Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Minor villains in Kim Possible. The Placebo Effect 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrena Lynn

Single episode villain not notable outside of that single episode. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: To Kim Possible. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; I agree with Magnus animum... --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Ron Stoppable. The Placebo Effect 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zorpox

Minor villain appearing in only 1 episode. Not notable outside that episode and the article is filled with POV and OR as well as being badly sourced. Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for this article to be merged with Ron's article and to be redirected there. --Alexlayer 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: To Ron Stoppable. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Minor family members in Kim Possible. Content from the page can be accessed in the page history and merged as necessary. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Possible

Minor secondary character who is not notable outside of a single episode. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: To Kim Possible. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the page Kim Possible contain detailed character profiles and is not an appropriate page to merge with. There is a character list for secondary characters, and a character list for family members, they would be more appropriate targets for merger. It is requested that somebody familiar with the topic and how it is set out on wikipedia conduct and merger. - perfectblue 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Quite a minor character that should have the redirect and be merged into the most appropriate article. --Stormbay 03:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork. Minor character that is not notable enough for a separate article. Vassyana 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fork, a splitting of a page that was way too large and has since become larger. - perfectblue 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kim Possible. JodyB_talk 11:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for real world context. The page was created as a fork. One of the character lists already has the necessary information in its history. Instead of merging, that information can just be recovered. Leaving the history in the redirect will leave too much temptation for new users unaware of this discussion to recreate the page. Jay32183 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Not notable enough for its own article. Realkyhick 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can we do both? Jay32183 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yeah merge to Kim Possible--St.daniel ^Talk 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Phoenix 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kim Possible, or we might as well create some Kim Possible character lists. Lemonflash^(t)/_(c) 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Character lists already exist. Jay32183 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Delete. Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Why not merge with the character list? This character is notable enough for inclusion there. - perfectblue 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. One episode is nowhere near enough for even a separate stub page. WAVY 10 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kim Possible has recently entered into its fourth and final season. As a result, many new characters were added and the page that originally contained Joss Possible became too large and unwieldy. As per standard wiki-guidelines, this sectio was spun off into its own articles. The character was created specifically for a unique plot line, and to fill a role that no existing character could fulfill. She stared in her own episode and underwent significant character development during it. She is therefore notable within the franchise. - perfectblue 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have restored the old version of the Joss Possible information on the list of minor family members to show that merging is not necessary, the content already exists on that page, and existed first. In order for the content forks to be allowed by WP:FICT there must be sufficient sources to write a complete article. That means a "concept and creation" section and a "reaction" section. See Link (The Legend of Zelda) for an appropriate character page. Jay32183 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff link here - perfectblue 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is a guideline suggesting how a page should be laid out. It's not a hard and fast temple for article creation. In reality most fictional character pages are written by fans, not wiki-adept, the don't have a reaction section or concept sections etc, and where they do they are often 90% WP:OR. Go on, take a look, at least this page is written out of universe, many character pages are not. - perfectblue 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for deleting other pages, not keeping this one. Wikipedia is not a fan guide. This page is not written out of universe, it does not convey any real world significance. Jay32183 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This line from the Trivia section is NOT going to help anyone's case, because it looks like fancruft inserted to add to the article: "Even though Kim gets most of her looks from her mother Joss looks more like she could be Kim's younger sister." WAVY 10 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Possibles just like the stoppables page, I think a slapped page for Granny Possible, Slim, Joss and any others that show up should cover it. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It already exists. This page was split off of it. Jay32183 03:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Minor family members in Kim Possible. Content from the page history can be merged. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Possible

Note Kim Possible is not an appropriate page to merge with, Minor family members in Kim Possible is a more appropriate target. - perfectblue 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor supporting character not notable outside a single episode --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: To Kim Possible. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor allies in Kim Possible ⋅one episode, but still a carchter == merge The Placebo Effect 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Per The Placebo Effect. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character that is not notable enough for a separate article. Vassyana 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kim Possible JodyB_talk 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Not notable enough for its own article. Realkyhick 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --Phoenix 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kim Possible has recently entered into its fourth and final season. As a result, many new characters were added and the page that originally contained Joss Possible became too large and unwieldy. As per standard wiki-guidelines, this section was spun off into its own articles. The character was created specifically for a unique plot line, and to fill a role that no existing character could fulfill. He stared in her own episode and underwent character development during it. He is therefore notable within the franchise. - perfectblue 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He needs to be notable outside of the franchise too. He isn't even notable within the franchise. I watch Kim Possible (i have no life) and he's only in 1 episode. That makes him minor. Meaning he doesn't deserve and article. Single episode characters aren't notable unless they do something out of the ordinary (kill a main character for example) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh We Do Like To Be Beside The Seaside

Unsourced article about an album, providing no evidence of notability. A prod was contested on the basis that albums released by notable musical groups are in themselves notable. I'm not so convinced the band is notable either. Mattinbgn/^talk 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability, no sources, and no information except a song list. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Malevious. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say that if a band is notable enough for its own wikipedia article, then its albums are too. I mean, even minor albums are listed for notable artists. However, I'm not sure how notable this band is. Surely, if the album is not notable, then the band article itself should also be up for deletion? --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even the notability page says that policy is controversial. Since it says that I look at it the same way as TV shows an episodes. If an episode has to prove its notability outside of the TV show, an album/song should have to prove it as well. Since a TV being notable doesn't make the episodes notable, a Band being notable shouldn't make songs/albums notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The album is not notable enough on its own. Vassyana 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest, looking at WP:Music that what is needed is an AfD on the band. If the band is notable then so are their albums. I don't think The Vasco Era is notable though.Ga rr ie 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The page on the band is well referenced, and they do seem to satisfy notability as per WP:MUSIC. However the album page, as well as Let It Burn EP and Miles EP should be merged into the page on the band. Recurring dreams 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC makes the album notable if the artist is notable. There may be a valid discussion of the notability of the band, but at the moment it stands unchallenged. JodyB_talk 11:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band is on AfD here. Heather 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with JodyB. Until the band article is deemed not notable, this article unfortunately has to stand under WP:MUSIC as notable. Should be tagged for cleanup. Assize 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, the article needs to be moved to Oh We Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside, which this suggests is the proper capitalisation. Incidentally, that Amazon page says that the album isn't out yet, FWIW. Heather 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I commented on the band's AFK, which I also voted as strong keep, as they easily pass WP:MUSIC Criteria #1. As the band is notable, the album is notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sumnjim --St.daniel Talk

Strong Keep Changed my vote based on re-reading Wp:Music. See my comment for more detial.--St.daniel ^Talk 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment from the guideline: "Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." as a qualification on a guideline, it indicates to me that common sense in the interpretation is needed, This article not on a subject I understand enough about to apply common sense to, so I just make the comment.DGG 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Some of the commenters here appear to be operating under a false assumption. Even if it is determined that a band is notable, it does not follow that individual albums are. For instance, given authors might be notable, but some of their books are not. In those cases, the books can be discussed in a small section of the author's page, or on a seperate page about all their writings. I believe the same applies in the case of musicians and their albums. -- Kesh 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under WP:Music an Album of a notable band is considered notable. Thus it seems as though this articles notability has been established. While Kesh does make a good point that with authors their less notable books often are included on the authors page. This article is not about a book and we have a clear policy guideline to follow. I do not believe Following WP:MUSIC, and Wikipedia policy is not acting under a false assumption. And all albums are considered notable if they are made by a notable band. An example of this would be Infinite an Eminem album that sold very few copies and received practically no public or media attention. However Eminem is a notable rapper who made the Album thus making it notable. Although I realize this is an extreme example it still holds true for this album. If the band is notable so is the album. Thus this article deserves to be kept.--St.daniel ^Talk 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accept that you're doing it, and am glad I'm not editing in this area and know at least enough to never !vote on the merits of any AfD in this area. But I do find this exceedingly odd. Does it apply to classical music as well? Is every individual Bach composition with a BWV number notable? Is every album Fisher-Dieskau recorded? Then I'd have some interesting work to do. (smile) DGG 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is their debut album so if this album is not notable, they probably aren't either. This album was released last week on Universal Records. It has obtained some independent third party coverage. [1] and [2]. A couple of videos from the album have been played on J TV on ABC TV across Australia. [3]. The Vasco Era and this album both appear notable to me. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No assertion of notability whatsoever in the article. Again even if the band is notable, that has no bearing on the album itself. -- Kesh 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band is notable but album has not charted in any country (have checked Australian and NZ charts carefully). Orderinchaos 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band. —Moondyne 10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article is only new, give it time to develop!!! Wiki ian 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that the band is notable enough (barely), and therefore so is this album. Lankiveil 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. the album is receiving lots of national coverage from Triple J. [4] and Richard "The King" Kingsmill has this album on his short list.[5]. John Vandenberg 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has been deemed notable, hence so should the record. WWGB 11:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Waring

Delete - Not notable on his own. All mentions of him are only in Norman Rockwell articles. AKeen 00:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I believe being the father of Norman Rockwell establishes notoriety in and of itself. However, I do agree the article does have to be re-written.. Shoessss 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. He did nothing famous except having a famous son. Article is unsourced as well. If kept would need a total re-write. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not establish the notability claim. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried rewriting the assault upon spelling, grammar and style that was the original article, but there is little to it that is worth noting. He was born; he became a businessman (how rare!), he gave birth to someone more famous, and then he died. There's no backbone to the article nor any reason why he deserves more than merely references in the Normal Rockwell article. If someone can pull something interesting out of the hat that suggests that he did something that was stand-alone notable, I might change my mind. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
- Comment If he gave birth, that would likely make him very notable! --Charlene 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Indeed! I meant raised. Hereabove see the perils of writing at nearly 3 am having had a day and a half of no sleep! --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that he is notable other than being the father of Norman Rockwell. (By the way, if his father's notable, why isn't his mother? Why aren't the parents of every artist who ever lived?) --Charlene 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack notability. Not enough material for an article. Vassyana 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to establish his own notability. JodyB_talk 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No personal notability. NawlinWiki 15:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Qworty 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in his own right, except for his son. Realkyhick 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Not even the given connection provides enough notabilty. --Phoenix 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unrefrenced and no material with which to write about him. Felix 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Luen

Prod removed by IP user. Created of wooden dummies for kung fu, however cannot find entire reliable sources to back up claim. A quick Google search of "Ho Luen Kung Fu" turns up a history of Yip Man, with 2 brief mentions of Ho Luen. Wildthing61476 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, poorly written and no sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article itself has no Reliable sources; the Kung fu magazines are not proven to be reliable, and, since the magazine would be the only claim to notability - and the reliability of the magazine is not established - I am going to have to vote to delete this article. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above... --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. There are no reliable third party sources for this article and I suspect we won't find any, either. RFerreira 08:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have asked for speedy had I come across it but since it is here let's finish it. JodyB_talk 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally marked this for speedy, but the speedy tag was removed because there was a claim of notability in the article, and was replaced with a Prod tag. Wildthing61476 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be provided to substantiate the biographical information. (aeropagitica) 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Very spammish. Realkyhick 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 何聯葉問 ("Ho Luen" "Yip Man" in Chinese, based on how his name is written on the Yip Man page) gets 25 GHits [6], of which only 1 might be a reliable source, and that only mentions Ho trivially [7]. cab 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article failed to mention what Kung Fu magazine he was mentioned in, and makes verifying the facts very difficult. Hence it can't make him notable enough to have an article.--Kylohk 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man per WP:CSD#A1. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motilismus

Wrong language. High on a tree 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe speedy G1. It sounds vaguely slavic or russian in reading it - perhaps someone can clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's Czech. The ringed U is a giveaway :). --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note, article created by user of the same name, and this is their only contrib. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd edit conflict)Speedy delete Not the place to list this though. Should've put {{notenglish}} on the article first. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD A1 (db-empty); so tagged. There are only three sentences here; that's hardly worth translating. It's about some sort of spiritual organization, according to an online translator. A7 would probably apply if it were longer and in English. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close - Not worth translating or keeping, foreign language no attempt made to translate it by the article initiator. Ben W Bell talk 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to recreation in English. My guess is that this is Czech, based on the presence of the ů character. It may be about something worthwhile; Motilismus strikes me as a Germanicism, and may name some kind of art movement. Not reading Czech, I'm somewhat handicapped here. Don't think that merely being in a foreign language is grounds for speedy deletion, especially since the Template:Notenglish ritual hasn't been followed AFAIK, but this brief article can't say much even in Czech. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man per WP:CSD#A7. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Castellan

This page is currently blanked and has a somewhat weird version history. It seems that this is the version that the original author intended, although in the first version he stated that the article's subject had a very different profession. In any case, the text is completely unsourced (see WP:BIO) and does not establish the notability of this person. High on a tree 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This page should have been speedy'd from the beginning instead of listing here. Article doesn't seem to contain any valid information. First he's a porn star then he's a boxer, what next a magician? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Lack of notability and verifiable information. Vassyana 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deiz talk

Sherry Hoskinson

Created by the subject's son, evidently. Minimal assertion of notability, but not backed up with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Chick Bowen 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke... delete. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge what little notable info is in the article into University of Arizona Ward3001 01:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. MSJapan 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced, equivocal biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability was established over a few days. — Scientizzle 05:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+39 Challenge

Lack of available references. No claim of notability. Vassyana 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources and no info besides their "crew" --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is notable (competitor in an international and well know competition), but this article add nothing to WP. Better to delete and wait if someone will create a new and better article (or maybe a section in Louis Vuitton Cup 2007). Cate |_Talk 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, everything about this nomination is wrong. Being a top-level professional sailboat racing team is a pretty massive claim of notability in itself, and references are readily available. Google news turns up 700! hits, from multiple independent, internationally distributed news sources. That's more than I've ever seen for checking something on AfD. It needs expansion, but there's obvious potential. It's just a weak stub currently. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that "being a top-level professional sailboat racing team is a pretty massive claim of notability in itself." There have been hundreds and perhaps thousands of such teams. We're not going to put them all in Wikipedia. The notability for this particular team has not been established.Qworty 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantity is not an argument against inclusion. There are thousands of top-level pro athletes, olympic medal winners, or even recipients of the Medal of Honor, and current consensus seems to be that all of them deserve articles. This team has been widely written about, which means it very clearly satisfies the primary notability criterion of having been covered in multiple independent nontrivial sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: They're competing in the Louis Vuitton Cup, which decides which team will be allowed to challenge in the America's Cup. There's only 11 teams competing in that, not hundreds or thousands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Keep per Night Gyr; clearly meets the primary notability criterion. The present article isn't much good, but that isn't grounds for deletion. EALacey 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly there. beeing the one of the few who has gained the right to run for the Louis Vuitton Cup, which is one of the few sailing cup that is known world wide (most of English Cup are mostly unknown for Frenchies for exemple, and same for the contrary except for 1 or 2). The article could be better, and need to be better, but as a lot of stuff people not necessarily take the time to complete it. Look at the french or the italian version of the page, their models are nice. --Dionysostom 01:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting that the article needs significant expansion. Being as notable as it apparently is, per above, means that there should be much more meat to this article. ZZ 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I ve managed to add more info on the team and we can see more evidence for the notability criterion. --Dionysostom 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to make an article for every raceteam out there? Where would it stop?. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the ones we don't have enough information on to write proper articles? That's how we handle every other topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 teams every 3-5 years doesn't seems a lot. It is really minimal if we regard all annual competitions, the championships, .. which are added every year to WP. So IMHO the discussion should go about content of article. Cate |_Talk 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP For researchers and students of America's Cup racing, this article is notable because it is about one of only 11 teams competing in what is one of the highest profile global yacht racing event. The intention is to have an artice about each team, we are nearly half way there. Readers can always critisize content but the content will get better over time. Boatman 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is clearly notable and with a little research it is clear there is a wealth of resources. Obviously the article needs some work, which I have already initiated. I see no reason to delete. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arunim

Article violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#DICT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not transwiki. ~~I found nothing on Google suggesting this definition exists.~~ It's a Hindu name, I don't believe it belongs at Wiktionary. --Sable232 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cyrus Andiron 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this dictionary definition. Axl 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-kai

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No assertion of notability. No indication the topic is substantial enough for an encyclopedia article. Vassyana 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP isn't a dictionary, no notability established, no sources. WP isn't a translator either. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary; may belong in Wiktionary, but even that is questionable. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete per above Aminullah 12:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, I'm surprised I didn't find this WP:NOT violation :) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to get rid of extraneous stuff in the article, but as I noted in my edit summaries, I'm not sure there's anything useful here. On the other hand, are any of the articles in Category:Suffixes really useful? I'm not trying to make a WP:WAX argument... I'm just wondering if things like -kinesis should be considered for deletion as well. Dekimasu よ! 06:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've verified kai (改) to be a shorthand for kaizo (改造), by browsing through the related Japanese Wikipedia articles. However, I don't find any of this information to be notable in the English Wikipedia. A wiktionary link to kai will probably suffice, from all currently linked articles.--Endroit 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. John Smith's 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Speedy delete a1, no content, no context, no sources. NawlinWiki 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Habbo Raid

Article violates WP:NOT#OR. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't establish notability, no sources/OR and barely any information. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps just a note at List of Iraq War Resisters if you want. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Johnson (war resister)

Nom - unless someone believes that the event (desertion) for which this biography claims notability is exceedingly rare, this particular biography (of an Army Private) hardly seems notable. The fact that he got some press coverage isn't particularly notable, either. In short, what's the big deal? Rklawton 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we have to list every person who left the country to avoid going to war? What makes him notable from the rest of them. Why only list 1 guy from this war, why not the ones from Korea, Vietnam, WWI/WWII? One guy fleeing the country to avoid being sent to war isn't notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article, though it's not my area of expertise or main interest. Your comparison to other wars is appropriate, though perhaps the Iraq war could be considered on its own merits. It's my impression that the number of Iraq resisters is quite small, en:WP lists about a dozen. In addition, information on an ongoing war with ongoing (potential) enforcement against public resisters is surely more notable that closed private cases from the past. In addition, the press coverage does indicate some degree of current notability. (Question: Could the List of Iraq War Resisters contain bios that are still at the stub level and not deserving of their own article?) Before voting, I'd like to see what other considerations are involved. Thanks. HG 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since when did deserters become 'resisters'? Soldiers go AWOL for various reasons all the time in every army, if soldiers who die fighting for their country aren't notable for the most part, why should guys who scuttle off to Canada be thought more worthy of inclusion? Nick mallory 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. War resister, eh? As stated above, desertions happen for a variety of reasons and a number of times and there is nothing to make this guy any more notable than the many others. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a resister. At the very least least contract violator, some would argue worse. In any case, the guy is not at all notable. Everybody gets 15' of fame, not all are notable. --Kimon^talk 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Iraq War Resisters, noteworthy as part of phenomenon but not really the subject of much coverage on his own. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the San Francisco Chronicle and KXLY News, Johnson admits to being a deserter. Nevertheless, Johnson is also one of relatively few publicly active war resisters, having reportedly set up a IVAW chapter. I've put this info in the article. Since he is differentiated from other deserters, both in his resistance activity and news coverage, this would seem to buttress the Notability criterion.HG 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge to List of Iraq War Resisters. His reasons for resisting the war are not the operative consideration here. Some people just don't like being shot at.Qworty 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough - yet. Realkyhick 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Iraq War Resisters. Most of the mentions of him are bundled in with stories about others, so this seems best. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep `'mikka 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luise Danz

Has been tagged as unreference for nearly a year, and even if it were arguendo properly sourced the person simply doesn't appear notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has remained unsourced for almost a year. If someone can provide reliable sources stating she actually existed and actually did all this then I'd change my !vote. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is another one that really should go to a Wikiproject. The information in this article appears to be true: the Jewish Virtual Library lists her as among those sentenced to life imprisonment at the "Auschwitz Trial"[8]. However, every source I can find that mentions her other than as an aside [9][10] etc. etc. is in German. --Charlene 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay devoted to her. "I can only remember a Mrs. Danz ...". She left a strong impression. I won't address the question of notability, but as a source the one I added should do.Stammer 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malchow concentration camp (where she worked) lists no sources either, shall we delete that too? Lots of older articles don't meet current standards. The solution is to fix them, not delete them. Fishboy 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unsourced is itself not a reason for deletion, but the lack of notability is. Not all concentration camp guards should have their own articles. --Nlu (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The new source helps. Realkyhick 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now sourced Kernel Saunters 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Andrews

non-notable person C5mjohn 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and doesn't display notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough in the corporate world. NawlinWiki 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' unsourced and even if 100% true still wouldn't pass WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the words of Garfield, "Big, fat, hairy deal." Realkyhick 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This meets just about every qualification for a vanity article.Qworty 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A review of the history page shows an attempt to blank the page by User:Aakasha, which was also the only contribution from that editor. Seems to be a pretty strong justification to delete. Horologium 07:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. feydey 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Vassyana 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. Same style and approximate content.:

Note to participants and closing sysop: The sequence of articles continues on to 2059.

