. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement is, as far as I can tell, untrue. I can find no books about this purported language. The German paper, alluded to by Schaefer, is self-published on a web site, and not a journal article at all. Uncle G 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There Was a TOKIPONA wikipedia. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre!My name is Maximus Caesar Zabidus 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for historical purposes, or as an alternative, transwiki to Meta. If a language was once taken seriously enough to have a Wikipedia in that language (although it has since been deleted and moved to Wikia), users should at least be able to find out what the language is like. (Note that the Toki Pona Wikipedia managed at one point to garner more articles than such languages as Tibetan, Somali, Lao, Khmer, and even Punjabi -- the latter of which has over 100 million speakers.) --Metropolitan90 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that that fact was never considered notable enough by anyone outside of Wikipedia that they actually recorded it. The existence and demise of a Wikipedia is not a part of recorded human knowledge outside of Wikipedia. As such, it is unverifiable. The only way for a reader who has never heard that before to verify its truth is to labouriously perform primary historical research. There are no sources to consult that actually document the history that you are referring to. It is not part of recorded human knowledge.

      And the same goes for the language as a whole. No-one apart from its creator has actually documented it. There are no third-party primers, grammars, readers, tutorials, teaching aids, or other such published materials. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Everything in Wikipedia has to have gone through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. Evidence that knowledge of this language has actually become part of the general corpus of human knowledge would be multiple non-trivial published works from people independent of the creator that are about the language. But no such works apparently exist.

      Keeping this "for historical purposes" is to argue that Wikipedia itself should be a primary historical source. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not a primary source. There are alternative outlets for primary research and primary source material. Wikipedia is not such an outlet. Uncle G 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Reliable sources: [25] [26] [27]. Yes, the last two seem to be self published, but they are written by people who appear to be experts in constructed languages. I'm not certain, but these four non-english results on google scholar are probably also acceptable: [28], Additional evidence of notability: a course offered in the language at MIT. Saying that there are no sources to verify the information in the article is ridiculous: almost all of the information in the article is contained in that first source. There is a very in-depth article linked in the references section of the current article. It might be in Russian, but there is no wikipedia policy that sources must be in English. It was apparently published in "Journal Kompyuterra No. 26-27 (July 20, 2004)" and seems to include a complete section on Toki Pona and its application to investigating the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Also, the official web site of the language, while self published by its author, can be considered a reliable source for the vast majority of the content as it is mostly non-contentious. All-in-all, there is no shortage of sources here. JulesH 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those first websites you posted are self-published! The first is in the personal web space of B. K. Knight, a 21-year-old student at UGA. The second is from a self-published website by a guy named Simon Ager, and the third is just a blog hosted on Google's free Blogger service. The four Google Scholar results you mentioned have already been addressed: The only ones with a non-trivial mention of Toki Pona are the essays in German and Spanish, both of which are self-published online by their authors and not printed in any sort of journal, academic or otherwise. I don't speak Japanese, but the Japanese article only mentions Toki Pona once outside of footnotes, as part of a list of artificial languages. I cannot determine whether this article is self-published or not, but the reference is clearly trivial either way. The Russian article in the Google Scholar results is also trivial reference, as Toki Pona is part of a long list of artificial languages and is not given even one word of discussion (note the article even mistakenly lists it as two languages, Toki and Pona).
Finally, there is not a course offered in Toki Pona at MIT. The activity described in the link you provided is clearly stated to be a free, non-credit activity session with no advance sign-up required, held only once on 20 January 2004, lasting for one hour. The instructor is not an MIT professor, but rather the former president of the student Esperanto Club. This is not, by any stretch of the phrase, a "course offered in the langauge at MIT". -- Schaefer (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments given by Schaefer and Krimpet. Maybe this will be notable someday. At any rate, it doesn't seem to belong in the article namespace. A greatly reduced version or some other record of it in the project namespace might be appropriate (since there was a WP in it). - Aagtbdfoua 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I arrived at this discussion inclined to keep, but I agree that Wikipedia should not be a means for disseminating knowledge of what is still a mute lili (tiny) phenomenon. People searching for info about Toki Pona can turn to the "official website," Omniglot, etc. It does not yet seem an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedians are Toki Pona enthusiasts does not change this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the mere fact that there are several hundreds or even thousands people scattered all over the globe (so it's not a closed group) out there who know about Toki Pona and perhaps want to know more about it, should be reason enough to keep the article. If it really get's deleted, we will have to delete Wenedyk and Loituma Girl and many other articles with no 3rd party sources for the same reason. With this argument, you could delete perhaps 10% to 20% of Wikipedia because those information could as well be retrieved from some official sites. In addition, the official website of Toki Pona only gives prescriptive information about the grammar and usage of the language, but a Wiki article presents meta-information about it. With the deletion, Wikipedia will lose information, that (quite obviously) lots of people were interested in. Toki Pona cannot be compared with something like a "private conlang", which would indeed be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. — N-true 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, none of the sources I checked online claimed that more than a few hundred Toki Pona speakers currently exist. The question here is not whether the topic is interesting -- I, for one, am interested, and am glad the deletion discussion happened to lead me to it. But as to whether it is appropriate to include the topic in Wikipedia -- yet -- I believe the answer is no. Note that no one is calling for the topic to be purged from the realm of human knowledge, nor are they stating that there's something wrong with your or my being interested in the topic. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm not sure about the notability of it...it seems non notable, and the references are terrible, but I have an inkling that it might just have something. Hence the weak delete G1ggy! Review me! 07:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of verifiability through reliable sources. Nobody can say it wasn't given adequate time to improve. Congrats on having the single most odd illustration I've ever seen in Wikipedia (the "body parts" guide). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alinian

[edit]
Alinian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A band that makes no claim passing WP:BAND. Weregerbil 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Traub

[edit]
Barbara Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claims of notability, seems like an ad for her books, nothing but a CV. Corvus cornix 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As is, just short of speedy-eligible (G11). There are potential sources for even a stub, though, including some reviews of her book. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tepid keep for now: This is a bizarre nomination. No claims of notability, says Corvus, who yet appears to concede in the same sentence that the subject has created books, plural. Now, I don't think every book is necessarily of any significance (I think of the wasting of forests on astrology, "self-help" and suchlike drivel), but the very start of this admittedly ghastly article links to (or if you prefer advertises) this page about her book. The book isn't one that I'd immediately want to buy (not that this should be an issue), but the description does say (after my addition of links): Introduction: Les Blank. Foreword and Afterword: Larry Harvey. Epilogue: Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Contribution: Leonard Nimoy. So even if the book's of little or no interest to you or me, it does seem to be noteworthy. Ergo, its creator has some notability. Yes, the article is indeed wretched. The creator of the article is new; let's not rush to WP:BITE. -- Hoary 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One is not notable merely for having written books. They must have some sort of third party sources noting that the books have some sort of notability of their own. Corvus cornix 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, true. That a book has bits added by Blank and Ferlinghetti, as well as the increasingly renowned photographer Nimoy, makes it stand out from the pack. Is it reviewed? Well, the "Burning Man" is such a big thing in the blogosphere (yawn) that it's hard for me to use Google quickly to see if it's reviewed or remarked upon anywhere significant. I do note that it gets a page at Johns Hopkins: admittedly just a signing session at the/a campus bookstore, but again not the kind of thing that (I hope!) is accorded to books like The Seven Secrets of Women from Venus and Men from Uranus Who Moved My Cheese. -- Hoary 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant keep: This article needs to be seriously cleaned up - but I think that the subject is notable. Bradybd 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for the feedback -- changes have been made. ... added at 05:46, 30 May 2007 by User:Gamble07
    • More changes are needed. Please either provide evidence for the assertions marked as needing evidence, or delete those assertions. -- Hoary 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the article is still a bit of a mess but works as an article now, and notability seems sufficiently clear. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with dhartung, it is a bit of a mess... but notability seems established.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashturbation

[edit]
Flashturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Slang dicdef. No reliable sources, and it has been tagged with 3 cleanup tags for months, to no avail. There is no reason to believe that this article will ever be more than an unverifiable dictionary definition. *** Crotalus *** 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PL Kyodan

[edit]
PL Kyodan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is also Copyright Breaches from other websites such as http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/history.html and http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/21-prec.html

-- Per Angusta, 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but they have an entry on Encyclopaedia Britannica [30]. This would seem to be a user misconduct issue rather than an AfD issue, though I'm leaning towards deletion so that neutral editors can start it from scratch. cab 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G3 (vandal) per the nom. If he's doing it like this, as far as I'm concerned, it's vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on other language Wikipedias are a problem for those Wikipedias to deal with as they see fit. For us, the problem with this article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion, given that even a cursory search for sources finds that this religion is widely documented. ISBN 0684188635, for example, documents its "special affection for golf courses". (Administrators might want to look at Special:Undelete/Perfect Liberty at this point.) The Religious Empire: The Growth and Danger of Tax-exempt Property in the United States discusses the church on pages 191–192. ISBN 1873410808 gives some statistics on page 197. Indeed, much of the "History" section of this article is verifiable as-is from page 202 of ISBN 0700716173. Keep. Uncle G 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a religion or at least a branch of a religion. It has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. The alleged spammer did not create this article, so revert the article to a non-copyright-violating version and then deal with this article through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revert to a non-copyvio prior version, and deal with the interwiki vandal administratively. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit it. I don't understand why this was brought to AfD at all. Nick mallory 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why has Makoto5 not even gotten a message on his talk page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Google scholar has 33 hit for peer reviewed journal entries on this subject. Also if people believe in some religion then that itself makes it notable. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I apologize if my addings were considered a copyright violation. I cited some phrases from the Perfect Liberty site, but I think it was not a copyvio. The article itself is about a religion that really exists, having millions of followers and might be interesting for many. The article should be deleted only in Wikis where its langauge is not appropriate, for example Chechen, but the others should be kept and considered as a stub. PL Kyodan articles are not commercial spam at all. --Koppany 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentActually Per Angusta is wrong about it being deleted at the norwegian wiki, it still exists though it is listed for deletion by an anon, my guess is it might be the same person who masslisted it for deletion on all wikis. AndersL 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Book Norse (Norsk Bokmal). -- Per Angusta, 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, doesnt make it more correct though.--AndersL 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found several Wikipedias such as Alemanic, Bavarian, Icelandic, Ripuarian, and some more, where the article exists but is a mere babble, resp. in some foreign language. They're almost all listed for deletion, or a rewrite. Mostes are likely to be deleted soon, even if a local wiki user, Koppany, occashionally removed "delete" templates. --88.76.195.94 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important, widely known modern religion in Japan, operates schools including frequent high-school baseball competitor PL Gakuen Fg2 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I simply don't understand what Per Angusta wants. I checked his/her edits and it seems to me she/he created a wiki account with the only purpose of delete this article. Very strange behavior indeed. If User Makoto5 did mess in other Wikis (here did not) is up to the community and admins of the wikis in question, I guess they are intelligent enough to have a decison on their own what to do with Makoto5's edits. --Koppany 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having an alternate account as long as it is not used for vote-stacking etc. My dominant purpose for creating this account is not for deleting this article. I find it more stranger that User:Makoto5 does not even have an account on Japanese Wikipedia. -- Per Angusta, 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The English article can be kept. However the other interwiki articles which were not written in the native language ought to be deleted. Nevertheless, User:Makoto5 should given a warning to stop him using the English article as a launch-pad for further aggressive interwiki religious-cult spamming. -- Per Angusta, 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's correct, this time I fully agree with you. --Koppany 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: looks less like an encyclopedia article, more like a leaflet that the outfit produces and distributes. Nothing is independently sourced. (Yet the outfit really does exist.) -- Hoary 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this religion is widely known and should be covered yuckfoo 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Central

[edit]
Port Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. (And yes, I have been a resident for almost a decade. It's not notable.) ajdlinux 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as spam (G11). Sr13 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

828 Entertainment

[edit]
828 Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable production company, has been deleted by an admin and speedy-nommed by two non admins, but User:Stephen deleted the speedy deletion nom twice, so here we are. This is spam. Corvus cornix 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, repost Herostratus 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Product

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

Contested prod - and the article was already previously deleted after its first AfD. The article did not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the past, and I do not see how it can pass them now. It might be a good idea to protect the page from recreation should it become an issue in the future. Ali (t)(c) 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep since it's a procedural nomination and consensus is unanimous. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brookstein

