Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 25

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< February 24 February 26 >

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 speedily deleted 5 times by Irishguy per CSD G11. --ais523 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

SmogWatch

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

doesn't seem notable, seems like publicity attempt for very local unsubstantiated (unverifiable) claims, if not an elaborate HOAX William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after request by author. gadfium 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simar Singh

edit

It doesnt assert notability, and I highly doubt it will be able to. --Hojimachongtalk 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by author. Therefore I taged it as db-blanked for a speedy delete Travelbird 08:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stanton

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

Non-notable bio about a person who created a non-notable blog American Patriot 1776 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Trebor 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jurassic Park cast members

edit
List of Jurassic Park cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant. Every film has a cast list. WikiNew 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Daughtry (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:57Z

Home (Daughtry song)

edit
Home (Daughtry song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable song, unsourced article, nothing can be said if the speculation is removed. Natalie 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as stated, if we removed the WP:CRYSTAL-balling, there's nothing in this article, and the song does not appear notable. --Haemo 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:07Z

Jury Scrutiny model

edit
Jury Scrutiny model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be unsourced original research. Single author, tagged with {unreferenced} since July. No indication by the author as to any source for this. I couldn't find any obvious references to this out in the world. - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 {{db-author}}--Wafulz 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inuyasha: Demon Tournament

edit

Sorry about all this. I created this page, and I think in falls under the "unnotable" deletion clause. -Litefantastic 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grillionaire

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

This is a new term, not noted anywhere else. BankingBum 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete, default keep. Merge to Fishers, Indiana was suggested. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:10Z

The Artists' Studio

edit
The Artists' Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local community theater Feeeshboy 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now How about giving the author more than 5 minutes! the page was just created. If the place has reviews and mentions in big magazines/papers it might be notable enough. Give some time for the author to show it.Dacium 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a small-town community theater, rather new - I can't see what notability it could have. I'm sure it is a fine place, but it doesn't need an article here. --Brianyoumans 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. No sources. Need sources with evidence of notability per WP:ORG to survive deletion scrutiny.--Shirahadasha 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least, so I, as the starting author, can throw some more on it. A lookup on Google of The "Artists' Studio" Fishers (a look up of The Artists' Studio is too vague as many claim that or a variation of that name) gets about 13 thousand entries, which may seem insignificant, but a related article, Indiana Repertory Theatre, gets only about 58 thousand entries. Considering Indiana Repertory Theatre has existed much longer as a theatre, The Artists' Studio is apparently getting it's name out there. The Google search being said, I was unsure as to whether it really was Wikipedia worthy or not.

Reasons for keeping are: "Notability is not popularity" (This theatre has made an impact on theatre in Indiana being one of the few of it's kind to feature a more family setting on a regular basis, especially on classes on non-covered material as of yet [also known as: give it time]).

"Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this". . ."only of interest to [some group]". . ." (To those that do know it, which in context to the world is not many at all, this article could be of quite a bit of use in informing people about the theatre and history of itself. The fact this theatre is new should not detract from it's effect on the surrounding community, no matter how small you may consider it to be in the grand scheme of things)

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources" (This theatre has been featured in articles ranging from very local to statewide in Indiana, though many may not be published online.)

"Obscure content isn't harmful" (Just because you don't know it doesn't mean you need to get rid of it. It also doesn't mean YOU even need to read it, though it would be nice if you did when it was anywhere near ready :))

Reasons for deleting are: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." (An argument can definitely be made that this article is nothing more than a business entry, but the fact that there is a history, and that a decent size article can be made out of it, almost shoots this down.

"The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it." (Clearly, if you don't agree with the selections I pulled above from WP:NOTE then you don't agree with keeping this article.)

But seriously, this article WAS given only SEVEN minutes before it was nominated for deletion. How about allowing a chance for anything other than a single edit (with only text and linking for that matter, not even tags, such as "stub", pictures, or even complete text/history, much less sources, etc.) before the final decision is made. After all, the classes the Artists' Studio provides and contributions to the surrounding area haven't been put in place. In fact, this article is only a fraction of what it could be, but creating a full article takes TIME. Even that section that was written took a fairly substantial amount of time. Enhanceddownloadbird 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we strangling articles in the crib now? How was this article even found for AfD? Are editors combing through recent changes and killing new articles? This is distasteful. --Richard Daly 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not being considered for deletion because it is incomplete. It is being considered for deletion because it does not assert notability beyond a local level, and without some basic assertion of notability, there is no article. That's not something that takes time to develop. Basic notability should be evident from the start. That's my opinion, and you're welcome to yours, but uncivil comments are not necessary. Feeeshboy 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology I apologize for my uncivil tone. --Richard Daly 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now to give time for the article to be properly put together, with no discrimination against re-nominating if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, etc. 23skidoo 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - regardless of how fast this article was nominated, it is now on AfD and will be for 5 days. Enhanceddownloadbird, I strongly recommend that you take that time to provide sources for the article. If you don't provide sources, it is almost certain that this article will be deleted. You say above that the theater has been featured in statewide articles; it would be best if you could be as specific as possible (links to something online are clearly the most helpful, but even if the mentions aren't hosted online, someone might be able to check out any references you provide if you tell us where to look). References that are independent of the theater, high circulation, and specifically about the theater (rather than just mentioning it) are important. -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is currently well referenced and easily passes Wikipedia:There is no deadline , Oops I mean it easily passes WP:N Good job to User:Enhanceddownloadbird for cleaning it up nicely. ( I found and added a couple references also) Jeepday 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the (continuing) improvements by Enhanceddownloadbird. Also, it somehow strikes me as inappropriate to nominate for deletion an article that has existed only for a few minutes and which is not speedy-able. Adding it to one's watchlist, bookmarking it, contacting the author, or at most proposing it for deletion seem far better choices. -- Black Falcon 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google (UK) search results returned about half a million results, although some of these were for different locations, it notability is still high.Tellyaddict 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a nicely referenced article and does indeed seem to pass the notability requirements. *Zelse81 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In current form, should be kept. Dfrg.msc 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If community high schools can sometimes be notable, then certainly community theaters can be--there are many fewer, they typically are important to a much larger area, and there ought to be sources. (The actual ghits for "Artist's Studio" + Indiana are 9,000, not 500,000, but a number of them are RS. )DGG 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current version, but I don't agree with the criticisms of the original listing. Someone writing an article should store intermediate versions on his or her hard drive, not on Wikipedia, and post it only when it's ready. That saves everyone's time. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has likely legs, no reason to kill it. - Denny 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like it will most likely be expanded with more citations added in the future. Smee 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. My personal view is that this is a loathsome article, and it breaks my heart that an encyclopedia on which I work should cover such a trivial institution. I say that with explicit regard to its position in its local community: certainly it's important there, but in the broader scheme of artistic endeavour it is of no significance whatsoever, as a cursory reading of the numerous reviews referenced in the article makes very clear. Sadly, when I check the references it is easy to see that this article meets our criteria for notability: adequate references are there, and the subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Thus, with a sigh, I have to say that under our current community guidelines this article should be retained. This article is one of the best examples of why we need to tighten up our notability criteria, but until we do, it should stay. WMMartin 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quite happy to rest upon WP:IGNORE here; this may technically meet notability requirements, but when one uses common sense, one sees that no real claim of notability is made or even really attempted in this article - it is just a small community theater of little or no interest to anyone outside the local area. The founders may have some slight notability themselves, but if so, they should have articles of their own. If this deserves a mention in Wikipedia, it is in the Fishers, Indiana article, like any other local institution per WP:LOCAL. --Brianyoumans 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy, CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Marie

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

Seems to be a vanity article. If this is a singer, I don't find anything about this person anywhere online Entheta 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curry chicken

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

There seems to be nothing encyclopedic to say about this dish other than that it exists, i.e. the mundane fact that chicken meat may be cooked with curry powder in a variety of ways, none of which are individually notable as far as I can see. (Come to think of it, might even be speediable under the letter of WP:CSD#A3, but seems too wordy for its spirit). The main interest of the article's creator seems to be to exhort the world to mind the subtle differences between "chicken curry" and "curry chicken"... –Henning Makholm 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Although some of your reasons for deletion may be thought about, The article has further been enhanced with a history section. In addition, your arguments for deletion also apply for various articles such as Roti, Aloo gobi, Fried_rice etc. This article has now some historical content. It seems the creator is a newbee, and thus It would be appropriate if we help the author by further adding to the article. I and you all like big penis lol guess the best way is to, add the various cultural histories of the curry chicken dish. In addition, this article can not be added to the curry article because it is not a curry dish. This is a chicken dish, NOT merely a curry dish. In addition, the contents of this article is quite large, and it will become even larger when other lovers of the curry chicken dish from different culture backgrounds, add their own historical history of this dish.

Uncle G 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, to verification of the distinction between chicken curry and curry chicken is simple. If you look for recipes of the two dishes, they are summed up by what the article says. Nonetheless, the article has historical facts that are sourced, and is not merely distinguishing between curry chicken and chicken curry. The distinction is just there, to clarify the two dishes.Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A3 does, however, allow for external links and "a rephrasing of the title". –Henning Makholm 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there's a bit more information than is required to delete under A3. It's not a lot, but it's moot since we're discussing here at AfD - it can run its course. Leebo86 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a distinct, legitimate point in that article. I have been to many countries, US, Canada, France, England, India, Pakistan, Jamaica..., working temp-work, mostly as a part-time chef. I have noticed for example that when I cook for a Hindu or Pakistan community, we create the dishes with very few chicken and mostly curry. This is spread over rice, and used like Dahl. However, when I have cooked for Jamaican, and West Indian communities, we/I have prepared chicken by soaking it in a special curry sauce, and so on. I am pleased to see that this article points this subtle difference in these two dishes, and I hope it can remain. I must say, I shall try that Ultimate Curry Chicken recipe on the link provided, looks fantastic!! GobtaNIndia 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
    After reading the discussion, I must say Aloo gobi and Fried_rice and Garam_masala and Chicken_tikka_masala (Also, chicken tikka massala picture on the link looks alot like chicken curry? But not curry chicken!) and many more articles I have noticed, all are similar to this Curry chicken article. All the points being made above apply to these articles also. Just a thought. | YaYa its Gobta 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that your sorry, I think my explanation above gives reason what fried rice has to do with curry chicken. The point is, after reading these arguments above, saying "should be merged with curry article", then why is not "chicken tika masala" not merged with curry or masala. Why is "Garam Masala" not merged with masala. Why is "Aloo gobi" not merged with aloo, or gobi. That is the point. I say they should not be merged, and therefore this curry chicken should not be merged with curry. It deserves its own article, as those the articles stated in my statement. GobtaNIndia 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
  • Update Interesting Trivia, the curry chicken article continues to grow, with facsinating facts. There is no way in my opinion, this can fit under the curry category, but above all I continue to insist that it doesn't even belong in the curry section since it is a chicken dish. Also, it has become encyclopediac content with the new updates.
Sorry, but I am a newbee, and did you not tell me only post once under one comment? Leeba?

Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post as many comments as you want, if you're responding to other comments, but don't put a Bold word at the beginning of more than one and not sign them as if you are two people voting. Leebo86 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - there are lots of articles on single food types/items. It's a notable food, especially in the Caribbean where it is considered a major local dish not just in Trinidad, where almost half the population is Indian, but also in Jamaica, where the Indian population is small, and other islands where there has never been much of an Indian population at all. Merging it with curry would require a complete re-write of that article. Guettarda 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a stupid question but what notability guideline should apply to food? - Denny 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i agree w. Smee, and the chef above. I think it's a decent article that has some singular facts. It could use more sources, but my vote is keep.--Debsuls 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular and varied dish. Also passes the Brittanica Test: If I see an article in Brittanica about this, I won't think, "why did they include this?". (Google tests aren't policy, but just a note: [2] "curry chicken"] gets 436,000 results.) - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These articles that are being brought up maybe a part of a country's cuisine section. Also not everyone makes Curry chicken the same. Sure Curry maybe the most pronounced ingredient but there's various ways it can be prepaired. I also find it funny based on the bias on Wikipedia that someone would call this a "Mundane" article yet there's one on Spaghetti Sauce. I bet that same crowd would say *that* was a very importaint article. CaribDigita 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really have any basis to claim that just because someone says "delete" for curry chicken that they want the spaghetti sauce article to stay. In fact, one should remember that inclusion is not an indication of validity. In other words, just because something "mundane" like, say butter, has an article (a featured one at that) it doesn't mean that every food item deserves an article. Leebo86 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I also see you believe that there is an "American Deletionist Cabal". So, I figured I'd point that out before I'm accused of saying delete just because I'm American. Leebo86 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Brain Candy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Stummies

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

Non-notable. Fictional drug that was featured in one movie. Croxley 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Rahajan

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

Non notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and I can hear Dr Claw's catchphrase in my mind right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

edit
Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a non notable middle school in Virginia; recently survived a multiple AFD which was closed as "no consensus"; the deletion review endorsed the closure, but "mildly encouraged" relisting... thus, here we are. I can see no claim of notability at all for this school. Brianyoumans 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:09Z

WWE Beat the time Sprint

edit
WWE Beat the time Sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable series of matches that took place from January 5 through January 12, 2007. Listcruft. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint --Aaru Bui DII 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to University of Kent; if someone creates an article on Student life at Kent University, it would make sense to merge this there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

Kent University Conservative Association

edit
Kent University Conservative Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2nd nomination) – (View AfD)

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable. See also previous AfD from 2005. Eastmain 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:10Z

Yang Fu

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

Unreferenced and article fails to meet WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis article is probably the most out of contexted biography ive ever seen. It took me a lot of looking at the other wikilinks to other ppl to even find the date/context of this persons life (2nd/3rd century). If another user is willing to expand the article, look online or elsewhere for some references and try and make the biography more notable than im willing to change my view, but for now its a delete.LordHarris 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real not notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. --Fang Aili talk 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loganville High School Soccer

edit
Loganville High School Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable high school soccer program. Prod/prod2 tags removed by author. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chou

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article appears to be on a figure in Chinese history who, despite the article's lack of sources and style issues, may possibly be a notable historical figure. However, every Wikipedia articles requires multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability to avoid deletion. I believe the article, despite its difficulties, provides enough contextual information that speedy delete is not warranted and would give the creator time to come up with sources during the regular delete procedure period. However, if sources are not forthcoming, the result should be Delete. --Shirahadasha 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable even if real. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or disambiguate While I'm not sure of this Yang Chou person, the spelling itself is a variant of Yangzhou (there is already a redirect at Yang-chou), so this should at least be a redirect if not a disambiguation. FrozenPurpleCube 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (or redirect) As I understand it, Cao Cao and his associates are pretty important figures in the history of the Chinese, it would therefore be prudent to clarify this article if it is indeed relevant to that history. Zelse81 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and ask for sources. This is not a valid speedy. I would be very cautious about historical figures from a period about which i knew very little, particularly given the problem of establishing the correct name. Would have been a suitable prod. 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a person from the Three Kingdoms period and is in Sima, Guang (1952-1965) The chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (220-265) Chapters 69-78 from the Tzu chih t'ung chien Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. OCLC 419919 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Bejnar 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote, not all historical personalities are notable. Most who even warrant a couple lines in historical texts would, but this is really not. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, a7, nonsense biography, already speedied once before. NawlinWiki 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europimp

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

Non-notable 'web personality', article contains a lot of nonsense (eg "he lives in some sort of time paradox"); and is fairly obvious vanity. Steve Farrell 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:12Z

Heron (programming language)

edit
Heron (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heron Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Christopher Diggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Heron programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)


Original research, promotion, vanity. Page describes a now-dormant personal project. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irishguy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Jason Blades

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

nn person. The article claims television credits, IMDB begs to differ. No reliable sources to verify these claims. IrishGuy talk 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Yang Huai

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Appears to be fictional, and even if not fictional not notable enough (although notability of ancient historical figures is trickier). --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference article to avoid another nomination for AfD if you have references Alf photoman 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Zizhi Tongjian added. --Nlu (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Hong

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

Article contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not emphasise notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article appears to be describing someone livivig around the 150CE period, so they have survived the test of time. However, without sources this article provides no context or details to base notability on. Nuttah68 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above that unless this person is truely notable then it should be deleted. To say the person has stood the test of time, not much has been said in this article, and if he is truely notworthy then there should be plenty of info by which to make an article on --PrincessBrat 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as I hope was done for the others. The nom should know by now that the characters in this group are in a major work of historical fiction, but based on real history & are thus to be judged on both aspects. (its only necessary to follow the links to find this out) Quite a lot of them a=have come up at AfD, and the obvious solution is for someone knowledgeable in the period to merge the minor ones appropriates, as is done with other works of fiction and some minor personages in history. I myself cannot say how important she is in the history or the novel, or just how it should be merged. DGG 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was created by an editor who has been blocked indefinitely (the list of deleted articles is approaching 800). I don't know if this one is a copyright violation or not, but if it is, it doesn't need an AfD debate. Fg2 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

James C. McDonald

edit
James C. McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not seem to be notable. The article was deleted by Prod but resurrected. Prod is contested Alex Bakharev 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. Jersey Devil 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

edit

A copy of a primary source, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

Roy A. Tucker

edit
Roy A. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil T : C 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

Natasha_Fatah

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

Biography is not notable and has no sources. Celticeric 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep for now based on other AFDs; find sources, please!. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:52Z

Yang Song

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:51Z

Nick Stubblefield

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:17Z

Yang Qiu

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

Subject would appear to be a character in a historical fiction novel and the article lacks references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no real chance of being deleted... no need to leave the turkey on the article for 2 more days. W.marsh 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Seidlin

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

Non-notable. Aside from presiding over a few minor hearings in the Anna Nicole Smith case, he has not done anything to merit notability more so than any other Florida Circuit Court Judge. Hallibrah 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all limited to that... he has been given massive coverage on TV, and you would probably be hard pressed to find an article on the trial that didnt mention him, whether it be CNN or the BBC. It is anything but limited to a few articles... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the BBC article you mention proves my point, it doesn't cover Judge Seidlin at all, it mentions him. Does that make him somehow more 'notable' than just being a jurist presising over a case? I suppose some people might consider that to be so, but i am not one of them.
Also to say the coverage is massive is first of all subjective: I believe the coverage of the death of Saddam Huissein was "massive," not this story. Also to make any kind of statement about comprehensive coverage being given to this is also I would say, very US-centric. Thethinredline 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 York City F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:07Z

Nick Bassett

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was {{wi}} soft-redirect to Wiktionary. If a new article High-maintenance relationships were created, this could redirect there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:49Z

High-maintenance

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

This article is simply a dictionary/slang definition of a term, and provides no context or attribution that would make it an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:WINAD, it does not meet standards, and should be deleted. -- Haemo 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:46Z

Nick Willsher

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidlines for notability per WP:BIO. Self-promotion. Nv8200p talk 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lindin

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

Vanity. Non-notable Entheta 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:21Z

Full Blown Entertainment

edit
Full Blown Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Greenspoint's Finest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Full blown ent.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Gpfinestfrnt.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I'm also nominating the article Greenspoint's Finest, a mixtape under this record label. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable record label. Google search for "Full Blown Entertainment"+"Yung Blue" results in 0 hits (Yung Blue is the founder of the label). The official web page is on MySpace. Prod removed by author with the reason "It is a real label, notable releases, CD's are sold in major stores in Houston such as music depot." Unfortunately I can't find any mention in reliable sources of the albums online, either. Delete due to lack of notability. ... discospinster talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:22Z

The Ding Dongs

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

Very short lived comedy team. Not very notable, and simply just cruft better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye there already is. Wrestlecrap.com! Suriel1981 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Dismissed; possible rename. Article was just created as a merge target. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. (The point of the article was to merge all the other minor fetish articles into one.). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 07:01Z

List of uncommon fetishes

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

Unverifiable listcruft. What kind of criteria makes a fetish "uncommon"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I like "List of fetishes" a lot better than "List of uncommon fetishes." Although the latter would seem to be a subset of the former, this is not the case -- "List of fetishes" implies that only notable fetishes will be included, while "List of uncommon fetishes" suggests that fetishes that are notable enough for their own articles will not be included, while other, less notable ones will. I support a move. --N Shar 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the main article on fetishes has a list, with links to articles about major fetishes. As said above, one can fetishize just about anything - which to my mind means listing them all is pointless. Is there anything notable or different to be said about, say, mirror fetishes as opposed to chair fetishes as opposed to floor wax fetishes? I doubt it. --Brianyoumans 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question I don't think this article is meant to be an actual list. It's been poorly named in that case. My understanding is that it is intended to be a place where several stub articles will be merged (after discussion on those articles' talk pages). Might it be a better idea to userfy the article until all the details of possible merges have been worked out? Robotman1974 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

Willow Ridge

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

Appears to be a hoax, no relevant Google hits. See WP:MADEUP John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

DR.K.K. SHARMA

edit
DR.K.K. SHARMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod removed, likely hoax Travelbird 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a page containing only unverifiable, hagiographic material. A likely hoax, since the good Doctor only gets 2 non-Wikipedia Google hits, and they are primary sources. --N Shar 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep under the hope that sources will be inserted. The work when sourced will probably be N. This is another example of pages written carelessly by those who do not understand WP standards. The proper course is not to delete them, but to work at helping the authors improving them. This lack of knowledge tends to be substantial with subjects and authors from India, among other countries, and calls for extra effort, not removal.DGG 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article contends that the author (born 1977 - but supposedly 26 years of age) wrote 120 (!) books on historical subjects. If the date of birth is correct, and assuming he didn't start until he was 17, that works out at an average of 12 books a year ! I'm afraid that without proper sources I'm not inclined to believe that this is genuine Travelbird 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading more carefully than I did. My failure to read might be a result of the same automatically negative attitude that I was deploring--so particular thanks for making me aware of it.
Delete as probable hoax. DGG 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:45Z

Brown Stand-Up Comics

edit
Brown Stand-Up Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Brown Standup Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Brown Stand-up Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Brown Standup Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Another article about a non-notable student improv stand-up group. The best claims to notability is that they were mentioned in a roundup article Time did about college stand-up groups. Additionally, I do not feel that hiring well known comedians to perform at their school makes them notable. Finally, although it is great three of their members were semi-finalists in the student stand-up contest on nibblebox.com, I don't know those members' individual achievements in this case are notable enough to make the entire group notable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might merit a line or two in the Brown University article, but that's about it. I'm not convinced that the founder is very notable; I'm even tempted to afd his article. The list of "well known comedians" they have hosted is meagre and frankly not even up to what I would expect from a major university. The Time magazine article has about two paragraphs about them, it is about college stand up in general. Out!! --Brianyoumans 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. The "Notable Comics Hosted by the Brown Stand-Up Comics" stuff is a dead give-away that these people are nobodies. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm not inclined to believe enough notability for an article. Carolfrog 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The Time profile gives them the opening two paragraphs...but other than that they have three of the five semi-finalists at the US Comedy Arts Festival's Best College Comedian contest. Semi-Finalists aren't finalists, nor are they winners. The notability is almost there but lacking. IrishGuy talk 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per substantial precedent on student societies. Inadequate references, and notability not obvious. WMMartin 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashspring

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

Software with no evidence of notability (as defined by WP:SOFTWARE). Article cites no sources. Conscious 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, today i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulate and didn't find a big difference between Articulate page and FlashSpring page. So far, i think propose for deletion to be doubtful, but still accept it.
I'll appreciate your assistance and point of view.
Sergeysid 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per nominator withdrawal RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Swan

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

non-notable artist withdrawing nom, article has since been cleaned up SERSeanCrane 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your cleanup of the article am withdrawing nom. Great work. SERSeanCrane 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TerriersFan 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; reevaluate if new article is written. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:44Z