Comment While I can see that the more distant years are subject to much trivia and crystalballing, I believe that the less far off years, most notably 2008, contain useful, sourceable information about events that are (barring highly unusual circumstances) certainly going to happen and of which much information is already known. Also, from experience and observation, I have noted that mass listings almost never come to consensus and are problematic at best. J0lt C0la 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where does it say that Wikipedia is not an almanac? WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball says:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Many of these year articles contain predicted events that should be cleared out, but they also contains events that are notable and almost certain to occur, such as anniversaries, eclipses, elections, major sporting events, etc. Those appear to conform to WP:NOT -Will Beback · † · 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything up to and including 2014, at least. These articles contain a significant amount of encyclopedic information about everything from currency adoptions to sporting events to astronomical occurrences. The information is not crystal-balling in that these things are (save a massive world war) virtually certain to occur. No opinion about 2015 on. Edited to move my comment down to a more appropriate location. --Charlene 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (cross-post) I'd say that an article on 2008 and 2059 are very different. Okay, so the world might blow up on 31 December of this year, but that doesn't make the article about 2008 unencyclopedic. I'd say that at least through 2013 or 2014 are encyclopedic; from there on they start to get a little vague. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not crystal-ballery if there are verifiable scheduled or predicted (or fictional) events for a given year. This is the case with (almost) all of the listed years. If there are years with only one or two items, bring them back here and list them separately. Grand master ka 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it !!. ...you guys have too much time on your hands... lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.123.52.212 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Fbv65edel --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep Some of these entries may be crystal ball stuff, or rather obscure bits of trivia, but conceptually, the article is no different from 1960 or 1066. I therefore, have no objection in principle to these articles at this time. Practically? Some of them need some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. I have nothing but respect for Vassyana who helped me through a painful mediation awhile back. But Wikipedia very explicitly does incorporate elements of an almanac — the first sentence of the Five Pillars. Sourcing should be improved to remove crystal-ballery, but sourced information about certain to happen future events is perfectly encyclopedic and in fact is encouraged per WP:CRYSTAL. --JayHenry 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Do we honestly think that these years will not come to pass? There are many events and things that we know for fact will pass in these years, so why should we have to wait until then to add them? Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I urge everyone to put a few year articles, past and future, on their watchlists. They are aapparently a frequent first edit for new editors. -Will Beback · † · 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Will a sysop please close this as speedy keep, per consensus and WP:SNOW? I would close this myself, but non-admins are discouraged from closing such cases in the deletion policy. Vassyana 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It bothers me to see WP:NOT misapplied this way. RFerreira 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I have every expectation that 2009 (and all the other years) will arrive and I'm reasonably sure that most of the predicted events will happen - Easter, astronomical phenomena, etc. Very useful set of articles. andy 09:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep these are not predictions but things that will happen - delete unsourceable predictions within these articles though. Think outside the box 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010s

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Vassyana 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The 2010s are mostly crystal ball stuff, without solid verification, and the later decades cannot be any better. Placeholder account 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable Keep Some of these articles are just a bit silly in terms of content. Ringo's 100th Birthday? Why not any of the other people born in that same yeah? OTOH, keeping track of some of the fictional events is somewhat more reasonable. Nor do I have a problem with the concept of the article itself, given that historical years exist as I mentioned above. Maybe a severe cleanup to remove some of the trivial stuff? FrozenPurpleCube 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC
Keep 2010s at the very least. Cleanup the rest, if kept. FWIW, Wikipedia most definitely is an almanac. Resolute 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Useful information is present in many of these articles, including strongly predicted events and occurrences. Also see the pronunciation section of 2010s, it has plenty of sources. — John Stattic (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. I have nothing but respect for Vassyana who helped me through a painful mediation awhile back. But Wikipedia very explicitly does incorporate elements of an almanac — the first sentence of the Five Pillars. Sourcing should be improved to remove crystal-ballery, but sourced information about certain to happen future events is perfectly encyclopedic and in fact is encouraged per WP:CRYSTAL. --JayHenry 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. This is just silly, these decades will come to pass, they are not crystal balling or non-encyclopaedic. Some of the content on those article may be, but not the articles themselves. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Will a sysop please close this as speedy keep, per consensus and WP:SNOW? I would close this myself, but non-admins are discouraged from closing such cases in the deletion policy. Vassyana 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, have the keepers even looked at the articles? They're a grab-bag of speculation, guesswork, 100th anniversaries and fiction. In 2100s, we learn that the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calenders will reach 14 days, Australia will celebrate its 200th birthday, humans colonize Mars according to a Star Trek Voyager episode and a new ice age will begin according to video game Battlefield 2142. It's the same for all the articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you're saying that the Australian bicentennial is non-notable? I doubt Australian editors would think that. In fact, they'd probably think the Australian bicentennial was a far more important event than the American bicentennial was. --Charlene 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of knowing whether it will be notable at the time. For all we know, Australia won't exist, or it will adopt a different founding date, or people won't even care about arbitary numbers of years. It's the same for the thousands of potential 'anniversaries'.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the odds of, say, Australia suddenly disappearing are next to nil. mike4ty4 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our place to weigh up the odds of which countries will still exist in a hundred years time. Should we have the 300th or 1000th anniversary of Australia as well?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - if some of the predicted events are silly then they should be edited out. andy 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but delete unsourceable predictions within these articles. Think outside the box 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If deleted I could find the info on other site on the web Bb100 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2010s would have to be recreated in three years. It's nonsense to delete a page knowing it'll have to be restored. Aminullah 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Australian bicentennial and all that is fine, but the fictional stuff has to go. Say the wikipedia is still around in 2099 and it is time to compile notable events of the year. Is the fact that the events of Judge Dredd apparently begin in 2099 notable? Highly doubtful. If someone really thinks that this stuff is important, then follow the 2006 in fiction, 2007 in fiction model, perhaps. Tarc 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it certainly is, given that Judge Dredd is a reasonably notable comic book. I've no objection to spinning off such matters into their own article though. FrozenPurpleCube 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Some astronomical events are certain and should be retained. The various anniversaries should be tossed, since they are already covered by the appropriate year articles. (Plus their selection seems PoV to me.) — RJH (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. If there are notable facts included, they should be moved to more appropriate pages. (I.E. Australian Bicentennial to the page on Australia.) D0ggieM0mma 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as speculative crystal-balling garbage. Valrith 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2010s but Delete the later ones. Most of this stuff is trivial (such as anniversaries). The fictional references are interesting, but I question whether they make the time frames notable: I am much more likely to be interested in the fact that a certain Star Trek episode is placed in a given decade than that the decade is the one in which that episode is placed. As for the astromonical predictions: Those are also nice, but IMO Wikipedia is not an almanac (and to the extent that those events are notable this is a very inefficient way of presenting them). Only the 2010s is comprehensive and composed mostly of notable material. --EMS | Talk 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep: It could be kept but I'd suggest to remove the really speculative parts, and leave only the things that are reasonably certain to happen. mike4ty4 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia IS an almanac. --- RockMFR 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep: Those of saying "crystal ball" are poor closed minded people who don't look forward, at least you look like. It'd be quite hard to find information of what will happen in a thousand years or more anywhere else on the web. If that's human knowledge, that should be stored on Wikipedia as it's Wikipedia's main ideal. Or are you saying you're not gonna live for 2011? If there's no future for you, there isn't life either. Stop living in your human world, 1000 years are nothing when you've lived 4,600,000,000.--Fluence 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I see that the 2010s, as they are only 3 years away, should be kept as an article. I can agree however that the 2020s, 2030s, and beyond should be deleted as they are really far away. However the 2010s are close enough to be an article. (Tigerghost 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: I look forward to the Grunge revival of the 2010s... haha. (Tigerghost 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep all of them unquestionably -- we have articles on telescopes to be (James Webb Space Telescope, for example) and apparently Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball - but this Telescope may never come to exist... Booksworm Talk to me! 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these decades are important and meet our five pillars too
Keep It is interesting to note the astronomical events that are predicted throughout these decades. If nothing else, retain that information as it is highly predictable.
Keep The 2008 is a future page - it is excellent in quality, excellent in value, and serves as an excellent foundation for tomorrow's work. The the other future pages certainly get a bit flaky at times, but they also are useful and they are fertile ground for development. If someone is looking for any of these pages, they should find them. Alsee 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bohatch

Multiple pages about Mike and/or his endeavors have been started and written by the same user without using references, without credibly establishing notability and while adding multiple and inappropriate links to external sites. This article appears to be autobiographical and exist to provide monetary gain to the subject. Related pages—Nightmare Kinetics, Eyes of Chaos and linkspam). Parhamr 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability and no sources to back it up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Keeps adding himself to articles which he doesn't belong.--Weakmassive 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might be spam, possibly promotional, definitely falls short of WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Likely spamcruft. Vassyana 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of original research, no references so it is not reliable.The Sunshine Man 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mmmmm ... Kentucky-fried spam. Realkyhick 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This prime example of self-promotion was written with one hand on the keyboard and the other hand on--er, well, never mind.Qworty 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Giles Presbyterian Church (St. Catharines)

No claim to notability that I can see. It looks to be an ordinary church. Banyan Tree 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This church doesn't appear to be any more notable than the 6 down the street from me. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Unable to find sources indicating notability. Vassyana 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The labyrinth sounds cool. But hardly notable. StAnselm 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN local church. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as notable as the gas station next door to it. Future tip: At least name your church after a more notable saint. The guy was a hermit.Qworty 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's be polite, please. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than any other church. KJS 77 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Kinetics

Multiple pages about Mike Bohatch and/or his endeavors have been started and written by the same user without using references, without credibly establishing notability and while adding multiple and inappropriate links to external sites. This article appears to be autobiographical and exist to provide monetary gain to the subject. Related pages—Mike Bohatch, Eyes of Chaos and linkspam). Parhamr 02:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability and no sources to back it up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Keeps adding himself to articles which he doesn't belong.--Weakmassive 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The company/individual has apparently done the main titles on 3 horror films which have been released and 2 more in the works per IMDB. Weak so far on notability is concerned. Myspace and a company website do not satisfy WP:A at all and IMDB is borderline. Get written up in the press and recreate the article. Edison 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More Kentucky-fried spam. Realkyhick 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So what if the guy has done the titles on three grade-B movies? What's next, an article on each of the 10,000 Hollywood caterers out there? The recent habit of listing everybody on down to the shoeshine boys on film credits is really lame, and doesn't need to be reproduced here.Qworty 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Chaos

Multiple pages about Mike Bohatch and/or his endeavors have been started and written by the same user without using references, without credibly establishing notability and while adding multiple and inappropriate links to external sites. This article appears to be autobiographical and exist to provide monetary gain to the subject. Related pages—Mike Bohatch, Nightmare Kinetics and linkspam). Parhamr 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability and no sources to back it up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Keeps adding himself to articles which he doesn't belong.--Weakmassive 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still more Kentucky-fried spam. Realkyhick 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given for deleting all of his other spam. The only reason it's called "Eyes of Chaos" is because that's what reading so much spam does to your eyes.Qworty 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Studio

I'm not really seeing any sources on this; googling "Spy Studio" or "SpyStudio" turns up mostly download/review sites and press releases, neither of which can be considered reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete void of notability and reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just some NN freeware. andy 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks as most people here only want publicity for the big companies. If you're not Google or Microsoft you cannot have your product here. It's the opposite of the ideology of Wikipedia. SpyStudio is a product that is improving a lot, and we develop lacking of resources. I don't understand why this kind of Wikipedia 'Police' think that Wikipedia is their property.

It's not a value judgement, simply an issue of notability. Please read WP:NOTE. andy 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising tool to BUILD notability; it is an encyclopedia of what has already been deemed notable, usually determined by the item's mention in third-party sources. Hundreds of books, magazines, websites, etc. have discussed the Google and Microsoft companies; that's why they're included. Incidentally, as with a lot of small companies that think they can build publicity with a Wikipedia article, the Spy Studio article isn't linked from any other articles and it's not in any categories, so the only way someone could find the article is if they already knew it existed, in which case they could just as easily search Google for the official website. Propaniac 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All you guys doesn't know a bit about reverse engineering just are Vigilantes and Ignorance Dictatorships. The tool was released for free after months of hard work and most in the reverse engineering community will share our thoughts about their usefulness. Since you didn't understand anything about this stuff, you use the notability concept to cover your lack of knowledge in this subject. With this behaviour you only remove visibility to people who needs this kind of tools (and there are not many). And to finish the discussion I'll give you a reliable source naming our site, the Tuts4You site for reverse engineering.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Making personal attacks does not help your case. Furthermore, it does not take knowledge of a subject to see that the article does not reference any external sites to prove notability, it just takes a pair of eyes. And the link you added doesn't really provide any information; the 'description' is copied straight from www.nektra.com/products/spystudio/features.php and www.nektra.com/products/spystudio/, so that doesn't really count. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need knowledge to know the value of a new tool, if you have not that knowledge you can ask somebody who has to judge. I have give you a reliable community site where is the tool named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment And the site does not have any information about it, except for maybe in the forums, which are not reliable sources. And the usefulness or 'value' of Spy Studio is not what is up for debate here, it is whether there are enough third-party sources to make it notable. A site that simply copied and pasted from the Nektra site doesn't exactly qualify as third-party in this instance. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Download the software and try it, nothing more simple. And the addition in Tust4You is from the owner of the site and not a post from us.
      - Comment It's still copied, so the original author is from Nektra. And I don't get what downloading the software and trying it would accomplish exactly... does it contain links to sources? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the head of the Ignorance Dictatorship, I wish to delete this article without principle or knoweldge of the subject matter. But seriously, the same community that wrote articles on Non-linear dynamics and quantum mechanics surely understands a product specializing in reverse engineering. This article does not cite any reliable sources. The one mentioned above was copied off of another site. Unless other sources are produced, notability is not asserted. --Cyrus Andiron 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pampers Wipes are more notable. [11]Qworty 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Hollow

non-notable businessC5mjohn 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Void of notability and reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There are no indpendent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 07:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Realkyhick 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is, however, a Burger King half an hour from this place. Qworty 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Doc glasgow as an attack page (G10). Non-admin closure per WP:DPR Resolute 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ziofacism

Non-notable neologism. Misspelled, too. Or maybe ZOG is just messing with my spell-checker. -- Shunpiker 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:IAR. As a Zionist in real life, I find the article offensive. I didn't bother to check the links, but forget it, there are no references in the world that can ameliorate the blatant POV. That last sentence just put the nail in the WP:BLP coffin. Get rid of it now. Placeholder account 03:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Definite point of view issues. Vassyana 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as major WP:NPOV violation. Not objective in the slightest despite its attempts. Placeholder, sorry, but paradoxically, IAR isn't going to speed it along. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:OR, WP:NPOV violation. Also WP:NEO (only 65 GHits even when spelled correctly). Or maybe we can find a rouge admin with facist or other headist/bodypartist leanings who'd speedy-delete it out-of-process. =) cab 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism and violation of WP:NEO created by Gagog (talk · contribs) with only two edits. IZAK 08:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 08:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism--Doc^g 08:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, irreparably violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 12:57, May 9, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ziofacism" (attack) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. Sr 13 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocky (writing magazine)

Not a notable student magazine at all. Created in either 2001 or 2003, (doesn't matter), the article fails to make a case for its existence. The subject scores only 22 Ghits. There is nothing online about this mag outside of the university's own website, and all of the hits are of another magazine, or otherwise fail WP:RS Ohconfucius 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Every college on earth has a club like this. Placeholder account 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slay this article with the vorpal sword per nom. Unremarkable. MER-C 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete today, calloo, callay. NawlinWiki 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:NawlinWiki, who was much more creative than I could come up with for this article. Realkyhick 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if they worked as hard on their magazine as they do writing entries about it the mag would become notable. Qworty 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Speedy Delete Internal college magazines are not considered notable unless they are hugely famous beyond the college gates. A1octopus 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gordon (comic book artist)

This person is not notable. The original creator of the article has not worked on any other articles, and probably had a conflict of interest. Placeholder account 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In the comics industry, the Eisner Awards are a huge deal, just like the Emmys or Oscars. Easily notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established. Needs cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. Vassyana 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised it was even nominated. As stated, being nominated for an Eisner Award is a clear indication of accomplishment within the comics industry. --GentlemanGhost 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but note that he wasn't just nominated, he actually won--twice in fact! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, clearly notable in his field. Newyorkbrad 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:BIO Thunderwing 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:BIO. Not even close. Realkyhick 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Secondary sources demonstrating notability have been produced. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Snyder (soldier)

Note to closing administrator: article substantially revised early 13 May 2007 Pete.Hurd 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom - unless someone believes that the event (desertion) for which this biography claims notability is exceedingly rare, this particular biography hardly seems notable. The fact that he got some press coverage isn't particularly notable, either. In short, what's the big deal? Rklawton 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his case is getting a lot of media play up here. Recentism, sure, but I've seen similar media coverage called "notability" in other contexts. Pete.Hurd 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "the big deal" is explained in this salon.com article (see also repost on Der Spiegel) that he was arrested in Canada on the orders of the US military, and against the apparent wishes of the Canadian law enforcement agency responsible for such cases (another -not WP:RS?- source here). This is an issue within Canada (Globe and Mail article, CBC and Calgary Sun, Toronto Star coverage of arrest). Members of Parliament have raised the issue (see here and here), the CBC has covered their call for an official probe into the matter here. Maybe he's just another deserter in the US, but his case has sparked national attention about sovereignty issues in Canada. Other coverage of him, but prior to his arrest, in the Canadian media CTV, CBC, Canadian Press, etc, as well as an interview broadcast on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 see transcript here, and Democracy now transcript Pete.Hurd 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The event or case can have an article. The person, not so much. --Kimon^talk 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why not suggest moving rather than deleting? Deleting this article would simply confirm that events that do not pertain directly to the USA are not notable in Wikipedia. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article in question is about the person and not the event. Why don't you start an article on the event? --Kimon^talk 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. On another point, why is he identified as a (soldier) when his claimed notability is for being a (deserter)? Nick mallory 07:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor news figure, not notable. Realkyhick 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Iraq War Resisters. Hey, George W. Bush went AWOL, and he has his own article. Qworty 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not at all notable, just another deserter. If he becomes President, he can have his own article. --Kimon^talk 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose Prime Minister wouldn't cut it, eh? It would have to be President... Pete.Hurd 04:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it would. Is he? I didn't read it in the article and I couldn't find any reference to a "Kyle Snyder, Prime Minister of X". So, I guess he' still non-notable. Thank you, come again. --Kimon^talk 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm, WP:BIO says "subject of published secondary sources that are reliable" which was true even before the arrest. After the arrest he's national news in Canada. I don't see where you get this requirement that subjects of WP biographies have to be head of state, but if you can point me to that policy I'd be much obliged. Pete.Hurd 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get a requirement that he must be head of state. My response of "if he becomes President" was in response to Qworty. May I suggest re-reading this thread? Back to the article though, he does not appear to be nothing more that a person that is involved in a case which has received national attention in Canada. I stand by my delete recommendation and a suggestion to create an article on the case itself. (PS. if you wish to continue the discussion which is unrelated to whether the article should stay or not, I suggest we continue in our respective talk pages) --Kimon^talk 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources cut it for me. Ab e g92contribs 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Was the subject of multiple independent reliable sources even before the arrest. Pete.Hurd 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept, no consensus to delete Added references seem to remove notability/verifiability opbjections `'mikka 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hubba Hideout

Nom - unsourced; not notable; speeded once already Rklawton 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Could possibly be speedied as spam for a YouTube video. Heather 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The Embarcadero (San Francisco), which is a famous skateboarding spot. If no sources are found, seems like a useful redirect. Recury 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's always impressive when skateboarders can type, we can't have an article about every corner in America where they slam around on their boards. Qworty 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You've been around long enough to know WP:CIVIL, right? Also, are you impressed yet? I don't see why it's necessary to be so insulting. You should try making a more substantive argument, instead of throwing out some catch-all. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hubba Hideout is actually up there with Love Park and The Embarcadero (San Francisco) in terms of the most well-known skate spots, and has been getting some press about efforts to make the spot unskateable. Notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially when understood in terms of its notability in the skateboarding community. [12] [13] [14] [15] --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the links provided above that both provide sources and demonstrate notability, I'm withdrawing my nomination. The AfD will still need to run its course, but I now see no reason to delete this article. Rklawton 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bimbo

Delete - we do not need articles for every non-notable one-off character who ever appeared on a TV show. No sources attest to the notability of this character either within the context of the show or in the real world. Otto4711 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge/redirect to ~~In Living Color~~List of In Living Color sketches. Not a particularly notable character, but probably merits a sentence or two at the show's main article, and redirects are cheap. Krimpet (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main article doesn't mention her so there is room for some of the information there. I would not suggest keeping much of the article, none of it is sourced. --Cyrus Andiron 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if consensus is to merge then List of In Living Color sketches is probably the more logical destination. Otto4711 13:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if a destination is found, not all of the content should be salvaged. Most of it is unsourced and poorly written. --Cyrus Andiron 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course not. No more than the same sentence or two that any other sketch or character gets at the list article, if any of it is kept at all. Otto4711 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we let her have an article, every other plastic bimbo will want one. Qworty 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate real world significance. Jay32183 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Appeared in one episode? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete `'mikka 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease military history