[edit]
Steve Brookstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Technical nomination. Someone claiming to be Steve Brookstein, using an IP address, took offense at this article and some comments I put on the talk page (which I incidentally regret), and blanked out his page. I have a watch on this article. The page itself is not very good, lacks sources, and was subject to quite a few changes by editors who inserted fairly POV remarks, often without adequate sourcing. "Steve" posted comments on my talk page here to the effect, and I therefore nominate this for deletion. No vote from me. Ohconfucius 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. IronGargoyle 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Generación RBD

[edit]
Tour Generación RBD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm sure that we have a criterion that individual tours by bands, no matter how notable, don't merit individual articles, hence this nomination. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The tour did have a DVD made of it, which is notable, but has a separate article Tour Generación RBD en Vivo (DVD) anyway. EliminatorJR Talk 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tour Generación 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tour Celestial 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete While I can't find a specific policy, I can't see how a concert tour is notable in and of itself, unless there a specific reason that makes it more memorable than otherwise (i.e. world record setting) CitiCat 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No apparent outside coverage that would make this tour notable beyond the number of tickets sold. I would be so bold as to suggest that without significant outside coverage, a single concert tour is inherently non-notable with regard to having it's own article. DarkAudit 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HunterStory

[edit]
HunterStory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Flash game. No sources. Prod removed. --- RockMFR 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewife

[edit]
Ewife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Google turns up practically nothing, but the article's existed since October 2005, so brought to AfD. eLiminatorJR eTalk 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaworu Watashiya

[edit]
Kaworu Watashiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article and the companion article on the book, do not assert notability nor provide references to support notability. I'm just not sure myself so it's here. JodyB talk 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [the story depends on the notability of the author and vice versa]:[reply]

Nymphet (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JodyB talk 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP ON BOTH ARTICLES Of course the novel and author are notable enough. The manga is currently the center of some controversy on whether it should be released in the United States and Seven Seas Entertainment is going to retailers telling them about it. Did you even check the referenes at Nymphet (manga)? And it's not a crime to give the author of the manga a stub; they are at least notable for the creation of this manga. And on top of that, the manga is becoming an anime in two months, and it's common for WP:Anime to create new articles on new anime. This is a joke right?--十八 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not meet WP:Notability requirements. While having a volume of published work the article fails to assert or establish any awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had. --Ozgod 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Do you even realize how many anime/manga that are in this encyclopedia that don't meet the requirments of "awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had"? WP:Anime was not only created to facilitate anime and manga pages, but it's there to create new pages as well, and this series' manga version is being translate into English! If that's not notable enough, then dare I saw about half of the articles under WP:Anime should be deleted then. And if you're just talking about the manga creator, if the manga page is kept, then wouldn't it be good form to create an article for the creator of the material, or did Wikipedia's standards change and now it's not okay to make a given article entirely free of red links?--十八 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at the article (Kaworu Watashiya) from a standpoint of a biography of a living person - WP:BLP. The article does not establish the importance of the author other than to list a body of their work that is mostly red-linked. I should have been more clear on which one I was voting to Delete. I do not have enough knowledge of anime or manga to cast a decision on Nymphet (manga)
    So then what you are saying that even if the article on the manga doesn't get deleted, and the author does, then we should just delink to author's name in the Nymphet (manga) article and just say "Oh, well, this manga is notable, but the author isn't, so she doesn't get a page; don't worry about linking to the author in the future either because the article will just get deleted then." I say that if the manga article is kept, then that alone should justify the notabity of the author. And having stubs on Wikipedia doesn't go against policy. The author's page was just created yesterday. I was not aware that on Wikipedia all pages on living people had to be well-done a day after they were created.--十八 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nymphet (manga) - we do not have clear guidelines for comic/manga notability, but we can make a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. Having a manga collected into tankōbon, licensed in the USA, as well as adapted into an anime, makes it notable - a large volume of manga gets released in Japan every month, most never get adapted or licensed, and some may not even get collected. The manga also has an entry on ANN, the definite community source for anime and manga information. I'm not sure about the article for the author, so no comment on that part. If the notability of the manga establishes the notability of the author, then also keep Kaworu Watashiya --Darkbane talk 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This manga, and its writer, is now the subject of intense scrutiny in the anime world, with front page news feeds on animenewsnetwork, animeonline and animeondvd.com. Definately notable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on both. I don't know much about manga and the manga scene, but it's going to be a broadcasted anime. Considering how much money and time is put into making an animated show.. that's a pretty good indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. The manga being collected into tankōbon, its presence in the US, and being released as an anime definitely make it notable. By extension, the author becomes notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see here... internationally published (or at least licensed) book series with an adaptation into television, and the writer of said book. Yeah, sounds like a textbook case of WP:BK notability to me. What more is there to say? Keep! --tjstrf talk 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it has been licensed (and the license itself started some controversy just the other day), and it's being animated. You could a case made for some anime and manga, if you wanted to set a precedent and get rid of some of the articles that don't have any notability other than being on Japanese television... but Nymphet has received attention in the US and Japan; it's much more notable than most of these subjects. Granted, a lot of articles in this category don't assert notability, but it's tough to get Japanese sources and translate them, so that should be a priority over outright deleting them. Leebo T/C 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking at Anime News Network, just 2 hours ago they reported that Seven Seas decided to cancel the distribution of Nymphet in the US over the controversy. Leebo T/C 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I can't believe this was even nominated except that clearly the nominator doesn't like the title and sought to silence it from Wikipedia. It fails no notability guidelines for a manga. I would suggest that the title be reverted to "Kodomo no Jikan" now since it will no longer be released in the U.S. Rebochan 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that you are grossly mistaken. Please AGF. If I felt that way I would have tried to speedy it. JodyB talk 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's just painfully obvious that when a title with a lot of controversial press is the one that gets nominated over many other titles with less "notability", the nomination was done for spite and not out of concern for suitability for Wikipedia. Rebochan 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's a mistake to assume that just because other articles weren't nominated, but this one was, the editor is acting in bad faith. Many articles on Wikipedia shouldn't be here but are because nobody has yet gotten around to reviewing them. As far as the Nymphet (manga) article is concerned, it's possible that JodyB may have made a mistake in nominating it due to not being sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and not reviewing the article closely (as the manga's notability in this particular case does not depend on the notability of the author). --Darkbane talk 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebochan, try to remember to assume good faith and remain civil. What is "painfully obvious" to you may not be clear at all to others. I see nothing in Jody's messages that would imply malice or disregard. There's nothing wrong with starting a dialogue on something. I only became familiar with Nymphet last Friday when the controversy started to boil over. Leebo T/C 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nymphet (manga) at least, although perhaps change the name back to Kodomo no Jikan. There has been quite a bit written about it over the past few days. If anything, the cancellation should be covered in more detail, since it's content based. — PyTom 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I also agree with the renaming at this point since it's unlikely to be released in English, at least for a while. Who knows if the anime may get licensed one day since anime tend to be of a lower key than manga due to broadcast restrictions on Japanese television. And yes, the controversy needs its own section.--十八 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If we do reverse the anglification of the name, we should definately keep a redirect from nymphet since this is the name it was being presented as during the controversy regarding its content and the denial of its release by Seven Seas. Kyaa the Catlord 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed, definitely reverse the name back to Kodomo no Jikan. Not only is Nymphet a bad name, but now the manga seems like it will never be released in English (at least in the US), and so the name does not apply anymore and will only serve to confuse people in the future. 71.175.20.87 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been going on for three days now. Can we close it and reach a conclusion? It seems that the majority of people are voting to keep the manga article, and thus the author becomes notable for being the author of a controversial series, right?--十八 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It could go on for the remaining two days. No need to rush things on this. --Farix (Talk) 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the light of recent discussions about the cancellation of this title for the US market it's definitely of interest for the general public. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles on mangas. Little-quiqueg 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's absurd and more than just a little underhanded to target this for deletion, of all things, when there are thousands upon thousands of articles on Wikipedia of the most inanely obscure things. All this is is a continuation of the attempt to silence this series and its fans. Talk about an agenda! 71.175.20.87 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I ask once more: Why has this not been closed yet?--十八 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowy delete. Person doesn't exist, thus he can't be notable or verfiable with reliable sources. Sr13 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Ipswich

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

Delete as joke article. There is no such person. There are no results for "John Ipswich"+"Jon Stewart" (except Wikipedia) and none for "John Ipswich"+"I Left My Heart in San Diego". I don't even know why the article has managed to survive two months. ... discospinster talk 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowy delete. Non-notable? Fan-fic? Copyvio? Bye-bye. Sr13 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Invader's Guide to Conquering Unknown Planets: The Complete Story

[edit]
The Invader's Guide to Conquering Unknown Planets: The Complete Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It has all the appearances of being non-notable fanfiction, but the PROD tag was removed. -Bbik 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - As you read the following fanfic, i must say that this is the coolest story ever made! - non-notable fan-fic. Pick a deletion rationale - it probably meets it. --Haemo 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice. Though, I'll admit that the original PROD was partially because of laziness. I didn't remember seeing any fanfic options in the past (and as noted, it's not nonsense, just inappropriate), and didn't feel like looking, so went with what I knew off the top of my head. Shame it was removed so fast. -Bbik 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Mexico gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of photographs or media files. Looks like most of the gallery has been copied to Commons:México#Gallery of best sites of Mexico. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.D

[edit]
B.A.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned for almost a year; no links to members; no outside sources. Is it really notable? Postcard Cathy 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Isasi-Isasmendi

[edit]
Antonio Isasi-Isasmendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Arguably notable as CEO of production companies but they don't have wiki articles; orphaned for almost a year; no indication of honors or other indications of importance Postcard Cathy 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ~EdBoy[c] 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: as per his entry on IMDB he has an extensive body of work as a director, writer, and producer. In 2000 he also won a Goya Award for a career dedicated to cinema. The Goya Awards are the Spanish equivalent of Hollywood's Academy Awards. This in and of itself is notable. Definitely a keeper. The article however should be flushed out considerably. Antonio directed films with actors that later went on to win Screen Actors Guild Awards in the US. All of this information can easily be obtained via his IMDB entry. Bradybd 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is exactly the problem I have with this article Brady. The purpose of an encyclopedia (and Writing 101) is that you don't have to go to outside sources to get basic info such as his Goya Award and SAG award wins. That belongs in the article and it isn't. I suggest you put it in since you are the one that found it. If information like that isn't put into the article, I don't care how notable the guy may be in real life since the article doesn't reflect it. Strong Delete unless the article is changed to reflect the guy's notability. Postcard Cathy 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. JForget has added additional info, and I have added two more notable awards. I will continue to edit tonight after work. Bradybd 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misspoke. It was Nick that did the editing. Thanks Nick! Bradybd 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Imdb.com filmography of him shows a pretty lengthy list of films he did as a director, writer, editor and producer. See [32] for details about his record. --JForget 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's directed 13 feature films, written 11 and produced 8 [33] and extra information has been added to the article. If the article needed expanding or sourcing then it needed expanding or sourcing, not deleting. Nick mallory 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Ismael

[edit]
J. C. Ismael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is a journalist and made several small contributions to newspapers in Brazil. Mostly of it were literary columns; they did not have major impact or followers. None of his books got awards or reviews by prominent media vehicles nor exceptional sales figures. Unsourced affirmations in the article (although understandable because of the age of contributions). 666 ghits brought 99% articles in small sites and blogs and links from bookstores. The article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was written by the subject and meaningful edits in the English version were done by IPs. I recommend deletion because he is not notable enough to get an article in Wikipedia.Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowy delete. Basically what Cool Blue said. No chance in hell of being kept. Sr13 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle's Creekside Restaurant

[edit]
Tuttle's Creekside Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails notability criteria as there are no primary or secondary sources which would establish notability as a "very popular restaurant". Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cool Blue. This sounds like advertising for a new restaurant. Postcard Cathy 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien characters

[edit]
List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unreferenced listcruft (e.g. was "Baby Pimp" an actual character, or a joke edit? It is impossible to tell). Not to mention that the cataloged appearances were hopelessly trivial. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarai (new media initiative)

[edit]
Sarai (new media initiative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted via prod back in August 2006. Deleting admin asked for a restore in March, didn't reply. Contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod. I've restored, automatically, but I don't see any evidence that this is notable. On the other hand, after 9 more months, maybe it can be salvaged. So is this something we should have an article on? I offer no opinion myself. GRBerry 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or endorse deletion The proposed deletion was appropriate. Thae subject does not seem notable, and does not strike me as anything I'd like to learn about. YechielMan 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

I strongly endorse the retention of the page on the Sarai progamme at CSDS. This is a page in progress and appropriate sources will be added soon. Sarai is one of the most important projects that synthesizes a research commtiment to media, urban space, technology and society, and is extremely relevant in the global as well as south asian context. The Sarai Readers have a strong and growing international reputation. You only need to google Sarai-CSDS to see how many entries, and how many different kinds of activities happen there.