Kleinmann Family Foundation

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

No outside links, unsalvagably POV, probably not notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for now. We should let everybody have more than three days to work on an Article before screaming delete, but I am afraid that unless the article improves greatly it will soon be a goner. Besides, and this especially for new editors: you can write an article in your sandbox and not release it before you are confident that it meets at least WP:V Alf photoman 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete cut-n-paste copyvio from [7]. No prejudice against recreation as an original text. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see signs that this foundation is terribly active or notable; looks like it sponsors a conference or two, has some archives. It is basically a private foundation (I bet "mandated by the government" simply means that when they filed the non-profit papers, they gave the government the purpose listed.) Out. --Brianyoumans 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete In this case I think the foundation might well be N, bu tthe existing article/essay/PR is hopeless, and a proper article should be written instead. DGG 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article has not improved in the past 7 days so I am going to suppose that bothing is going to happen to it. In the present form : cut and paste, no references, no sources I think we dont have another choice. No prejudice against the theme itself. Alf photoman 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/notability

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American ensign. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:05Z

American Merchant Stripes

edit
American Merchant Stripes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that a flag of this name existed. ScottMainwaring 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that flags of this design did not exist — the Sons of Liberty apparently used such a flag, as did (most probably) the Continental Navy (see First Navy Jack). I hadn't been aware of the Franklin and Adams quote, which does look like good evidence that this design was also used as a U.S. Civil ensign. Nevertheless, I have yet to see any solid evidence that such a civil ensign was named the "American Merchant Stripes"; a single flag retailer's site and a personal essay don't seem to me sufficient bedrock on which to ground a Wikipedia entry. Given all this, I would like to change my vote to Merge into American ensign. --ScottMainwaring 06:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:26Z

The crystalline planet Dxun

edit
The crystalline planet Dxun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this doesn't exist. The Chmmr article contridicts it (although that's unsourced as well, of course) and the GameFAQs walkthroughs I looked at didn't mention it either. Don't be fooled by the Google hits for Dxun, these all appear to be refering to the unrelated Star Wars moon Dxun. Even if it does exist, I don't think it would be notable. BryanG(talk) 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nom, there is a separate article for the Star Wars moon at Dxun. In fact, the way I found this one is that it was erroneously tagged {{StarWars-stub}}. BryanG(talk) 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MECWA

edit

Unsourced article about a local charity. Speedied once as copyvio, this version seems clean on that score. No evidence presented that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, author has few other contributions. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources added. Walton monarchist89 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gevorg Sargsyan

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

Asserts notability, but the article reads like vanity, and the references are mostly self-references. Delete unless notability shown independently. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - very clear assertion of notability, although some of the claims need to be backed up by further referencing. I don't speak Armenian and haven't checked out the websites cited, but "www.opera.am" and "www.persons.am" sound like they probably qualify as third-party reliable sources, rather than vanity pages. Walton monarchist89 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. My guess is that the only reason notability is in question is that he's Armenian, and so most of the sources are in Armenian; if he were an American of similar level of notability, I doubt anybody would nominate him for deletion. --Delirium 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. What are you speaking about??? This conductor is one of the most notable and respectfull in Armenian music life!!! Check out the references, there is only 1000 names in www.persons.am and Gevorg Sargsyan has own place on that serious website directory... Sure, this article should NOT be deleted.--208.49.241.227 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with "Delirium". As above mentioned user said the question is just a nationality... However, www.persons.am web-directory is available in English at www.persons.am/en . I don't think this articl should be considered for deletion. That's wrong.--195.250.94.167 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How long such kind of rasizm will be continued? Why it is considered for deletion? Because other nations are afraid, that there are too many talented and impressed Armenians with population only 3 mln... Don't count on nationality, look how famous and notable he is! --83.217.229.147 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the references are in English. His entry on the "1000 Armenian Famous Persons" is no more than a name, a picture, and the line "Conductor of Armenian Opera Theater" ([10]). This person is not listed anywhere that I could find on the State Academic Opera & Ballet Theater website; most telling, he is not listed in the list of primary staff ([11]). -- Jonel | Speak 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Don't think he meets WP:Music yet but may very do so in the future however wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks God Maestro don't see this everything... When me and other users are looking trough and making a comments about him he is working and bringing a joy to everyone who ever attemts his concerts. I know, that he has to conduct in Valencia ([12]) and give masterclass for students in Spain. What about listings on website([13])name and pictures are appeared almost for everyone. So, this is not a subject to discuss. WP:Music can not be complete list of notable and at the same time young conductors without name of Gevorg Sargsyan. If you search via google name "Gevorg Sargsyan" you will find out, that his name must be kept on WP:Music.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Chang

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

NN actress. Has appeared in a few commercials and had some guest appearances on TV. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree with the above, MacRusgail, about the ads not being as notable however she has appeared on several television shows which is a strong reason for the article to be kept. I also checked her name on google and yahoo to double check her notability and she has quite a few links and bios on several sites--www.imdb.com,www.tv.com, www.blurtit.com, and www.tv.yahoo.com to name a few. Another note is that I've checked other actors/actresses wikipedia articles and they have not done as much as this person yet they are still able to keep their articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blake h297 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment -- Simply appearing on several TV shows is not evidence for notability. In none of these shows did she play a recurring character, she was simply a guest star. The other articles for actors and actresses you have checked should probably be deleted as well. I'm currently working on weeding out non-notable actors at the moment, thus this AFD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to admit that I just created an account just for this topic. I was browsing around and it's ridiculous how you people are making a big deal. I, for one, believe that anyone who is even listed on IMDB should be notable. I say keep the article because she has been on TV--L&O:SVU. Although it was not the lead cameo, I still think that is pretty notable. Keep the article folks! Hkuatz27 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:42Z

A. J. Khan

edit
A. J. Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN actress. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neko-te. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

Handclaws

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

Long-term unsourced ninjacruft. Reads like something from Real Ultimate Power. Eyrian 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

Aras Corp

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

The entire article reads like an advertisement for Aras. Notability is very debatable. And, the author, InnovatorM seems to exhibit a conflict of interest. Hamitr 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:38Z

John michael alvarez

edit
John michael alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability not asserted. Alex Bakharev 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, does assert notability, but nothing particularly significant, does have a source, but not a particularly good one – Qxz 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article is very new, and got slapped with an AFD on the same day as creation. I've tagged with with an ((unref)) since the article is missing references, and should at least be given a chance before immediately being nominated for AFD. -- Whpq 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, for now. It is not helpful not to wait a few days while an article is being created, on the other hand one can create articles in his/her sandbox and put it up when it meets the guidelines. Alf photoman 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

Northfield Park

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

Non notable local race track, {{prod}} was removed. John Reaves (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Northfield Park" Ohio turned up 19,500 hits. Leaping to the 30th page of results revealed that the pages were still turning up exact matches. I think this is an indication of notability. Suriel1981 10:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:27Z

100 Mile House Elementary School

edit
100 Mile House Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
150 Mile Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable elementary schools (see one additional entry below). Nice articles, but there is just nothing interesting to say about these schools. Brianyoumans 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 36 Surrey, School District 23 Central Okanagan. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:28Z

A S Matheson Elementary School

edit
A S Matheson Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A H P Matthew Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A J McLellan Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 non-notable elementary schools in British Columbia (see additional listings below). Brianyoumans 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD also includes: A H P Matthew Elementary School and A J McLellan Elementary School. Brianyoumans 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

Aztech

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

No assertation of notability, no links to it, and has no noteable products ffm 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

Yang Zuo

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

Article contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. It is not known whether subject is fictional or real, even if then there appears to be only one source of information and should be merged into that article. Ozgod 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

Yang Yi

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

Article fails to meet the WP:BIO requirements and contains no references. The subject of the article is not known whether to be real or a part of historical fiction. Should either be merged or deleted. Ozgod 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does subject fall under the biography category, however? Can this be cleared up in the article? Or should the article be merged to Shu Han? --Ozgod 06:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the subject not fall under the biography category if the subject is a real person? I'm not sure if I understand your question. _dk 06:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was the subject an actual person or a fictitious character in an historical fiction work? --Ozgod 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was real and fairly important, thus our keep votes. _dk 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Niohe, the person who created this article Darin Fidika (talk · contribs) was notorious for refusing to abide by Wikipedia rules on copyright and style. He has since been blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations, and so I don't think you need to worry about him. The question is what to do with the bunches of unsourced and poorly written articles he wrote. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Khoikhoi 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

edit
Sudden Jihad Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an obscure coinage that hardly warrants its own article. Moreover, the article's author has created a long list of people suffering from this "Syndrome," most of whom have not been linked to the term in any reliable source--in short, it smacks of original research. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Well referenced. As the Boston Globe writes, "After all, Haq is not the first example of what scholar Daniel Pipes has called ``Sudden Jihad Syndrome," in which a seemingly nonviolent Muslim erupts in a murderous rampage." I find the article very pertinent. As long as it remains strictly sourced I see no legitimate grounds for deleting it. Bus stop 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well sourced??? Of the five external links, four don't mention "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at all, while the other merely references Pipes' coining of the term. Indeed, two of the killings in the references make no reference whatsoever to political association. If this is well sourced, I could write a similar article about left-handed killers and call it "Sudden Sinister Syndrome", and it'd be just as worthy. EliminatorJR 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you even find one source indicating a propensity for left handed people to erupt in violence? I think not. But militant Islam does seem to have this tendency. And there are at least some sources to support that that propensity exists. Bus stop 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But that is not what this AfD is about - it is about the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". It is *that* which needs to be sourced. If the article was called "Propensity of Islamic people to commit sudden violence" then your point would be valid. EliminatorJR 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has 5 days from the start of the AfD, which should be enough time to source things better if this is in fact a term with wider currency. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boston Globe isn't actually using the term. They are writing about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, and in doing so quote Daniel Pipes, the man who our article credits as "coining" the term. Pipes used the phrase in his own article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. As far as I can tell, our article only has one citation: Pipes' original comment, plus a Boston Globe article which points to Pipes' same original comment. ~CS 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it has not "been picked up and used by a major news organisation". The major news organisation said, in passing, that one particular person coined the term. There's a world of difference between that and the term passing into common usage at the Globe or anywhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not a soapbox. If some serious psychological study comes up with a similar theory then by all means let there be an article that covers aspects of such a study. Also per User:Proabivouac's logic. (→Netscott) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly-sourced neologism. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this example of prejudice actually becomes N.DGG 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Aminz 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this is an example of prejudice, but it's not original research for Wikipedia to report that prejudice exists in the world. Pipes's foray into bigotry seems to have attracted something of a following (not surprising, given the current Islamophobic mood) and so is notable. The article must be NPOV, however. As others have noted, the Globe citation isn't to a Globe article that uses the term, as if a journalist found it a helpful way to describe the world. Instead, it's a column by the right-winger Jeff Jacoby, who merely cited Pipes. This should be corrected. The article should also be balanced by the inclusion of criticism, but I can't find much, although there's a good savaging by a blogger: "When airhead heiress Lizzie Grubman drove her SUV into a crowd in 2001, injuring almost twice as many people as Taheria-azar, then attempted to flee the scene while showing no concern for her victims, nobody started blathering about 'Sudden Rich White Asshole Syndrome'." (from [18] - he even linked to our Lizzie Grubman article) The problem seems to be that most sensible commentators consider Pipes's silliness to be self-evident and not worth remarking upon. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't quite follow the reasoning here. I would've thought that if the wider community (or "most sensible commentators") haven't touched Pipes' term, that would be a reason against giving it its own article - perhaps a reason for adding it into Pipes' own article, in the manner in which other turns of phrase peculiar to certain commentators are to be found in their articles. If Pipes is the only person who uses the term to any serious extent, and if the best we can do outside of his work is to find an article which links back to him and him alone, then we're dealing with someone inventing a term which has little or no currency, aren't we? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Sensible commentators haven't touched it, but there are 60,000+ hits from the likes of Little Green Footballs and other sloughs of irrationality. Generally, a blog doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS as a source for a fact -- but a fact about blogs, such as that many blogs use a term, can be considered when we try to adjudicate notabiliity. In addition, there are at least a couple uses that are neither Pipes himself nor right-wing blogs, e.g. Investor's Business Daily. My bottom line is that the term is out there enough that someone might see it, be unsure whether it's a real "Syndrome" or just some Islamophobe's rhetorical device, and come to Wikipedia seeking enlightenment. This article presents uses by Pipes and others and now includes a criticism that I added. It will therefore enlighten that hypothetical reader more than would a redirect to Daniel Pipes; the latter article couldn't readily accommodate all this detail. JamesMLane t c 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not every phrase coined by a commentator needs an article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The term is a phrase which if I recall correctly was coined by Daniel Pipes to refer to the phenomenon of sudden violent acts by formely perceived to be mild mannerd Muslim individuals such as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and more recently Sulejman Talović. The phrase has nothing to do with racism or prejudice but simply describes a noticeable social phonemena which has every indication of being religiously motivated. As an encyclopedia we ought to provide an article to cover this important topic.Daniel Pipes describes Sudden Jihad Syndrome here.--CltFn 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The first sentence causes me to wonder if you've even read the article - the history of the term is in there. I've removed the link to Pipes site, which is already in the article for those who need to see the source material. CovenantD 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from editing other editors comments in an AFD discussion.--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - additionally, that fact that one particular commentator coined the term doesn't confer notability upon it. The straw-man argument about prejudice doesn't stand up, since nobody's suggesting that the article should be deleted for reasons of racism or prejudice (whether contained therein or on the part of the people advocating deletion). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be some that insist that the word is not notable and others who say it is, but looking beyond this we ought to ask ourselves, that if a readers comes accross the term in the internet, which they inevitably will if they read any anti-jihad blogs and which to find out what it means by searching Wikipedia, they ought to find an article that explains what it means. Thats the whole point of Wikipedia is it not?--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes and no. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus should contain lots of useful information for anyone who wants to look. However, no it should not contain everything in the world. Where our standards are concerned, it just doesn't seem to measure up. Don't worry, though, since it's equal opportunity discrimination - a term used by the political Left requires just as much sourcing and notability to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Pipes#Opinions or weak keep. As noted by a number of editors above (and confirmed upon reading the article), the term is used only in passing in the Boston Globe source. The article in which Pipes uses the term for the first time is not an independent source (and, if the numbers are true, ... very depressing as to the state of mind of the United States public). The term is is, however, addressed more non-trivially in a few other sources. However, I think this does deserve a mention in the biographical article. In any case, I oppose deletion as there should be a redirect from this term to the Daniel Pipes article (it is a plausible search term). -- Black Falcon 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as noted above. I hold that this phrase is not notable enough to have its own article but since Pipes is notable it should be put in his page. A1octopus 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Netscott. Optionally a redirect can be created afterwards to that famous coiner of trite phrases, Daniel Pipes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and protect. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