Delete. Article topic is not clearly defined by title. Article violates NPOV, contains original research/synthesis, and was created as a POV fork after contributors on Lyme disease reached a consensus that the material was not appropriate for that page. Author appears to be using wikipedia as a soapbox.[16] Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quality original research is welcome at Wikiversity. --R e m i 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the article violates NPOV. The author has assembled a large number of relevant facts supporting the view that Lyme disease has been/continues to be a topic of intense interest to biowarfare scientists. The assertions are supported by a very long list of respectable references. I believe this article should stay. Marianne User:Marianne555 placed this comment instead of the other comments, instead of adding to them; I merged. This is Marianne555's only Wikipedia contribution. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a well written article, but it's Wikipedia:original research, plus one book, Lab 257, by Michael Carroll. Now that book has gotten a lot of coverage (CNN, Today/MSNBC, [17], [18], "New York Times bestseller list", ...) so an article on that book would be fine. But that coverage has been mostly critical or skeptical. That CNN article says "However, Carroll, an attorney, admitted to The Associated Press that he has no direct evidence of his book's horrific tales, just years of research. "Every investigation is about connecting the dots," he said. Others disagree with his stories."I personally just don't think that has any merit," David Weld, the executive director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, told the AP." Carl Zimmer writes "Carroll presents his evidence for these claims as luridly as he can manage, but it doesn't amount to much." So it looks like Carroll's claims aren't generally considered to be fact by the journalistic or scientific community. We can write about them only in the context of writing about the book or the author. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that a re-write of this content could be encyclopedic as an appropriately renamed article about the book Lab 257. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was hoping to be able to defend "Lyme disease in military history" as a legitimate encyclopedic topic, but, after reading the article, I can't imagine anything less than a complete rewrite accomplishing that, and I'm becoming somewhat doubtful of the subject's viability as an encyclopedic topic at all. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an op-ed piece better suited to a magazine, and if this is all that can be said on the subject, then it doesn't have a particularly long or notable history. Heather 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork that doesn't seem to have much to do with Lyme disease. Maybe some material can be salvaged for Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which is largely lacking in historical info. Mangoe 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Misleading title, violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR big-time. Realkyhick 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not nearly as notable as other medical/military topics that do not yet have an article: Gonorrhea in Military History, Foot Fungus in Military History, Irritated Bowel/K-Ration Indigestion in Military History, etc. Qworty 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather you're trying to be sarcastic with your choice of examples, but they're not making the argument that you think they are. For example, the way that militaries over time addressed gonorrhea actually is a perfectly legitimate topic, would make for a fine article, and the fact we don't have an article on it yet is not a sufficient reason to delete this one. So if you're serious about arguing for deletion, you may want to pick a different reason. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to be more like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in military history, actually. Mangoe 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be aware that the instigator of this discussion, User:72.89.114.124, has linked Erich Traub as a candidate for deletion.Verne Equinox 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure how you got that impression. I "instigated" this AfD, and have no relation to the abovementioned IP address. I had never seen the page Erich Traub until you linked to it. However, User:Freyfaxi, who wrote essentially all of the content on Lyme disease military history also created Erich Traub. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see that this user (User:72.89.114.124) seems to have copied the AfD tag from the Lyme disease military history page and placed it on the page Erich Traub, thus creating link from that page to this discussion. That does seem inappropriate, and the AfD tag should not appear on the page Erich Traub unless someone wants to nominate it correctly and explain their reason for doing so. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IN THE NAME OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE ---DO NOT DELETE OR CENSOR THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION: The association between Lyme researchers and billions of dollars of bioweapons grants is crystal clear, heavily footnoted and indisputable, and this is why the many paid propagandists here want this information suppressed. They have billions of dollars at their disposal....(as I documented in the article...) and it seems clear that they are able to "buy" the content here at Wikipedia through sheer numbers. They simply barage a page that is threatening to them, and it gets deleted..... Please editors-- don't let the bucks being thrown at PR officers who claim to be "objective" here prevent this page and the information on it from existing-- you may one day be happy that you helped to put some light and truth into this situation.. freedom of the press and of information makes our government MORE accountable, and without information like this, we as a nation face the prospect of tyranny.

Adults should be able to read these well documented facts and decide for themselves the truth about the history of Lyme disease. The military and bioweapons connection is very clear and indisputable...

Every fact I have given is supported by a reliable source. I can only question how much money the instigator of this "deletion" page is making for his services. The amount of energy being put into censorship of this information should give everyone here an idea of just exactly how important this information is-- and how threatening it is to those with large military bioweapons budgets. The scope and seriousness of the Lyme epidemic has been covered up by an extensive media camapaign. One wonders why? One wonders if we still live in a free society where ideas and information are exchanged freely without censorship.

Also, I cannot for the life of me understand why a page on former Nazi Erich Traub would be suggested for deletion. This is an outrage to Wikipedans everywhere and it is an outrage to holocaust vicitms. The day this information is deleted will be a sad day for Wikipedia....and it will be a sad day for freedom of information.

"A true patriot protects his country from his government"--- Thomas Paine "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither...." --- Ben Franklin 69.120.212.35 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE The page does not meet ANY of the criteria for deletion. Seriously, who is getting paid to dispute this well researched page and why are they so aggressive about it?

1) Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)-THERE IS NO ADVERTISING OR SPAM ON THIS PAGE. 2) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: THIS CONTENT IS HIGHLY SUITABLE, INTERESTING AND USEFUL TO THE PUBLIC AND USES REPUTABLE SOURCES. 3) Copyright infringement : NO INFRINGEMENT-- ALL SOURCES ARE REPUTABLE AND SOURCED 4) Hoax articles : THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS A SERIOUS SUBJECT THAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF ALL AMERICANS 5) Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic ; NO IMAGES USED 6) Inappropriate user pages: NA 7) Inflammatory redirects: NA 8) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources: SOURCES ARE RELIABLE. 9) All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed: SOURCES ARE WELL ORGANIZED, PRESTIGIOUS AND REPUTABLE. 10) Newly-coined neologisms: NA 11) Overcategorization NA 12) Patent nonsense or gibberish NA 13) Redundant templates NA 14) Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) NA 15) Vandalism that is not correctible NA

69.120.212.35 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme is a Biowarfare Issue

A BRIEF HISTORY BY ELENA COOK

Introduction The world of Lyme disease medicine is split into two camps – the US government-backed “Steere camp”, which maintains the disease is hard-to-catch, easily cured, and rarely causes chronic neurological damage, and the “ILADS camp”, which maintains the opposite. The Steere camp is intricately bound up with the American biowarfare establishment, as well as with giant insurance and other corporate interests with a stake in the issue. The ILADS doctors lack such connections, but are supported instead by tens of thousands of patients rallying behind them.

Because the Steere camp has been massively funded and promoted by federal agencies, its view has dominated Lyme medicine not just in the US, but across much of the world. The result has been suffering on a grand scale. Below is a concise history of the military aspects of this cover-up.

- - - -

Weapons of Mass Infection The development of biological weapons has never been confined to dictatorships or “rogue” regimes. During the Second World War America, Britain and Canada collaborated closely on developing offensive bioweapons, and offensive research continued as an openly acknowledged activity of the US scientific establishment during the Cold War. Only in 1972 was this work banned by international treaty. Meanwhile the Maryland-based labs at Fort Detrick, for example, had produced millions of mosquitoes, ticks and other vectors for the purpose of spreading lethal germs.[i] The island of Gruinard, off the coast of Scotland, was only declared habitable again in 1990, nearly fifty years after the British first contaminated it during anthrax experiments. [ii]

Ticks, which vector Lyme disease, have been studied as biowarfare instruments for decades. Such well-known biowar agents as tularaemia and Q-fever are tick-borne. The Borrelia genus of bacteria, which encompasses the Borrelia burgdorferi species-group (to which Lyme disease is attributed), was studied by the infamous WW2 Japanese biowar Unit 731, who carried out horrific experiments on prisoners in Manchuria, including dissection of live human beings. [iii] Unit 731 also worked on a number of other tick-borne pathogens.

After the war, the butchers of Unit 731 were shielded from prosecution by the US authorities, who wanted their expertise for the Cold War. [iv] The US government also protected and recruited German Nazi bioweaponeers under the aegis of the top-secret Operation Paperclip. [v]

Borreliosis, or infection with microbes belonging to the borrelia genus, had been dreaded during the Second World War as a cause of the often-fatal disease relapsing fever. The new post-war era of penicillin meant that many bacterial infections could now be easily cured. However, borrelia were known for their ability to adopt different forms under conditions of stress (such as exposure to antibiotics). Shedding their outer wall, (which is the target of penicillin and related drugs), they could ward off attack and continue to exist in the body.

Lyme disease is not usually fatal, and it is sometimes argued that, with rapidly lethal agents like smallpox and plague available, an army would have no interest in it. However, what is important to understand here is that incapacitating or “non-lethal” bioweapons are a major part of biowarfare R&D[vi], and have been for decades. For example, during the Second World War, brucellosis, chronically disabling but not usually fatal, was a major preoccupation. Military strategists understand that disabling an enemy’s soldiers can sometimes cause more damage than killing them, as large amount of resources are then tied up in caring for the casualties. An efficient incapacitating weapon dispersed over a civilian population could destroy a country’s economy and infrastructure without firing a shot. People would either be too sick to work, or too busy looking after those who were.

The EIS and the “Discovery” of Lyme Modern Lyme history begins in 1975 when a mother in the town of Old Lyme, Connecticut reported the outbreak of a strange, multi-system disease. The town lies directly opposite the Plum Island biowarfare research lab where, according to former Justice official John Loftus, Nazi scientists brought to the US after WW2 may have test-dropped “poison ticks”. [vii] It should be noted that Loftus’ reputation for gathering accurate, hard-hitting information is strong – strong enough to bring down in disgrace the former Chancellor of Austria and Secretary-General of the UN Kurt Waldheim, after the latter’s wartime SS record was revealed.

While it’s not yet known if Plum Island experimented on Lyme-causing borrelia, the lab’s directors openly admitted to Michael Carroll, author of a recently-published book which is endorsed by two former State Governors, that they kept “tick colonies”. The “hard tick” Amblyomma americanum, a known carrier of Borrelia burgdorferi, was one of the subjects of the Island’s experiments. [viii]This tick is not the one most commonly associated with transmitting Borrelia burgdorferi, but it is implicated in harbouring Borrelia lonestari, believed to be the cause of a “Lyme-like illness” in the American south. [ix]

Carroll’s book reveals a shocking disregard for safety, in this lab handling some of the most dangerous germs on earth. Eyewitnesses described how infected animals were kept in open-air pens. Birds swooping down into the pens could have picked up and spread infected ticks worldwide.

When Polly Murray made her now-famous call to the Connecticut health department to report the strange epidemic among children and adults in her town, her initial reception was lukewarm. However, some weeks later, she got an unexpected call from a Dr David Snydman, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), who was very interested. He arranged for fellow EIS officer Dr Allen Steere to get involved. By the time Mrs. Murray turned up for her appointment at Yale, the doctor she had expected to see had been relegated to the role of an onlooker. Allen Steere had taken charge – and his views were to shape the course of Lyme medicine for the next thirty years, up till today. [x]

To understand the significance of all this, we need a closer look at the Epidemic Intelligence Service, the EIS.

The EIS is an elite, quasi-military unit of Infectious Disease experts set up in the 1950’s to develop an offensive biowarfare capability. Despite the banning of offensive biowar in the 1970’s, the crack troops of the EIS continue to exist, ostensibly for non-offensive research into “emerging disease” threats, a blanket phrase covering both bioweapon attacks and natural epidemics at the same time. Graduates of the EIS training program are sent in to occupy strategic positions in the US health infrastructure, taking leadership at federal and state health agencies, in academia, industry and the media. The organisation also extends its influence abroad, training officers for public health agencies in Britain, France, the Netherlands etc. [xi] [xii]

In fact a high proportion of Steere camp Lyme experts are involved with the EIS. Given that the EIS is a small, elite force, (in 2001 the CDC revealed there were less than 2500 EIS officers in existence since the unit was first created in 1951 [xiii]), it seems incredible that so many of America’s top Infectious Disease experts would devote their careers to what they themselves claim is a “hard-to-catch, easily-cured” disease.

Within a few years of Steere’s “discovery” of Lyme disease (the unique Lyme rash, and certain associated symptoms, had been recognised in Europe nearly a century before), it was announced that its bacterial cause had been identified. The microbe was accidentally found by biowarfare scientist Willy Burgdorfer and was subsequently named for him. Burgdorfer has championed the Lyme patients’ movement and is not suspected of any wrongdoing. However it is not impossible that he was unwittingly caught up in a chain of events that were not as random as they might have seemed.

Burgdorfer was a Swiss scientist who had been recruited by the US Public Health Service in the 1950’s. He was highly experienced with both ticks and borrelia, but after being told that the government were not interesting in funding work with the latter, he switched to work with Rickettsia and other pathogens. [xiv] In 1981, Burgdorfer was sent a batch of deer ticks by a team studying Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever on the East Coast. In charge of the team was one Dr Jorge Benach. [xv] Benach subsequently spent much of his career as a Steere camp Lyme researcher. In 2004 he was chosen as recipient for a $3 million biowarfare research grant. [xvi]

Cutting open some of Benach’ ticks, Burgdorfer noticed microfilaria (microscopic worm young). This was a subject he had been studying recently, only these microfilaria were different. They were exceptionally large, large enough to be seen with the naked eye.[xvii] His curiosity naturally piqued, he opened up several more ticks. There he was surprised to find the spiral-shaped germs of borrelia.

Cultivation is necessary in order to isolate bacteria for study, so that diagnostic tests, vaccines or cures can be developed. Borrelia are very difficult to grow in culture. However, by “lucky coincidence”, another scientist had recently joined the lab where he worked, and had apparently been involved in an amazing breakthrough in this area. So naturally Burgdorfer handed the infected ticks over to him. [xviii]

That scientist was Dr. Alan Barbour, an officer, like Steere and Snydman, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, with a background in work on anthrax, one of the most terrifying biowarfare agents known. [xix]

EIS man Barbour therefore became the first to isolate the prototype organism on which all subsequent Lyme disease blood tests would be based. [xx] This is very significant, as a huge body of evidence [xxi] indicates the unreliability of these tests, which are routinely used to rule out the disease. Additionally, all DNA detection of the Lyme agent in ticks and animals is ultimately based, directly or indirectly, on the genetic profile of the strain first isolated by Barbour.

Shortly after Barbour’s discovery, other species and strains of the Lyme-causing bacteria were isolated, especially in Europe. They were all classified based on their resemblance to Barbour’s organism, and have been grouped into a category called Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato or “Bbsl” for short. However, a borrelia was subsequently found in the southern US (referred to briefly above) which appears not to be a member of Barbour’s Bbsl group at all.[xxii]

The bacteria, named Borrelia lonestari, often evades detection on Lyme blood tests, is not found using DNA tests, and does not grow in Barbour’s culture medium which is used world-wide for lab study. [xxiii]And yet, it appears to cause an illness identical to Lyme – down to the “bullseye rash”, which, though not present in all patients, is considered unique to Lyme disease.

In 2005 Barbour, who spent much of his career studying the “hard-to-catch, easy-to-cure” Lyme disease, was placed in charge of the multi-million new biowarfare mega-complex based at University of California at Irvine (UCI). [xxiv] Barbour is joined there by his close colleague and fellow Steerite Jonas Bunikis, author of recent papers calling for a restrictive approach to Lyme diagnosis.

The Spread and the Spin By the late 1980’s it was realised that Lyme disease was rapidly spreading out of control. Cases were reported across America, Europe and Asia. Federal health agencies launched a major propaganda effort to limit diagnosis and so artificially “contain” the epidemic. The National Institute of Health (NIH) appointed biowarfare expert Edward McSweegan as Lyme Program officer. [xxv] Under his leadership the diagnostic criteria was skewed to exclude most sufferers, especially those with chronic neurological illness. McSweegan’s successor at NIH, Dr Phil Baker, is an anthrax expert [xxvi], and has continued his policies.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is another federal body which has had a major impact on how Lyme is diagnosed and treated. Its influence extends abroad, with European public health departments drawing up policies based on CDC guidelines. It should be remembered that it is the CDC which trains the Epidemic Intelligence Service, and much of the leadership of CDC has traditionally been drawn from EIS ranks. Therefore it comes as no surprise to learn that David Dennis, the head of vector-borne diseases at CDC, with massive influence over Lyme issues, was involved with the EIS. However, we could legitimately wonder why, at lower levels of the CDC hierarchy, EIS officers - the nation’s heavyweight infectious disease experts - continue to play such a major role in investigating the supposedly “hard-to-catch, easily cured” Lyme. (For example, EIS officers Martin Schriefer and Captain Paul Mead.) [xxvii].[xxviii]

In 2001, responding to the protest of thousands of patients that standard two or three-week antibiotic courses were not sufficient, the NIH commissioned biowarfare scientist Mark Klempner to study persistence of Lyme infection. ILADS doctors had found that patients left untreated in the early phase often needed long courses of antibiotics, [xxix] sometimes for years. Klempner, however, concluded that persistent Lyme infection did not exist. In 2003 Klempner was appointed head of the new $1.6 billion biowarfare top-security facility being developed at Boston University. Shortly after, the news emerged that there had been an escape of the deadly bug tularaemia which was not properly reported to the authorities. [xxx]

In 2005 the author discovered a document on the NIH website listing Lyme as one of the potential bioterrorism agents studied in BSL-4 (top security) labs. After this was publicised, the NIH announced they had made a “mistake”, and removed the words “Lyme disease” from the page. (At the time of writing, the original is still available in cached Internet archives. [xxxi]) However, at around the same time, a CDC source leaked the identical information to the Associated Press. [xxxii] Moreover, the Science Coalition, comprising entities as prestigious as the American Medical Association, Yale University, and the American Red Cross, maintain a website which, at the time of writing, also lists Lyme as a disease studied for its biowarfare potential. [xxxiii] Could these three major organisations all have, co-incidentally, made the same “mistake”?

In 2004 the UK government denied that Lyme was a threat in Britain and told Parliament that no Lyme research had been conducted since 1999. [xxxiv] Yet the report of the official UK delegation to an international conference on the prevention of bioterrorism revealed that Lyme was being studied at Porton Down, Britain’s top biowarfare facility. [xxxv] Britain, and many other European countries, take their lead on Lyme from a body called EUCALB, rooted in Steere camp methodology. NATO has also been directly involved in moves to “harmonise” European Lyme diagnosis along Steerite lines

A Bug of Many Talents Lyme’s ability to evade detection on routine medical tests, its myriad presentations which can baffle doctors by mimicking 100 different diseases, its amazing abilities to evade the immune system and antibiotic treatment, would make it an attractive choice to bioweaponeers looking for an incapacitating agent. Lyme’s abilities as “the great imitator” might mean that an attack could be misinterpreted as simply a rise in the incidence of different, naturally-occurring diseases such as autism, MS, lupus and chronic fatigue syndrome (M.E.). Borrelia’s inherent ability to swap outer surface proteins, which may also vary widely from strain to strain, would make the production of an effective vaccine extremely difficult. (A vaccine developed for the public by the Steere camp in collaboration with Glaxo Smithkline was pulled from the market a few years ago amid class action lawsuits [xxxvi].) Finally, the delay before the appearance of the most incapacita ting symptoms would allow plenty of time for an attacker to move away from the scene, as well as preventing people in a contaminated zone from realising they had been infected and seeking treatment. Often in the early period there is no rash, only vague flu-like or other non-specific symptoms which might be dismissed by GP’s, or ignored by the patient.

The 2003 proposal for a rapid-detection method for biowarfare by Dr JJ Dunn of Brookhaven National Lab seems to add further grounds for suspicion. It is based on the use of two “sentinel” germs – plague and Lyme. [xxxvii]

In 1999 Lyme patient advocacy leader Pat Smith was amazed to find, on visiting an Army base at an old biowar testing ground in Maryland, that the US Dept. of Defence has developed a satellite-linked system that enables soldiers to read, in real-time, off a display on their helmet’s visor, information about the rate of Lyme-infected ticks wherever they may be on earth. Unit commanders could update the database using state-of-the-art portable PCR machines, which test for Lyme DNA in soldiers bitten by ticks. [xxxviii] The use of such cutting-edge technology for a supposedly “hard-to-catch, easy-to-cure” illness seems odd, to say the least!

Lyme is often complicated by the presence of co-infecting diseases in the same tick, e.g. those caused by the microbes of babesia, bartonella, mycoplasma (believed by some researchers to be the cause of Gulf War illness), ehrlichia, microfilaria and encephalitis viruses. Investigations into some of these, too, have been led by American biowar experts.

It could be argued that some of these Lyme researchers have been awarded biowar-related grants simply because they are Infectious Disease specialists, which is a natural terrain from which to recruit. After all, research budgets for biowar have ballooned massively since the anthrax attacks of 2001; there is a demand for large numbers of personnel to work on such projects.

Well, there are two things that could be said here. First, researchers who have spent much or most of their careers studying a “hard-to-catch, easily-cured” disease would not appear to be the best choice as recipients of this type of grant, unless the “easily-cured” disease had some relation to biowarfare. Second, while some infectious disease specialists began to study biowarfare organisms for the first time after 2001, this is not necessarily the case with the Steerites. Klempner, for example, was studying ways to increase the virulence of Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, over 20 years ago [xxxix]; Barbour researched anthrax for the Army in the 1970’s. [xl]

The defeat of Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War was followed by the drawing up, by the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) of a list of microbes to be monitored in Iraq. Among them - the borrelia genus in general, and Borrelia burgdorferi in particular. [xli] UNSCOM also included organisms such as ehrlichia and babesia, which are often present in Lyme-infected ticks, and are acquired as concurrent illnesses when a person is bitten.