Shuddhabrata 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Shuddha[reply]

Do Not Delete

While I agree with the criticism of the article in its present form, people are working on bringing it up to Wikipedia standards. Sarai is an experiment unique at least to India, and has strong ties to the world of free software, open sharing of content, and, in my opinion, information on the institution should be listed here.

Gora 12:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Gora — — Gora mohanty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis island project

[edit]
Atlantis island project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources listed, even the web links listed in the article don't seem to talk about the subject at all. I can find 0 Google Books/Scholar/News hits, and only 3 Google hits on the Web, all of which seem to be talking about something else. I added a PROD tag yesterday, which was removed by an IP editor who proceeded to add more completely unsourced information. Appears to have zero notability and zero verifiability. PubliusFL 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BUDL Man

[edit]
BUDL Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

entirely non-notable. merits maybe 2 sentances in Baltimore Urban Debate League delete Cornell Rockey 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing, no need for this section to be separated out. CitiCat 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or merge per above. Exactly how is this mascot notable? YechielMan 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after ensuring all relevant, keepworthy info is retained at the BUDL article. which it looks like is already the case. tomasz. 09:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Problems in Childhood Cancer

[edit]
Learning Problems in Childhood Cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Independent research, not an encyclopedia article. Nekohakase 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment I am not seeing how this is original research. Seems that it refers frequently to external sources, and has an impressive list of references as well. Can you clarify how this is OR? There does seem to be good information here, that could be merged into another article, if this is slated for the junk heap. —Gaff ταλκ 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could easily be turned into an encyclopedia article. Maybe on a broader subject? "Effect of cancer on brain development" might be a good name for such an article. --- RockMFR 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a good journal article, not an encyclopedic one. That would be stating research, not a generalized view of a subject. Delete CitiCat 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Every encyclopedia article should be based on the research and publishings of outside sources. The only differences between an encyclopedia article and a journal article are perhaps the tone of the article and NPOV. Both are easy to deal with. --- RockMFR 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Rockers

[edit]
The Boston Rockers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this article on a group of people who play hockey together might fail Wikipedia's notability criterion. Please discuss.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. >Radiant< 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song 4 Mutya (Out Of Control)

[edit]
Song 4 Mutya (Out Of Control) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This song is probably non-notable, as per WP:MUSIC, or notability is not properly documented. The article could be merged with Mutya Buena. Rjgodoy 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- it's going to be her next single.--SuperHotWiki 23:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Neil ╦ 10:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren Court

[edit]
Brethren Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article concerns a plot device from a recently released Disney movie. Previously nominated as Brethren of the Coast. Prior nomination was closed as a redirect. New article does not address any of the concerns brought up during the last nomination. The article still comprises original research, sheer speculation, and a questionable gallery of fair use images. The article is still bereft of any references or assertions of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Corvus cornix 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It does address some of the previous problems as it is not a page comprised of original research or "sheer speculation" as the information comes from the official website, the producers, the junior novelisation and other verifiable sources. The pictures, however, may not be fair use, the ones I put up were from either this site or the PotC Wiki, so I assumed that they were, if they're not, I apologise and they can most definetely be removed. Therequiembellishere 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously keep: It outlines and addresses a rather important issue that wont be as emphasisized in another article. --24.56.216.190 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article currently is in need of work, but it is an effective compromise between squeezing it into the movie article and giving each pirate lord their own page. --Hemlock Martinis 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hardly - the individual characters don't come close to meriting their own articles. EliminatorJR Talk 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why they're here and not in individual articles... --Hemlock Martinis 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep And how do you go about stating that this article doesn't meet any of the reasons for which it was originally deleted? It clearly meets one need: The movie in which the Brethren Court takes place has actually been released. Also, not all of this is sheer speculation or original research, seeing as most of the work put on the page has been stated to come from the Disney website. With some tuning up and some work, this article could be above the line, as opposed to being on the line as it is right now.Locke 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it sourced on the PotC Wiki as from the At World's End Visual Guide. Next time I'm at a bookstore I'll flip through it and double-check. --Hemlock Martinis 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the official website.Therequiembellishere 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are primary sources that don't elaborate on importance or notability. Are these characters important outside of the movie? Is the plot device? Has it influenced other authors/filmmakers? Authors of this article are simply stitching together bits and pieces of fan rumors and promotional materials. Just because Disney sees fit to capitalize on a successful media franchise by releasing a ton of intellectual property does not mean Wikipedia has a responsibility to cover all of it to the tiniest detail! The movies are important, millions of people have watched them and they have generated billions of dollars in profits. Part of the coverage of this media franchise includes summarizing the plot, characters, and so forth. These types of articles, however, are gratuitous and trivialize any encyclopedic aims by being dumping grounds for, well, trivia. Projects like the PotC wiki exist precisely to reduce the load on Wikipedia by allowing for unlimited speculation and fan service. We have editorial policies here that demand rigorous referencing and assertions of real-world notability - this article clearly violates those precepts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge or Strong Redirect: This is silly. If every location in a commercially released film gets a page, Wiki would be full of fiction. Bradybd 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple read of the article shows it to be an organization, not a location. --Hemlock Martinis 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If every organization in a commercially released film gets a page, Wiki would be full of fiction. Same crap, different day. -- Jelly Soup 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jelly. My mistake. I do sense the this is rather silly still. In five years, who is going to care about this? It might feel important now because the film was just released... I think maybe we need some kind of Cinema Wiki. Anyone want to help me out on that? Bradybd 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind a cinema Wiki, there's already a Pirates of the Caribbean wiki [34]. EliminatorJR Talk 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, there we go! Maybe this article should be featured on the Pirates of the Caribbean wiki instead? I have taken the idea of a Cinema Wiki to heart though. Take a peek at Cinepedi.org [35]... If anyone is interested in helping, send me an email to cinepedi.org or drop by my talk page. Bradybd 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect. Clearly we do not need or want this kind of thing, which is indeed just plain silly. The article does not address "a rather important issue" (?) as one editor suggested above and is not notable in the slightest. It is also completely unsourced--a reader has no idea where any of this information is coming from and it does sound more like a commercial for a Disney product. I don't want wikipedia to have an article like this any more than I want an article called "That scene in When Harry Met Sally where they meet up at Katz's Deli to talk and then she pretends to have an orgasm." Also the inclusion of a paragraph on each of the nine pirates is completely unnecessary and off topic, such as it is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs on the nine Pirate Lords were moved there after their individual articles were deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad they were deleted, all the more reason for them not to show up again here. Basically part of the goal of this article is obviously to include content--namely descriptions of the nine Pirate Lords--that had already been judged unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia. It's not a good basis for an article in my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't just a page on characters, it's on the whole organisation; I completely agree with you that individual characters pages on the people would be horrid, and I'd want them deleted too, but together and with sources, it should work. As soon as I'm able to access the history logs, I'll be able to source some more, so please wait a little longer or some please address my review. Therequiembellishere 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep: This article can be useful. --SkyWalker 09:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both of the preceding keep votes don't really provide a rationale. Just because an article is "useful" does not at all mean it is encyclopedic. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to create useful web pages. Also the statement that "the article is part of our culture" is completely subjective (and highly, highly dubious, suggesting that any old thing that gets thrown on the web is "part of our culture"). More importantly, it is not part of the criteria for whether we keep an article or not. Perhaps the last two editors can provide some stronger rationale for their votes beyond what basically amounts to "I like this article"?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read, we have plenty of resources, the official site, the producers, the actors, news articles that the company submitted, the junior novelisation and the Guide to name a few. Therequiembellishere 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bar tends to be set at sources independant of the subject, its creators, or those directly linked to it. The sources should also be present in the article, either as inline citations or as a bibliography, so that somebody with little or no prior knowledge (i.e. me) can come along, look at the article, look at the sources, and go "Yep, this is all correct. Score one for Wikipedia". -- saberwyn 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is overstuffed and this is a good article for these characters. Alientraveller 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no problem with the OR nature of this article? Corvus cornix 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's OR that you have a problem with? --Hemlock Martinis 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every sentence of it. Where is all of this character history coming from? Corvus cornix 03:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From either the movie or the Visual Guide. I've removed almost everything that isn't from those two sources (except for the thing about Capitaine Cheville resembling a character from another movie since I haven't seen that movie). --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find a source making that comparison, it's original research and should be removed. *** Crotalus *** 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up the official site as a source for much of the information, some is sourced directly from the movie and is stated as such. There was another website that we got a lot of information from, but I can't recall it. Anetode, could you let me access the history log of the original Brethren of the Coast page? Someone mentioned in in one of their edits and if I can get it, I'll be able to source a lot more. Many thanks--Therequiembellishere 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins aren't allowed to show deleted material. --Hemlock Martinis 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therequiem, please request that at WP:DRV#Content_review. This seems like a reasonable request to me, I don't see why it can't be granted. --Dhartung | Talk 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other wikis and official websites are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that wikis aren't, but I disagree about the official website, that's the core of where a lot of pages get their information. Don't worry, I'm not using a single wiki as a source on any page and never will.Therequiembellishere 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that "it's too long to be nicely merged" is not a valid argument for keep, otherwise nonsense articles that were "long" and un-mergeable would have to be kept. And it may be an important part of the film, but do you really think wikipedia should have articles on "the most important parts" of all of the notable films ever made? Why can't we limit the discussion of the important parts of the plot to the article on the film itself?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since most of the trivia in this article is not from the film. Corvus cornix 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be nasty. Just curious if you have any specific reasons why you think it should be kept? Thanks so much. Bradybd 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be salvageable, but does it belong on Wikipedia? Bradybd 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's an interesting article, what is to be gained by getting rid of it?