Muslims fear Backlash

edit
Muslims fear Backlash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This unattributed neologism has been created and speedy deleted several times. It fits no WP:CSD, though, so let's do this the proper way through AfD. Sandstein 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:34Z

Kolamalai durabi

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

very likely hoax page, considering it isn't sourced and the author previously added another hoax page at Maximillian gordte cupello Travelbird 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7/G11. "If there was no wiki, I would have invented wiki and if there was no Wikipedia, I would have become the Wikipedia" :) GarrettTalk 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pataro Igororyizu

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

Minor assertion of notability in the article, but no references to back it up. Google search on the name reveals a total of 5 hits, none of which back up notability claims. Hatch68 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Copyvio so deleted. Tawker 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense blindness

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

neologism at best Travelbird 07:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Ahmedabad. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

Daxini

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

Non notable residential area. Aksi_great (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:35Z

MusicSquare

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

I'd applied a speedy tag for this as a website article that asserts no notability, but it was rejected as asserting notability "in there somewhere." I still can't find it, but, regardless, this page appears to fail WP:WEB. GassyGuy 08:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

List of Artist pages on MusicSqaure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- GassyGuy 08:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Also, a number of other pages link to Matt Kroll in different contexts (as a CEO and as a scientist), so probably different people. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:33Z

Matt Kroll

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

It does not really assert notability, and doesn't cite sources. --Hojimachongtalk 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Seems to be a bona-fide hoax attempt—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:30Z

Sean Burque

edit
Sean Burque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Seanb.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I speedy deleted this as non notable. It was immediately recreated, with the additional information that the subject had made a $1 million donation to a university. I think this is a claim to notability, but the article has only a primary source. Weak delete gadfium 08:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BaBe; merge Tomoko Kondo to BaBe. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:36Z

BaBe

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

No notability, little verification. The only source cited is just another encyclopedia, and it could also fail WP:BAND. Diez2 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to add Tomoko Kondo to this AfD nomination? --Alvestrand 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:24Z

Tomoko Kondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:22Z

Kifaru Jitsu

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

Non-notable karate style, only 266 google hits, deprodded with the very rude summarry of revert vandalism Delete Jaranda wat's sup 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Karate styles are (and I don't mean this harshly) a dime a dozen; I don't see any documentation (either on the article or elsewhere) as to why this one is particularly notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Zetawoof said, any martial arts school can write up a training regimen, slap a name on it, and call it a style. This one garners a mere 224 ghits, most of which concern a single school. --Djrobgordon 11:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:38Z

C.V. Ramachandra Murti Professor M.Tech

edit
C.V. Ramachandra Murti Professor M.Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cvrmurthy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Vanity BankingBum 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, but only because no sources found; recreate when sources found. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:26Z

Major James Davidson

edit
Major James Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates policy for Wikipedia:Notability (people) at this point. Consider readding if sources added for relevance. BankingBum 09:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not much online, except for the fact that he's real. Admittedly, ghits aren't a particularly useful barometer for a subject this old, but if there's nothing online, an editor's really going to have to go out of his way to expand this beyond rank and date of death. It's possible there's a good article to be created on Davidson, but nothing is lost by deleting this one. --Djrobgordon 11:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no apparent notability. I get more hits for a different (apparently) James Davidson, a Captain (later Colonel) who was present at the battle where Tecumseh was killed, but nothing besides the name matches.--Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:23Z

TNT Assaultsquad

edit
TNT Assaultsquad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:TeamTNT Logo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

has a weak assertion of notability, thus not CSD, but still isn't encyclopedic material Travelbird 10:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Delete Electronic Sports teams are listed in the wikipedia database as well. Therefore team tnt does also deserve a place in this great encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnySven (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This sort of info is for a fan site of the game, not wikipedia. The names of the players are un-notable and mean nothing to anyone outside the game. Also to the comment above this one - if electronic sports teams grow in the future, they should only be listed on wikipedia if they become notable, not just because they exist or may grow in popularity. That is not a reason to start including this sort of info. --PrincessBrat 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the semi-professional claim and the faux-NBA logo on the league site, there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this team or its league. FYI, "tnt assaultsquad" gets 0 Google hits, while "tnt assault squad" gets 1. The Google test isn't infalliable, but this team plays an online game. --Djrobgordon 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Google search for "unreal tournament league" shows the nothing notable league on its first result page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.153.250 (talk • contribs)

*Not Delete Team TNT isn't responsible doesnt have influence on the logo of the league or the google rankings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnySven (talk • contribs)

Comment : You're only allowed to vote once. Travelbird 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not a vote, it's a search for consensus. That said, Delete if there is no external verification forthcoming. --Richard Daly 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maserati Rick" Carter

edit
"Maserati Rick" Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on this person was previously created under a different title, and deleted because it was a copyright violation; see here. I've just created a (non-copyright violating) stub, because the article is listed on Requested Articles. However, the previous discussion aired some doubts about the subject's notability, so I am asking for a consensus on that here. Essentially, I can either remove the article request as fulfilled or as non-notable, it's just a case of which – Qxz 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found a couple Detroit News articles on the subject (August 15 and 17, 1990), but unfortunately I can only get the abstracts, and there's not enough there for me to determine notability. Maybe someone has access to them. --Djrobgordon 11:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteGoogling him with quoation marks around his name gives a hundred or so results, one of which is a pic of his gravestone if you go into the website. Again, its more a debate on wether this guy is notable - and to be honest I dont see it. Looks like a local criminal, of which there are plenty in communities around the world but that doesnt mean they all (if any) deserve a wikipedia article.--PrincessBrat 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable.--Vox Rationis 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple articles in the Detroit News, per above. Also, mention in the Detroit Free Press. I think more would turn up, but given the timing and the fact that he was a minor character in the 80's US drug epidemic, a lot of the newspaper coverage would probably not show up in online source. - Mocko13 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The biographical notability guideline suggests subject of multiple non-trivial published works. There are multiple trivial works and is this man the subject? Not really. Besides I'm sure there are lots of dead drug dealers and the only thing special about this guy is his coffin. James086Talk 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax vandalism that purports to be a wholly unsourced biography of a 14-year-old. The article purports to describe a singer who had a number 1 hit at age 1, and as BigHaz points out below, the misleading piping of most of the links in the article is a clear giveaway that this is not an attempt to write an encyclopaedia, but is just an attempt to scribble graffiti on one. Uncle G 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel dutton

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

prod removed, thus listed here : likely hoax Travelbird 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not surprisingly, the name gets just under a thousand Google hits, none involving a Christian-metal musician. Probably a hoax. The article claims she's fourteen and had a hit album in 1993, so unless the record consisted of that blurry ultrasound buzz, that's obviously not true. --Djrobgordon 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Charlene 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious hoax. If the full name doesn't set off warnings, see what the links are piped to.: BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod. Oldelpaso 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE You people clearly havent heard the beautiful, lulling sound of a gold ol' fashioned christian death metal suicide song. You people are being too harsh on miss Dutton, just because she isnt internet ready, doesnt give anybody the right to claim her as a hoax. I shal update the page with more information, given the chance.
  • Delete Not notable in the slightest, even a google search dosent turn up anything reasonable. To the person who said do not delete who was this as they didnt sign their name to the article. And can somenoe explain the strange picture, with SAME written over her mouth?? --PrincessBrat 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the picture is her album art.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:39Z

Shredding the gnar

edit
Shredding the gnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A note on the talk page claims that it tells people what is shredding the gnar. I beg to differ. The definition is incomprehensible. In any case, it is a candidate for Wiktionary if it is an established phrase and if a definition can be written in English. -- RHaworth 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dina (G7?). --- RockMFR 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Ball

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

Non-notable bio with a strong whiff of COI. -- RHaworth 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:21Z

Natasha Mealey

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

apperence in FHM and Page 3 don't seem to meat Notability critera laid out for models Crazynas t 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:40Z

Crown of Immortality

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

OR, personal essay, term is not generally used in iconography, symbolism taken from Christian-mystic websites, conspiracy theory about EU flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul111 (talk • contribs)

Stop nagging Paul111, I'm onto getting more source proof, as the once already there does not satisfy you. The term "Crown of Immortality" exist, what's the problem? Conspiracy? Drop it! --Roberth Edberg 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maybe this was a working title for one of the known games such as Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi: The Genie and the Amp? If evidence of such is found, create a redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:17Z

Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi II

edit
Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This game does not seem to exist. Absolutely no reliable source has said anything about it, and it is months after it was due out. DarkAdonis255 14:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luigi30 . —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:43Z

TECC

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

This is a student group with 12 students! It doesn't even show up in Google (other than its own web site). An article about this organization was deleted in June 2006. OCNative 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Doncaster Rovers F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:16Z

DRFC

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete this article and the three album articles. NawlinWiki 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Terror

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

Originally tagged as an A7 speedy, but turned down. Musician with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Article mentions albums, but following either of the external links shows that the artist is unsigned. Oldelpaso 14:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Note that articles exist for the three albums mentioned in this article, Sampler 2004, Sampler 2005 and Sampler 2006, if this nomination results in a keep they should probably be merged, if it is deleted then they should also be deleted. Oldelpaso 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I'm missing something, neither the article nor the external links mention TV appearances. The Channel 4 run website is a Myspace-type affair. Oldelpaso 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Nonsense. --Fang Aili talk 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run Escape