There are other organisms on the UN list not generally associated, in the public mind, with biowarfare, and it could be argued that the UN was simply being extra cautious by casting a wide net. However, whether Lyme bacteria were present in Iraq at that time or not, they certainly are today, and US Army manuals warn soldiers to protect themselves from the disease [xlii] If we are to accept the traditional Steerite explanation for the rise of Lyme – that it is a natural consequence of a recent population explosion of deer due to reforestation, combined suburbanisation, bringing humans into contact with forests – then the presence of Lyme in the dusty sand dunes of Iraq seems perverse.

And what of the doctors of the opposing camp, those associated with ILADS? ILADS doctors and researchers increasingly find themselves persecuted, victims of spurious charges made against them to Medical Boards, and are hounded out of their professions. At the time of writing, paediatrician Dr Charles Ray Jones, credited by thousands of parents with restoring the health of their disabled children, is under trial, accused of misconduct. A few years ago, Dr Lida Mattman, a Nobel Prize nominee who worked on an alternative culture medium for Lyme, was ordered to shut down operations by police who arrived at her lab with handcuffs. Dozens of doctors who had been treating Lyme successfully according to their clinical judgement, rather than relying on insensitive blood tests or arbitrary limits on antibiotic duration, have been forced to stop. The president of ILADS, Dr Raymond Stricker, has told the press he believes Lyme disease is a bioweapon.

Summary Lyme disease is the subject of hot controversy, with the “Steere camp” claiming it is an easily cured ailment, while the ILADS camp views it as a severely disabling, multi-symptom neurological disease.

The number of Steere camp Lyme researchers with a background in the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) and/or biowarfare research is too numerous to be pure co-incidence. Two scientists who have played a central role in the Lyme story, Barbour and Klempner, have been placed in charge of new biowar super-labs set up in the aftermath of 9-11, where they are aided by some of their Steerite colleagues. Others, while not in charge of super-labs, are nevertheless in receipt of substantial grants for biowarfare research.

The United States and some of its NATO allies have a long and sordid history of experimentation into biological weapons of mass destruction and mass incapacitation. The Borrelia genus and ticks as biowar vectors have been studied for decades, and recent revelations about the Plum Island disease lab, across the water from old Lyme, Connecticut are worrying. The development of the so-called “non-lethal weapons” has been a major part of biowar science for decades.

Suspicion is further fuelled by the declaration by America’s National Institute of Health that a document on their website listing Lyme as a microbe studied for bioterrorism potential was a “mistake”, just at the time that a CDC source leaked the same “mistake” to the Associated Press. British delegates at an international conference on the prevention of bioterrorism revealed that intense work on Lyme and other tick-borne disease is conducted at the UK’s top biowar lab at Porton Down.

Lyme has been chosen as a “sentinel organism” in a method of rapidly detecting bioweapons, and the whole genus, or category, of borrelia was included among those to be monitored by the UN in Iraq after the first Gulf War. US soldiers in Iraq today are warned by the military to protect themselves against the disease.

It’s possible to see the modern history of Lyme as a string of events with an EIS member at every crucial node. The discovery of new Lyme-causing borrelia, genetically distinct from the Borrelia burgdorferi group first cultured by EIS officer Alan Barbour, throws up the question as to whether the Bbsl organisms he introduced to medicine was the only, (or even the most) relevant borrelia. The testing and diagnostic regimens based on the views of Barbour, Steere, etc and backed by federal health agencies such as CDC and NIH currently condemn huge numbers of Lyme patients to a medical limbo, without treatment or recognition for their disease. The cost in human suffering may be unimaginable.

- - - - [i] Williams P, and Wallace D, “Unit 731, the Japanese Army’s Secret of Secrets”, Hodder and Stoughton 1989, p284

[ii] BBC news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1457035.stm

[iii] Howard Cole, Chief of Intelligence at America’s Chemical Warfare Service, reported in “Unit 731” , p105

[iv] “Unit 731”. Op cit.

[v] Carroll, Michael “Lab 257-The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory”, Harper Collins 2004

[vi] Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate> https://www.jnlwd.usmc.mil/ vii] “Lab 257” op cit.

[viii] ibid.

[ix] Bacon et al, “Glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase gene (glpQ) of Borrelia lonestari identified as a target for differentiating Borrelia species associated with hard ticks”, J Clin Microbiol 2004 May;42(5):2326-8.

[x] Murray, Polly, “The Widening Circle”, St Martin’s Press 1996

[xi] http://www.cste.org/PS/2006pdfs/PSFINAL2006/06-EC-01FINAL.pdf.

[xii] Center for Disease Control website> www.cdc.gov/eis; http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010720.htm

[xiii] ibid.

[xiv] Barbour, Alan “Lyme Disease: the Cause, the Cure, the Controversy”, The John Hopkins University Press 1996, p 29.

[xv] “The Widening Circle”, op cit. p.174

[xvi]> > New York State Office of> Science, Technology and Academic Research, NYStar News http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/nl/archives2004/longislandA08-04.htm

[xvii]Beaver, PC and Burgdorfer, W “A microfilaria of exceptional size from the ixodid tick, Ixodes dammini, from Shelter Island, New York” J Parasitol 1984 Dec;70(6):963-6

[xviii] Barbour, Alan “Lyme Disease: the Cause, the Cure, the Controversy”, The John Hopkins University Press 1996 p30.

[xix] University of California at Irvine website http://today.uci.edu/news/media_advisory_detail.asp?key=80

[xx] Barbour, Alan op cit.

[xxi] See 17 pages of citations from peer-reviewed medical literature archived at http://www.lymeinfo.net/medical/LDSeronegativity.pdf

[xxii] Bacon et al, op cit.

[xxiii] Varela et al, “First Culture Isolation of Borrelia lonestari, Putative Agent of Southern Tick-Associated Rash Illness “, J Clin Microbiol. 2004 March; 42(3): 1163–1169

[xxiv] UCI Medical Centre http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/06-05BiodefenseResearch.htm

[xxv] McSweegan biography http://advance.uri.edu/quadangles/spr2004/story9.htm - profile6

[xxvi] NIH News> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2006/niaid-23.htm

[xxvii] CDC http://www.cdc.gov/eis/conference/archives/2003ProgramAbstracts.pdf

[xxviii] NY Academy of Sciences http://www.nyas.org/biodef/speakers.asp

[xxix] ILADS Treatment Guidelines> http://www.ilads.org/guidelines.html

[xxx] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27646-2005Jan21.html

[xxxi] For example, this one at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050208095246/http:/www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/detrick_qa.htm

[xxxii] See MSNBC article featured on http://www.ctlymedisease.org/featurearticle02.htm

[xxxiii] http://www.sciencecoalition.org/glossary/glossary_main.htm

[xxxiv] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-15a.203881.h&s="lyme+disease"

[xxxv] http://www.opbw.org/new_process/mx2004/bwc_msp.2004_mx_wp51_rev.1_E.pdf

[xxxvi] http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,663032,00.html

[xxxvii]> Sherr, V comment in the Lancet http://www.thehumansideoflyme.net/viewarticle.php?aid=60&PHPSESSID=109a322bd7e9529b2e74c151aface839

[xxxviii] http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/EICSconference.doc

[xxxix] Pollack C, Straley SC, Klempner MS, “Probing the phagolysosomal environment of human macrophages with a Ca2+-responsive operon fusion in Yersinia pestis” Nature. 1986 Aug 28-Sep 3;322(6082):834-6.

[xl] Rees et al, “Epidemiologic and laboratory investigations of bovine anthrax in two Utah counties in 1975” Public Health Rep, 1977 Mar-Apr;92(2):176-86.

[xli] “Note by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991)” Document date: 17 March 1995 Ref- S/1995/208> http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1995-0208.htm

69.120.212.35 03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Facts re Biosafety, Erich Traub and Lyme Disease Amanda Field 11 May 2007 07:26 GMT

Shortly after WWII, the US government invited Erich Traub, Hitler's top bioweapons expert, to head activities at the shadowy Plum Island Animal Desease Center in Long Island , NY. Serious breaches in biosafety at Plum Island, a clandestine military installation posing as a civilian lab, allowed the escape of foot-and-mouth virus, and may have resulted in the Lyme disease epidemic, and even the release of West Nile fever. When author Michael Carroll tried to illuminate these issues, the full weight of the establishment came down to silence him. Now anyone seeking to raise them on the internet finds themselves subject to harassment and censorship, even at sites like Wikipedia, where right-wingers and government operatives are working to delete all mention of these topics.

When author Michael Carroll his well-researched book "Lab 257" (ISBN 0-06-001141-6) implicating the "civilian" animal diseases lab at Plum Island, Long Island, NY in biowarfare research and serious breaches of biosafety, the establishment immediately went to work to demolish his reputation. Carroll provided evidence linking the lab with the Lyme Disease epidemic, an escape of foot-and-mouth virus, and even West Nile fever. He further revealed that the US had hired Hitler's top bioweapons expert, Dr Erich Traub, and invited him to head the lab. Anyone raising these issues is subjected to orchestrated libel, smears and intimidation in an effort to keep the issues under wraps. The latest battleground is Wikipedia. What should have been the one area where these facts could be posted freely has turned into a battleground in which followers of Rush Limbaugh and anonymous medical personnel are using Wikipedia's editing software to rub out all mention of Erich Traub, the military history of Lyme disease, and related topics. They have tabled both articles for deletion, see: See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyme_disease_military_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Traub

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exponent Enterprise

Spammy (but not blatantly so) article for a piece of software written by a person with a conflict of interest. No sources (none of the references listed in the article even mention this software), and I can't find anything but directory listings among the 24 google hits for "exponent enterprise". - Bobet 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No signs of meeting WP:CORP or WP:SOFT criteria; leak info seems more appropriate for Wikinews. Heather 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and the article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography about the subject to pass the notability criteria. The current references do not explain about the subject. — Indon (reply) — 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Realkyhick 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade (software)

Spammy (but not blatantly so) article for a piece of software written by a person with a conflict of interest, also see the afd for Exponent Enterprise above. Only claim of notability in the article is that it is "downloaded over 1,000 times" and that's not very convincing. No sources in the article (none of the references listed in the article even mention this software). Googling for this is harder than the other article, but Google:"Think-computer"+"lampshade" gets me 78 hits, which are either directory listings or written by the software's creator. - Bobet 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:SOFT criteria; leak info seems more appropriate for Wikinews, claim of a thousand downloads is hardly impressive. Heather 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May become notable eventually, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle to make it so. -Amatulic 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:CORP. nadav 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary source about the subject to pass the notability criterion. The current references do not explain about the subject but other general subjects, such as PHP security, etc. — Indon (reply) — 07:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Informed

NN article. No assertion of meeting WP:CORP. Prod tag pulled by creator. Vegaswikian 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable for reasons beyond strictly corporate activity; interesting in its own right. -Moorlock 06:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Get Informed looks interesting and is suggested to keep. Apparently Vegaswikian's statements have no ground and are meaningless constructed with bad grammar (as always). Suggest to ignore Vegaswikian's comments. Mailcpathetsang 10:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason to keep either. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me break this down. NN means not notable, see here. Basically, this company has not been the subject of multiple non trivial secondary sources that confirm its notability or importance. Prod means proposed deletion. If no one objects to deletion, the article is deleted after five days. Because someone contested it, Vegaswikian properly took it to AFD for a vote. There was nothing ungrammatical about his post, it just contained acronyms. Perhaps you should study the terms before saying a vote should be discounted because of improper grammar, especially when this is clearly not the case. That being said, this article contains no sources and thus none of the information in the article can be verifed. If this article is to stay, it will need reliable sources to assert its notability. --Cyrus Andiron 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to a 6th grade teacher for not disagreeing that the grammar appears to be a problem. Mailcpathetsang 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's statements tried to impress general Wikipedia users with interesting sysop jargons, then I'm afraid they have failed. Discussion is not limited to administrators and should not be presumed to be so. Mailcpathetsang 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that he was not trying to impress anyone. Had he proposed the AFD in Latin, you might have an argument. The acronyms are not meant to be elitist and are clearly expalined on each page. A simple search of "nn" on the sidebar would have yielded this result at the top of the page In the Wikipedia community, nn is short for non-notable. Terms like OR, RS, and NN are thrown around quite a bit in discussions. It is generally accepted that editors are familiar with these policies before they attempt to participate in a discussion. After all on the main AfD page it clearly states: Familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:NOT. And of course, always be civil during discussions. There is no need to comment on the editor. --Cyrus Andiron

15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see where it meets WP:CORP as well. Also, Mailcpathetsang, please be careful you do not start making attacks on other user's comments. Remember to be civil, in your comments. Wildthing61476 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria; WP:RS and WP:V issues exist as well. Heather 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a footnote (and not all that clear of one, at that) in an article on Nuwaubianism. Mangoe 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN company, no reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like quality issues here, cleaning up the article and improving it might just avoid this AfD altogether. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Norway

Article consists of unsourced and outdated statistics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --PeR 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all of the articles in this series are basically text dumps of the country report in the CIA World Factbook. Even Communications in the United_States, which you would expect to be one of the better-developed given the large proportion of American editors, doesn't represent much improvement over the CIA World Factbook. I think this is because the subject area is so poorly defined that no one really knows how to improve them. Granted, AfD is not for cleanup, but I can't really bring myself to vote keep without a good answer to the question: What exactly is supposed to be covered by pages in this series and what sources can be used to improve them? cab 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a statistics dump. Not CIA World "Fact"book either. Punkmorten 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random facts. the_undertow ^talk 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice towards recreation as a completely new article. WP:NOT a CIA World Factbook mirror; people who want this information presented in that format can go there. Heather 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is part of a series of Communication articles- and there is massive scope for expansion. The topic itself is notable. Thunderwing 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you offer some suggestions for the said expansion --- what exactly is this article supposed to be about? (It's not clear to me at all from reading Communication, for example). What scholars have written about the topic of Communications in Norway? Do you have an example of a well-developed Communications by country article (the best I've seen so far is Communications in Afghanistan, and even that feels like it might be better off being merged somewhere). Cheers, cab 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can be an overview article on TV, radio, postal system etc in Norway. I would be interested to see what Capitalistroadster can do- if he significantly imporves the article, editors may wish to reconsider their !vote Thunderwing 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article on notable topic. It can easily be expanded talking about the various sectors radio and television etc. If you give me a couple of days, I will see what I can do. Capitalistroadster 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a "Communications in (country x)" article for just about every country on earth. Some are expanded well, like Communications in India, and some need work, like Communications in Canada. There's no reason to single this particular country's communications article (unless somebody has a bias against Scandinavians?). --Oakshade 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Throwing around accusations of "bias" because someone brings an AfD against one article in a series and not others seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. Sometimes, when almost all members of a whole series of articles are low-quality, editors will bring a test case against one of them, rather than put tens or hundreds of articles up in a single mass-nomination. Nothing wrong with that. And IMO, the presence and structure of these CIA factbook data dumps has inhibited development of the articles, so I can see why some people would want to delete and start over (though I'm reserving judgement for now). You can see how many times most of these have been edited since 2002; worse, virtually all of the edits are housekeeping or wikilinking, or at best, addition of snippets from newspaper articles; not many fundamental expansions or restructurings. The "Demographics by country" series is another good example of this; Wikipedia has some very good articles about individual ethnic minority groups, religions, population trends, etc. in countries all over the world, but the Demographics by country articles themselves don't go anywhere; no one's exactly sure where they can put in new information, or how to rewrite and cut out the junk in order to make them into real articles with prose and citations. Even Communications in India obviously suffers from this problem. cab 07:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason i singled out this article as a test case is that it has been tagged for cleanup for over two years, without getting any attention. In my opinion, that demonstrates how problematic these articles are. If this nomination is successful, I do intend to nominate all articles in the series that are of equally poor quality. No data will be lost, since the CIA factbook is probably updated more regularly than these articles anyway. I should perhaps also clarify that I am not opposed to starting a new article with this exact title. (A redlink is an invitation to write a good stub!) Of course, if someone would find the time and energy to clean up the series (maybe put the statistics in an infobox?) that's a much better solution than deletion. --PeR 07:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man. MER-C 10:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beedo

It is a disambiguation page for two red-links. Nothing is verifiable and if both links are red, it nust mean the term or subjects are unnotable. — The Future 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as links to deleted articles. Punkmorten 08:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. WjBscribe 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian 1964 Revolution

AFD nomination, per the (brief, but I did wait a week) discussion at Talk:1964 Brazilian coup d'état. I initially proposed a merger, arguing that 1964 Brazilian coup d'état > Brazilian 1964 Revolution, but it was argued by the other party that this article should be deleted. I agree, per his argument at the aforementioned talk page. Let me know what you think. Ptah, the El Daoud 06:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Looks like a POV fork but was created before the other article. If the term is used by some people then best if it is retained as a redirect. Davewild 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. Resolute 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect sounds reasonable, it is used only by the military, but it is used. The whole content is completely POV and I don't find much that could be used. Chico 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a Redirect. If no other arguments are presented in the next 10 or so hours, I'll close the AfD and redirect the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hellenism

Oh, not again. One of those dreaded "Anti-X'ism" articles. And just as WP:OR as most others.

The case against this article was made months ago on its talk page (Talk:Anti-Hellenism#Article is Original Research). Instead of seeking deletion, some editors chose the option of radically reducing the article to a sub-stub dealing only with one meaning of the term that seemed most sourceable and was unrelated to the "ethnic discrimination" topic ([19]). However, the article has been the object of a slow revert-war ever since, with the long OR version repeatedly being reinstated, although no substantial arguments in its favour other than "don't erase content!" was ever produced.

Just to reiterate the objections that have been made time and again. The problem with this article is not the sourcing of the individual facts it reports. Of course there have been people at various times in history who have displayed or expressed dislike of Greeks. And of course other people criticising the former have employed terms like "anti-Greek" or "anti-Hellenic" to describe them. Ancient Judaeans disliking Hellenistic tyranny; Romans disliking Ancient Greek culture; Turks disliking Greeks in 1950s Istanbul; Western media critical of Greek expansion in the early 20th century; Romanians disliking their Greek Phanariot overlords in the early 19th century; Latins disliking Byzantines in the Middle Ages; 20th-century Americans giving preference to their Turkish allies over their Greek ones; proponents of "Afrocentrism" jealous of Greece's perceived monopoly of grand cultural heritage. Of course that's all sourceable. The point is: There is no scholarly literature (WP:RS) that discusses all these disparate historical situations as part of a single story, a single unified pattern or phenomenon. The article commits OR by constructing "a novel narrative" from these unrelated instances.