The integrity of Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned comment by an SPA, also again the fact that it is "interesting" is not at all a reason for keeping. Can you provide a better reason than that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep!!! (struck duplicate vote) What do you have to prophet by deleting it? You have much to loose and nothing to gain. It will not be as emphasized as it needs to be in another page. Its perfect as it is. --24.56.216.190 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost becoming comical/absurd. This entry doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think it would do well in the PotC Wiki or in a Cinema/Television wiki. Bradybd 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still not really a valid argument for keep and the entry is obviously far from "perfect," also this editor has few edits outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True as though that may be, I've just rebegun my Wikipedia experience. Pirates is where I decided to begin my journey. Locke 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ive edited to remove references to the video game, but this article is definately worth keeping as there in no other information regarding these secondary charcaters from the film. Not to mention the article covers some of the mythology of the canon of Pirates Of The Caribbean, otherwise not found in any other articles. Robnubis 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep under the "library of Alexandria" theory. Thanos6 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me again how that theory fits in with actual guidelines, WP:N, WP:RS etc? EliminatorJR Talk 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a worthy article that could still use some clean-up. It needs to be kept, or at the very least, merged. Pirateking89
"Worthy" in what sense? Corvus cornix 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks to me like we have some sock-puppetry going on here. User PirateKing89 just registered today. Anyhow, I still haven't seen any valid arguments to keep this article. I think that it should at the most be merged. Bradybd 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these keep votes provide no rationale whatsoever and until they do I think they should be at least somewhat discounted. Under this last keep argument, if I created an article that listed my address and my favorite color we would have to keep it because it is "information." Though there's a lot of keep votes, most simply do not provide a valid reason why we should keep this thing other than what basically amounts to variations on WP:ILIKEIT. That's just not good enough.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. If it's true and verifiable it should stay. Turning it around; these delete votes provide no rationale except "I don't want it here." Thanos6 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not true. The delete votes say that the topic is not notable, does not use reliable sources, and violates WP:OR. There are clear cut rationales for deletion beyond "I don't want it here" because they refer to wikipedia guidelines and policies. The same cannot be said of the keep votes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to the 'Keep' votes, which are a combination of WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and no rationale at all? You can take inclusionism too far, you know. EliminatorJR Talk 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. No you can't. Thanos6 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes you can!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the asssessment that my comment should be disregarded. We are an encyclopedia, we provide credible information to users. For inclusion: 1. Does the article have references? = yes 2. Are the references credible and verifiable? = yes 3. Is the topic notable? = for the topic as a *sub* article, yes 4. Are free images available? = not at all possible. So, please tell me why this should be deleted? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong and Speedy Keep This article is important and crucial to the plot of Pitares of the Caribbean, and thuse warrants a speedy keep. CaptPicard 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Redirect: While I think some of the posters suffer from a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that this stems from a Disney film (they should ask themselves, would they be as opposed if it was about some nonsense from Lord of the Rings), I have to agree that this belongs more in a Pirates or cinema wiki. If the film directors couldn't see fit to fill out their characters, why should wikipedia?
  • Delete, then redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (or whatever the movie is called). This is a blatant violation of several parts of both WP:NOT (not a plot summary, not a random collection of information) and WP:FU (the non-free images are the most obvious problem, but not the only one), as well as violating WP:OR. —Angr 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on both counts: See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia (Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.). On Fair use images: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. -- the images are used for critical commentary on each character. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we are. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same could be said for keeping. All depends on ones perspective. Bradybd 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 235,000 GHits? No, just 466 actually. EliminatorJR Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Brethren Court" actually garners 52,100 GHits. Therequiembellishere 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commemt "Brethren Court Pirates" garners exactly 7 hits. Bradybd 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but people will generally leave of the "Pirates" I believe most people will search either Brethren Court (without quotes) and get 1,320,000 GHits of search "Brethren Court" (with quotes) and get 51,500 Ghits. Therequiembellishere 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This way, I get 42,000. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of google hits (whatever they are) do not necessarily make the case for notability To continue with the example I raised in my original vote post (i.e. we would not want an article on the orgasm scene in When Harry Met Sally), if I google "When Harry Met Sally" and "orgasm" I get over 31,000 hits. But so what? It doesn't mean we have an article about that scene because it's been referenced on the web a lot, and the same applies here. Anyway, many if not most of the google hits for "Brethren Court" only make casual reference to the Brethren Court and/or are promotional or shopping web sites for the movie.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was actually thinking the amount of Google hits doesn't constitute whether an article should stay... although if you type "orgasm" into Google, you will get an awful lot of hits XD ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Therequiem brought this up on my talk page and I thought it might help to clarify my position on this discussion page: As you may have noticed my official 'vote' was Strong Merge or Strong Redirect. I don't want the information deleted, but I'm not convinced it needs its own page. Sometimes it seems like Wikipedia covers fictional characters, events, locations, ideas, etc. more than it covers history and the world in which we actually live. Because of the historical existence of a loose organization of pirates in the Caribbean called the Brethren, I hate to see the real world topic confused with and obscured by a scene from a Disney film. Perhaps if we changed the title of the page to Brethren of the Coast (Pirates of the Caribbean). Bradybd 05:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to merge it into Adbusters. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackspot Anticorporation

[edit]
Blackspot Anticorporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced, no assertion of notability Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a rival company to many major brands, and Wikipedia would be showing bias by deleting this article, yet not Nike's or No Sweats. Its very existance and market success is notable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 10:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Defence

[edit]
Corporate Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Appears to rely entirely on the work of Sean Lyons, who seems to be the only person cited, and the only person who uses the term "corporate defence management". This is covered by risk management already. Rhobite 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to see a response from the article creator. Given his contribution history, he might be able to explain the distinction between "corporate defence" and "risk management". The fact that all the content stands on one pillar of Sean Lyons is a serious concern; there's actually a special template for that if the article is kept, but I don't know its code. YechielMan 03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this will help clarify the difference. The term corporate defence differs from risk management in that it addresses the broader issue of the operational line management, and the responsibility, ownership and day to day implementation of corporate defence related activities. Risk Management as a discipline represents just one of these activities, see the corporate defence domain section. If you consider corporate defence as being similar to national defence whereby all defence related activities including the army, navy, airforce and marine corps etc all report to the Department of Defense and ultimately to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense via the Department of Defense ultimately has responsibility for formulating strategy and policy, and integrating policies and plans in order to achieve defense objectives. The line management for defence related activities retain responsibility for tactical planning and on the ground implementation and execution. In this instance the risk management process as a defence related activity would certainly be embedded into everyday operational activities however it only relates to one aspect of national defense and likewise corporate defence as described in the article. All reference to Corporate Defence Management is now only in the further reading section as it addresses this issue and may also be of interest. Corp Vision 12.41, 30 May 2007 (GMT)
Are there any references independent of 'Sean Lyons'? The only item in the references not self-authored seems to have nothing about this 'corporate defence' methodology and simply seems to have used it as a title for the paper. All of the other links are to general risk management resources, or to utterly unrelated web sites. I'm afraid that if no other verifications that this is a notable and significant niche of risk management (which I've never heard of) can be found, I can't see any reason why it would it shouldn't be removed. I could care less about any detailed explinations of the methodology, I need to see some independent verification that sepcifically addresses the material in the article, please. Kuru talk 03:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case For the Defence

In defence of the topic of Corporate Defence let me start by saying that the term corporate defence has been in use for a long time and therefore I doubt it could be considered a "Neologism". The very fact that it is used in so many different contexts merely illustrates the bread of the subject matter (i.e. governance, regulatory, risk management, security, protection and legal etc). This is not to say that any one of these uses is either right or wrong but simply stating a fact (see below for examples). Each use in its own way represents a line of defence within the corporate world. The purpose of its inclusion in wikipedia is to highlight this issue in its broader context. Bourdon in his speech acknowledged the roles of risk assessment, compliance and crisis management in this area and the articles by Lyons simply expand on this and flesh it out. These references appear to be the most relevant to this subject matter but obviously wikipedians can add or subtract here as deemed necessary. There are many references to this topic available in other articles, conferences and websites which refer to the scope of corporate defence and the products and services available in this area. To illustrate this point I have selected some examples below, which I am not recommending by included in the page itself but perhaps will give more comfort about the existence of the subject matter. That this viewpoint of corporate defence exists is a fact, whether it is considered to be the correct view or not is another issue, it is simply one way at looking at this topic. Each reader should be allowed the opportunity to make an informed decision based on the information available. Obviously the page itself can and should be improved, and hopefully this will occur over time however as a progressive encyclopedia, denying its existence and deleting it seems excessive. The defense rests it case.

Corp Vision 19.01, 31 May 2007 (GMT)

  • Strong Delete. My request was for specific references to the established and verified methodology of 'corporate defense'. Instead, I'm seeing a list of completely unrelated google search hits on the coincidental intersection of the two words. The article itself is merely a consultant pitch on fundamental concepts already covered under Risk Management, as per Rhobite. I can find no other sources to support the content, and none have been offered, other than generic support of general RM business topics, and the individual consultant's work. This is indeed close to an A11 speedy. Kuru talk 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The originator of this article obviously understands that the term "corporate defence" has a wide range of meanings in various contexts. "Neologisms can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." Corp Vision has added this article to Wikipedia with his own interpretation of the meaning of corporate defence, neglecting to mention the wide range of common usage. His definition of the term is based solely on the recent work of Sean Lyons, yet he suggests that this term as he defines it is widely accepted within the field of risk management. There is no support for this claim. Corp Vision is using Wikipedia as a marketing tool by adding this article and also by adding this article to multiple "See also" sections in other articles. Since he's aware that his definition lacks general support, he is intentionally violating numerous Wikipedia policies, including neutral point of view and advertising. His links to his article from other Wikipedia articles amount to internal spamming, widespread enough to possibly be considered vandalism. This article was not created to help Wikipedia readers understand the topic, it was created to market his neologism. I gave my vote above and it hasn't changed. --SueHay 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Final word on the matter. The whole point is that the meaning is in fact always the same, to defend the organisation, the methods vary in the different contexts and will in fact vary to some degree in each individual situation.Corp Vision 19.38, 1 June 2007 (GMT)
  • Red Flag. Certain information has been brought to my attention which I believe needs to be addressed. In the interest of transparency I am calling on "Kuru" and "SueHay" to voluntarily disclose the commercial nature of their “Consulting Fee” arrangement on this topic, which is referred to in their communications outside of this forum. This is considered somewhat “rich” given some of the previous inflammatory comments directed at indirect parties. As a “newbie” I consider that this type of subversive collusion by “wiki veterans”, at a minimum undermines the wikipedia process and could be seen to compromise the integrity of this exercise. I would appreciate if the “wiki administrator” would comment on this strategy..Corp Vision 19.39, 2 June 2007 (GMT)
It's a joke. Get over it and, again, please provide the references requested. Kuru talk 18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corp Vision, Wikipedia editors and administrators are volunteers, we don't get paid, and our talk pages are in the public domain. Many brief exchanges between two editors are unclear to someone "listening in", just like any other conversation. As far as whether you're a newbie (newcomer) to Wikipedia, your username obviously is. But that doesn't mean that you, as a person, are a new editor trying your best to support Wikipedia's goals and policies. Based on your edits, I question that, and I've told you why.
The main point of this discussion is whether or not the article Corporate Defence should be deleted from Wikipedia. That's an administrative decision, it's not personal. If you did not understand Wikipedia's policies when you added this article, you can make that point by agreeing that the article should be deleted. --SueHay 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: "I'm removing my nomination, as editors have pointed out this is better suited for discussion on the appropriate talk pages. Thanks for your input everyone! +Hexagon1 (t) 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Czech and Slovak Federal Republic

[edit]
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These two are the only nations in Czechoslovakian history that have their own article. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic doesn't contain anything that would warrant it's existence over the corresponding History of Czechoslovakia article, which is much longer. Czech and Slovak Federal Republic is basically an orphaned stub, which again has a lengthier History of Czechoslovakia article. Why do these two stages in CS history deserve nation articles and stages like RČS (1918-1938), Č-SR (1938-1939) and post-war ČS (1945-1947) don't? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Czechoslovakia and any articles related to its history as appropriate. --Hnsampat 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the longer article; not sure about the shorter one. Content forks on stages of a nation's governance are entirely valid. For example, we have Tanganyika and Zanzibar even though these two nations were merged into Tanzania. For encyclopedic purposes (and not only in Wikipedia, I assume) they are treated independently. If other parts of Czechoslovakia's history are not fully covered, feel free to create them! They are perfectly valid article topics in my estimation. YechielMan 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That comes with controversy over what would be considered a separate state throughout its history. one might say that the states were 1918-20; 1920-38; 1938-39; 1939-45; 1945-47; 1947-61; 1961-89; 1989-92. Another might say they were 1918-38; 1945-89 and 1989-93, and yet another person might just say one state existed between 1918 and 1989. Any wild variation thereof would be possible, and this could not be standardized as expert literature uses conflicting terminology. These articles are unnecessary, redundant and serve to confuse. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Unlike chronological history articles (like History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989)), these pages are in in the form of a country page, divided into thematic sections (Economy, politics, religion, etc) like any other present day country article. This is actually quite common, especially for Category:Former socialist republics. Otherwise, we should have no Germany article, just a History of Germany that covers right up to today. The shorter article, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, is perhaps less necessary with less content, but it's existence helps clarify the very significant changes that occurred in the basic structure of the country. It could just as well be expanded, even though the country only lasted in that form for three years. - TheMightyQuill 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this as a merge proposal and inappropriate for AFD. The editors of the Czech history articles should reach consensus as to which chronological periods deserve separate articles, based on available material. Clearly both of these articles pass notability requirements as sovereign nations that existed for significant periods of time. It is certainly easier for certain lists and categories for these to be separate (e.g. Category:Communist states is obviously inappropriate for all but the first article, although there is Category:Former socialist republics). I don't see a rationale for deletion here.--Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem would be that there exists no even remotely standard definition of the different states, as I said above, and therefore any consensus reached would likely be WP:OR. There have been total re-workings before, many of which were partially reverted without thought and this left a huge mess in the articles (the CS history template links to ČSSR, but not History(45-89) and the opposite with ČSFR, as an example). +Hexagon1 (t) 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that this is not appropriate for AfD. It is a discussion for the editors of those two articles. Perhaps a Merge is in order? Bradybd 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gael Mayo