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

Bunch of nonsense Attilios 14:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSkyB (Plans for DTT)

edit
BSkyB (Plans for DTT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod. This article fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - Wikipedia policy WP:NOT states that Wikipedia should not have an article for an event if it is not almost certain it will take place. Neither British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) have confirmed that a service will be launching on digital terrestrial television and Ofcom have not recieved anything from BSkyB indicating it will launch a serivce. A press release of a proposed launch and a statement by Ofcom is not proof that BSkyB will be launching a service on digital terrestrial television. The service does not even have a name. The proposed service by BSkyB may not launch, hence why I bring this article to AfD. If a service is confirmed to launch, the article should be re-created with reliable sources. There is also consensus from two other editors on the talk page that the article should be deleted on these grounds. At the moment, all the references and text in the article is pure speculation and therefore fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. tgheretford (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - all that article states is that Ofcom will start a consultation if BSkyB approaches them to launch a service, it does not state that BSkyB are launching a service. Any launch would require the approval of Ofcom, which they haven't given because BSkyB hasn't asked to launch the service. --tgheretford (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful or verifiable with British Sky Broadcasting. I don't see any reason for this to have a separate article. 23skidoo 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is looking increasingly like a publicity stunt on the part of BSkyB as a spoiler to the launch of Virgin Media, a negotiating tactic with Top Up Tv, and scare tactic for Freeview. 2-3 weeks have now passed and by all accounts no application has been made to Ofcom, BSkyB's "timetable" is increasingly optimistic. The unlikiness, is further added to by BSkyB, at the same time, asking Ofcom to review Top Up TV's access charges. Why do they need a review of that if they are launching their own services?
IMHO, it is not the place of Wikipedia to fight proxy wars for BSkyB. Even, if such a service launches, the article would need rewriting from scratch anyway, as so much is speculative or depending on regualtory approval (use of MPEG4 in wild, mix of MPEG2 and 4 on one mux, >3 Sky services on Mux C, possible competition implications?, etc.) or approval from DTT partners (such as NGW, who need to ask for mux terms to be varied to carry pay services (despite last year's changes) and have even recently indicated what could be intreted as opposition to pay services). Pit-yacker 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense/hoax/etc. --Fang Aili talk 17:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

runescape weapons

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

A bunch of nonsense Attilios 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ABA team article. NawlinWiki 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Storm

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

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Does not meet WP:V. Vanity. Nv8200p talk 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NOT: wp is not a webspace provider, this is just a list of all the players on the team. Also fails WP:V, no reputable source will have the info contained in this article. meshach 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was originally intended to be comprehensively about the first minor league professional basketball team in Colorado, the ABA's Colorado Storm. Very few if any sources exist which provide such information. Storm players and coaches continue to work professionally today. Someone has changed the article to a completely different and unrelated subject. Regardless of outcome of this discussion an article on the pro basketball team needs to exist. Rick 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reason as Mescach. Poorly organized article, which does not explained the history and other key elements.--JForget 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, then revert. Suggest moving current page content to Colorado Storm (football team), then reverting the article to the last good version about the ABA franchise, which may be found here (I think). I'm trying to assume good faith, but this sure looks like a page hijacking to me. The former ABA franchise is notable enough to merit its own page. ObtuseAngle 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the information about the football team to Colorado Storm (football team) and will be reverting the article so it reads about the ABA franchise. I will leave the AfD template on the reverted page, but I hope this change will satisfy any concerns. I do feel the ABA franchise is notable enough to merit its own entry. ObtuseAngle 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:15Z

Giuliano Dinocca

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

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. The article is barely understandable Nv8200p talk 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:15Z

Mustafa Metwalli

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

He's an actor, he's Egyprian, he's dead. But he's also unsourced and not as far as I can tell notable. [21] [22] Contested prod. -Docg 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt. Bucketsofg 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:00Z

Alessandro Dellanzo

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

Not a professional player yet. Matthew_hk tc 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:14Z

Richard Hollins

edit
Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Hollins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. Nothing on the Rock FM website here about the guy, must be a hoax. Spalberings 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:45Z

Greg Gory

edit
Greg Gory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Gregg Gory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Asserts notability but does not show it. The article currently has a hoax or vanity feel to it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nom. feydey 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe O'Brian

edit
Chloe O'Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant hoax/fancruft created by a Mary Lynn Rajskub fan. It's an obvious hoax, with no reliable sources cited. Spalberings 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific as to which material makes this a "hoax." O'Brian is an integral part of 24 and I'd be less inclined to delete such an article if no proof is given. Have you seen the show? If not, you may want to find someone that has to proof the article for factual errors. SERSeanCrane 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nom. feydey 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lynn Rajskub

edit
Mary Lynn Rajskub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This individual does not meet WP:PORNBIO standards. Only sources cited are self-published sources, this page is a vanity page. Spalberings 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs) Uncle G 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Shaw

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO in any way. Spalberings 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:45Z

Tom Rockney (male model)

edit
Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Rockney (male model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

May not meet WP:BIO in any way. Notability concerns. Spalberings 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:14Z

Making The News

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

This blog has no indication of meeting any of the criteria in WP:WEB. No non-trivial sources given. feydey 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as it makes no claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panthers Gang

edit
Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Panthers Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. No sources given. Spalberings 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are given now. We appologize for the slowness of the article

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

The result was Redirect to Identity management in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:13Z

Identity and access management

edit
Identity and access management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems more appropriate for Wikitionary than Wikipedia. It has already been successfully transwikied to Wikitionary. This article can never progress farther than an article stub that serves mainly as a dictionary definition. Luke! 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per wp is not a dictionary. This page has been transferred to wikictionary is not needed here. meshach 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though it apparently has been transwikied to Wiktionary, I would question its usefulness even there. The full text of the article, apart from see also's, is: Identity and Access Management (also known as Access and Identity Management) is the use of Information Technology to: ~ manage the digital identity life cycle of entities, and ~ control access to protected resources based on knowledge (attributes) about the entity attempting to access the resource. It's hard to imagine an emptier mess of buzzwords, empty abstractions, and rhetorical tautologies. Too meaningless even for Wiktionary, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, for lack of non-trivial coverage. Simply connecting two other "notable" roads isn't enough; as User:RockMFR said, this would make every road notable. Trebor 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esna Park Drive

edit
Esna Park Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An entirely non-notable street with zero non-trivial secondary sources. This road is just over one mile long and has in the past had potholes. It's also quiet on weekends. That's about all that can be said about it. This is part of a much larger walled garden whose scope I have yet to measure. --- RockMFR 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look! John Street's up for AFD too! And will ya look at that: Pharmacy Road isn't Regional Road 71; all this road does is intersect with a street that eventually becomes RR71. And even then, being a connecting link between two other roads is not a legitimate claim of notability — the key to whether a street belongs in an encyclopedia or not isn't whether it exists, but how likely it is that somebody who lives hundreds of miles away, and has never been to Markham in their lives, has already heard of the street, because it has a cultural context that transcends its streetness. You know, like Broadway or Park Avenue or Yonge Street or Sussex Drive or Sunset Boulevard. Esna Park Drive is simply not in that category of roads. Bearcat 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, oh! There is a street nearby where I live that connects two major highways. And then another street connects to that one. And then the street I live on connects to that! w00t! Notable! Does that mean I'm notable, too? Sorry for the sarcasm, but "connecting the two major roads" is just too ridiculous to ignore. --- RockMFR 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:11Z

The Red Hand Company (band)

edit
The Red Hand Company (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC - they appear not to have released any albums through a major record label. Google for "Red Hand Company" gets 8 hits. [23] Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravewalkaz

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

Reason This appears to be entirely fictious creation and as of this writing has not one wiki-link. If it was indeed a legitimate hoax, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of being notable beyond those who invented (ie, no ext links to mentions of said hoax) RoyBatty42 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:56Z

Samir Patel

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

Doesn't seem all that notable. His claim to fame is being a runner-up in the spelling bee. It's arguable if the winners have notability, but the runners up? It's an entirely unsourced biography and it reads like it has either WP:COI or WP:AUTO issues. Metros232 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He certainly has a very good chance at winning the spelling bee, and there are numerous media reports about him in connection with the competition, but he hasn't won the national competition. The article does ready like a vanity page as well. If he wins, this article can certainly be recreated. <3Clamster 19:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - no evidence of third-party independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless independent sources (e.g. news reports) are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with possible WP:AUTO issues. Picture was taken by family member. No independent news reports are available regarding him. Agree that it could be recreated if he does eventually win the competition instead of runner-up. Warfieldian 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep based on additional published works added.[reply]
  • Keep but completely rewrite First, I have found many articles from reputable sources by searching for him on Google (both under "Samir Patel" and his full name, "Samir Sudhir Patel"). This from the Washington Post and this from ESPN are both about Samir, among other spellers. There are a bunch of articles from Indian sources about the success of Samir and other Indian-American spellers, including the winner when Samir was runner-up. And then, of course, there are tons of major web sites that give Bee results word for word or report on the final rounds. As important as the media mentions, however, is something I've argued a few times before, which is that anyone who competes at this level of the National Spelling Bee- making the final two and high finishes three times- passes the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO (if you count spellers as sportspeople) by competing at the highest level of their "sport". The National Spelling Bee is broadcast on major networks (ESPN and ABC) in prime time; it is watched by millions of people, and to reach the final rounds of the Bee, a speller must defeat not only 200+ other spellers at the national competition, but millions of others (if I recall correctly, Scripps estimates that 10 million children compete in feeder/qualifier bees, though this of course includes school bees with children that have no aspirations of going further). A speller must put in as much time at his craft as any other competitor (I don't know about you, but I don't want to read dictionaries and study word roots for five hours per day, six days per week), and to finish second place in an historic, nationally-televised competition is enough for an article in my opinion. With all of that said, this article is absolutely terrible and should probably be stripped of 95% of its content. Still, the 5% that remains is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you add the Washington Post and ESPN refs to the article I will change my vote to Keep. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Keep Second place at Scripps National is easily the "highest level" in "competitive activities that [is itself] considered notable" per WP:BIO. I've cleaned up the page, excising the things that I think you guys found offensive and adding two references. Please take another look. If you need more references, LexisNexis has a few more. But seriously, I think this easily passes WP:BIO. Scripps National is a major event. — brighterorange (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter when votes were made. If users have changed their minds, they will change their votes. An admin has to consider every vote, even if its after someone "fixed up" the article. My opinion is the same as it was before the article was trimmed down. <3Clamster 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely a good article Vulcanoetch1 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)— Vulcanoetch1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep, three reliable verifiable sources is enough to establish notability AlfPhotoman 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO states "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works," it appears he is the primary subject of only one of those verifiable sources. Warfieldian 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. WP:BIO says a primary subject, not the primary subject, and he is a primary subject of at least two of them. (The 'word nerds' ref starts with the sentence "Meet Samir Patel.") I just added another one where you can tell he is the primary subject from just the title, if that is important. So now there are definitely multiple non-trivial published works. But this is not the only way to meet WP:BIO; it also states that competing at the highest level in a competitive activity itself considered notable is a sufficient criterion, which he does. — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The most important criterion is multiple non-trivial published works about the subject and not the fact that he competed at the highest level of competitive activity. As WP:BIO states "The following criteria make it _likely_ that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available." If he had competed at high level of competitive activity and had no reliable published works about him, then he would not be notable (although that's unlikely as the guideline suggests). I do think that there is sufficient material has been added to the article at this point to change my recommendation. Warfieldian 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kaiju Big Battel. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:55Z

Doctor Cube

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

A minor character from a minor entertainment troupe. Verifability problems abound; this is clear original research. I speedied it and was asked to recreate it, so listing here for discussion. Chick Bowen 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:10Z

Princess Luisa of Savoy

edit
Princess Luisa of Savoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can understand having articles about current royalty. But since the Italian monarchy was abolished a long time ago, this baby doesn't fall under that notability category. At the age of 0 she has, of course, done nothing else to merit encyclopedic inclusion. Punkmorten 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Most deposed royals still maintain their bloodline strictly in hopes of getting their thrones back and are of course the very definition of "old money". Nardman1 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) says about scions of former ruling lines: if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable...any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable...other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO. (My emphasis.) This princess comes under the last category, and no independent sources are provided to establish notability per WP:BIO. So while in principle I'd agree with Nardman that deposed royals are notable, this one isn't quite close enough to qualify as inherently notable (particularly as she has an elder sister, and is therefore unlikely to inherit the pretendership to the crown of Italy). Walton Vivat Regina! 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Personally I think any HRH is notable but Wiki:Notability (royalty) might not agree with with me.... Jcuk 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She does not meet the criteria at WP:ROYAL, having been born to a member of the royal family who himself was born after the monarchy was abolished. She isn't even eligible for the pretendership to the Italian crown, as the Italian monarchy was limited to males as of the time of its abolition. That said, she could still warrant an article some day under WP:BIO if, say, she became a prominent socialite who was frequently mentioned in the media, but she hasn't done that yet, given that she's an infant. There is really nothing to be said about her independently yet; as a second choice, redirect to her father's article, given that her name and date of birth are or should be there already. --Metropolitan90 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont (her father). A similar approach has been used with a number of other princesses of questionable notability. Luisa is mentioned there, and that's about all she merits per WP:ROYAL. PubliusFL 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNotability of royalty begins at birth. its not that they have to grow up and do something.DGG 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with DGG. User:Dimadick
  • Redirect per PubliusFL Catchpole 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:54Z