So, please, no "keep" arguments along the line of: "But I know people who are anti-Greek! It exists!" or "But I found the term 'Anti-Greek' on Google!". Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing "Anti-Hellenism" as a constant, unified pattern over the centuries. And no "keep" arguments along the line of: "Yeah, it's unsourced now, but just keep it around and ultimately someone will improve it!" It's been around for two and a half years, and no reliable sources have been found in all this time because they evidently don't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no RS, it is OR, and does not belong here. The subject of the article may exist, however the article itself does not adhere to guidelines. the_undertow ^talk 09:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm sure there are Greek extremists or fanatics or conspiracy theorists or whatever that publish this stuff in comprehensive ways (I can think of one at least). Although these would not qualify as reliable sources (much like those of a hoax wouldn't), could we sort the article to attribute these lists to them and criticize them? (And more importantly, is there anyone up for it?) NikoSilver 10:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you'd need yet another set of reliable sources to source the criticism to, wouldn't you? So, it's back to square one... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was suggesting that the RS were directed on the criticism of the individual claims (which is mostly true already), while the WP:SYN would be eliminated by the non-RS conspiracy theorists. If it was stated as such (i.e. "compiled by extremist sources"), then I think it would be less of a borderline case. The criticism does not have to be compiled as well. I'm not saying I can do it, I'm just saying it could be done, and "keeping" should be conditional on that, of course. Also, may I suggest that the stub remains until this is done? (the history may be needed for references once the compilation issue is solved). Niko Silver 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if it were properly sourced from the beginning to the end, it would fail WP:SYN for a lightyear. Other than that, I have little to add to the excellent nomination. Duja► 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is your pessimists' book not itself a piece of anti-Hellenism and romanticism? Is it not itself something "equally intoxicating and befogging," in any case a narcotic, even a piece of music, German music? Very notable concept, but not one that Wikipedia can conceivably address appropriately. Stammer 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just for clarification - if anybody wants to write an article on this philosophical-aesthetic concept of "(Anti-)Hellenism", that will of course be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it is a topic that I can certainly see as having a place on wikipedia, unless we can find RS it should not be here. On another note, this may be a great topic for some PhD out there (hint hint) --Kimon^talk 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The perception of anti-Hellenism is an element, not pervasive, but not negligible either, of the cultural and political debate in modern Greece. Couldn't that be a legitimate topic for an article here? Provided, it goes without saying, that it can be appropriately sourced, as I surmise it could. A substantial rewrite of the current article might be a starting point. Stammer 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would be legitimate if sourceable, but I'm skeptical - in fact, this is exactly what the original author of the article seemed to be trying to do, but this is the result. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would find it an interesting article, however it seems problematic to have 'a perception of X' without a credible article on 'X' for general referencing. the_undertow ^talk 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am speculating here, but I suppose that some respected "liberal" Greek opinion-maker may have addressed the issue in some article, which could be sourced, mentioning egregious examples of "perception of anti-Hellenism" in the nationalist press. Or, alternatively, since nationalists are not necessarily stupid, a rightist Greek writer may have spelled it out lucidly in some essay. That could be a starting point. Actually I remember reading about such "perceptions of anti-Hellenism" in various newspapers when John Paul II visited Greece. I know too little about modern Greece to do more than speculate, but in Russia there is an analogous syndrome, think of Shafarevich's Russophobia, which has deep cultural and historical roots. Needless to add, it is also politically influential. Stammer 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'liberal?' the_undertow ^talk 00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean someone close to Wikipedia's mainstream views, someone that could pass as NPOV describing the phenomenon from the outside.Stammer 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long, being a native of Orange County, California that I have seen the word 'liberal' used in its denotation (free of prejudice), that I felt compelled to ask. Thanks for answering, as my question was not meant (and I don't think it was taken) to be anything other than an honest query. the_undertow ^talk 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serious POV pushing. --Bachrach44 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:OR. IZAK 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fully agree with the nominator, these "Anti-X'ism" articles are, IMHO, without doubt one of the most embarassing things of wikipedia.--Aldux 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree. If the information is properly sourced, is not OR and is presented in a NPOV, it is something that should indeed be included in wikipedia. See Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this article does not meet this criteria and that is why it should be deleted. --Kimon^talk 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metalingus (song)

Non-notable songs per Wikipedia:Notability (music), None of them have been released as singles and being released only on a CD only doesn't cut it. These articles make absolutely no assertion of notability except for the fact that a wrestler uses the song for his entrance. Just because, say... the New York Rangers, come out to a certain song every game doesn't mean the song warrants its own article if that is the only thing the song is notable for, which is the case with these two articles. More useful information about the songs is already found in the wrestlers' articles. Aside from the issue of notability, these articles are also poorly sourced and contain a lot of Original Research. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Where in Wikipedia:Notability (music) does it say that a song has to be a single for it to have an article? I'm not saying these are notable or non-notable, but if every article of a song that wasn't a single was deleted, we would lose a lot of articles on Wikipedia. — The Future 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that for a single, you can at least argue for some semblance of notability based on chart records, whereas for any other song where the only information is "Foo is a song on the album Bar" (plus, in this case, "Foo is used for a wrestler's intro") there's very little you can extract notability from. Certainly songs that haven't been released as singles but which have other claims to fame would have no problem (for example, Helter Skelter). Confusing Manifestation 02:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that 3bulletproof16 claimed "being released only on a CD only doesn't cut it", but in reality, it can, because policy doesn't dictate that only singles get articles. All articles on songs have to show some notablilty. If a song is notable and isn't a single, it won't just say "Foo is a song on the album Bar", if it does then it needs to be deleted, or redirected. — The Future 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is OR. I do not believe the song to be notable. the_undertow ^talk
Reluctant "Delete". I agree with The Future; just because it wasn't a single doesn't make a song non-notable. However, Metalingus isn't really notable for anything other than Edge's theme music. Otherwise, it'd be a different story. fhb3 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say they're very notable. They should be kept. --Maestro25 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and I Don't Wanna Stop by Ozzy Osbourn has same format 71.135.174.76 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Cameras

Fails WP:Notability. Mais oui! 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trival and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some independent citations found -Doc^g 09:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick search for sources turned up nothing significant. John Vandenberg 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- although I know of this shop, and it could be thought of as notable in Edinburgh- it fails WP:CORP and does not have any cited sources. Thunderwing 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Hills Middle School

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

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

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

no assertion of notability Chris 07:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article as it currently exists asserts notability in terms of academic program and awards received, all documented with reliable and verifiable sources. Additional material will be added. Alansohn 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom: no notability here. (Offering the IB is hardly grounds for such and nor is winning a run-of-the-mill 40K grant.) Another nn middle school per the dissent elaborated at the old school debate. Eusebeus 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Only a small fraction of middle schools offer the IB program, so participation would be a rather explicit claim of notability. As described in the two reliable and verifiable sources provided, the 40K grant was tied to a national award, a fact which seems to have been selectively ignored. These two distinct characteristics make the claim of this being just "Another nn middle school" rather self-contradictory. As WP:SCHOOLS was soundly rejected, its use as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- would seem to be quite meaningless; nor does a link to the rejected proposal provide any useful justification to understand or support your vote. Alansohn 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, that IB argument is nonsense. And please consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS. you have been around here as long as I have, so your comment is disingenuous since you know that every possible angle for inclusion or exclusion was covered at that debate. Note I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools. Thanks, Alan, I know you'll agree. Eusebeus 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A documented claim of being one IB Middle Years Programme school out of 185 nationwide is a rather significant basis of notability that's hard to brush off as "nonsense" without dealing with it in any substantive basis. There clearly are notable middle schools, and each case must be evaluated based on its merits, not on a blanket rejection. despite your insistence that "middle schools are not notable", there was no such agreement on this topic at any time at WP:SCHOOLS, in any of its incarnations. The act of merely pointing to the rejected article -- and not directly referencing the specific portions of the discussion that supports your claim -- makes it impossible for any of us to evaluate using any part of the utterly rejected proposal as a basis for deletion. Alansohn 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is rare or unique doesn't make it notable. What if they were one of only 185 schools in the country that served honey mustard at lunch? I think we need some newspaper articles that demonstrate that the school is notable because it offers this program. For that matter, I think we need WP:A that shows that the program and the organization that designed it are WP:N themselves, as their articles are similarly lacking. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not claiming that honey mustard in the school cafeteria is equivalent to a rigorous international academic program offered within the school, are you? The sources have been provided; all we've seen so far are variations of the improper just not notable. Alansohn 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Until the rigorous international academic program is shown to be objectively notable, it is no more significant to this discussion than the school's offering of condiments. And the program's own website can hardly be used to establish its notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article already makes the explicit claim of notability for the IB programme. I encourage you to start an Article for Deletion if it is not the case and see how it flies. Again, all we're getting is just not notable votes based on simple dismissal of explicit claims of notability. Let's hear what -- if any -- standard of sourcing that will satisfy you that participation in a rigorous international educational program that under 300 of 95,000 American elementary/middle schools participate in is indeed evidence of notability. Alansohn 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Alan, what makes your disingenuousness above particularly galling is that yourself have participated extensively in the school debate, here for example, and you know perfectly well the arguments against school notability put forward by UncleG, JzG, myself and the many others who came to an impasse in that discussion (thanks in part to your intransigence). I am sorry I was unclear. Let me be clearer for you: "I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools." If editors need a refresher, they can go to the failed school policy debate and read through the archived talk pages. However, that is a distraction. You know the issue here is one of non-notable triviality. You also know that I (and plenty of others) think most schools are trivial. You also know that your own efforts to set a standard for inclusion in the failed school policy debate collapsed because almost no-one agreed with how low you set the bar. You also know that your attempt to establish notability by citing one or another supposed accomplishment (blue ribbon, IB, what have you) are simply not accepted by those of us who see schools as fundamentally trivial. I am happy you disagree with us on these points, so leave it at that. If you must respond, and I am sure you must, a (perhaps useless) plea: don't indulge your recently displayed taste for incivility and accusation. Perhaps I'm just a sockpuppet, right Alan?? Eusebeus 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will ignore your repeated and malicious personal attacks and basic civility violations, and address the facts. I heartily encourage you to do the same. WP:SCHOOLS was completely, utterly and resoundingly rejected by the entire Wikipedia community. Despite efforts on my part (and that of many others) to achieve a compromise on school notability, this intransigent "no schools are notable" proposal failed on its lack of merits and failure to reach consensus. Yet you are still improperly referring to WP:SCHOOLS as a justification for deletion, stating "Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlyon Norfolk School and multiple other AfDs. Referring to WP:SCHOOLS in this manner lends the appearance that there is something in there that supports your case. Again, if there is some specific portion to back up your claim, refer to that precise section of discussion directly, not to the entire failed guideline. In contrast, where the Blue Ribbon Schools Program has been cited, it has been thoroughly sourced as "the highest honor a school can achieve." and as "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school." Yet we are now told that an award won by a small percentage of schools in this country can be lightly dismissed as a "supposed accomplishment". You have simply not made a case that schools are "fundamentally trivial". I strongly suggest that you make a case that references real Wikipedia policy and guidelines and avoids personal whims and biases. Alansohn 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Malicious attacks? Civility violations? I am not the one who makes accusations of bad faith, vote stacking, sock puppetry and canvassing with users who disagree with me and then harass them on their talk pages over imagined slights. You need to understand: consensus doesn't mean agreeing with your point of view, no matter how strongly you maintain it. And berating editors who disagree simply for disagreeing borders on bad behaviour. I reference the debate (note, the debate) in the talk pages of WP:SCHOOLS because it is the best place to see the many and varied arguments laid out against the view that schools are notable. No-one wants to go back to the 100K+ pages that used to be triggered by these AfDs, so it is a useful shorthand. I understand you think my views are wrong, but just as you failed to convince with your arguments at WP:SCHOOLS, so it remains. Eusebeus 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your continued personal attacks are malicious and unacceptable. Nothing in your response addresses the issue at hand regarding the notability of school awards or the use of WP:SCHOOLS as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- of this or any other article. Please read WP:SCHOOLS. It is marked as a rejected proposal, having utterly failed to reach the consensus that "no schools are notable". You have not referenced what portion of the WP:SCHOOLS debate supports your case; yet, you have repeatedly referred to WP:SCHOOLS as reason for deletion (SOURCE: "Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlyon Norfolk School) without ever pointing to what portion of it is relevant. Can you point to the consensus reached or not? Wikipedia requires sources and you have not provided any. If you cannot point to the relevant portion, then it is not a "useful shorthand", but a misleading tactic that would require anyone who wants to verify your claim to wade through the "100K+ pages" of discussion to find that your claimed consensus does not exist. If this consensus really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, please point to it and prove it, which will end this discussion rather quickly. Alansohn 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alan, this makes me laugh. Where exactly do I suggest there's consensus - that's the point, there is no consensus and rather than rehash the back and forth here, I am referencing the arguments against notability that exist, passim, in the pages of that debate. You keep repeating the same point with increasing hysteria and outrage but it is simply wide of the mark. You are arguing in the midst of your own logical fog. Are you suggesting that in the talk pages of the school debate that there are no arguments made for finding schools unnotable? And gosh, Alan I really am sorry for all those malicious and personal attacks I apparently have made against you. I should have remembered that was unacceptable after having been hauled to ANI. Oh, wait... Eusebeus 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am trying to understand your rationale for deletion, but your responses seem to exclusively revolve around malicious personal attacks. You stated above, "Another nn middle school per the dissent elaborated at the school debate.", arguing that this article should be deleted based on your failed WP:SCHOOLS proposal. You have used this "argument" as justification for deletion here and at several other AfDS. Is there any specific part of this long-rejected proposal that supports your contention that no schools are notable? If the consensus you claim really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, referencing it and proving your contention will end this discussion immediately. If not, your use of the defeated proposal would be an invalid justification for deletion, and its persistent use at AfDs improper. Alansohn 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alan, a nonsensical reply. Re-read what I wrote. Why are you referring to it as "my" proposal, btw? Editors weighed in on the question of school notability; it was no-one's specific proposal. And why are you going on about consensus? I note there is no consensus. And why do you keep making reference to personal attacks? Where have I attacked you? Accusations of personal attacks are very serious and should not be your immediate response to people who take the time to respond to these screeds. You are not responding to what I have written and my comments are addressed to that point. Eusebeus 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I encourage you to read through your responses above to see the malice that persists through your writing. Using WP:SCHOOLS as an argument for deletion implies that it has some standing as a basis for deleting articles. It does not. You have stated above that we should "consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS", insisting that there is some agreement on middle school notability that simply doesn't exist, and refusing to point to any part of the discussion that might support your case. Referencing WP:SCHOOLS in these AfDs simply lends an unjustifiably false aura of credence to your argument that no schools are notable, without actually providing any meaningful support. We need to get past the just not notable argument and address specific claims of notability, which has yet to be done here other than simply stating that the claims are not meaningful, despite the inclusion of ample reliable and verifiable sources. WP:SCHOOLS failed, not "thanks in part to [my] intransigence" (as if I, or any other editor, can impose consensus in their desired direction), but because there was no support for the contention you advocated that no schools are notable. If there were some measure of good faith demonstrated that showed that there are some measures of agreed-upon notability for schools, much of this would end. But until some next-generation schools proposal is successfully concluded, referring to the defeated WP:SCHOOLS proposal as justification for deletion is invalid. Alansohn 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No malice Alan, just my usual incomprehension at your behaviour. Per the above, I said nothing of the kind. I reference the argument archived at WP:SCHOOLS rather than repeat ad nauseam the same arguments again and again as to why schools are (in my view) not notable. What, exactly, about that is not clear to you? Eusebeus 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My incomprehension at not getting an answer. Let's keep the question simple. What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Can I suggest that you point to some specific section of the "100K+ pages" that supports your case and then create your own little article containing these arguments, say User:Eusebeus/Why I think no schools are notable, so that individuals who might want to examine your claims can make a meaningful evaluation of your claims. Without doing so, referencing WP:SCHOOLS as a delete justification is most unhelpful, if not misleading. While I have tried to indicate why I believe articles justify retention using Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A and WP:N, by your logic I could simply say "Keep per arguments archived at WP:SCHOOLS", which would be equally as valid -- and meaningless -- as the argument you are advocating in reverse. Alansohn 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, actually I would understand that, since I am familiar with the argument you are referencing. Were I not, I would go to Wikipedia talk:Schools and read through the 11 pages of archived discussion which elaborates the differences to be found. I am still not clear what your problem is here. Eusebeus 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's keep it even simpler: What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Alansohn 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Justifies is the wrong term and I think may speak to your issue here. Explains is more apt and frankly anyone reading through only a single page of the archived discussion can see the points being raised. Go read a page or two of the discussion and you will see what I mean. Or read the answers to your own proposals therein. That'll do as well. Eusebeus 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No answer; just more games. What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that explains deleting all school articles? Alansohn 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Alan, look at the things people who disagree with the argument in favour of school notability (and you specifically) in this discussion particularly with reference to triviality. I agree with those arguments. I suspect you might disagree, and sobeit, and I suspect you may not even appreciate the point that schools are not notable, and sobeit, but if the standard for consensus is that editors provide a rationale that you, Alansohn, can accept, then you are not working within the spirit of the project. Have you noticed that where you start shouting in defense of your own position, no-one does the same to you? We've been through this before Alan: assume good faith and don't impugn the opinions of those who disagree with you. Can I say that I am heartened that at least you have yet to accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet or vote-stacking, so perhaps we are making some - some - progress. Eusebeus 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, we're back to crude, shameless personal attacks. The fact that you refuse to answer a very simple question -- what part of the discredited WP:SCHOOLS proposal are you referring to when you use it as a justification for deleting all school articles -- leaves me rather confused as to the nature of your argument. Even now, you've narrowed your finger to a very broad section of a discussion, but you still have not specified what portion is relevant. That cannot possibly be a good sign. In a discussion where facts, sources and Wikipedia policy are referenced on one side, and "you may not even appreciate the point that schools are not notable" is all that is proffered on the other, is a sign that there is no serious intention to address this issue per Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone should appreciate that. Alansohn 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, having been around as long as you have you know that you cannot simply shout me down by accusing me (falsely) of personal attacks. Or not assuming good faith. Or canvassing. Or any of the other things that comprise your arsenal of choice when faced with honest disagreement. I appreciate your passion in these matters, but your hysterical shouting at me and your wanton imprecations are ineffective, no matter how often you repeat them. To the matter: as you know, from having read those nice archived discussion I pointed to at the beginning, we have WP:N and we have a lengthy discussion of WP:N as it applies to schools and, as pertinently WP:NOT, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; nor is it a directory. I recognise that you think schools are something more than mere directory listings. Let me repeat that. I recognise that you feel schools are notable. And I respect your view. But - note - I disagree. And I'll usually disagree no matter how much guff you can find to flesh out one or another article, although not always since some schools do pass the WP:N threshold. Waving around WP:V and finding various sources, etc... simply fails to convince me that this is encyclopedic. Like the attempt above to claim that somehow offering the International Bac. makes this school somehow notable. I disagree. I simply do not share your point of view. We differ. Indeed, I venture we are not of the same mind. I'm sure you'll enjoy a last word and point out to me that I have failed to provide you with a rationale (reason) that you find acceptable. This is why we fail to achieve consensus - we inhabit a world of diverse viewpoints. That, Alan, is a fine, fine thing, no matter that you habitually equate disagreement with you to be personal attacks. Eusebeus 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Address the issues and stop the continued attacks. All I have done here is ask for your reasoning, and all we have heard is that "no schools are notable". Identifying sources to satisfy the notability policy is what Wikipedia is about. It's not that I don't find your rationale acceptable, it's that you refuse to disclose what that rationale is other than shouting WP:SCHOOLS over and over again. Now that you're referencing WP:NOT, which clause mandates deletion of this article? Alansohn 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I believe, you now get to inform me that my vote is invalid and should be ignored, right? Eusebeus 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it so hard to stay on subject? Now that you're referencing WP:NOT as your justification for deleting all school articles, which clause mandates deletion of this article? Alansohn 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Allow me to quote someone more articulate than myself on this matter: There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. More generally, I appreciate and understand your point in favour of retention and I happen to disagree. And I feel that, more than the generica at WP:N and WP:NOT, the extensive discussion that has taken place at WP:SCHOOLS explains why there are those of us who feel that schools are often (not always) unnotable. I urge you, yet again, to be more reasonable and accommodating in your engagements with editors with whom you are not in agreement instead of bandying about accusations of personal attacks. Care for the last word? Eusebeus 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You stated above that we should "consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS". Yesterday's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syndal South Primary School stated that the improvements made to that article were "an attempted stab at notability that, being a primary school, is unavailable to the subject". In light of those unequivocal "no schools are notable, under any circumstances" statements, a move to the awkwardly worded "schools are often (not always) unnotable" is a major step forward. Though I'd still like an answer to the simple question: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? Alansohn 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, primary and middle schools are unnotable in my view and tend to little more than glorified yellow page entries. For some high schools, however, I'll concede there is the potential to establish notability. As you know, the consensus on the fr.wikipedia is that most schools default to non-notable. There are exceptions, of course, as here (school dates to the mid 16th century; most are treated as here and here. As for the WP:NOT, the comment found there: Wikipédia n’est toujours pas un annuaire de l’Éducation nationale française et n’a pas à accueillir de fiches de présentations d’établissement secondaires dont la notoriété est au grand maximum départementale, et avec des formations définies nationalement. Rien à dire d’encyclopédique. Contribution au savoir proche de zéro. pretty much sums up my feeling about schools generally and WP:NOT and certainly sums up my feeling about schools below high school level. Now, I know that fr. wikipedia is its own place (although we do make reference to WP policy from other langauge wikis from time to time as it is instructive to get an outside perspective), but my point is this: over there they have general consensus against including schools. Thus, is it so unreasonable that there should be lively debate over here with respect to interpreting WP:NOT as mitigating against most schools (viz. un annuaire de l’Éducation as I also noted above)? Can you point to me that section in WP:NOT that says elementary and middle schools default to keep? Anyway, I think this is over, - we have hashed our way through this enough. Although I know that I can look forward to a final salvo from you, no doubt with fresh accusations of personal attacks, so mon cher ami allez-y avec ton dernier mot. Eusebeus 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not just that I didn't know what French policy was, after all, the French Wikipedia is completely irrelevant here. The far larger English Wikipedia -- the one you and I participate in -- has come to no such policy. The effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy here failed resoundingly at WP:SCHOOLS, despite your efforts. Each and every article must be evaluated based on WP:N and other Wikipedia policy, honestly and fairly applying the agreed upon guidelines to determine if that particular article is notable. I do not believe that all schools default to keep, nor have I ever stated that WP:NOT says so. Unlike your extreme stance, I believe that there is a middle ground that all school districts are notable, most high schools are notable; some middle schools are notable and very few elementary schools are notable; subject to the provision of multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for each school. Your ability to speak gobbledygook in two languages is impressive, but the question remains: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? In English. Alansohn 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just one point: I made no effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy at WP:SCHOOLS, although I intellectually support the efforts of those whose arguments fall into that highly caricatured description. And that, surely, will be the last word. But your point is well-taken: you feel schools are not against the spirit of WP:NOT. Good! Eusebeus 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can caricature WP:SCHOOLS in the manner you prefer, but the essential point is that the "no schools are notable" proposal at WP:SCHOOLS was resoundingly rejected by the English language Wikipedia community. You have stated that this school violates WP:NOT. Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? Alansohn 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said it above: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Eusebeus 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE lists nine specific categories: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks and annotated texts, 7) Plot summaries, 8) Lyrics databases and 9) Statistics. Which of these categories does this school article fall into? Alansohn 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...' (as demonstrated above). Are you suggesting there is consensus for schools? Thanks, btw, for stopping the wanton accusations of personal attacks - as I say, myabe some progress is being made here. Eusebeus 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's ask the question again. You have stated that this article violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which lists nine specific categories that meet the criteria: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks and annotated texts, 7) Plot summaries, 8) Lyrics databases and 9) Statistics. Which of these categories does this school article fall into? The only answer that is acceptable to this question is a number between 1 and 9, though I am willing to accept the title of the section, if that helps. Answers in French or that reference French Wikipedia policy are not acceptable answers, nor are references to other statements you or I have made anywhere else or any other non-answers to this single question. I have not suggested there is a consensus, nor have I stated that at any point in this discussion. All I'm looking for is a straight answer to a very simple question. That will be progress. Alansohn 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, there are (perhaps) 9 classes on which there is general consensus. Respecting other classes, we note that ...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...'. The point about fr.wikipedia is that it shows the complcated nature of the various arguments. Still, this debate is ongoing, as evinced above and as suggested in WP:NOT. I would also remand your attention to the WP:SCHOOLS debate for a more detailed analysis. Don't dismiss the consensus at fr.wikipedia btw, even if you disagree. Eusebeus 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is no consensus, it's NOT part of WP:NOT. It simply doesn't reference schools at all, and its use as a justification for deletion is misleading at best. WP:SCHOOLS showed that there is no consensus that "no schools are notable", despite what the French folks think. It was presented as a proposal and resoundingly rejected. As such, using WP:SCHOOLS or WP:NOT as arguments for deletion are meaningless and counterproductive. If there was an argument that you could present, I'd love to hear it, really. But we haven't heard anything but search for it somewhere in WP:SCHOOLS and you'll find it. Alansohn 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        uh huh. Eusebeus 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the two of you kindly take this somewhere else? While it is mildly entertaining, it really doesn't belong here. I'd wish you luck with WP:SCHOOLS4, but I think we'd all be better off buying lottery tickets. And I do mean that as civilly as possible. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No signs of notability reaching beyond that of any other middle school. Heather 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IB program makes it pass notability. I ask the delete !voters to look over the article now that it's been improved.--Wizardman 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the IBP search page, [20] there are 18 schools in Colorado alone which offer the program. [21]00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
redirect to whatever the school's district is. The IB claim is not evidence of notability, not only for the reason as observed above, but is further underlined by the lack of any secondary sources discussing it. The reward received, the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Program may actually be more of an argument for notability since the grant was $40,000 and the budget for such grants in total is around 2 million (see http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/124.html ) and so it is one of only about 50 that year to get the grant. However, $40,000 is not that large a grant, 50 is a big number and again we have no reliable secondary sources discussing the matter. Despite protests to the contrary, in general even many of the users who have in the past claimed that all high schools are notable have not made the same claim that middle schools are by default notable. Middle schools at least need to meet WP:N just like everything else. However, we should redirect this and not delete the difs since this school entry has enough info that it would be useful to have to reincorporate in the event that the school does become notable. JoshuaZ 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to district per WP:N. One teacher winning an award does not make a school notable, nor does the IB program. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this meets notability now with many references plus a international baccalaureate school too yuckfoo 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this school has sufficient notability. I see no problem with stub articles that claim no notability being deleted but when you have an interesting, encyclopaedic article such as this I see no way that deletion helps the Project. TerriersFan 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the IB program makes this school notable. I believe many of the points Alansohn made above are correct. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Majorly (hot!) 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HSWW