[edit]
Fine Gael Mayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for local branch of Irish political party. Or possible merge in line with this. Vintagekits 14:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Pokemon Ranger. Neil ╦ 10:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiore (Pokemon)

[edit]
Fiore_(Pokemon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete Integrate it into main article. Holla4Allah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla4Allah (talk • contribs) 2007/05/27 17:10:28

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am boldly CLOSING this debate early; apparent bad faith nomination by SPA, and discussion is far too contaminated with open-proxy sockpuppetry to achieve any consensus. Good-faith users are welcome to renominate the article if they see fit, but I strongly suggest it be monitored closely by an administrator. Note that I have no opinion on the matter and have not edited the article at any time in the past. *** Crotalus *** 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
GameTZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete and salt, per previous nom. Criteria to overturn original deletion fails, per biased interest and possible sockpuppetry. (pending investigation) As expressed, strong case of article ownership. Previous AfD was no-consensus, due to obvious lack of article notability being unable to generate sufficient traffic. This nonsense is getting out of hand. Darkenedwing 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) — Darkenedwing (talk • contribs) has made four edits to Wikipedia outside this topic. [reply]

Non-trivial sources is the issue. Look closely... 74.242.99.95 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did you change your vote so many times? 74.242.99.95 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise this was nominated for deletion previously this month. Addhoc 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to 3 sources. What's with all the new accounts? Addhoc 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I think we should salt the earth based on the history here. Nihonjoe seems to take strong ownership over the article, and is really the only reason why it was overturned. I'm not convinced that the overturn was necessary at all. These sources aren't very convincing either. There are a couple that look solid from a distance, but are one sentence mentions. The site in question sounds like a notable subject, but there has been a lot of time inbetween nomination and now for more references to be provided. Based on its history it doesn't look like its going anywhere. Is salting too much? 74.242.99.95 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — 74.242.99.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. Nominating this again after four days is ridiculous. Further, there seem to be sufficient reliable sources to make a small but adequate article. The conflict of interest issues worry me some, so I'd encourage article authors to be especially strict about original research and unintentional bias, but none of those things are cause to delete this article. William Pietri 06:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources include itself, USENET, a blog, and "a small, one man, company dedicated to creating and operating Internet communities." Not reliable sources. The WIST story only mentions the site in passing. The two GamePro references do not link to any articles viewable online. Not a verifiable source from where I sit. The article on GamePro itself casts doubt as to it's reliability as well. DarkAudit 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good news! It turns out that people still managed to conduct research in the dark ages before the invention of the World Wide Web. Libraries keep not just old books, but old magazines. You can also typically get back issues or copies of articles from publishers. Companies are also generally happy to send you copies of press clippings in their file. Online sources are preferred to offline ones, but much of the world's knowledge is still on paper. That something can't be verified without leaving your chair does not mean it does not meet WP:V. William Pietri 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say it does not exist, just that I couldn't verify it. As noted previously, the description and alleged reputation of the magazine in the GamePro article would make me doubt it's reliability. DarkAudit 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you said it wasn't a verifiable source, suggesting it doesn't meet WP:V. I agree you haven't verified it, and neither have I, but either of us could, so we should presume that it's verifiable. As to the (unsourced) claims that it's not a great mag, could well be. William Pietri 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently, if you dislike an article enough, you can simply keep nominating it until you catch a day when the voting is in your favor. Looks like some sockpuppets in the voting, from where I sit, not on the editing of the page, as is implied above. Dstumme 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Dstumme is under pending investigation as a possible meatpuppet of user Nihonjoe. Bear in mind, these accounts are responsible for the original overturn (please review the deletion log) and most of the article's contributions. As brought up numerous times, this may be a strong case of article ownership. 74.242.99.173 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — 74.242.99.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
LOL! Got any evidence there, other than that we both disagree with you? Got to love accusations of sock puppetry coming from an anonymous IP. Please note that nothing has been posted about this at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. He's basically trying to discredit the vote with a simple accusation. Dstumme 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why I make anonymous contributions. When dealing with cases of article ownership, biased interest or edit conflicts, some users take it upon theirselves to disrupt other articles to illustrate their point. Keeping an active account means giving these users a route (my contribution history) from which to further disrupt Wikipedia. Anonymously debating issues such as this helps to deter any such possibility. 74.242.99.173 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please link to the current investigation you describe? It is a very serious accusation, and if you aren't willing to prove it, you should withdraw it. Also, although anonymous contributions here may provide the benefit you describe, the lack of any track record makes it very hard to evaluate your contributions here. As you know, a similar pattern of editing under multiple accounts or IPs is used to cloak all sorts of nefarious activity, so your comments here will be given relatively little weight by most. Thanks, William Pietri 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a check user request. (for Dtsumme only) I'm not sure where it went from there, as it's the first time I've ever excersized these features. 74.242.99.173 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless it's an invisible request. Let's keep things honest here. If you (or someone else) has put in a checkuser or suspected sockpuppet request or inquiry, please link to it. I couldn't find one at either location, and your edit history shows no evidence of you having done either. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally I agree just leave the article to be. If it has another so-called problem then please do delete it.--71.96.237.113 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — 71.96.237.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep as bad faith nomination yet again by yet another SPA bent on deleting an article they don't like. This is ridiculous to have to keep defending this article every other week from obvious bad faith AfD nominations. The article clearly meets WP:N, and GamePro is definitely a reliable source in the gaming community (and therefore, by extension, the rest of the world). There is nothing anywhere in any of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that says that all (or even most) references have to be online references. There are some topics which are more easily rsearched using good old fashioned libraries using sources which are not (and may not ever) be available online. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which references don't fail WP:N? Please point them out for the sake of discussion. 74.242.99.62 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me make this easier for you. GamePro and Adult Gaming Enthusiasts fails per dependance on the subject, as well as non-significant coverage. WIS10 fails per non-significant coverage. Various online blogs (I can't believe you're even bothering with these as references) fail per non-significant coverage. These are all trivial mentions. Usage statistics quoted directly from the site fail per dependence on the subject. Usage statistics quoted from Google serve no interest to the article, either. 74.242.99.62 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GamePro has been around for years, and is an accepted reliable source for video gaming information. I fail to see how it comes even close to not being a reliable source. There is nothing in the guidelines or policies that says that a genre-specific source can't be used as a source for a genre-specific topic. That would make absolutely no sense. The requirement is multiple, non-related reliable sources. GamePro is not remotely connected to GameTZ, and neither are any of the other outside sources used in the article. The TV spot gives an entire third or more of the time to GameTZ, which is very significant in a TV spot covering the online trading phenomenon. As for the usage statistics from the site, where else are you going to get them from? As long as those aren't the only sources used in the article (which they aren't by any stretch of the imagination), referencing usage statistics from the site is perfectly acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stressed already, please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. 74.242.102.16 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. No one is trying to keep you from editing the article. No one has said that you can't edit it, or that only a small, exclusive group of people can edit it. If you're going to bring up policy, please at least be familiar with what it's about before waving it around. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up on your talk page to avoid cluttering this AfD debate anymore. 74.242.102.16 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Abeg92 appears to be a meatpuppet. His / her contributions point primarily to debates. 74.242.102.16 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a meatpuppet, he's pretty prolific with over 4000 edits. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very prolific indeed. Look over the contribution history -- most all (98%) contributions point to debates. 74.242.102.16 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see 1500-2000 edits that are in the (Main) namespace. (NOT debates.) That's hardly a meat puppet. Please stop tossing around false accusations any time someone disagrees with you. Dstumme 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is quickly degrading into a flame-war. Bear in mind, we're here to discuss article notability. It just so happens that this particular nomination raises a lot of suspicion. I think we're starting to lose sight of the topic at hand -- whether or not GameTZ fulfills notability guidelines. Let's try to focus on establishing this more thoroughly, please. 74.242.102.16 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm not a meatpuppet: just an editor who happens to agree with Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) here. I don't want to get into a flamewar here, so let's focus on the issues. Abeg92contribs 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should stick to the issue at hand. So please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or of having Article Ownership issues, and we won't need to waste more time proving your accusations false. At this point, I'm seeing a lack on consensus on whether or not the sources are relevant enough. Seeing as there is a mix of opinion on this (as in past AfD's), it seems like prevailing logic is to not delete in such a case, right? Dstumme 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your own advice, there. I'm only pointing out further oddities about nomination. 74.242.102.16 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We generally wait at least 5 days, so the end of the day tomorrow would be when this AfD would be closed by an admin (one other than myself, though, as I'm obviously involved in the discussion). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I have more time on my hands, let's clear this up once and for all.
Lansing State Journal - WP:WEB, #3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster Lansing State Journal is not well-known. GameTZ is a trivial, one-sentence mention. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
The Daily Cougar - WP:WEB, again #3. The Daily Cougar is NOT well-known. Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of GameTZ. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
GameTZ.com - WP:WEB, #1, #2 and #3. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. GameTZ cannot reference itself. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
Adult Gaming Enthusiasts - WP:WEB, #3. Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
    • GamePro - unconfirmed as of yet.
"Swapping Online" - this is simply a WMV file where someone mentioned GameTZ in a sentence. I'm not even sure where it's from.
WIS10 - WP:WEB, #1. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. Yet another trivial mention. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
Google Groups - WP:WEB, again #3. Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
And there you have it, folks. 74.242.102.16 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you appear to be new, let me help you out with some of your confusion here. In order: The Lansing State Journal, part of the Gannett conglomerate, is the number three newspaper in Michigan; it qualfies as a reliable source and a source for notability, especially for these kinds of consumer topics. The Daily Cougar is a student paper, but given that the target audience for GameTZ is heavily student-biased, I'd say we shouldn't ignore it a priori. The subject of an article is a perfectly good source for noncontroversial information. AGE looks dodgy; it does appear to be third-party, but I don't think it has the heft of, say, Gamespot or IGN, so I'd only use it to confirm things otherwise sourced. That you haven't bothered to go to the library to get the GamePro articles does not invalidate them, and they are a long-running professionally produced magazine dedicated to the topic, so I this those are solid sources. As to WIS10, the content is short but not trivial, in that they selected it as an example of the type of site and talked a little about it. The link to the Usenet post is as a primary source; that can be problematic, but here it seems cricket. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion? Not at all. I've been contributing for years. Although, I do appreciate your interest.
There are a few problems here. First, The Lansing State Journal still remains a trivial mention, as I pointed out above. Therefore, it still fails WP:WEB #1. Second, I never invalidated GamePro by bringing it up, but that I have not been able to research it (due to lack of necessary resources) does not necessarily validate it, either. Everything else is your opinion. Unfortunately, Wiki policy is not left up to subjective interpretation. 74.242.102.16 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, from the way I had to tidy up your formatting and your curious intepretations of policy, I got the notion you were new. Anyhow, regarding the LSJ article, I wouldn't call 26% of the article a "trivial mention". With the GamePro articles we WP:AGF on the part of the contributor unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Ergo, we count them here. And on the role of policy, you're dead wrong. The policy is the best of our collective subjective judgment, organized for easy reference. That's why we ignore all rules if they get in the way of building a good encyclopedia. Not that we need to do that here; this isn't a fabulous article, but we only delete articles when we don't have a hope of writing a good one, and I don't think that's the case here. William Pietri 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to demean other contributors to illustrate your point. Bringing up the subject of my seniority -- or pointing out my formatting -- falls under [fallacy of relevance], as neither serves any purpose to this discussion, which is the notability of the GameTZ article. Please review WP:NPA, and for the love of god, let's please stay on-topic. This discussion is cluttered enough.
My argument still stands that these are trivial mentions. Other than the possibility of GamePro, I'm not comfortable with any of the references. Even with GamePro, the subject and reference share too much common interest. I'm also curious of how significant this mention is, so I will do more research on it. In the meantime, if we're assuming that GamePro is a legitimate reference, it's still not enough to establish the notability of this entire article. 74.242.102.16 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense was meant; I was just explaining my misunderstanding. With regard to the rest, I think you've made your opinion clear, and I'm sure that the closing admin will give it all due weight. William Pietri 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be pointed out that WP:WEB applies to articles, not to sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really call the The Lansing State Journal a trivial mention. Reading through the article, one can clearly see that GameTZ.com is one of the article's main subjects, thus clearly non-trivial. Likewise with the WIStv source. While not a lot is written, it's enough to show that GameTZ.com definitely has reliable independent secondary coverage, even if marginally significant. This earns it a place on Wikipedia per WP:N. ikh (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compelling, on what grounds? Please add something to the argument. This is not a popularity vote.
Secondly, "article ownership" was not the criteria for deletion -- it's an explaination as to why the article still exists and is being defended so vehemently by the same user. —  ROGUE  p 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Glenn A Christodoulou

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

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

Comment The 'conflict of interest' has been explained following the accusation by User:Whstchy of sock puppetry. Several academics new to Wikipedia have been checking and editing each other's articles to ensure they are of a high standard. Therefore this article should not be deleted. 27 May 2007 Jack1956 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
CommentSince the above message User:Whstchy has canvassed Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) to vote against this page as he had nominated it for deletion and no one else had supported his opinion. Doesn't sound like that's in the spirit of Wikipedia to me. See copy below. This is starting to look like some sort of personal crusade.