Traction TeamPage

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

Advertisement for nonnotable software. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

Roy A. Tucker

edit
Roy A. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil T : C 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:08Z

Unaesta

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

This article is about one of many fictional bands from the Grand Theft Auto videogame series. As they are one-off creations and aren't notable for anything else, this article should be deleted. Dbam 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:52Z

The Trouble With Atheism

edit
The Trouble With Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable TV show. Article contains no reliable sources, and this topic as a whole fails notability. Also is a POV soapbox with no encyclopediac content. Sefringle 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in external sources to establish notability per WP:N. Delete unless sources can be added. (Although it should be possible to find sources to demonstrate notability - this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such.) Walton Vivat Regina! 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete No sources and does not appear to be notable, but I don't think it is very POV. It is an article about a TV show that is POV, there really is no other side to present. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Only blog results on google, and no news results. I wonder if "The programme meets Britain's two atheist fundamentalist scientists" is what the nominator considers POV soapbox? --Merzul 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to keep, per Silence below.
  • Delete - like Merzul, I'm having trouble finding independent sources for this. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. About as noteworthy as, say, The Atheism Tapes, which I doubt we'll see deleted. I find the arguments made in the documentary absolutely atrocious, but it's by far one of the most noteworthy and high-profile atheism-related documentaries. As Walton noted, "this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such"; that makes it noteworthy, all we lack are some reliable secondary sources to give this article some substance. (Much like we need exactly that for The Atheism Tapes, etc.) I'm not British, or I'd look for some print news sources about this myself; could anyone here check up on that? As for the POV soapbox issue, that's not relevant here, as it's a content issue. It's also one I've already fixed, as I removed the "atheist fundamentalist scientists" and "other religious beliefs" misnomers, and the rest of the article is perfectly fine (reporting on a POV is not the same as having a POV). It's also simply untrue that this article doesn't have encyclopedic content. I don't see the need to resort to these weak arguments when the only argument you need is "it lacks references", and that should be our focus—find sources, in print if they can't be spotted through the blogosphere online. -Silence 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this has equal notability with the atheism tapes, but in both cases all that can be written is then a summary of the program. I guess that can be done well, like The root of all evil?, but I doubt in this case that it will ever get to encyclopedic quality. I'm keeping my delete vote until I see at least one reasonable editor that will promise to work on this article. If anybody votes "keep": I will adopt this article, then you can discount my delete vote, but until then, I think the soapbox concerns are valid. --Merzul 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's perfectly fair, but then we should be consistent. Let's nominate The Atheism Tapes for deletion too. (Not for the sake of POV "fairness", but for the sake of consistency with our referencing standards as applied to this class of articles.) That article is in any case doubly unnecessary because it's about an offshoot for another non-noteworthy atheism documentary, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (which we'll probably want to nominate as well; it's an unreferenced stub and gets 61 unique hits on Google!), which it can be incorporated into if necessary. I'll change my vote to a "Weak Keep" or a "Neutral" if we're consistent with our standards.
      • Also, I'm perfectly willing to adopt this article and help work on it, so you needn't be concerned about it becoming a soapbox. Our concern should remain focused on its lack of references, because I can help flesh out this article and keep it neutral, but I'm American and don't have any familiarity with or significant access to most of the places that would have referenced this documentary in the UK press. -Silence 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm changing my vote to keep on this one as I promised, but I'm not so sure about the other articles; I haven't looked at how actively they are being contributed to. Generally, I prefer to keep most articles related to religion, but I have seen the word "fundamentalist atheist" a little too much recently, so apologize that I jumped on it. Now, I have been looking for sources for both this one, and the atheism tapes; but we really need somebody visiting a UK library to look for print sources. I can't help you with that. --Merzul 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm open to either keeping or deleting all of the unreferenced atheism documentary articles. All that matters to me is that we keep our standards consistent; otherwise it looks like we're being selective in how we apply our policies, and either keeping certain undeserving documentaries because we agree with them or deleting certain deserving documentaries because we disagree with them. The easiest way not to give this impression, as well as the best way to send a clear and unequivocal message about what Wikipedia's basic standards are for articles of this sort, is to treat all of these articles in exactly the same way so long as they are equally unreferenced. Concerns about POV advocacy are not really relevant because they're content issues that should be resolved through editing and maintenance, not deletion. Besides, this is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism exists: to help monitor these articles and keep them NPOV. -Silence 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A word of outside advice. From my vantage point the speed at which this AfD was put up makes it look even worse. You don't want people to think that WikiProject:Atheism (where the issue was first raised right after the entry was created) is a staging ground for this. That there is an organized effort to one sidedly pinch out these entries before anyone even gets a chance to see them. I know that's not what's going on, but it could look better. Exercise a little more reasoned restraint is all I'm suggesting.PelleSmith 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree. That's part of the reason why I'm trying to add a more balanced perspective on this article (and I recently heavily expanded the article as well, to show that we atheists don't solely spend time on articles espousing issues we agree with, like The Root of All Evil?). WikiProject Atheism exists to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheism-related articles, not to advocate or further the aims of atheists (and if it does so, it should do so only as an incidental consequence of the aforementioned aim). -Silence 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I completely agree with Silence on the consistency issue, if we delete this one; then we should delete the Atheism Tapes. That would be a pity. I think they are both valuable because they present the views of very notable thinkers; even if these articles haven't developed as far as one would wish. Besides, look what I found... a start? --Merzul 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show was POV but the article reports facts about opinions, and so is NPOV. JamesMLane t c 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Part of PoV campaign by its creator. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. If someone created an article on Global warming in order to further a POV campaign, that would not be a valid reason to delete the article. Noteworthiness and verifiability is what matters here. -Silence 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, and if I'd said that it was my reason for choosing "delete" (rather than an additional comment, after my agreement with the nominator) I'd have been wrong. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, until enough time has passed to adequately judge the entry. This entry was created all of one day ago. Isn't the normal, respectful line of action to "assume good faith", put up tags, use the talk page, and/or contact the creator before launching an AfD? Maybe this needs to be deleted, but this isn't the way to go. Unless this TV series never aired or has been flat out made up (making the entry clearly irrelevant), it deserves at least some good natured criticism and pressure. Also, lets not judge the merits of an entry by the behavior of its creator(s).PelleSmith 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you latter ideas that an entry should not be judged by its creator; and this rant is not about you, I'm just generally upset about this whole Wikipedia mentality to "assume good faith in spite of all evidence to the contrary". Why is kindness to new users, who persist in POV-pushing in spite of various indpendent requests to stop, valued higher than the stress, frustration and waste of time of quality contributors like Mel Etitis? I don't get it... --Merzul 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I have the same gut reaction all the time when I know an editor's history. I also think that the "assume good faith" guideline can be taken to an extreme--there are cases when bad faith is more than apparent. However, the way I see it the guideline has a practical end which has nothing to do with actually "assuming good faith" but has everything to do with judging a contribution on its merits and not on the intentions of the contributer. The guideline is also a check for us to not to overreact when editors who we know to be POV pushers make edits or create entries.PelleSmith 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Now, the goal of WikiProject atheism is to guarantee NPOV and consistency among all atheism related articles. The problem here was that I suspected this would remain a one sentence description about "atheist fundamentalists". In any case, I have changed to "keep" in light of Silence's commitment to this article, and there are at least a few TV guide mentions & one review, which are at least third part opinions that can be used. --Merzul 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a neutral, sourced article about TV show on a POV subject. Nuttah68 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now sources. I'm not sure why a TV show on a national terrestial channel is not notable - bear in mind that there are TV shows on lesser-viewed channels which have a Wikipedia article for every single episode... Mdwh 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Imagination

edit
Me and My Imagination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For relevant discussion see

Unreleased single from an unreleased album. Supposedly confirmed, but no source. Most of article is based on rumours and MySpace. Even if an upcoming release date is verified by a reliable secondary source, the information is only about the primary subject's intentions and schedules, not facts. I tried to redirect it but was reverted. Merge/redirect to Trip the Light Fantastic (album) or delete, until it is actually released. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 20:40Z

  • Delete/Redirect as per nomination unless a link to the artist and/or record company specifically stating that this will be released as a single is added to the page before the end of this debate. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Still, there is no reason to doubt the artist's MySpace about the identity of the second single, and it may be more practical to delete the fan video mention and only report what has been stated by the artist. Perhaps userfy to any interested party to ease recreation? –Pomte 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Rlevse 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Black (song)

edit
Back to Black (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For relevant discussion see

Unreleased single. Supposedly confirmed, but no source (information possibly comes from a tabloid). Even if an upcoming release date is verified by a reliable secondary source, the information is only about the primary subject's intentions and schedules, not facts. I tried to redirect it but was reverted. Merge/redirect to Back to Black or delete, until it is actually released. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 20:40Z

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netlynx Technologies

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

This article doesn't assert the notability of the organization. Most of it isn't even verified. Wikipedia isn't an infinate resource. Delete GreenJoe 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:03Z

Titbusting

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

This article cites no reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G10. Luke! 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T1B

edit
T1B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should be deleted because the page is terribly written, biased, makes use of inappropriate language, concerns a little known subject, has no structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -jmac- (talk • contribs) 2007-02-25 20:43:29

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:04Z

Cuntbusting

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

This article cites no reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as unverifiable. See also Butch Cassidy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:57Z

William Butch Wagner

edit
William Butch Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research Rich Farmbrough, 20:47 25 February 2007 (GMT). 20:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, though if requested, we can userfy this to reevaluate after multiple independent reliable sources have been added to show notability, and all claims attributed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:53Z

Yttrx

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

Article asserts some degree of notability, but doesn't provide reliable sources. A Google search only shows his blog, the interview referenced in the article, and participation in various online forums (mostly digg and usenet) Pekaje 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Pekaje is a denizen of one of the newsgroups in which Yttrx posts, comp.os.linux.advocacy, and has a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. It's therefore very likely that this move for deletion was for purely personal reasons, though luckily the article itself does indeed fail some important Wiki tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salomejones (talk • contribs) 16:30, February 28, 2007
    • Clarification Yes, I am part of that newsgroup, and yes it is how I noticed this page. However, I would appreciate if you would not outright lie that I have a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. A simple Google groups search will show that I have more or less completely ignored him throughout the time we have both been posting to that Usenet group. I could find a total of 4 posts where I reply to him, 2 about this wiki page, 1 informing him that he was arguing with a known troll, and finally one from last year where I made clear that I considered his behavior to be rather rude. Just because you can't make a case for keeping the page, doesn't mean you have to attack me. Pekaje 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently fails WP:BIO: he's only been the subject of one listed independent source. --Gwern (contribs) 21:35 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO: no possible verification of sources, or information. --Bigwig2222
  • Delete [25] Alexa Rankings seem to indicate it also fails WP:WEB. Willie Stark 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the original author, and haven't had time to update this article with more firm links. Also, the subject of the article has repeatedly informed me that he does not want certain facts and works linked to this article, so we're in a bit of a conundrum. If it does get removed, I'll forumalate something that will hopefully quell all doubts on every side, and also fill the original purpose of the original article, without going against anyone's wishes.sjones 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a bunch of made up claims. Cchamilton2 21:53 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Note Cchamilton2 has been vandalizing the page in question repeatedly, so is probably not objective -- Pekaje 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note If anyone can verify the items under Trivia, or half of the claims under Origins, then please do. Nothing I added was any less verifiable than what was already there. Cchamilton2 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note In order to verify at least one item in Trivia, the identity of the person behind the pseudonym would have to be revealed in this article. Since he's made it very clear that he does not want this article, or any wiki article containing the nom de plume "yttrx" to be linked with any existing reference or work of or created by the person behind the pseudonym, it's not going to happen in this particular permutation of this page. However, if this page does get deleted, it will likely show up in a new permutation, which again, would be engineered not only to the satisfaction of everyone involved, but also for the point of the purpose of the original yttrx entry. And, why Cchamilton2 is still an active wiki account even after evident and admitted wikipedia vandalism is utterly beyond me. Also Cchamilton2, if you need citations then use "citation needed" like everyone else--instead of vandalizing the page. In some of the instances in this wiki entry, there are people who would come forward and supply them as needed. sjones 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note It's not vandalism if it's the truth. I'd happily change it back and add citations myself, but it's better it's deleted since I can only add citations for so much. The purpose of the original yttrx entry was vanity, so I think you'll have to find another purpose if it is going to stay around next time. As for why my account is still active, well I could ask you the same thing. Cchamilton2 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but redirect to Cock and ball torture. There is no solid consensus present here endorsing deletion, so when in doubt, don't delete. Anecdotal evidence known to the closer suggest the term is distinct from CBT; however, mindful of the need for verifiable, reliable sources, a redirection there seems the best route at present. The history of ballbusting will be maintained thereby, and may be resurrected at editorial discretion, so long as sources are provided. Xoloz 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballbusting

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if it's just a matter of notability. It turns out there are about 350K Ghits for "ballbusting," 250K with "fetish" added, and still about 75K when "xxx" is excluded. On the referencing issue, though, I'm having trouble finding RS among all the fetish site hits. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sexual activity is already covered in Cock and ball torture. I'd go with a simple redirect to that article, but the problem is that the concept is most widely used metaphorically, as, per one definition, "scolding or berating" someone. [26] For example, in a Yahoo! search, even "bust her balls" (obviously a metaphor) has 445 hits. Perhaps send to Wiktionary, which currently has no entry for "ballbusting"? JamesMLane t c 10:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable term, and with 350,000 + hits on Google, that certainly emphasises its usage as a common slang word.

It could be redirected to List of sexual slang terms, or expanded further. It's all a case of finding references that are reliable sources - not an easy task, but there probably will be a source somewhere. --sunstar nettalk 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Sails

edit
San Diego Sails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is original research and copy vio. Article sites no sources. Masterpedia 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Neva Dinova. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:44Z

Heath Koontz

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

Is a member of a small band truly notable? Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terrorism. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:41Z

Political terrorism

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

Subject is a tautology, terrorism political violence, would propose merge with terrorism, but article consists of unreferenced and not very well written opinion trueblood 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angband (computer game). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:50Z

List of Angband variants

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-notable games. Crufty. Begs for spam. Almost none of the games here are notable, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a fan resource or title dump. Wokinlone 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge popular ones into Angband (computer game), or delete altogether if it cannot be established which variants are popular or otherwise notable. The list as it exists has no encyclopedic value and belongs on Angband-centered resources. Conscious 11:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just today came to WP with the goal of finding an Angband variant with a particular attribute. This list could use some cleanup, but I believe that it is valuable. I vote to keep, as it is far too cumbersome to be merged in the main article. Also note that this list is greatly pared down from other "1001 variants" pages on other sites. An attempt should be made to insure that the items on this list are notable. Marvin01 | talk 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge; the point of the article is not whether these are individually notable; it is to convey how many variants of Angband there are, and how widely different they are in what they change. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwheels

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

Article on one of many fictional technologies detailed in Neal Stephenson's (great) novel Snow Crash. I had redirected to the book but was quickly reverted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this goes against the guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia that minor characters, concepts, etc. should not be the subject of articles. Not sure if this is or is not worthy of a merge but should be deleted or redirected in either case.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accidentally reverted it. I didn't understand what had happened to the page.
    I disagree with your assessment of it. I can try to make it a larger page if necessary, with more of my own writing, but to mark it for deletion simply because it's one of many fictional technologies featured in a work seems unfair. If we applied that standard widely, we wouldn't have a page on lightsabers (just one of the many fictional technologies from the Star Wars universe) or Slaver stasis fields and scrith (a few of the technologies from Larry Niven's Known Space Universe) or any number of other things.--McFarty
  • Delete Fictional technologies are rarely notable, especitally when found in only one novel. The article offers absolutely no legitimate sources and completely fails to establish notability. In response to McFarty, the existence (or nonexistence) of other articles on similar subject matter is irrelevant to this AfD, which is solely focused on whether this article is in compliance with policy. Some of these other articles you mention may also need to be deleted, though lightsabers are notable; they appear in a large number of movies (not just in Star Wars), books, etc. The topic of this article is nowhere close to reaching that level of notability. --The Way 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources can be found that discuss the concept. Lightsabers and scrith are notable because other people than the authors of the works they appeared in have discussed them (although I note that they aren't referenced in the article, detailed papers have been published in which the necessary strength of scrith is calculated). I'm not entirely sure about slaver stasis fields; perhaps that article should be deleted. Although I think I've read something outside of Niven's fiction about his monofilament weapon that depends upon them. JulesH 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on additional sources described below. JulesH 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, Niven's stasis fields (for example) weren't just a side note in one book; they were a significant element in a number of his writings - Ringworld and World of Ptavvs come to mind. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, technically smartwheels are found in two novels and they're not just throw away technology in at least one of them. Snow Crash is a very notable book; at least in Time Magazine's opinion.
      • Arthur C. Clarke also wrote of a similar, though less advanced wheel concept in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you count that, then there's three. How many mentions in novels are requisite before it would become a notable fictional technology? How could I provide a more legitimate source for a fictional technology than quotations from the book it's featured in? In addition, smartwheels of a sort are in development already: IMPASS robot and the official page--McFarty
      • I provided more information in the article, including a link to the real-world version of smartwheels, which should fall under acceptable Wikipedia content, since they're real technology.--McFarty
  • Redirect to "Snow Crash". I appreciate McFarty's efforts, but I still don't see sufficient sources to support notability. The comparisons to Clark's work is original research. The Technovelgy article makes it closer, but the one article is not enough, per WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:40Z

Evoken

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

non-notbale band, bandcruft/fancruft, poor sourcing SERSeanCrane 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages under similar reasoning:

Embrace the Emptiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quietus (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antithesis of Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Withdrawing nom, recommend sources listed in support of the article be added to reffs. SERSeanCrane 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry454

edit
Symmetry454 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For consistency I have now added these proposals to be deleted, too:

Someone else already proposed the deletion of these:

Lately some others have already been removed:

Christoph Päper 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed these. This is an AfD which has been running for 9 days already; adding another 7 items to it at this point isn't going to help generate consensus. "Someone else" was me; I was hoping that sufficient consensus could be generated from the first listings to mean that we don't need another train-wreck mass AfD. --Pak21 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It somehow proves my point that you listed all these articles for deletion, but separated the discussions, which then have entries that refer to each other. We need a consensus about requirements for a calendar reform proposal to stay as an article on its own, as a note on Calendar reform or not at all. I do not see the essential difference among the ones listed above yet. This goal is hard if not impossible to reach, when the discussion is cluttered this way. Christoph Päper 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pak21 was right to separate these. Each needs to stand, or fall, on their own merits. Some of these I *know* will be able to be improved with better sourcing (such as the World Calendar) and their deletion is wildly premature. Others, perhaps won't. But they are different enough to merit separate discussions. To look at them all and say "they are the same, delete them all" is not doing justice to the AfD process, to Wikipedia, or to these calendar reform concepts. - Nhprman List 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research with no sign of any mention in verifiable sources. Delete --Pak21 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I can't find any sources outside of the calendar reform community. --N Shar 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but maybe in a different form. There have been serious attempts to reform the calendar now used worldwide in the early days of the United Nations in continuation of work of its predecessor, the League of Nations, and inside œcumenic organisations (esp. regarding Easter). The UN officially postponed its decision, because no consensus was reached back then. So probably some day they will try again and maybe they will even change something. I think it is encyclopædic to describe the possible alterations of the roman calendar (that were discussed). I consider naming proposals less important (“Newton week” and the like), because the number of possible proposals is limited, therefore you can enumerate them (except for a few exots) and just as a sidenote give originators, proposers or names; also leap rules are not that essential. Among this list there will also be concepts not discussed fifty-odd years ago, but proposed and elaborated since. One thing of particular interest is the compatibility with international standards, esp. ISO 8601, which unlike most older proposals starts the week on Monday and introduces defacto a parallel leap-week calendar. This way Symmetry 454 (among ohers) would deserve mentioning despite being a rather recent proposal, but I am not sure whether it should keep an article of its own. It is one of the better thought-through proposals, though, and not something made up in school one day. It is perhaps not that helpful that its “inventor” started contributing to Wikipedia and this article in particular not that long ago. Anyway this discussion on deletion cannot be limited to Symmetry 454, but would have to effect all calendars that are not recognized by—well, by whom? --Christoph Päper 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the same criterion should be used for calendars that is used for all other articles on Wikipedia: that the article should rely on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", a direct quote from the non-negotiable policy on verifiabily. I see no such sources here, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. --Pak21 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My point is that you do not need a source for the trivial idea to divide the ISO week year into four quarters of three months each, which have a length of twice four weeks (or 30 days) and once five weeks (or 31 days) in one of the three possible orders. The question is rather whether this (or each of these six possibilities and all similar ones) needs or deserves an article on its own, just because it is assigned a name/originator or is combined with a certain leap rule. If it does not (and I mildly tend to think so), Symmetry454 and all the other articles on proposed calendar reforms should be deleted, but only after all this information is collected into one article. This is currently done only half-way in Calendar reform, because it can rely on detail articles about the proposals. Note though that any such page would need an active neutral maintainer, because there are people trying to push their preferred proposal or certain requirements a reform needed to fulfill or success. --Christoph Päper 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble then comes with who gets to say what is a "trivial idea"; for instance, it is clear to me that it is a trivial idea that Pak21 is the cleverest person who has ever lived. Wikipedia solves this problem by requiring third-party sources, of which this (and many of the other calendars linked from Calendar reform) lack. Hence they should be deleted. --Pak21 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is discussed in WP:A under the topic “What is not original research?”:

            Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.