No assertation to notability, no evidence that this project is anything more than some fans dream of making an online game. Seems to exist only as a series on threads on some message boards. Non-encyclopaedic, non-notable. Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unremarkable web content. MER-C 08:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliTXT

Article fails to establish notability Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 07:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to establish the subject's notability, per WP:CORP. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Extranet ^talk 07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Needs more information added, but it's definitely significant. Many web users nowadays have come across this whether they know of it or not, it's the software that causes small relevant popups around the cursor when you mouse over an underlined word on many webpages. For example all the ones on this page [22]. Ben W Bell talk 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - zillions of ghits including some very notable users. andy 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable but annoying. I recommend web users to block out this and similar annoying advertising methods... but that doesn't make them non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears on a ton of websites, is mentioned in several publications, lots of gogle hits, etc. Lurker 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's so notable, would somebody please add information and references to the article to establish that notability? Actions speak louder than words. Thank you! Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obvious famous company. Probably the article should be improved (and referenced). Cate |_Talk 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading again the article, the first nomination and the logs, it seems that the article is really NPOV (and probably spam). But the company is notable, so I think a rewrite is needed. Cate |_Talk 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it can be seen as spam, as a good part of the article describes how annoying they are, how to block them, and links to competitors. I doubt anybody at the company would have written this in its current form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is unsourced, original research. Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual. If you want to keep this article, please fix it! If nobody is interested in fixing it, then it should be deleted. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable company; I'm surprised the article isn't in better shape. But I've added three references in an effort to establish notability. Propaniac 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the following to the article, using a press release as a reference:

“

According to Vibrant Media, more than 1200 publishers use the IntelliTXT system. Nike, Sony and Microsoft are advertising on the platform, reaching and 70 millions unique users each month.

”

I think the company therefore meets WP:CORP and should be kept. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. That's a bad reference. B. Ubiquity of the product isn't a criteria under WP:CORP. We need to find references from reliable published sources. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a crappy (primary) reference, but that's the one I found in the short time I could spend on Wikipedia at that moment. I tend to think that a crappy reference is better than no reference at all. I am not an original contributor of the article, I preferred stating here I had added this. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, these ads are all over the web and are quite notable. See what Lucasbfr said. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The 'merge' option is non-executable, because the provided referenced do not contain any information about the club, only that it exists/existed. `'mikka 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strafford Club of the University of St Andrews

Yet another non-notable student society. Mais oui! 07:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge to Strafford Club - non notable student organisation. No references either. A number of its past members are notable individuals however on wiki notability is not gained through relationship or association.--Vintagekits 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a no-notable student society. Links supplied are but trivial mentions, or otherwise fail WP:RS or is a directory. Ohconfucius 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strafford Club - seems to have important members and possible an interesting history. More work needs done.--Doc^g 09:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strafford Club. Sources are sufficient to warrant a stub, and Google News Archive has others which could be used to expand the article. John Vandenberg 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strafford Club, per Doc glasgow. Rlfb 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thought this is NN, I'm puzzled by the merge, as that article says the 3 clubs listed are totally unrelated. DGG 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three clubs are unaffiliated, not unrelated, which is different. They are related in that they have similar aims (afaik) and are named after the same person. Might still question the notability of any/all of them, mind. Rlfb 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occulture

Not notable. Lack of sources. Neologism. Vassyana 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of ghits. andy 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it as 200k googles, but yes, it's also an unsourced neologism. Guess which is more important :) >Radiant< 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been tagged forever with no references added. In my Google search for "occulture -pop -wikipedia" (there were a lot of hits for "Pop Occulture" that didn't seem related to this article), I ended up with 24,500 hits, but only 591 of them were unique (as found when I tried to jump to page 900 of the Google results). The term seems to be used in many different ways, as well. Propaniac 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced neologism, dicdef, speculative (Most commonly within pop culture the term was widely believed to have stemmed from Genesis P-Orridge who is said to have coined the term--yikes, that's a lot of weasel words). Wikipedia:Search engine test is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Heather 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced neologism. daveh4h 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical sciences learning center

It's not even a non notable school: it's a non notable program within the school. It's also unsourced beyond the school website. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Freehold High School. Beyond the catty remarks is a very simple solution. Alansohn 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge something that's unverifiable? Delete unless multiple, independant, third-party sources are forthcoming. Heather 16:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All material is verifiable on the school's website and has already been merged into the Freehold High School article. If there are genuine concerns about the validity of the material, tags exist to request attribution and can be applied as needed. Alansohn 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename title of the article is too generic. 132.205.44.134 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If its already been merged in, there's no point keeping the article. DGG 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the program is not notable enough for an article. A redirect is inappropriate as the name is so generic. -- Whpq 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Coppinger

non notable footballer. By article's own admission, he made little to no impact. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he non-notable?!! I watched him paly while at Newcastle and was very impressed. I'm sure Doncaster Rovers fans would also agree that he is definately NOT non-notable xxx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ciaranph (talk • contribs).
Keep until somebody sets me straight. Football League One is a professional league, as far as I have been reading, in the 3rd Tier of the English football league. If this is true, then Mr. Coppinger has satisfied the criteria for an athlete by playing for a professional organization. This guideline is what makes the player notable, regardless of the article's assertion. the_undertow ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has played in a professional league and therefore passes WP:BIO. Whether he made or makes an impact or not is completely irrelevant: if he meets the criteria in WP:BIO he's considered notable. --Charlene 09:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played a game for Newcastle so he's notable. Nick mallory 11:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played for a team in the Premier League. I'm not sure how you get more notable than this. --Cyrus Andiron 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah. Punkmorten 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of the current Doncaster first team, what more do you want? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only played pro, but has appeared at the top level in his nation. Resolute 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdel notability issue (tagged long before the afd) uncontested. `'mikka 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis De Quirós

No case made for notability Peter Rehse 08:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally the situation with aikido teachers ranks above 7th Dan in the Aikikai are considered notable in itself. Those listed with 6th Dan have something else adding to their notability and that would have to be exceptional for 5th Dans. There are an awful lot of 5th Dans around.Peter Rehse 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that, in spite of this, he may not have been mentioned in many third party sources that can be easily verified, and that means he is still not notable according to policy.--Kylohk 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. The version you saw was vandalised; I've reverted to the last good revision in the history (which is certainly not nonsense, even if the version you saw was). If you think the page still needs to be AfD'd, open a new AfD on the page. --ais523 10:07, 9 May 2007 (U T C)

Playing Beatie Bow

Nonsense NorthernThunder 09:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Garvey

Was A7, but the article does assert he is notable by being the Pokémon League Champion of the United States. I think it does not meet the WP:BIO criteria, although. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a Poke-stub and should be treated as such. The subject surely possesses notability within the context of Pokemon gaming, which is why the article was created and subsequently appended with Poke-stub. Serebii 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication on how many people took part in the event, so the title's notability is dubious. Of the given references one is a forum and one is a press release - no multiple independent sources cited to establish notability. If he is notable then his influence on the gaming community needs to be established via independent sources. There's even no article about the Pokémon League of the United States. feydey 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference to the Pokémon forum need not be considered "independent" because it is a primary source on the claim being informed -- the subject's continued influence on competitive Pokémon. Again, the article is a Poke-stub and needs to be expanded to include more explicit reference Nintendo of America's Pokémon League and its 2000 Championships. I do not think it is a candidate for deletion. Serebii 11:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feydey. This is not shown to be a notable sport, and the champion of a non-notable sport is not notable. --Charlene 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why exactly would Poke-stubs be treated differently from other A7s? >Radiant< 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A web forum is not a verifiable or reliable source. Wikipedia is not Pokepedia. The 'context of Pokemon gaming' is far too narrow a scope. DarkAudit 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Pokemon League" is entirely fictional (Pokémon gym is Wikipedia's article on it, if I recall correctly); the tournament was named after the fictional league, and the supposed title bestowed by this tournament has not ever been contested or defended. This person won a single, one-off tournament, and many of the basic claims made here are unverifiable ("Garvey is notable for being the trainer who popularized the widespread use of Chansey in competitive play" in particular). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble Comics

Poorly formatted vanispamcruftisement. Not a speedy as it's paper. The images nominated were intended for use in the "article". Contested prod. MER-C 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that all of the images intended to be in the article were created by the original editor. Under licensing, he claims to be the creator of the work. It seems to me that he created his own comic and then went to Wikipedia to write an article about it. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as the article only serves to promote the comic. Also, the article is almost unreadable and completely bereft of any organization that I can discern. The creator is also a single purpose account judging by his edits [23] thus far. --Cyrus Andiron 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My Google searches aren't turning up anything that would indicate notability and the article asserts none.Chunky Rice 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources from reliable secondary sources independant from the subject. Jay32183 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keeep `'mikka 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Gilbert

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO. Barely asserts notability. Contested prod. MER-C 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This incident was mentioned on Media Watch on ABC TV - India Calling! - but I certainly wouldn't say he was famous for this by any stretch. --Canley 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one secondary source. Not notable yet according to wikipedia policies. Could succeed with more references though.Assize 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Keep - I think there are now sufficient primary sources to show that he is notable. Assize 11:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is close to a speedy at the moment. However, there is a case for an article on Gilbert given that he stood for Federal Parliament for the seat of Franklin in 1993 for the Liberal Party of Australia. [24] He has been on radio for a number of years once interviewing the Prime Minister. [25]. However, this AFD contains more information than the actual article. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--cj | talk 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Insufficient references to substantiate article under Notability and Verifiability polices~~--Takver 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reading John Vandenburg below, and doing some more research, I think this article is now a Keep. I have added two further references which I think indicates he is now notable within Australian talkback radio. Thanks John for putting in a bit of an effort in this VfD.--Takver 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unencyclopaedic trivia. —Moondyne 10:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the tape of this is pretty funny, but being the victim of a prank doesn't make you notable. Lankiveil 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I've expanded the article so it is no longer an attack piece about a video. Details about his career are not easy to find, but it is ridiculous to think that other radio hosts and local news papers across NSW havent covered him in 25 years of being a radio host. More reliable sources will come in time. John Vandenberg 07:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award-winning journalists certainly fall within the bounds WP:N, and there are good references too. --Gene_poole 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What awards has he won? Only an acknowledgment that he has been on the job for a long time. Seems to be an unremarkable hack on an underperforming radio station. WWGB 05:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Healthcare

Service doesn't exist, no website, no press releases, no sources, service is speculated A Cornish Pasty 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia != crystal ball. Though it'd be interesting to observe what happens when it blue screens or is pwned. MER-C 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speculation. andy 10:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be very much speculation only. (Note: The link to the article is in the template also.) feydey 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources showing that this exists or is planned. NawlinWiki 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what everyone said above. Remember to remove mention of this from the main article Windows Live and the template Template:Windows Live as well. Pikablu0530 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD A7 and G11. Kafziel ^Talk 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card Fighters Project

This is just a horrible attempt at advertising something that may not even be worth talking about. The article is written in first person by a guy involved in the project, the format is completely wrong, no references have been given, and he even signed his name at the bottom of the page! Joiz ^A. Shmo 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this patent vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An obvious marketing attempt, not even noteworthy. Doubtfully it could be incorporated into a general article on card games as a concept. Sweboi 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Davies (goalkeeper)

Non-notable footballer - has never played in the Football League, and has only played in the Football Conference. Mattythewhite 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has never played in a fully-professional league as WP:BIO states. Matty, please take note that this article could have been prodded without too much fuss, in all likelihood, so please bear that in mind before nominating any similar articles for deletion. Thanks. Qwghlm 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Qwghlm. user:KRBN 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since when is the Conference "not a professional league"? It isn't the 1950s any more. Besides, he also played for Crewe in the Championship (albeit only in a couple of friendlies) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is on the verge of promotion with Morecambe and will almost certainly be keeping goal at Wembley in the playoff final. That's quite a big deal. Markcookney 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at Wembley doesn't magically make someone pass WP:N. Mattythewhite 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You could have waited until after the Conference play-off final to nominate a Morecambe (or Exeter City) player, as the status of one of those clubs will magically pass the notability barrier on Sunday week. If Morecambe lose, then reluctant Delete as per policy and precedent, even though I think the Conference is sufficiently professional to meet the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. - fchd 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - although Conference is not a fully-professional league, he may well be about to play in one for 2007-2008, as just mentioned. Worth waiting - if he gets cast adrift from Morecambe back into the lower leagues, then notability will instantly diminish. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't played in a fully professional league yet, and I would argue that even if all Conference clubs were professional, the league isn't truly fully professional as long as it allows semi-professional clubs. --Ytny (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a bit harsh - because of the pyramid structure it's possible that a semi-pro team could get promoted to the league (or theoretically, even the Premiership) proper — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was under the impression that one of the requirements for promotion to Football League was professionalism, but now that I think about it, I can't find any source to back it up. Anyway, I'm not completely set on my argument and I don't think it matters too much for the purpose of this discussion. --Ytny (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this nomination could have waited until after the Conference Play Off Final?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An OK article that deserves to stay until he is signed to a pro team. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an article on someone who doesn't meet notability guidelines until such time as he does? Seems an odd approach to take.....ChrisTheDude 14:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wait for the outcome of the play-off final Kingjamie 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course even if Morecambe win the play-off final, their players won't all suddenly pass WP:BIO until it is confirmed that they are being kept on for next season....or am I being pedantic.....? ChrisTheDude 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say "winner in Wembley final" (and the first competitive match played at the new Wembley if you don't count U21s) would warrant a mention even if he were dropped next season — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "and the first competitive match played at the new Wembley if you don't count U21s" - and don't count the FA Trophy final, FA Vase final and FA Cup final either ;-) ChrisTheDude 15:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, the FA Trophy Final was played today, the FA Cup Final next Saturday. It might be one of the first competitive matches played at the new Wembley but it is not the first. I still believe that this nomination could have waited though. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doh! I can forgive myself overlooking the FA Trophy, but I probably vaguely knew there was some kind of match there next week... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Give it a couple of months, the player could be playing league football next season. Dave101→talk 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Lewis

Doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO. No awards, notable films etc. feydey 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has entry at IMDB... that's good enough for me. Jazznutuva 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. About 90% of the people on the IMDb are not notable per WP:BIO - anyone credited in any way, including "Man No. 1" or "Woman by Door" - is on the IMDb. --Charlene 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked at his IMDB entry and wish that there even was a credit for "Man No. 1" or "Woman by Door". feydey 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you get on the IMDb without a credit!?! LOL --Charlene 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paying $$$? feydey 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB page just underscores his non-notability. I'm a ULC minister, too. So is anyone else who felt like sending seven bucks to them. Heather 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His IMDB page successfully argues his lack of notability. Resolute 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete it. I created it, so just go for it. A couple of you are really chomping at the bit anyway. And ULC ordination is free. Read the article. User:Travis Dog

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Yuen

There is some doubt about the claims made in this article; see talk page and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Yuen. The comments at the bottom of the previous nom are actually about this version of the article. Tizio 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of content previously deleted at AfD (CSD G4). If the content has changed significantly since then, delete per notability concerns expressed in the previous AfD. Heather 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved the comments that got attached to the other AfD, since the archives shouldn't be edited. cab 23:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may be becoming notable, but doesn't pass WP:BIO at this time. -- Whpq 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added to old AfD

I've re-added the deletion notice, since it appears the page was re-created. Anyway, the article still appears to be mostly vanity, and it doesn't cite its sources. Contactlense created the page and is one of the supporters above, which leads me to believe that we have a sockpuppet account. Delete. Jrockway 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the information is corroborated by multiple sources in the External Links. These are substantial media cites: CBC Radio One, CityTV, Grammy Foundation. Person has become notable since the previously submitted entry. What aspects of the article are vanity? Perdition12 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets notability criteria of multiple non-trivial mentions in media independent from the source. 66.249.66.136 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a vanity page - exploring more about this person reveals a great deal of self-promotion and not much substance. I'm suspicious of the support for the page, since several posters either didn't sign in or have no other contributions other than supporting this article. The article doesn't meet even the minimum requirements of a biography page. Nightngle 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if properly refed This is right on the margins of notability though the trajectory seems to be up. NBeale 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- vanity page. --Bookworm857158367 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious vanity page. 70.186.172.75 06:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Jackson

Delete - Despite possible notability of this article... this is clearly an autobiography, and one that borders on self promotion (see WP:AUTO) - Jazznutuva 11:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The subject appears notable enough; she's on imdb, for instance. The article is currently fairly awful, but there's no reason it has to stay that way. --Ashenai 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because she is notable enough does not mean this page should stay... if you read about the author of the page... it has been verified she is writing her own page which is discouraged under WP:AUTO. Jazznutuva 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:AUTO, but I also feel that two wrongs don't make a right. While a (genuinely notable) person should not write an autobiography on Wikipedia, it's also not correct to delete an article about a notable person just because it's an autobiography. Most, if not all, of the factual statements in the article are readily verifiable. Wikify, source, delete unsourced or POV comments, and we'll have a perfectly accepable stub, in all likelyhood. --Ashenai 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you... but I don't think she is objective enough to continue editing it... we should delete this page and allow someone else other than the subject of the article writing it. If she continues writing this... there will always be a {{NPOV}} tag on it. Jazznutuva 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm not worried. Wikipedia has managed to create a stable, NPOV article on Barbara Schwarz, despite the strenuous efforts of the article's subject. Let's assume good faith. The current article is actually moderately factual and only minimally POV. I don't foresee serious problems with it. --Ashenai 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not an assertion of notability, key grips have IMDB pages. I could not find any reliable sources about this actress. Virtually everything I found was a profile created by her on a website. There were no independent secondary sources that could confirm her notability as needed per WP:BIO. Unless some can be produced, I think the article should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non (yet) notable: In IMDb I find nothing notable. Additionally: WP is not a cristall ball, to many future list name (without reference). Cate |_Talk 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyrus Andiron. Non-notable self-promotion. Valrith 21:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 07:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until her appearances in some of those movies get multiple non-trivial independent articles written about them. She has an excellent web designer, and is good about putting her photos on IMDB, yet I give you her "publicity" page from there: [26]. When she gets famous, we'll be glad to have an article for her; but our article about her shouldn't be the thing that makes her famous. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP without prejudice to relisting. This article is now in radically different state than it was when it was first nominated. If anyone still wishes to see this deleted, and I find that highly unlikely, then a new debate is needed as the bulk of the comments are referring to a completely different article. RFerreira 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. I find this close bizarre. My deletion rationale still stands - an expanded dicdef will be an OR POV essay, which this is. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship (2) --Doc^g 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate censorship