[== Hey ==

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

Jack1956

Comment Jack, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Charlie 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did that because no one had voted, and I know ten pound can provide rational thought to the process. There's a difference between one person I know and a whole bunch of random people. --Whsitchy 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevertheless, no one voted against this article, including Ten pound Hammer, until you'd canvassed him. You were so determined to get this article deleted that you asked some one else to vote. In fact, I think you've nominated all my articles for deletion, haven't you. Jack1956 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CANVAS explains what canvasing is. One, I did not ask ten pound to vote a certain way, two, I only asked because of no votes.--Whsitchy 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my contention that by drawing Ten Pound Hammer's attention to the article, and by pointing out to him that it had not received any votes in support of your proposal to delete it, that you were actually implying to him that you wanted him to vote against the article. You were not saying to him, 'Hey, take a look at this great article I've found'!

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

I do not have a problem with you, just that the articles were not up to standard, and violated policy. Whsitchy 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the exception of one article, [E J Boys], unfairly deleted in my opinion, every article you nominated for deletion was improved with suggestions by other editors and saved. Even then you put a CSD tag on my well-established E G Bowen article, which was removed by another editor. In my opinion [and the opinion of some of the users on your Talk page] you are sometimes a little too quick with the speedy deletion and AfD/CSD tags. In my opinion you need to look deeper into articles to see if there is anything of merit and if so to be encouraging. We are all doing this to expand knowledge. 'You have bitten a newbie. Jack1956 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Times reference is a letter TO the paper, the Guardian link is a one-liner, the TV appearances are fleeting, and the book is privately published, by the looks of it. The fairly obvious sockfest doesn't inspire me to go hunting deeply for sources, either. EliminatorJR Talk 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. I think that some of the delete arguments were made before the article's sourcing was enhanced, with the deletion reason being the poor sourcing (via or not via WP:BAND) and were not subsequently revisited (to my eyes, it now meets WP:BAND). Neil ╦ 10:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa Phonix

[edit]
Jaffa_Phonix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listed as seems to fail WP:BAND and prod tag was removed earlier. --Oscarthecat 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have got a piont in what you said but the idea is that the band is the first palestinian refugee band and the first dance music band in arabic .tell me how can i document these facts and i'll do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghaben (talk • contribs) 15:36, Jun 1, 2007 (UTC).

Comment Even with the references, (and I did some clean-up myself), I still don't think they meet WP:BAND (no label, apparently, only 1 album, no chart hits, etc.). Closenplay 11:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
............well the problem that is the underground music scene in arabia is like this all the biggest bands are not labeled so relativly it might be trivial on an international scale but for the music industry system in all arabian country it's not trivial at all.....culturaly the band has a great value....and musically as well.the band has produced more than an album but it's one album that was distributed.....i hope i can improve it more as soon as possible—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghaben (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment However, 2 of those 3 references are trivial coverage (i.e. the articles are about the music festival, not the band per se). Only the Egypt Today article is specifically about the band, and WP:BAND asks for "multiple non-trivial published works" (emphasis mine). Closenplay 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are dozens of articles about the band but they were only published in magazines,not online .would it help to upload their scans or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.2.251 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 June 2007
Comment — Sources do not have to be accessible online, although it does make verifiability easier. You could list them in the references section. Be sure to include the article's author, the title, the name of the magazine, and the publication date. --Paul Erik 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after i added more refrences a banner appeared on the top of the pahe saying that more verifecations are needed?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.22.193 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<COMMENT>> there are lots of articles about this band some of them in ego magazine in egypt and it was an long interview it was about four pages long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.3.193 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Information that could / should be merged is already present in the article List of minor characters of Scrubs. Neil ╦ 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scrubs cast members

[edit]
List of Scrubs cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

because it is effectively the same as the minor characters article, except that there is no detail at all, and because it is simply a list of names Jac16888 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Merge Much of this information is duplicated, yes, and here is my opinion (stay with me now): we combine in a well-organized fashion this list into the List of minor characters of Scrubs article (those that aren't already in the article, of course). Most- including those who played patients, etc- would go into the "General cameo appearances" by season and episode (that can just be mentioned in the line). Then we can delete this and rename that whole article to "List of Scrubs characters". All the info is preserved, and put into a well-organized and easy to read list. If I'm not watching an episode, I can still go through and see the guests in the seasons. We would need to keep this until all the names are accounted for, but then it could be deleted. Does that sound like a plan? --MPD T / C 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah; at the time I supported Keep, but was willing to talk to consensus. And since Jac was as well, I am changing my vote to merge. --MPD T / C 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response I have justed added as many of the names that weren't already there to the minor characters page, using imdb, and my own knowledge of scrubs. however there are still a number of names on the list that have either no imdb entry for scrubs, or who i know nothing about to be able to make an entry. therefore i have made a list of the remaining names in the discussion for that page, and info on them needs to be found--Jac16888 13:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since when is any actor who makes any appearance whatsoever on a show a member of its "cast"? I've seen this with other lists that have been AFD'd and it's bizarre. Anyway, the List of Minor Characters linked above seems much more accurate and useful; I don't see any reason to keep this article. Propaniac 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, but how does this actually work, is there a time limit and after that the article is deleted or do we just wait till enough people support either side or what?thanks--Jac16888 13:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD discussion lasts five days, although most discussion usually happens in the first one or two days after an entry is posted. An admin will close the discussion and determine what the consensus opinion is (if there is no consensus, the article remains). You can read more about the process at WP:AFD. Propaniac 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, ok thanks--Jac16888 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for those supporting merge, if you check the discussion page for this article you will see there is a list of about 15 people who've appeared in scrubs and who aren't on the scrubs minor characters page. half played un-named characters, which i feel makes them not noteworthy enough for inclusion, and the other half played very minor roles--Jac16888 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no problems with the unnamed characters "falling through the gaps". As for the v-minor characters, if the editors maintaining the list feel justified in adding them, go for it. If not, too bad, so sad. -- saberwyn 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Buzz on Maggie. Given the state of the article, a merge to the parent article is the better of the two options (keep or merge). Neil ╦ 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes

[edit]
List_of_The_Buzz_on_Maggie_episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non notable, not very descriptive, and about a show nobody's ever heard of. Drennleberrn 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PortixOS

[edit]
PortixOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article has no references and asserts no claim to notability. Since the only external link is a direct link to the PortixOS website, this article looks to be nothing more than an advertisement, rather than an objective article. The lack of 3rd party (or any for that matter) citations only helps enforce this viewpoint. Googling PortixOS brings up this wikipedia article second, then the official website first. The other links appear to be forum postings, developer lists and unrelated pages. None of the links help assert the subjects notability. Android Mouse 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it before I add an entry about my hobbyist operating system kernel. JulesH 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do as you wish. I do not have much time to update the site + new version of OS, so it is a bit outdated. JulesH, at least respect the amateurs please,because forking a open source OS and declaring a new name for it is a LOT easier than building your own kernel: Tinfoil Hat Linux,Tomsrtbt and NASLite are another modified Linux clones. Only DexOS,MenuetOS and my OS are having it's own kernel from scratch and that is tougher and will take a longer time to be a real OS. But what should be special and so notable about an OS site?... That's all, the discussion can be closed and Wiki has one user gone from it. But what is an one mediocre user away from a big community? Nothing,no one cares. Inflater
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo/Juliet Remixed

[edit]
Romeo/Juliet Remixed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play Nekohakase 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHIFEE

[edit]
SHIFEE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - seems to either not exist or small and possibly defunct organisation. Fails google test for both abbreviation and full name. Delete, can always be reintroduced later if somebody finds refs. MadMaxDog 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above (I had originally added the {{notability}} tag & comment), unless anyone can find any references to assert notability, verify information, and expand. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaclipse

[edit]
Seaclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I was unable to find a single somewhat reliable source in the first 12 pages of the google results [38]. Most of the results were for unrelated products.(WP:MUSIC) nadav (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are on record stating: "I was unable to find a single somewhat reliable source in the first 12 pages of the Google results - most of the results were for unrelated products."

Are you blind or just completely making this up?

I just ran the exact same search on this artist "Seaclipse" and not only did the majority of the information that was found in my search come back in relation to what I searched, but more then 200 links were found on this artist. Including some of the most reliable sources on the internet such as: aol.com, amazom.com, mtv.com, just to name a few. So needless to say your claims are absolutely ridiculous.

As for the artist in question: SEACLIPSE

The following are just a few the 100's of "Google Links" that were reported in my search.

http://www.ultraxrecords.net/KM/seaclipse.htm - This is a record label's website that has this artist listed as one of their "Signed Recording Artist"

http://www.clubzone.com/events/event20087.html - This is just one of many random links to various major websites that have this artist listed as a live performer on a concert.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000G7PLXI/ref=pd_sl_aw_alx-jeb-9-1_music_17707593_1 - This is a sponsored link on "Google" placed by "Amazon.com" what more is there to say, this is hands down the most compelling evidence that you are completely wrong!

http://www.myspace.com/seaclipse - This is the myspace.com page that I found on this artist, which if you would simply open up your ears you could listen to the music that this artist has streaming on his page which just so happens to feature the same exact artists by "name" that I listed as in affiliated with Seaclipse.

http://music.aol.com/artist/seaclipse/719924/main - This is the official page for this artist that I found on "AOL Music" which features new artists and the site it self was created by aol.com

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=769156&aid=786124 - This is a page for this artist I found on Billboard.com - Billboard Magazine!

http://shop.mtv.com/Playin-with-Fire-MTV-Home_stcVVproductId5310831VVcatId420851VVviewprod.htm - MTV.com Website, enough said!

Just because you are not aware of this artist does not mean the artist doesn't exist, so why is any of this information in question at all?

<personal attack removed by Satori Son 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)>

I'm a new fan of seaclipse's music and in the recent past have even purchase one of his CD's, upon finding nothing in the "Wikipedia" system on "Seaclipse" I decided to create a new article on this artist myself. That is the actual purpose of the "Wikipedia Website" after all!!!

This page should not be deleted.

Thank You

Thebluematrix 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Thebluematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I appreciate that you're a fan of this artist, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles in it need to be based on reliable, secondary sources. Please review WP:RS to get a sense of what kind of sources should be used. The commercial links above are not considered reliable (obviously I saw them when I was doing the search) and the billboard track listing and clubzone mentions are not enough for the artist to pass the criteria in WP:MUSIC. If you can find good sources on which to base an article, I will promptly withdraw the nomination. nadav (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


“Seaclipse” - the artist that I created an article about meets at least 2 of the listed “Wikipedia” requirements for the “Criteria for musicians and ensembles”.

That criteria being:

(Criteria One)

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

The artist Seaclipse has two nationally released albums that are searchable on all the major online search engines such as “Google”, “Yahoo”, “Ask” and others.

The 2 albums are listed by name and both are searchable online. Those album titles are: (“Seaclipse” released in 2005) and (“Playin with Fire” released in 2006).

The following example is a provided link to the (Two Separate Albums) both listed on Billboard Magazines website: www.billboard.com

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=769156&aid=786124

SEACLIPSE – (Playin With Fire – Album Release in 2006)

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=674244&aid=711127

SEACLIPSE – (Seaclipse – Album Release in 2005) – debut self-titled album.

(Criteria Two)

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Seaclipse is the only Seattle based new hip-hop artist that I’ve been able to do online research and find conclusive and provable connections to, and direct affiliations with other established major record label hip hop artist in the music industry. To name a few of those artists for example: Young Buck of G-Unit, and Bun B of the rap group UGK, both artists are already listed in the “Wikipedia” database.