            This would mean (in my interpretation) it was okay to say there are proponents for a new calendar and describe in which ways the (Gregorian) calendar could be reformed, but it was inappropriate to mention any names of calendar proposals, at least not in an article title. My preferred solution therefore is (still) this: Improve Calendar reform, then delete all the proposals that have never been in official use. (Whether official use includes being under discussion in the UN or some country is another question that should be answered first. Note that I used Symmetry454 as an example in my (premature) petition to the German government[39] to consider adopting a fiscal calendar with months based on the year counting established by the week format of ISO 8601.) Christoph Päper 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The flaw, of course, is that neither the Symmetry454 proposed calendar nor any other that I'm aware of has ever had "official use." By the very definition of the words, a proposed calendar that was adopted would simply be a nation's new civil calendar. The idea that proposals can never be named seems absurd on its face for an encyclopedia which purports to inform its readers as to the lastest research and thinking within a certain community. I'm coming to believe that no calendar proposal, however notable, however widely discussed off-line and in the scientific community, can ever be listed on Wikipedia unles there are volumes of "publicity." The problem is that calendar reform, like other sciences, aren't usually on the front page of the New York Times or the National Enquirer (a sensationalistic US Tabloid) and "publicity" isn't usually the goal of researchers, it's discussion, usually behind closed doors. The problem with interpreting these guidelines and policies is that we seem to be aiming not for "notability" but "noteriety" here. In other words, what makes the biggest splash in the press and what is most widely known is what makes the cut for inclusion. Everything else is assumed to be made up in someone's basement, and not worthy. The problem is that publicity and noteriety isn't always the best gauge of what the facts are, or what is important for inclusion. - Nhprman List 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the calendar is discussed widely offline in the scientific community, then the results of those discussions should be published somewhere. When someone reads this article, all they will learn is what the calendar proposes, but not why some scientists think it is important, or why other scientists may object the proposal. -Pomte 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources; most of the external links are to self-published sources. I'm not convinced it passes muster for notability and verifiability without some citations in the mass media, a scholarly journal, or other independent publication. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Symmetry454 calendar is extensively verifiable with sources outside of WP, and is not a fly-by-night, created-by-a-teen-after-school project. It was designed by a university professor who has done extensive research on calendar design. As he notes on the discussion page of the article, "publicity" alone is not a significant source of verifiability, and, frankly, Wikipedian admins need to stop these little Jihads against truly encyclopedic articles. The idea expressed above that this is a "trivial" calendar concept is an extremely subjective comment.- Nhprman List 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: which reliable sources have included information on this calendar? --Pak21 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not that it was all that important for this discussion, but I do not think my comment was that subjective. If you start from the current, rather solar calendar with twelve months and your primary goals for a reform are perpetuality and equal-length quarters, you will soon arrive at the two versions published by Dr. Irv Bromberg, except maybe with a different position of the longer month and maybe with weeks starting at Sunday. I think such proposals belong to the better and more promising, though. His work on leap rules and astronomic influences on calendar design at a whole are another matter entirely. Christoph Päper 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It's easy for some to point out how 'easy' or natural it is to come up with a design for a calendar, or a car, or a mathematical formula, but you're right, it's utterly unimportant for this discussion. His computations really are a different matter. This is a unique design, his computations and design are copyrighted, and this is perhaps the most vetted design for calendar reform out there. The fact that it's not verified and notable on the Internet, with easily linkable sources, makes it "non-notable" to WP geekdom, I suppose, but that's a pretty flawed standard. The fact that this AfD was begun as a mass deletion dooms this discussion. The AfD notices from these other articles were removed, since the original "train wreck mass deletion" attempt, above, was abandoned. If someone wants to relist them, that's fine. But this should be the only calendar under discussion at this point. - Nhprman List 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: You are mistaken about the facts here: this AfD was not "begun as a mass deletion discussion": it started listing one and only one article and continued that way for 7 days. The extra articles were listed for less than half an hour yesterday. Secondly, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material"; if sources cannot be provided, as is apparently the case here, then an article should be deleted. If this is really "the most vetted design for calendar reform out there", where is the evidence? --Pak21 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that much of the evidence isn't contained online, and the discussions are not in a neat little URL that the article can link to, makes these facts and this calenar irrelevent, apparently. That is a fatal flaw of Wikipedia. Standing behind policies in a legalistic fashion, consistently repeating them like a mantra, will perhaps kill these articles, but it's also killing this as an acceptable vehicle for research among those who are serious about this topic. - Nhprman List 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Attribution does not require sources to be online. It does, however, require sources. If you or anyone else can provide details of where these alleged sources are to be found, then it would dramatically reduce the likelihood of this article being deleted. --Pak21 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst, Merge to Leap week calendar. Pak21 has nominated many calandar reform topics as per this AfD Discussion Two articles have been successfully deleted thus far, and Pak21 has removed all mention of the topics from Calendar reform thereby removing valuable content from a good article, including all external links...In addition, the availability of sub-topics such as Lunisolar calendar, Leap week calendar, & Solar calendar for which these articles would provide strong supplementary material has been completely disregarded. The sources provided are based on simple calculations and are both non-trivial and respectable as per Wikis guidelines. In addition, the articles are well written. Removing these articles without regard to the value they add if merged to existing subheadings may adhere to the letter of guidelines for individual articles, but degrades wiki in the process. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Younger and junior versions of cartoon characters (renamed from Younger versions of cartoon characters). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:31Z

Junior versions of cartoon characters

edit
Junior versions of cartoon characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No clean-up for months, basically same thing as Younger versions of cartoon characters. Either delete or merge. Josh215 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:47Z

List of songs mentioning Hennessy

edit
List of songs mentioning Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of songs featuring Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Songs listed by a trivial criterion that is not some kind of significant defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:49Z

Wikihowto

edit
Wikihowto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Wikihowto-logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Unencyclopedic article on a non-notable wikia project; content simply copied from site's welcome & help pages. Fails WP:WEB. Earlier version deleted a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WikiHowTo. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both (no arguments for keep aside from "it will exist"). Trebor 12:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anerley Road tram stop

edit
Anerley Road tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future gazing a proposal by Transport for London that has not been confirmed I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Penge Road tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Regan123 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:27Z

Justin Ruedebusch

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

Nothing in this article checks out. No evidence of a Justin Ruedebusch winning a Grammy. Created by Fernwood who has created numerous other nonsense articles and has vandalised other articles. IrishGuy talk 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, and stub until copyright issue is resolved. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:24Z

Thomas Hutchins

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

1.) Possibly copyright infringement
2.) Lack of verifiable information from reliable sources Seraphim Whipp 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though the article needs editing and does indeed need to be rewritten to remove copyvio (one section is from here, I've discovered). The source indicated in the article appears to be a reasonable one to start with, and I can find quite a few others with a quick look around. Professional Surveyor magazine; the link above where the copyvio has come from is another reasonable source, and there are approximately 800 Google hits to "Thomas Hutchins' surveyor - not bad for a guy who died a couple hundred years ago. From this glance, he appears to be one of the key surveyors of much of the United States - that's pretty notable. It needs stubifying right now, though, to remove the copyvio. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:21Z

Christina McHale

edit
Christina McHale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Christina mchale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO guidelines. I'm not an expert on tennis, but I don't think that a junior tennis competitor automatically qualifies without some sort of major media coverage. Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. NN, self-promotion for school it seems. Lordwow 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As-yet nn junior tennis player. Love this line "Other information is from all other people who know Christina McHale personally so that we can write a biography on her. Several people who know her personally have given information to each other to all revise and perfect Christina McHale's biography.. Deiz talk 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are you doing this too me ? I try to be a nice, hard-working guy, but still you bombard me with articles about people who don't meet our criteria for notability. What have I done to deserve this ? Why should I have to spend five minutes cleaning yet another product of someone's vanity out of the vast edifice that is Wikipedia ? One day this girl may be notable, but right now she isn't. I'm sure she's a great gal, and I'm sure her family love her, and I'm sure her friends respect her skills, but she's not yet ready for an article here. Sorry, fails guidelines. WMMartin 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rlevse 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stockwell (statistician)

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

Seems non-notable, no references, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI EliminatorJR 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesemonger

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Proofreader J-Man 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:48Z

Stagestruck Childrens Theatre

edit
Stagestruck Childrens Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community group. Google search for "Stagestruck Childrens Theatre" garners a single hit, this article, and a search for "Stagestruck Children's Theatre" gets two hits. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This seems like one of those classic examples of an AfD spurring people to chase up references etc. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ImageShack

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

Subject does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP Afed 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its the third highest ranked image host on the internet currently ranked 52nd highest traffic site on the internet. How is that not significant in the grand scheme of things?--Crossmr 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; here is the previous deletion nominmation: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ImageShack, although it was mistaken, for what it's worth. Looking at the criterion, I think the original nomination correctly points out that it doesn't fit the criterion. I haven't worked with wikipedia closely enough to know about these policies, but it seems common sense for anyone familiar with using image hosts that imageshack is by far one of the biggest out there. It's obviously not going to be covered in news publications - what kind of mainstream publication writes a story on image hosts, and bare-bones image hosts (unlike flickr) at that? The lack of media coverage doesn't mean imageshack isn't big and widely used, take a look at Alexa: [[40]], currently #64 website worldwide, and the third largest image host behind flickr and photobucket. Also, for what it's worth, 36 million google hits vs. 44 million for photobucket. Tejastheory 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me how the article survived the first nomination, if the participants were aware of the policies. I assume they were different back then, or enforced differently. I don't deny that ImageShack is well known and widely used, but that by itself doesn't fulfill the criteria. Neither does Alexa, which merely provides a short summary of what the site is and statistics of how many users of Alexa's software visit the site. --Afed 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the criteria that you linked to, I would have to agree that imageshack probably doesn't fufill those, but I'm not all that familiar with wikipedia notability policies. Surely, even without 'formal' media source, imageshack is one of the most widely well-known image hosts, and certainly one of the most top-trafficked - doesn't that count for something? Tejastheory 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a non-trivial source to reference in the article, or some other thing that would meet one of the guidelines, that would help a lot. I didn't see anything before I AfDed --Afed 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not kidding, and I believe that this article is not notable according to WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The article cites no primary sources and so far no one has come up with any. --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of citations calls for tagging the article with cleanup tags, not for deleting the entire article. Deletion for a lack of citations only is supposed to occur when an article's subject fails to meet WP:N (and thus it is highly doubtful that citations could ever be found for a non-notable subject). This article's subject is so notable that I'm sure citations could be found. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something about that site rubs me the wrong way. It looks suspiciously like a paid blogging service. Did you read some of their other stuff? --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the "30 seconds of googling" test is that Google can't distinguish between a genuine, notable weblog and a "news" site that just regurgitates press releases. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced weasel phrase detected. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Sorry, I don't have the resources do the research now, but I was kind of under the impression this was a famous website - based on a gut feeling that you see lots of references to it on many web forums. A bit surprised to see it here. I should take a look at this soon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable site as its use is seen across a wide variety of popular sites. As well, two reliable sources have been provided to show coverage and that satisfies WP:WEB.--Crossmr 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your sources are highly questionable, due to their own relative obscurity and the fact that the cited stories read like press releases. I believe that Mashable exists purely for publishing "press release" materal submitted by the owners of sites themselves. That would essentially be a self published source. Further, if it is indeed a legitimate blog, then it is also not a reliable source according to WP:RS. --Afed 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it was pointed out, while self-published its allowed as long as the writer is a well known journalist which is the case since the author is a journalist for guardian.co.uk, so yes its quite reliable in that case. After some looking, you might be write about that particular article on Biosmagazine. Their top articles don't look like press releases as there is some editorializing in them, and it doesn't appear to be a blog, but in this case, the article is actually a mash up of several press releases. So while the content is reliable, that particular source can't be used to establish notability. Though there is still a point of common sense here, and realization that notability guidelines are not policy, and some critical thinking should reveal that while there isn't a lot of independent coverage it is the 52nd highest traffic website on the internet and the third largest image hoster. Its notable by virtue of its use.--Crossmr 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Right now, the article is only an entry that belongs in an "internet guide", not an encyclopedic article. Popularity among the Internet community does not make a subject notable by itself, although this is understandably hard for Wikipedia editors to step back and realise, since most of us are familiar with that kind of thing. The article should be deleted because it will never get better; there are no facts to document that will show Imageshack having historical significants or major achievements (notwithstanding their glowing press releases published on artificial blogs). --Afed 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an internet encyclopedia so popularity among internet users does make it notable. This website also isn't something that is mildly popular either, its within the top 100 websites on the internet. There are probably tens of thousands or more of articles on wikipedia which have no historical significance, I was unaware that that was a requirement, nor are major achievements. You've already admitted its a popular website. We also know how popular a website it is. Your proposal for deletion was based on the fact that you didn't think it was notable or in other words not popular or well known. In the context of people who would be online and reading this encyclopedia, imageshack is popular and notable.--Crossmr 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no relevence to Wikipedia, or anything that makes it notable on its own. --Afed 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think sheer use makes it notable. Being in the top 100 of trafficked sites and being the third largest image host in the world means that there are millions of users that engage in its services or view images that it hosts. ImageShack is not this big, but imagine if there was a single website that hosted the majority of all image content on the web. Sure it may not have social networking features or garner press coverage (because it's a mundane thing), but that fact alone makes it notable and relevant. Tejastheory 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, many other articles should also be deleted, if they are essentially advertisments. I will be getting to them. --Afed 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any article about any subject could be considered an advertisement for it. If you think it reads like an advert thats a reason to clean it up, not deletion. You nominated it because you said it wasn't notable, then admitted it was notable. Now the reasons you've given since then have all been reasons for cleanup, not deletion. This article has also never, to my knowledge, been tagged with a good-faith advert tag. Your tagging it now would only look like you were trying to make your case for deletion. You raised a concern of sources above and the article now has 4.--Crossmr 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_25&oldid=1116722506"