Absolute drivel from beginning to end, in as much as it has any content at all. I speedied it as nonsense, but it was restored, so here you have it: two examples, one is (guess what) the AACS encryption key meme, the other is to an article on a speech by Milton in 1644 whihc makes no mention whatsoever of the concept. One source: an anti-corporate tract. So WP:NEO, WP:OR, grossly POV term, blatant POV-pushing in timing and prime example, WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia is the top hit for the term, etc. etc. Crap on many levels, needs killing, kill it now please. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Devoid of any meaningful content. Links are largely irrelevant. andy 12:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corporate censor, sorry I mean Guy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I once read about a time about the middle of the 20th century when a doctor in the USA said that he had evidence that eating too much sugar makes it likelier to catch poliomyelitis, and that that resulted in candy makers refusing to (pay to) advertise on radio or TV stations who published that statement about sugar and poliomyelitis. Corporate censorship is possible, if someone "speaks out of turn" and says something that endangers some big commercial firm's profits. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Viable concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete att he moment it is a dicdef, any expansion will be an original essay-Doc^g 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Doc. I really don't think we'll be able to write a FA on this, or even a well-referenced neutral article. Seems more like a reflection of some SOAPboxy speeches than anything else. The ICC's insistence on cricket clips on YouTube being taken down just to protect their corporate partners, Sky (who never seem to mind anyway), is probably an instance of corporate censorship, but that doesn't mean the term itself has any encyclopedic relevance. Viable concept does not really imply valid article, IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fully legitimate topic. Concept is not a neologism but a descriptive term. May be short but can be improved. Feel that accusations of policy violations are exaggerated. Christopher Connor 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy, per lack of content other than external links and a paraphrase of the title. >Radiant< 13:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a none-too-subtle attempt to push a POV about the dreaded 09f9 key, here. Sam Blacketer 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article to show how the term is notable, DICDEF per Doc. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to doubt that the eventualist make-a-substub-and-let-random-anons-push-their-povs method will work for this subject, even without the recent keyspam plague; however, a viable, neutral, well-referenced article certainly could be written, perhaps assembled from subarticles like Pruneyard Shopping Center and Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Effects of ratings. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as dictionary definition. There is, I suppose, hope for expansion, but we lose nothing by deleting this, and I'd rather see an article that isn't a dicdef than keep this around because we can speculate one could exist. Mango juice^talk 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above (including User:Cryptic). I'm so very tempted to WP:SNOW this but as a disputed speedy I suppose I'd best not. --kingboyk 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Right now it's a good entry for Wiktionary, but not an encyclopedia. Perhaps an article does exist somewhere, in potentia, but losing this stub isn't going to hold back the project. --InkSplotch 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, dictionary definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A terrible dictionary definition. I think it probably would be possible to write a good article on this topic, but I agree with those who say we lose nothing by deleting this one. Propaniac 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to censorship for now, which has a small section on corporate censorship. There should eventually be a separate article, but currently there isn't enough material to warrant one. As for the timing, the article was created in December 2005, so obviously has nothing to do with the AACS nonsense. --Delirium 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn--MONGO 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to ever be more than the dictionary definition it is now Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to censorship. —CComMack (t–c) 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Censor~~ Delete — unexpandible dicdef ➥the Epopt 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewrite by Uncle G is vastly improved, definition version has been transwikied. Addhoc 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar Airlines

The article is about an airline that is "proposed", and has no sources backing the claims in the article. A google search returned no information about the airline. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. If the airline has been registered, then it can have an article entry but it does need some information to warrant its place in WP. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tizio 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation should the airline actually commence service. A lot of companies register (it takes a couple of hundred dollars and a few forms to fill out) but never actually enter into business. This article does not assert notability or provide attribution. --Charlene 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. Apart from the crystal-ballery, there is no real information, let alone notability, to make it worth retaining. If the airline comes about, it is a simple matter for it to be recreated, or restored by an admin. --Dweller 13:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created a year ago and the only improvement has been to note that the airline doesn't exist ("proposed"). Offers virtually no information and no reason to believe this thing will ever happen or was even a serious prospect. Propaniac 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Sealand and Flag of Sealand

Both are unreferenced and trivia. We have an article on the Principality of Sealand, which is an old fort off the coast of England that claims to be a separate nation, but I really don't see the point in having separate articles for their flag, coat of arms, anthem, et cetera. An earlier precedent of a related article was to merge here, but this resulted in an edit war [27], so deletion may be more appropriate. >Radiant< 12:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't get it. It's a micronation, it is not even recognized by any country. The population of Sealand never exceeds more than 10 people according to the article. The fact that they even have an article at all is astounding to me. Put all relevant information there. It sure doesn't deserve more than one page. The coat of arms and flag are already in the main article, let's delete the redundancy. --Cyrus Andiron 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No separate notability for these flags and emblems. I would opt for merge except, as Cyrus Andiron says, they're already in the main articles. --Dweller 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge both~~ into Principality of Sealand. It seems that there is an article name rule of "Coat of arms XX" and "Flags of XX" (see the templates), so keep the name, but merge in a single article. Cate |_Talk 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. It should be Redirect both, because I think the two article names should be keep, as a name convention (defined by use but NOT in in WP:NC). Cate |_Talk 13:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively we could fix that template. >Radiant< 13:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need. Template:Sealand table is transcluded in exactly one article. The easiest approach is to subst and delete it, and then remove the superfluous links. --kingboyk 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Template nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_9#Template:Sealand_table. --kingboyk 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For template, I mean Template:Nationalflags and linked articles. Anyway my concern are not about templates, but about name conventions (and template provide the list of such use). Cate |_Talk 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK. I think that template can be fixed up, and I don't believe non-recognised nations should be in it anyway. --kingboyk 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Cyrus Andiron. Sealand or it's owner is notable, I'm quite sure of that, but there's absolutely no need or justification for these seperate articles. At one line each there's also nothing to merge. --kingboyk 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both per Cate, separate articles are clearly not viable. PubliusFL 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I had earlier removed an external link from the main Sealand article, about the flag and coat of arms, because of the existence of these 2 articles. If these articles are deleted (or replaced with redirects), the external link may be a candidate for adding back to the main article. --kingboyk 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, better covered in the main article, and treating fake micronations like real countries sets a dangerous precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Principality of Sealand. Content is already in the main article, and for an unrecognized micronation, there is no need nor notability for the coat of arms or the flag to have standalone articles, regardless of our convention for coats-of-arms and flags of real nations whose insignias get covered in reliable sources. Barno 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would support the outcome of this debate being used as a precedent for redirection of flag articles and coat-of-arms articles for all micronations notable enough for their main article to be kept in Wikipedia. Barno 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable. They tend to be borderline self-promotion, anyway. >Radiant< 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that as well. --Cyrus Andiron 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. If Sealand doesn't rate separate articles for its symbols, probably no one does. Maybe Seborga (speculating), but that would be the exception that proves the rule, as if there's enough information to write an independent article about Seborgan arms it's probably relevant to the municipality as well as the micronation. PubliusFL 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the instance of a handful of people who fool only themselves by calling themselves a "nation" and then creating a flag. Edison 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect is needed; who is going to look for Sealand by typing in "coat of arms of Sealand", or "flag of Sealand"; would we have redirects if someone hadn't created this soon to be deleted articles any way. Maybe we need restrooms of Sealand, culture of Sealand, demographics of Sealand, ethnic groups of Sealand, films shot in Sealand, ad nauseum as more redirects to fit someone's all-inclusive Wikipedia of Sealand. NOT! Carlossuarez46 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. I'd be fine with a plain delete rather than redirect. PubliusFL 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While lists of these things are arguably worthwhile, separate articles on a micronation by micronation basis are silly. Georgewilliamherbert 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Burden is on the authors to prove there is anything notable about these not coverable in Sealand. Carlossuarez46 gives a cogent argument against redirect. - Aagtbdfoua 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge the information into the Principality of Sealand of article. Dorange 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unsourced trivia. The flag and "coat-of-arms" already appear in the main Sealand article. - fchd 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; kept, but some notability is confirmed. `'mikka 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Morton Worldwide

promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless reliable third-party references can be provided to show this company meets the WP:CORP notability guideline (which it may). Propaniac 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Neutral after looking a little closer. The article in its current form doesn't seem overly promotional in its tone, and despite the lack of third-party sources at this point, the company does seem adequately notable. Propaniac 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is OK on tone, but the subject of the article is NN. The film listed seems very NN itself, the other sources are either their corporate websites or directory information: Hoovers is very acceptable as a source of information, but not for proving N. The only possible feature is the 2004 award, but the page wouldn't open. Further, I do not know how notable these awards may be. DGG 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm sorry if this is not my place to ask questions. I'm the keeper of the wiki entry at hand. I'm glad that the tone passes the test. But does Jack Morton Worldwide or the awards it has earned need to be known by the editors of wikipedia to be deemed noteworthy or notable? If the editors/general public know the Oscars, which resides w/n the wikipedia domain, we should ask ourselves why. Or what about general knowledge of the Olympics (which, coincidentally, was why Jack Morton Worldwide won the award of which we speak)? --JMorton 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE for an explanation of how notability is defined. Basically, if the company or the awards can be shown to have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, it's notable. Propaniac 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial? Since when has the Olympics been considered trivial? The agency produced the opening and closing ceremonies.--JMorton 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep' `'mikka 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenlyon Norfolk School

Non notable school. Most of the article comprises of local gossip, with no real encyclopedic value. Delete unless sources showing this school is notable to anyone other than someone whose iPod was stolen. J Milburn 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My personal favorite is the list of 07 grads at the bottom. All of the blue wiki links go to other people, an actress and a footballer to name a couple. The iPod theft is interesting, but that doesn't assert any notability. --Cyrus Andiron 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives at WP:SCHOOLS. Eusebeus 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:SCHOOLS is a resoundingly rejected proposal and is an invalid justification for deletion of this or any article. WP:SCHOOLS has been waved around repeatedly at multiple AfDs as if there is something relevant in there that justifies deletion. If there is some section that shows that there is an accepted, agreed-upon consensus "argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS", please point us to it. Otherwise, it would seem that this approach of referencing WP:SCHOOLS as an argument for deletion is simply not valid. Alansohn 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, have offered you an answer here. Eusebeus 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fairly large, independent school. Makes sense for a school like this to have its own page rather than simply being included on a page about the school district. Dorange 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 'Fairly large' does not equate to notable. Perhaps if there were some decent press stories about it... J Milburn 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quite a notable private school. This article should be improved and expanded. And there are a few press stories in the local papers about this school, usually about it's sports programs. Search it in the Times Colonist, or something. Potato 93 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school looks notable to me too can be merged to locality also yuckfoo 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am still seeing nothing that gives any reason to keep. Does anyone have any sources about why this school has any significance outside of its local area? J Milburn 11:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N in any way I can see. Nick Garvey 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. It is a clear policy of Wikipedia that articles must be based on reliable, cited sources. This one has none, so it has to be deleted, regardless of how WP:N the subject may be. When somebody is sufficiently inclined to write a properly sourced article, the subject will have a WP entry, provided notability is asserted and sourced. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Sources have been added to satisfy WP:V, and notability has been demonstrated per WP:N. Alansohn 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School is one of only seven schools in the Northern Hemisphere that offer the International Baccalaureate program at all three levels, out of more than 1,000 IB schools in the region. Notability requirements have been satisfied. Alansohn 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. >Radiant< 10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD isn't cleanup. Despite that, if you don't want to see this return for the third nomination, you know what to do. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Marlborough

This page has so many cleanup and citation tags it's not even funny. It's not neutral, lacking in quality, improper in tone, and most importantly extremely lacking in sources. It's basically one man who declared himself a new nation in order to avoid court cases. It didn't work, and the "nation" was disbanded within two weeks. This is probably more suited for a "funny anecdotes" website than for an encyclopedia; fifteen minutes of fame really isn't. Not notable, not sourced, suggest deletion. >Radiant< 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Old AFD here[reply]

Delete. Besides being damaged almost beyond repair, the article doesn't cite multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. When it comes down to it, the references are from a university paper and one newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald (which seems to have a penchant for micronation articles). This is a local news story and not encyclopedic. If we do keep it, the article should be refactored to reflect what it is: the story of a struggle between a farmer and the government, and not a 2 person micro state. --kingboyk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just too many ^{[citation needed]} for my liking -Doc^g 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are six mainstream print newspaper references listed. That seems like plenty to establish that A) it existed and B) was notable enough for press coverage. The person who tagged it doesn't appear to have read any of them... Probably needs cleanup, but deletion is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Six, all from the SMH (our favourite source for micronation articles, it would seem!). Unfortunately I don't have access to any SMH archive, but the titles of the first 3 suggest news stories about their court case and jail sentence. Whatever, it's not multiple sources, it's one regional newspaper. --kingboyk 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The section of the proposed policy that requires different sources, not just multiple references, is not agreed policy yet. That goes to how widespread notability is; we've established that a reliable regional source in one country found them notable. Whether that's enough or not is the question. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'One cuckoo doeth not a summer make' - one newspaper mentions it a few times and we've no testimony as to whether that means a feature or a 'ha-ha' sentence. We need more than that. We only do verifiable facts and this ain't in that category by a mile.--Doc^g 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have plenty of articles sourced only from a single mainstream media outlet. Would we be having this argument if the single source was the New York Times? Applying firmer criteria for Micronations seems unnecessarily harsh and inconsistent. Georgewilliamherbert 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not applying any criteria at all. I'm taking it on its merits. There is not one citation for any fact. And we can't even verify that the one newspaper does any more than mention this in passing - perhaps with "according to a blog I read". There is just simply no verification here by any criteria, and the article has been marked for ages as requiring sources. Forget notability for a minute, how do you know one word of this is true?? --Doc^g 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm taking it on faith that the print newspaper articles are real, without flying down to Australia to visit the newspapers' offices and verify in their archives. Come on, be reasonable; the same can be applied to any non-internet source which isn't clearly very widely known. Wikipedia uses a rebuttable presumption that print media references are correct. Some of them are easily library verifyable; some aren't, because not all libraries carry all books worldwide, or all newspapers, etc. If you believe that the source is falsified, that's fine - produce some reasonable info to justify that belief, and we can go from there. I have no doubt that there exist falsified refs in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we should assume that these are. Georgewilliamherbert 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What source? Do I believe that the the paper mentions the micronation - yes. But we have no citations for the article.--Doc^g 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That too. It's littered with {{fact}} tags. --kingboyk 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Indeed, we should assume good faith when it comes to printed references. Printed references are better than dodgy websites too, imho. However, I still contend that there are valid reasons to question these: one newspaper alone, with a penchant for this kind of story; titles which suggest not-particularly-substantial news stories; and no interest from other media? Doesn't sound like there's much notability there nor much in the way of multiple sources. May I ask a question? Where do you as a micronation enthusiast get your info from? Is there any sort of "reliable source" in this world, such as a magazine? --kingboyk 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
        I doubt I'd describe myself as an enthusiast; I'm interested, but it's way down on my list of hobbies (above underwater basket weaving, below blacksmithing). I mostly read internet sources, and the books, and then follow up with print references or contacting people if I have more curiosity. Enthusiasts are the guys who go to the conferences, host their own websites on the topic, buy the passports, etc. (to me, at least). The only stuff I've paid much detailed attention to is the actual international law implications, out of a morbid curiosity about the ultimate fate of the Westphalian System in the modern world (see Westphalian sovereignty). Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. There is enough evidence from relaible sources to show that this was real and notable. Article may need improving, but that's not a reason to delete. Dorange 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thoroughly well referenced and documented in respected high-circulation broadsheet press. Received national press, TV and radio coverage. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DreamGuy 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LexisNexis does not have the Sydney Morning Herald but it does have the Courier-Mail and the Sunday Mail, and there are 8 or 9 articles over the two weeks that this situation took place. Most of the main {{fact}}s seem addressable. Whether a 2 week revolt against foreclosure and getting a dozen neighbors to do "military drills" in an old mining truck is article-worthy is another matter. Thatcher131 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interested editors have had a long time to fix this up to comply with policy and guidelines; they have failed. It is still covered with tags. The significance of this one-man capaign is not, to my reaidng anyway, credibly established. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a tidy-up, and some citations, but otherwise it is a valid article on an interesting topic with a solid list of references. Cnwb 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article subject to more than one mention in respected mainstream media sources. If enough isn't sourced or concerns have been made about NPOV then it can be cut back to a stub. SFC9394 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Georgewilliamherbert, Genepoole and Thatcher131. The article needs cleaning up, but this is not a reason to delete an article. The fact that the Sydney Morning Herald has most of the articles makes no difference - you would expect one of the most prolific papers on the east coast of Australia to report an event that took place in that area of the world. There's no guideline saying that the micronation needs to be known everywhere in the world. JRG 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Georgewilliamherbert above. Lankiveil 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article has many problems as to tone, POV and clarity, all of which are reasons to improve it but none of which are reasons to delete. The sources meet the verifiability requirements. Proponents with access to the sources should put some effort into getting this and other MN articles into better shape.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus `'mikka 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

André Walker

Subject non-notable per WP:BIO, with any notability asserted stemming primarily from trying and seemingly often failing to be elected to various committees of varying importance (e.g. local councils, student representative bodies) and from being a presenter on QVC. Suspect this may have started out as a vanity page, although as it was seemingly transwikied from Wiktionary it's difficult to say with certainty. Badgerpatrol 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable becuase of his media profile. The stuff about committees he did and didn't get elected to would not satsify WP:BIO by itself, but when taken in addition to his media appearances as a presenter, I think he is notable enough. Dorange 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not run for a legislative seat; his claimed N is on minor party committees. Nor has he won office at the NUS. He's quoted once in the BBC article. He is cohost of a political show on internet TV. The show was mentioned in one BBC report. DGG 00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has hosted and appeared on shows of notable media broadcasters. Boboba 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the creator of the page by any chance? I notice that your only contribs since September 2006 (13 contributions to Wikipedia overall) are to Andre Walker (2 edits) his brother Dominic Walker (6 edits, including page creation) 4 to your user page and 1 to this AfD discussion. If by any chance you are either Andre or Dominic, or a close associate of theirs, it would be very useful if you could clarify that here and make other editors aware of it. It is up to the community to decide whether a Manchester Student Television station formerly run by the University of Salford and being a presenter flogging cheap jewellery on a shopping channel confer notability. I would say that they do not. Badgerpatrol 09:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the original author of this article, but as you've noted I have edited it and I did create a page about Andre's brother Dominic Walker. I have met both Andre and Dominic in real life through a mutual friend, though I don't know them very well. I may not have edited Wikipedia very much, but I am an avid reader of the encyclopaedia and it strikes me that, while they're both fairly minor celebrities, Andre and Dominic's public profiles are as notable as those of many other people with pages on Wikipedia. They seemed like decent candidates for articles to me and, since I knew bit about them, I was motivated to expand Andre's article a bit and create one on Dominic. I know that often only established editors views are taken into account in deletion debates. I've expressed my view, though. The closing admin may choose to take it into account or ignore it as they feel appropriate. Boboba 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Well, we can agree to disagree here. Whilst the quality to be found in Wikipedia is definitely variable, there are guidelines and policies on notability and article suitability- e.g. WP:BIO. It strikes very strongly me that Andre Walker doesn't meet these (I haven't had a look at Dominic Walker yet) and I would frankly be very reticent to even describe him as any sort of celebrity whatsoever, even of the most minor type. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are many other articles that warrant the chop around here- if you've seen some, feel free to nominate them for AfD, or point out specifics to me and I'll do it myself if appropriate. Thanks for your comment and clarification. Badgerpatrol 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Badgerpatrol 09:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not exactly famous but in political and media circles he does pop up regularly. Especially on political tv and radio shows, he has hundreds of credits not listed in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.162.108 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anon editor's three contributions consist of two to Andre Walker and the above !vote to this AfD (all three made yesterday, by some amazing coincidence). Badgerpatrol 09:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get het up darling I just happen to be using WiFi, I'll delete the page right now if it makes you happy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.162.108 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Intelligence Agency

The article seems to describe a non-notable college organisation. At Talk:College Intelligence Agency it is asserted that "The group being examined in this article is part of a greater study of Student Organisations at the University of Sydney. It would be appreciated if administrators would allow time for the rest of the article to be compiled. This group is notable within the Sydney community." This seems to be using Wikipedia as part of a project, and to not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The author has asserted ownership of the page at User talk:Notinasnaid#Stop editing Handy Pack's pages. I feel I should mention I have been issued a vandalism warning for this page. Another editor has asserted that "The intro to this article appears to be copied from the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) page" and "I found no such article in the Sydney Morning Herald archives." in reference to a citation. Notinasnaid 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable nonsense. Nick mallory 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per reasons quoted above. An online archive of the Sydney Morning Herald is available at: http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html which goes back to 1990. I noticed the citation was not formatted correctly and in the attempts to fix it, I was unable to find any reference to the article. Further more, searching for "College-Intelligence-Agency" on Google returns now only 1 result, it had returned 0 when I first tried it a earlier, which is a little to a wikipedia linking to the output of a bot that links to the page in question. PaleAqua 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of hoax, and if it does exist it's so secret that the world in general hasn't heard of it, making it outside our scope anwyay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or it's not notable. Whichever it is is doesn't merit inclusion here. Hut 8.5 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not indicating notability. If reliable sources can be found, the organisation can be mentioned in the Student life section of the College's article. EALacey 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETEthe sectretive organisation is real and well-known amongst alumni. I have tried to clean up the article to address and plagarism from CIA page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Offshoreholdingco (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete... this is nonsense. Calwatch 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Democracy

No reliable sources. No sign of notability. Conflict of interest, apparently the creator User:Browned is Edward TJ Brown who co-founded this group.[28] A Google search for "friends of democracy" helfter (using helfter to try to cut down on the irrelevant hits) gives nothing reliable and independent of the group. De-prodded w/o comment. Pan Dan 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attribution to unrelated reliable third parties. Possible COI. --Charlene 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources at all, and judging from the article, not likely to be--the article itself is not mostly about them, but general minor party politics in 3 US states. DGG 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitetail Ski Resort

non-notable business C5mjohn 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Stong Keep - This is on a par with another southern PA ski area (Liberty Mountain Resort) ~~which is not up for AfD~~. These areas are known and frequented by skiiers from DC and Baltimore. So IMO there is notability here, but it is marginal. --EMS | Talk 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my opinion above due to the realization that this area easily meets WP:CORP due to coverage in independent secondary sources (such as the Washington Post) and the nominating editor apparently operating on a basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --EMS | Talk 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I too have changed my opinion to Keep I did not nominate this because of "i don't like it" I honestly thought this was not notable. I was convinced these are notable, but there are still many that are not, so I will focus on culling only the very small, obscure and unpopular resorts. C5mjohn 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm familiar with the ski resort, as it is a popular destination for local (Baltimore/DC Metro area) residents for skiing. Wildthing61476 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above, this is one of the best-known ski resorts in the DC area; in my opinion, it earns notability as a place where thousands of people flock each year, and even people around here who don't ski are likely to recognize the name. I did a limited search for references to help establish notability, but couldn't find any news articles that were fully available without registration, and a lot of what I did find was admittedly trivial because newspapers just don't write that much about ski resorts that have been around forever. I did list two articles as references in the article.