On Seaclipse official myspace.com page there is undeniable proof and evidence of his industry ties with those other major label artists I listed. Seaclipse has recorded songs with these artists, which makes him the only new artist from the Seattle urban/hip-hop music scene to be connected to other nationally established and notable artist. Under the “Wikipedia” criteria, this would also qualify Seaclipse as a prominent representative of his local scene.

This content is streaming and is playable on his myspace page for anyone to listen to, verifying what I’m saying.

Thanks for your time.

Thebluematrix 13:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Thebluematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Sources are Amazon and MySpace. Not reliable or verifiable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC, specifically "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." He has not. His discography at allmusic lists only one album. He has also not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself. He has not had a charted hit on any national music chart. He has not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. He has not become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. Any claims to the contrary that are only backed up by the artist's MySpace page cannot be considered reliable. DarkAudit 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of new artist - as pertaining to the following criteria outlined by wikipedia:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

DarkAudit stated: "He has not"

I’m sorry but that is incorrect. He has in fact actually released (2 TWO) albums on an important indie label. (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Seaclipse already has (2) TWO nationally distributed albums which were both released on a "Notable Indie Record Label".

The Indie Label is named: Ultrax Records - Based out of Dallas, Texas.

Tommy Quon is the Record Label Owner / Manager of the following signed artists on the label.

Along with his notable label-mates Vanilla Ice, Marcos Hernandez, and others. Seaclipse is also listed as one of the artists signed to Ultrax Records, and managed by Tommy Quon.

The following is a link to the direct source: Ultrax Records

[39] - This is the record label's website, the most verifiable and reliable source relating to the accuracy of SEACLIPSE being on their roster of signed artists.


(The 2 Album Titles): "Seaclipse" and "Playin With Fire" - both albums were released on "Ultrax Records”, during 2005 and 2006.

The following link is the same reliable website source which was used by DarkAudit in claming that there was only (1) album released by this artist when in fact there were (2) albums released. These links provide the proof that these (2) albums were in fact already nationally released on the Ultrax Record Label, a notable indie-label.

Online discography for the artist “SEACLIPSE”

1. Alum title: (self-titled) - “Seaclipse”

[40]

2. Album title: - “Playin With Fire”

[41]

Side Note: (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Other notable artists who are signed to this indie label, and who have also released albums on "Ultrax Records" include the following artists. These artists are already listed with their own articles in the Wikipedia database. If these other artists on Ultrax Records articles were excepted into the Wikipedia database, then arguable so should the article on their label-mate SEACLIPSE.

Artist: Blessid Union of Souls - Album Title: Perception - Ultrax Records

Artist: Marcos Hernandez - Album Title: C About Me - Ultrax Records

Artist: Vanilla Ice - Album Title: Platinum Underground - Ultrax Reords


This is comprehensive evidence of why the SEACLIPSE article should be permitted.


In closing: I have come across other recording artists from the Seattle hip hop music scene just as Seaclipse is from Seattle, As well as other unknown artists from around the world who are currently listed in the wikipedia database with articles. All of which arguably have much less “Notability” then the artist Seaclipse. Especially considering the fact that Seaclipse albums have featured such established and very notable hip hop artist as: Young Buck, Redman, and Bun B, as listed. Whereas in the case of “Boom Bap Project” they have not worked with and/or have any known ties to any notable / major label artists on their albums.

Example: Boom Bap Project

If Seaclipse is to be considered a non-notable artist by wikipedia standards, then arguably shouldn't Boom Bap Project who are also an unknown Seattle based hip-hop group be considered a non-notable group?

If the article on Boom Bap Project was allowed, then why shouldn’t the Seaclipse article be allowed?

That doesn't make sense, and seems very unfair to ask for deletion in just one of these articles and not both.

If anything I think you may agree that the Seaclipse article is in fact more within the wikipedia guidelines then the Boom Bap Project article. So shouldn't the Seaclipse article be allowed to stay if this other article was permitted to exist on wikipedia?

I would think that I've made a valuable point in this matter. And unless we are all willing to be fully fair by nominating the Boom Bap Project article for the same deletion, then this would seem completely unbalanced in having only the Seaclipse article deleted.

Thank you all for your time and for considering what I’ve said. Thebluematrix 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. The Boom Bap Project article has no bearing on the suitablity of this article. The label is very borderline, the article itself doesn't claim much, and nothing can be verified by unbiased, independent sources. Bongwarrior 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comparing Seaclipse with the Boom Bap Project is quite a conceit. The label they're on, Rhymesayers, is in reality one of the more important indie hip hop labels releasing underground hip hop. Ultrax does not rate on a scale of important indie labels at all. "Well-funded" with all that old Vanilla Ice money, perhaps, but not "important". (That said, the BBP article could use some work.) Closenplay 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I made some necessary changes to the seaclipse article, it should not be deleted.

Question?

Bongwarrior, what justifies you say "The label is very borderline"? What qualifications do you have that would make you an expert source on which record labels are of great notability?

Have you even done any research on the label in question or are you just stating your opinion?

If you read what I wrote, then you must have seen that I did my part in providing links to reliable sources for which I based the creation of the artists article.

Instead, all you seemed to focus on is the fact that I used a similar example of an article already in existence on wikipedia. This was just to show the inclusion of an article with similar circumstances, and which was already excepted by wikipedia.

But back to the label statement you made. Is this is just your opinion or are you basing it in actual fact? If so please provide me with hard evidence of the fact that "The label is very borderline". And if I'm wrong. On what basis are you qualified over anyone else to say something like "The label is very borderline"?

I presented real proof of other notable artist on this particular indie label. So what I'm trying to understand is with what reasoning do you get to be an authority figure in this matter, verses the actual proof that I provided which suggests different from what you've said.

I gave a legitimate example as well as provided links proving otherwise, and all you did was deflect from what I said by using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. That was not the point I was making.

Thebluematrix 08:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an authority on anything, nor do I claim to be. I said the label was borderline because it is borderline. The guideline in question, quoted from WP:MUSIC: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) (my emphasis). It appears that only a few would be considered notable per WP:MUSIC. Hence, it's a borderline label. Bongwarrior 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing teh WP:BAND. The only source is to the record label page, which itself has only two notable artists thus making it borderline at best per Bongwarrior. No assertion of notability, no back-up on working with all the people he's supposed to have. tomasz. 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting Redman to guest on a track is a good start towards notability but my man ain't there yet. Signing up on a label with a buncha might-bes and a couple of has-beens isn't gonna help, though. I did find another reference you might use though. Las Vegas Weekly went to a showcase and rated the acts' chances of success. Seaclipse got "mild". Closenplay 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References while plentiful are all from sources which are either (a) trivial or (b) likely to be self-written. As such fails central criteria of WP:Music which is to have multiple non-trivial third party references. A1octopus 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Carried out by R3m0t per author request (CSD G7). nadav (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Tartaglini

[edit]
Steven E. Tartaglini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This apparent autobiography is completely unsourced. The Google searches aren't promising as far as notability goes: [42], [43], [44] I suspect the article was written merely to counter the negative publicity he got as part of that one article about him in the Chronicle of Higher Education. nadav (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Delete

I understand this article is being challenged. The subject's computer and user id were used for this contribution and, although he was not the author, he did provide some of the documentation for input from records which can be verified by a search of employment and corporate records.

Please consider the following:

Reference for the book the subject co-authored is: Daehnke, K., Tartaglini, S. (1999) "Business Continuity Planning for Local Infrastructures, A Y2K Guide for Cities and Counties," The Center for Year 2000 Community Action Plans. ISBN 096725650X. It was sold on Amazon for a period of time and is now shown as out of stock. Google will verify the listing with Amazon.

2) The subject is attempting to locate hearing transcripts from the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem where they cited the above publication as one of two authoritative sources on supply management, business continuity planning and mission critical business processes (in context with the Y2K crisis). A preliminary search of U.S. Senate hearing transcripts has not been successful.

3) The San Bernardino County Sun (with contributions from Associated Press) wrote numerous articles including a 3-part historical feature about the subject and his turnaround of Arrowhead Pacific Savings Bank. Starting in December 1985 with the pending acquisition of the Savings Bank by Transpacific Industries (Pioneer Chicken parent company), which subject crafted and initiated, until 1990 when he left the institution. Again, subject is attempting to secure these references from Sun archives but, as of yet, has not been successful.

4) Public acclamation of subject by Senator Robert F. Bennett was made at the National Roundtable Discussion held in Washington, DC on December 12, 1998. Subject has a video taped recording of that session. Although the websites have since been closed for having no ongoing purpose, there are references to this Roundtable on Google.

5) Neutrality was also evident in the article by referring readers to a negative reference on subject in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Please reconsider your positions for deletion. Tartaglini 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please understand that deletion would actually be doing Mr. Tartaglini a service. If the article were kept, it would have to be completely rewritten by others to comply with our verifiability and neutral point of view policies. Besides two passing references I now found in the Los Angeles Times from years back, the only reliable, secondary sources about Mr. Tartaglini that people on Wikipedia have access to is the Chronicle of Higher education article. This article, to the extent that it describes him at all, portrays him in a negative light and insinuates that his position at American InterContinental University was terminated under unfavorable circumstances. Fortunately, though, I don't think this is enough coverage to pass the WP:BIO notability guideline for articles about people. In any case, Tartaglini should make sure to read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline. nadav (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by me as impossible typo, and so completely useless redirect.

Tiolet paper (disambiguation)

[edit]
Tiolet paper (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Accidental spelling mistake in the name of the page Snowman 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Neil ╦ 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous

[edit]
Treacherous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The first user who added a prod tag wrote, "No label, self-pressed and online distribution only, only local performances, no awards, etc., and a smattering of reprinted press releases and forum mentions does NOT meet WP:MUSIC" - and I agree with that statement. danielfolsom 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iron Crescent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • I am still learning the format of Wikipedia, however i would prefer to save the templates, its fine to Merge Impact (rapper) with the Iron Crescent tag, as well i need to also merge Treacherous with the Iron Crescent tag. Lastly once i figure this all out, i need to get focussed on referencing all the quotes. I have the links from google, however i need to save all the info off wikipedia before its deleted. As well i need to re-create a article for Ridicule, i made the attempt before, but it was deleted User: Cypherous 14:02 30, May 2007
Well if it was deleted you should strongly consider whether you should re-create it again. Pages are only deleted if they violate wikipedia policy. In this case, for example, it seems as the rappers and their collective do not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia policy on Notability and Music. And the problem is - the current proposal is to delete all three - meaning we wouldn't merge it.danielfolsom 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, it was not deleted. And fine, forget the merge. Im adding references from reliable sources. if it doesnt meet WP:MUSIC standards then so be it. i wanted to learn the process for writing an article. still learning, so if its deleted, then i guess there not much more contesting left--Cypherous 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't even claim notablilty. No third party sources. Closenplay 12:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Uncontroversial Redirect. EliminatorJR Talk 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wigan Warrriors Academy

[edit]
  • The article has a spelling mistake in the title "Wigan Warrriors Academy" instead of Wigan Warriors Academy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrenalinxx (talk • contribs) 2007/05/26 11:39:36

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Studios

[edit]
Bird Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod tag removed, still unsure of notability, so submitting for afd Oscarthecat 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion objection

I refer to my previous objection... That is... if my studios is not 'noteworthy' then nor are 80% of the other animation/media studios listed on Wiki... such as the ones I listed previously. What constitutes noteability? The actual histories of animation, computer animation and digital animation on Wiki... are indeed very thin, I agree. I also see that Wiki does also just list 'things' too.

Maybe it is deemed that Bird Studios have not contributed enough to the industry, although I would disagree and again refer to the 'balance' of studios that Wiki does represent.

My argument is purely that Bird Studios is as relevant as most of the other studios that you list... excepting the obvious Disney/Pixar (maybe they are the only 'noteable' studios that should be included on Wiki) and that if Bird studios is deleted, then so should 80% of the other studios listed here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.116.124 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - Noone but the employees/owner of the studio contribute to this page, it is the only thing they contribute to and even after previous discussion they've refused to cite sources for all of the talent they've supposedly worked with. If we remove all the claims on the page that aren't backed up with references, the studio could be three guys in their basement claiming to have worked on their favorite albums. I waited an entire month to see if there would be any other contributions but there haven't been. There is also a major problem with WP:ADVERT and WP:POV here not to mention a conflict of interest for all of the editors who have made content contribution. It just doesn't belong in the encyclopedia Adam McCormick 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Quick search indicates the studio certainly exists (press release) and an Iron Maiden fansite indicates a British magazine called 3DWorld covered the project mentioned in the press release in 2003. (posting here) I think there's enough notability here for an article, someone's just going to have to dig for it or we need a Wikipedian in the British 3D design industry to weigh in. --Korranus 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, multiple non-trivial coverage of this subject exist which document its notability. Burntsauce 23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does this read like an advert and have no references, the only contributers have admitted COI. The contributers have been adding references, but they keep getting removed because they either make no sense, are spam or don't actually serve as references. I have no current objection to an article being written on the subject, but I do have a strong objection to this one. If someone else writes a referenced article on Bird Studios that does not read like an advert-that's fine with me. The issue here is not notability, but spam. Also, if someone else writes this articles properly, the contributers with COI need to behave differently. They need to provide legitimate sources for their claims and they should avoid editing the article directly but should leave comments on the talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:16, May 31 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Credible sources exist, but the article is in dire need of cleanup, as stated in prior comments. --JayJasper 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Bolts

[edit]
Boston Bolts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced article about a short-lived US soccer team. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, especially considering the strength of arguments presented and weight given to non-ip voters. IronGargoyle 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Prism

[edit]
Blue Prism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural tagging. No opinion. --OnoremDil 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total failure of the article to assert its subject’s non-obvious notability —Ian Spackman 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) *keep as per article's talk page. notablity established with three independent references - Tiswas(t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - manchester evening news articles are merely reports of joiners & leavers, the other articles are either press releases, or reports of co-op bank buying some software. Slow newsday stuff. And nothing since. - Tiswas(t) 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The people who argued to retain the argument are in majority and have policy based reasons to validate them. I'm leaving the floor open to merging since the discussion didn't point to a single specific target. If in the future, this turns out to be a flash in the pan, it can be renominated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Pig

[edit]
Monster Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability and includes non rlevant info about other hunted pigs also not notable SqueakBox 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Other feral hogs and domestic hogs sections in the article, adds relevant info and context to the reader, you deleted half the article without any prior discussion on the article talk page. Then you placed an afd +tag on the article. I have put back the half of the article deleted by you. If you want to discuss that portions you want deleted do on the article talk page first, to avoid edit wars and to build a consensus, thank you. For notability I get Google = 454,000 hits which seems quite notable to me for something that happened less than one month ago. PianoKeys 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to pig (or to a more specific species article, whichever one applies here). The attention about the pig in and of itself is ephemeral, and is confined to news media looking for a wacky story. However, the fact that is at the heart of the article, that pigs get this big, is of lasting significance and ought to be discussed in the article about pigs. --bainer (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it made international news headlines. Notability is easy to establish. A year from now people will be wanting to find out what the real deal about monster pig was. Stevage 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and move to wikinews. People trying to get attention through fraud don't need an article in an encyclopedia (at least no their own article) ... --194.7.246.43 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly rename. Meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Send it to peer review...has all the makings of a potential featured article...Wikipedia must have an article on every single one day wonder that shows up on the web. Snopes also looked it over...it's not yet a hoax...and if it is proven to be a hoax, we can add at least 50 more kb's detailing the investigation, the outcome and the other related issues...let's also create articles on every single person that was involved in the slaying of the monster pig (pigzilla), since their names are also in the news too, and the investigators, well, etc.--MONGO 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, no compelling reason to delete - David Gerard 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the link to the "evidence" that this might be a hoax is broken, and even so the story is significant for the time being. This is not causing any harm to anybody and can await proper verification without risk to life, limb or sanity. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The more I hear about this story, the more I fret for both the ultimate fate of Alabama, and, to a lesser degree, enormous wild hogs. It may yet turn out to be a rare land-borne manatee, in which case the full scope of the tragedy of this news piece/hoax will be revealed. —808 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PIG as all pigs are inherently notable. Pharamond 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or edit for neutrality.There is debate about the authenticity of the claim and the images. There is no certified weight. Images appear to use forced perspective to make the animal appear larger. Attempts to edit this page for neutrality, allowing for the possibility of a hoax have been quickly changed back to the non neutral POV. User:haans42

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Schuylkill

[edit]
Upper Schuylkill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think this is notable enough, honestly. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Tone of the nomination indicates that it is procedural. Definitely a borderline case, but no one seems to want it to go away just now. IronGargoyle 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adored

[edit]
The Adored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article is about a group that does not, in my opinion, meet WP:BAND, but their case is borderline: they have released 1 (not 2) albums on a big indie label, they have some fame (I find 600ish non wiki real google hits with "the adored power pop"), I could find one review for their album, at IGN. So I have mixed feelings. -- lucasbfr talk 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual it comes down to notability here. Its not as if you can measure the "notability" of someone or something. So why bother. Exactly why should this article be deleted? Because policy says so? What does policy say? Its unclear. Why does policy say this? In order to save space, no, in order to hold an encyclopedia brimming full of information that no paper encyclopedia can have, clearly not otherwise this 'notability' principle wouldn't exist. Why does Wikipedia have to delete articles because they have no apparent use? Its information, what an encyclopia is ment to hold. Which should damn well be what wikipedia should be about, making a huge repository of information. This clearly counts as useful information no matter how you put it, they have an album, which a lot of people have listened to, their songs have appeared on Greys Anatomy, why should you delete them? 82.43.111.162 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia's just cool like that. 58.178.38.162 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I meant Keep (I originally was leaning toward delete but changed my mind; apparently I forgot to change my "vote") Shortcomings in some areas (i.e. only 1 album) combined with plusses in others (a song in Grey's Anatomy, Pete Shelley singing on their record) add up to notability. Article does need work, though. Closenplay 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete

Revealed religion

[edit]
Revealed religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Unattributed Original Research Avi 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unsure what to make of it but I don't think outright delete is correct. Several dictionaries have returned results on the word revealed religion, so perhaps a transwiki to Wiktionary. DoomsDay349 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good point. I've removed that and a couple other POV-sounding "see also" links. In the event that this article is kept, they might be suitable for a "Criticisms" section. ◄Zahakiel► 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term should be KEEP but the current article is Delete. It is a useful term that was used in the 18th century to distinguish natural religion from revealed relgion. The entry would be linked to David Hume and Moses Mendelssohn - the addition of the God template as found on Natural Theology and with outside links to an enclyclopedia of philosophy. But the author of the entry is connecting it to the current research on Bicameralism and Neurotheology which explain how revelation is possible. The article as it stands has Original Research and seems to be a COI pitch for the Bahai faith. I would trim it back to a stub and wait for someone to write the appropriate article. --Jayrav 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect - I didn't see anything in this article that wasn't covered in the more complete (and well-referenced) Revelation article - including the lack of importance in Eastern religions such as Taoism. Refining this will only lead to further redundancies; a passing mention of the comparison with syncretism in Revelation will give readers all they need on this topic. Even some of the Keeps above seem to suggest that redirect is the precedent in cases like this... and that solution makes sense to me. ◄Zahakiel► 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added point it should have the two categories: THEOLOGY, Religious philosophy and doctrine,--Jayrav 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that the two key issues that this article adds to the picture -- natural religion as theological discourse on the distinction between "revealed religion" and "natural religion", mostly in the 18th century, and (b) "neurotheology" as claims of neurological explanations for mental phenomena subjectively experienced as religious phenomena (one wonders what to call claims of neurological explanations for mental phenomena subjectively experienced as scientific theories). Both make sense as sections of the Revelation article. If they grow enough to deserve their own articles, they could be split off at that time. --Shirahadasha 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dyer-Witheford

[edit]
Nick Dyer-Witheford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unclear notability with no references or citations to support any infomation in the article GlassFET 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no assertion of notability. DoomsDay349 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. O'Neill

[edit]

Prod contested without any improvement to the article. Fails WP:BIO as there is no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources for this subject. Burntsauce 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-handed people (2nd nomination)

[edit]
List of left-handed people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list of a loosely associated group of people which has lacked sources since its creation in 2003. Being left-handed, while not as common as being right-handed, is not a distinguishing trait for many of the people listed; 8 to 15% of the world population is still quite a large number of people. I would not be opposed to a (well-sourced) list for a distinct group of people in which left-handedness is notable, such as baseball players, but an unsourced list of all left-handed people is hopelessly indiscriminate and unmaintainable. Phony Saint 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable and loosely-associated list. There are hundreds of millions of lefties, almost none of them is notable for being a lefty. If something is too vague to be a category, it shouldn't be a list. Malc82 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are half a billion people in the world today who are left-handed. It's not as special as you might think. This list has no chance at reaching equilibrium. However, keep the two paragraphs about lefthanders playing music for some other article. YechielMan 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I get the significance, but would be hard-pressed to make a coherent argument in favor of it. JJL 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a reason to delete it? Picaroon (Talk) 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Left-handedness is a common trait. A list like this is unmaintainable, and in the case of some of the subjects may be difficult to verify. I can see some point of a list of left handed cricketers, basketball players, and similar sportmen where left-handedness is notable, but not footballers (American or soccer), and not for most other groups within the list. The value of lists like this is to identify (by redlinks) articles that are needed, but that is much better done in lists of cricketers footballers etc. Peterkingiron 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Phony Saint, Malc82, and Peterkingiron mentioned, this list is unmaintainable. No matter how hard a group of well-meaning Wikipedians tried, it would not be possible to update, prune, and source it effectively. Picaroon (Talk) 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE - WP:SNOW and the obvious BLP issues. Nick 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Barbaro

[edit]

Doc glasgow was on the right track here; the subject of this article is not notable in the encyclopedic sense, nor is there evidence of non-trivial third party coverage. Burntsauce 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A fascinating story, but it's not notable in terms of media coverage. YechielMan 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently written. I feel as though an article could be written about the entire episode (particularly the bigamy and the fact that the guy's a drug dealer - he popped up in the paper here just today), but this certainly isn't it, and neither can I begin to figure out what it would be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculous article. The episode may be notable, this person is not. Does not need to be dealt with via biography. Moreschi Talk 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Contains allegations not referenced in the sole source. This is potentially libellous, which is why I deleted it in the first place.--Docg 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette (band)

[edit]
The Gazette (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band without an allmusic entry or other reliable source, and signed to a non-notable label.-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Nil (album), Gama (album), and COCKAYNE SOUP. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyena was on #3 in the Oricon Charts and Filth In The Beaty #5, as stated in this article: http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/41988/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.244.2 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a Japanese band that's why you might not recognize their record label this does not mean it's not notable considering they have a fair amount of albums out. Just because a band isn't popular in the US that doesn't mean it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Lordofchaosiori 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the subject pass the guidelines at WP:BAND? Where are reliable sources to support the article? The band guidelines are the same for groups in any country, Japan included. Do they have any charted hits in Japan? If they truly are popular there, then I will withdraw my nomination, but I have yet to see any evidence of this. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazette is truly popular. They have hits on the Oricon chart. You could check it up on the official website, but it's in Japanese. There are sites around that keep a history of the charts in English. The Gazette has been on a popular variety show - Hey! Hey! Hey! They have also been in the popular JRock magazine - SHOXX multiple times. The sources in the article still need to be worked on.
Am loves Syusuke 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide sources for your claims. Also, to admins closing the AfD, it's notable to point out that this is pretty much a single-purpose account. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide sources for my claims, but I don't think I'm able to for all the information in the article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8F0uvC9es if you want to watch them on Hey! Hey! Hey! http://www.jpophouse.com/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d137.html&lmd=38874.500602 has a history of SHOXX magazines and some of the artists each issue features. As you can see, Gazette has been featured many times. Some of the information used to be on the OHP, but has been taken down now. Plus, some information change in time, e.g. favourite things, so it should be updated as well.
Am loves Syusuke 06:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although it appears they only have one full-length album so far (with a second supposedly due in July), they do have quite a few mini-album/EPs, their record label is a sub-label of a notable one (Free-Will) with a long history, and many of their CDs + DVDs available through amazon.co.jp. Article needs quite a bit of work and sources, however. Closenplay 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have two albums at the moment, not one. The third's due for July. 71.131.216.6 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I read something about it that said "first album", but now I see it was their first album in Europe (according to amazon.co.uk, anyway). Well, two albums; all the better then. Closenplay 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_30&oldid=1234127921"