As an additional comment, I looked at the articles for some other ski resorts picked at random from categories, and none of the ones I saw had any reliable third-party media sources. I am aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a great argument, though. Propaniac 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to have articles on ski areas, this one is as notable as any. Mangoe 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentions typically list all places in an area, and those I saw on google seemed to do that, the ones that weren't blogs. http://www.snowboard-mag.com looked promising but its content is PR releases, snow condition reports, and blogs. The material on this and on Liberty seems to be mainly that they are the 2 closer to Washington DC. Of the two, Liberty is closer. DGG 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the keep arguments convince me this ski resort is only notable to the local population. and I have also nominated (Liberty Mountain Resort) for deletion. I don't see why "this one is as notable as any" is true. you need to demonstrate notability for each individual ski resort for it to have an article C5mjohn 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think "because its a ski resort" should be enough to warrant notability. I'm sure there are many restaurants that are reviewed in local and regional newspapers and also reviewed in restaurant and dining magazines, but that doesn't make every one of them notable enough to have an article. Having the non notable ski resorts listed in List of ski areas and resorts should suffice most of the time. C5mjohn 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is more than being mentioned in the once-a-year ski supplement in the newspaper. Example: There was an article on this area and Liberty Mountain Resort in the Washington Post in January on how they were closed because of the warm weather that we were having at that time. On it's own, this resort is solidly notable. I admit that there are other ski areas that are much more notable, but that it not the issue here. --EMS | Talk 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I realize now that the restaurant thing was a horrible comparison. C5mjohn 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del. `'mikka 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Eddins

This person seems to fail WP:BIO because he never actually has played in the NFL. He is not listed on the New York Giants' 2006 roster and this site makes it appear like he was cut before the 2005 season, the same season in which he was signed by the Giants as an undrafted free agent. This means he never played a down of professional football. He doesn't seem to be all that remarkable as a collegiate player, so that won't carry him by notability standards. Unless sources can be found to show that he played in the NFL, I don't see how it means notability standards. Metros232 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Searches don't reveal that he played in either the NFL, the CFL, or NFL Europa (all fully professional leagues - Wikipedia isn't for NFL players only). Unless he was a notable star at Auburn I can't see that he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously sources that confirm that he played in those leagues too would suffice, I was just saying NFL because it claimed he played in the NFL. Metros232 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedigree Bret Eddins played football at Auburn University, the alma mater of Jimmy Wales. I think that ought to be stroeng enough for Wikipedia.La'ShonQua 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). Krimpet (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Snypa

Non-notable fan fiction GentlemanGhost 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn web content. Per the article: "Novels on the Snypa can be found on FanFiction.net". Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Okay, so the whole article is about a comic book character? Good, then surely it shows real world context, and doesn't just list events from his fictional life along with his super powers. All right, so it also has reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Myspace is a reliable source, right? Can it be purchased at any retailer? Oh, it's published online. But seriously, speedy under CSD A7, non-notable web content. --Cyrus Andiron 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Charlene 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, per above Hut 8.5 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Doc glasgow. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of teachers accused of sexual harassment

There are no sources - also this page is open to interpretation - anyone can be accused of a crime, guilt comes after a guilty verdict at a trial. Kernel Saunters 14:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP minefield. Otto4711 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete BLP disaster waiting to happen. I wouldn't even support a list of only convicted teachers, as the cases themselves are not really individually notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and I'm minded to blank the page pending the outcome of this debate. Sam Blacketer 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, nothing but a headache waiting to happen. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What's the principle that applies here? Oh yeah, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" ideal that is a cornerstone of our court system. Even with "accused" preceding the list this is, as pointed out by Andrew Lenahan, a BLP disaster waiting to happen. This needs to be deleted quickly. --Cyrus Andiron 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As it stands, it's pure libel. Stammer 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I blanked the page. Call me vandal. Stammer 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not just libel, but a pretty nice trick of sexism too. One of the local police said at a recent town hall meeting that the ratio of male to female teachers involved in sexual harassment might be as high as 500 to 1, but hey, let's point out the women, right? --Charlene 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, right, I hadn't thought of that. Stammer 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English syllables

Either a copyvio or OR, depending on how you look at it, and inappropriate here either way. The only internal links in the article are to the source material, thus it cannot be argued that this list assists people in using the encyclopedia. I would support this article being deleted, as WP:NOT a manual of English phonics. Heather 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, I mean, DELETE - Thoroughly indiscriminate list. Otto4711 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This list has no redeeming value whatsoever. Clear and blatant violation of WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not only an indiscriminate list, it's also completely useless. I can not fathom a possible use for this article. If one is discovered, the universe will implode and sentient life will cease. --Cyrus Andiron 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can you imagine the work that went into creating something this useless? The mind boggles. --Charlene 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure it's all copy and pasted off of the Moby Project. --Cyrus Andiron 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even quite understand what this list is. I could get behind an article about english phonemes, but this is something else.Chunky Rice 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Moby Project data are in the public domain, so this isn't a copyvio, and since it's produced by applying an unambiguous process to a clearly indicated set of data, it isn't really indiscriminate either. I agree that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but could we transwiki it somewhere? EALacey 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even appropriate or useful in a dictionary. -Amatulic 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although transwiki would be a resonable alternative if we had any confidence in the accuracy of the data, I don't. Are there really words in English that have a syllable "zr", or "zsony" (looks more like a Hungarian construct), and numerous others that make the tongue twist, the stomach turn, and the mind boggle. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unnecessary, as well as incorrect (since when is spumante a single syllable?) Some of these syllables aren't used in English. KJS 77 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'll summon the courage to reply amid some derisive comments. First, this was my first article submission to Wikipedia (though I've edited a bit before) so if the community considers it inappropriate, I certainly defer. So you at least have additional information to consider, I offer my responses. (1) I attempted to give credit appropriately to the Moby project and so it wasn't made up or (IMO) inappropriately copied. (2) I recognize that some entries clearly appear to not be single syllables. This was because the Moby hyphenated list did not seem to contain hyphen marks in those locations and so did not automatically separate into syllables. I decided to post anyway because I thought the community might wish to refactor the list to improve it (just as many other articles in general) and because I did not trust that I would always recognize how one dialect may pronounce a word (though spumante is egregious, I agree). (3) As for its usefulness (thank you Cyrus for the chuckle), I needed the list as a resource to consider in inventing new words for commercial trademarks. By combining permutations of the list entries with some heuristics, I generated some interesting candidates. I thought this list may be of value to the community, I built it from public resources, and so posted it in the hope of paying back a bit. I'm not always aware of the reasons for some other articles on WP, but that doesn't mean such reasons don't exist. (4) I would welcome a transwiki (not sure what that means) if more appropriate, I didn't have a resource for otherwise sharing such a list with others who may care for the same resource. Summary: In short, the list was useful to me for a reasonable commercial purpose and thought the natural editing approach would improve the list for everyone over time. RDNewman 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Perhaps to Wikitionary or Wikiversity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remi0o (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge the header, into Moby project The project content is mirrored in Project Gutenberg; it contains, among other things, many very long lists [29] that I do not think we need to copy over into a wikiproject. This list is derived This is probably sufficient. This one is not included, its origin is well described above, and based on that, its derivation from "Moby Hyphenator" appears to be meritorious original work. Perhaps Project Gutenberg or the Moby project will host it. They seem the place. I do not know if Wiktionary considers this within their scope, but it would be a good suggestion there as well. It seems the Moby article needs expansion, perhaps that would be a good project for Rdnewman. DGG 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enshrine as a textbook example of what to avoid. Failing that, Delete. Resolute 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KJS Bulldog123 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please! Clearly a pointless article Isis4563 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdel `'mikka 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahiba Sahmi

Non-notable actress, only one entry on IMDB Tizio 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the character a minor one, the Wiki entry is hardly encyclopedic. ---> Benseac 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, you haven't seen the movie. DemanusFlint 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this actress is notable enough to have an entry, then perhaps the entry should read more than just "Sahmi plays Zohra in the movie Babel in 2007 as a girl in Morocco where the boy who gets the rifle peeks at during the beginning part of the film. Although of young age, she gets partially nude for the child who later also scratches his penis." As I said in my initial vote, that is hardly an encyclopedic entry. ---> Benseac 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benseac (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable actor with only one minor credit -- Whpq 16:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. AfD not required actually, if you wish to redirect be bold and do it. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid click

This article is merely a definition of the term, and Click fraud already serves any encyclopedic purpose it may have. Redirect. Random th e Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 14:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to click fraud. Propaniac 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to click fraud. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vasco Era

Band with only one full-length album (WP:MUSIC requires two), which either just came out the other day or else hasn't been released yet, depending on who you ask (album on AfD here). The article claims that the band won a competition, but the link provided as a ref for that claim only describes them as an entrant. The article goes on to describe the competition as "the largest band competition in the Southern Hemisphere", but it turns out that the quote was from one of the band members, not a third-party source. No nationwide tours of any nation are discussed. I don't see evidence that this band meets any of the criteria set forth at WP:BAND, thus my !vote here is delete. Heather 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While it is true that WP:MUSIC states that you need 2 album releases on a major record label to be notable, it also states this A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Criteria #1 states that "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.". By looking at the article page for this band, it has 5 links to 5 different published articles. Because of this, they are NOTABLE and the article should stay. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those "sources" do nothing to establish notability, only existance; this band is not the subject of the first ref provided, but is only given a passing mention, and the final ref appears to be a blurb about the album on a music webshop. Heather 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think if the editors who have time to nominate these articles for deletion spent the same amount of time improving them, Wikipeida would be a perfect place. I cant say i really buy the "at least 2 albums quote" as Hinder and Wolfmother only have one album to their name, yet they have articles on Wikipedia. Wiki ian 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:MUSIC criterion #2: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Hinder and Wolfmother have both achieved that. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Vacoo Era song "Kingswood" was on the charts, why is this page being nominated for deletion again? Wiki ian 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MUSIC. This band has received independent coverage such as [30] and [31]. Google News Archives shows over 200 results for this band. Won a National Campus Bands Competition won by a number of notable Australian bands (Eskimo Joe, Jebediah, the Vines, George, Waikiki and 78 Saab). Has tracks on rotation on national radio and video played on national television. [32]. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. A prominent band within Australia.--cj | talk 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band appears sufficiently notable. Triple J coverage and promotion, media appearances on major publications and shows, and a major-label release all qualify under WP:MUSIC Orderinchaos 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, WP:MUSIC is a guideline which does not override the primary notability criterion, which this band meets (see the articles). Secondly, the guideline states "any one of" the listed criteria may be acceptable, not all of them - and the band meets several of them quite easily - they are not "required" to have two albums. --Canley 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass WP:MUSIC. —Moondyne 10:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely meets WP:MUSIC. Closenplay 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all above. Lankiveil 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos: national coverage from Triple J.[33],[34],[35],[36][37] ,[38], [39] and Richard "The King" Kingsmill has their current album on his short list. [40]. John Vandenberg 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An award-winning band with multiple recordings. WWGB 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Apparently there are quite a few sources, so the notability argument for deletion doesn't fly. Mango juice^talk 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wachs

This former (current?) radio host is simply not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion for the same reason:

Eric Von Haessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regular Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete All Surely, every morning show does not require its own article. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but what makes these guys important? There is no assertion of notability in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is guy is beyond terrible and isn't worthy of a page on Wikipedia, nor is he worth having on the radio. Awful. Bluefield 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should NOT BE DELETED The Wikipedia is not an editorial space, it is an encyclopedia. Larry Wachs, Eric von Haeassler, and the Regular Guys show were unarguably a relevant part of Atlanta culture for 8 years in a city of 5 million people, for better or for worse. The argument for their removal is unfounded. Certainly Wikipedia does not intend to remove the biographies of actors whose television shows have long since past, or writers who no longer write. Further, Larry Wachs continues to spend time on the air, most recently in New York City, an area of 19 million people, on WFNY-FM. To state he is not sufficiently notable is incorrect. These articles should stay.

Well lets be accurate, he is serving as a substitute host for JV and Elvis while those two are out on suspension due to the Chinese Food Controversy. He isn't a regular DJ in NY, so that part of your argument is spurious at best. Bluefield 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE this article. There is no reason to delete it, Larry Wachs as an important ant notable radio personality, why souldnt he have an entry. the Regualr Guys show was huge in Atlanta for a long time, thus he is important.

Under what notability criteria are these people notable? Please at least try to explain rather than just assert. --Nlu (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. They are notable not only for being a strong morning drive radio force in the #9 major market in the U.S., but for their suspension(s) and firing and the part that they play in the latest FCC war on free speech. Von Haessler continues to be a player in the Atlanta media market while Wachs has expanded his reach to NYC. True, he is not in a regular gig, but it *could* be a lead in to a regular gig. Mikieminnow 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this satisfy any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability? --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic."

The show and each of the hosts have gotten coverage in many national publications.Mikieminnow 13:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to add some citations showing that this is true? --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3616611.stm

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/614271991.html?dids=614271991:614271991&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=APR+10%2C+2004&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Clear+Channel+Fires+2+Over+Mike+Mistake&pqatl=google
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=114FC655D741CFC8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.15.229.30 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that you people are arguing over their notability and using opinions of whether they are funny or not as arguments proves that they are notable enough to be in wikipedia. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not an editorial space.

That someone is willing to argue someone/something is notable does not make that someone/something notable. I've looked at the links cited. Nothing indicates that these folks had anything but 15 minutes of fame, as far as the nation is concerned, and their own importance in the Atlanta market is still not shown. By the standard of the advocate for non-deletion, someone like Michael David Schreiber would be considered notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Larry's show has just taken over for JV and Elvis on Free FM, making him a part of the national debate on radio hosts getting fired for innapropriate comments.

Do Not Delete The Regular Guys show as well as Wachs and von Haessler themselves have received much coverage from independent media sources: http://freedomfolks.blogspot.com/2006/10/freedom-folks-exclusive-interview-with.html http://atlanta.about.com/cs/celebrityprofiles/a/madpundit.htm http://www.atlantajewish.com/content/062005/coverstory/larrywachs.html http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/radiotalk/entries/2005/09/27/sept_27_radio_n.html http://www.nique.net/issues/2000-03-17/entertainment/4 38.112.10.6 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdelete. Comment on lengthy discussion: the two independent references may possibly cover the concept, but the do not cover the term (simply because they predate this neologism). Therefore I am sorry to conclude that the discussion didn't sway the opinion of the majority of voters. `'mikka 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitopia

~~Delete~~ Keep (see below) Although the article compares omnitopia to other theorist's ideas, Andrew Wood is the only cited author actually using this term. It's a well written article, but it fails to demonstrate that Omnitopia meets wiki criteria for notability (i.e., multiple independent sources). Also, Andrew Wood wrote most of the material on the page, which is a conflict of interest Jordansc 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a neologism (the article says so), not very notable (few ghits that don't involve the author Andrew Wood), and definitely OR. Basically it's an idea that the main author of the article came up with a few years ago and which is picking up some interest here and there but is still far from being notable. andy 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and andy. Anville 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and where he seems to be using us as a publishing service, for this is a much more widely visible position than any of his actual publications.DGG 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andywo 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I am Andrew Wood, the author mentioned in this discussion. Respecting the principles of wikipedia, I will defer to its collective wisdom. However, I am compelled to respond to a few of these comments.[reply]

At present, yes, omnitopia has generally appeared in peer reviewed work written by me. Such is the nature of academic scholarship. One person will propose an idea, distribute it in various venues, and hope that other folks employ it in a fruitful way. However, I am not the only user of this term. A recent master's thesis from North Carolina State University cites the concept widely. Moreover, I am aware of a number of scholars and students who are working the idea into their own research. While that process is necessarily slow (due to the practice of peer review and the time necessary to publish in print journals), I don't think it is appropriate to short-circuit the dissemination of a published idea without much more time granted by the conversation I'm reading here.

I would add that, while I wrote the initial entry for omnitopia, it was substantially updated - and improved - by another author, one whom I do not know. Such is the value of wikipedia.

Finally, I must respond to the notion of using wikipedia as a "publishing service." Based upon a number of national and international publications, I do not need wikipedia to serve in this capacity. Rather, I felt - and I still feel - that it is appropriate to share research that has undergone a rigorous peer review with an online encyclopedia that seeks to reflect contemporary knowledge.

On a related point, the "visible position" of a peer reviewed publication is a questionable factor. Relatively few people read the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, but its findings should be widely distributed nonetheless. While research appearing in communication and cultural geography journals does not address similarly "life and death" issues, the value of such scholarship ought not be quickly dismissed.

I therefore propose that the entry stays for three reasons.

1. It reflects knowledge that has appeared in four separate peer reviewed journals.

2. It conforms to an appropriate degree of written professionalism.

3. It helps other people pursue their own research (even as they come to different conclusions).

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

--

Wikipedia policy on notability states that "the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it"[41]. There are published non-trivial works on Omnitopia, but there are no independent sources. I'm not arguing against the usefulness or correctness of the term; what I'm saying is that wikipedia is not the best place for it until it is cited in other works. If Andrew Wood is the only person cited, or the only person who has written on Omnitopia, the article is biased towards Wood's perspective. While this might not seem like a problem in an article on something like architectural theory, the reader has no way of knowing how the topic was received in its field. There's no way to know what objections or addenda experts might make; we can only take Wood's word. I would certainly vote for a keep if someone could point to published works that have engaged with Wood's omnitopia. The article is interesting and well written; it just doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria. Jordansc 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Andywo 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC) In response to Jordansc's comments, a friendly reminder about bias and questions about being "received in the field": Each of the pieces to which I refer is peer-reviewed and *published* in respected journals (Communication Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Space and Culture, and Text and Performance Quarterly). That, by definition, means that they have been evaluated by experts in the field (two fields, actually: communication studies and cultural geography). Indeed, peer review demands anonymous evaluation by two, three or more experts as selected by a journal editor. While I can assure you that each of these shared substantive comments and criticisms prior to publication, the fact that these pieces were included in these journals should provide some degree of assurance that omnitopia research has survived a rigorous process of fact- and bias-checking. I propose that folks who remain concerned acquaint themselves to the scholarship cited and the journals in which they appear.[reply]

--

Even if it appears in a peer reviewed journal, it still isn't automatically neutral. Also: do you propose that Wikipedia include every academic neologism, regardless of how many people are using it? Jordansc 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Andywo 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Jordansc's point is well taken, but let us not speak in generalities. Please indicate specifically how these four separate peer reviewed publications are biased. Here I invite you to avoid the obvious error that qualitative research must lack a point of view. The issue is whether the editorial boards Communication Theory, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Space and Culture, and Text and Performance Quarterly -- top-tier journals with rigorous rejection rates -- are somehow biased to this particular associate professor.[reply]

I would also note that omnitopia has already been cited elsewhere in academic scholarship. Mark B. Salter (University of Ottawa) writes in the journal International Political Sociology (article title: "Governmentalities of an Airport: Heterotopia and Confession") that he disagrees with my "notion of the airport terminal as a smooth space of international mobility" (p. 52). [42] While I respectfully differ from his interpretation of a piece I published in Communication Theory [43], I certainly hold that his essay represents "engagement" with the omnitopia concept.

I should add that seeking to address the overly broad question about whether "every" neologism should be included "regardless" of use does not advance our conversation in a fruitful manner. It is clear that some terms belong in this venue; some do not. This discussion is about this specific term that was added to Wikipedia because of the term's adoption by four separate peer-reviewed journals in two fields (communication studies and cultural geography), including two distinct subfields of communication studies (performance studies and media studies) -- and its engagement by still another field (sociology). Let's focus our attention there.

--

I don't have the time or expertise to determine if or how your articles are biased. It's not a question of validity or quality; it's whether or not it should be included in this venue. Even if I did find bias in the articles, including my thoughts as a counterbalance in the wiki article would be original research. I can say for certain, however, that they represent a particular argument about or viewpoint on omnitopia. Presumably you aren't writing tautologies or empty statements; people can disagree with your articles and they therefore represent a POV. If you are the only person sourced in the article to describe this concept, the article is not NPOV - it's one person's ideas about omnitopia. But since someone else has commented on omnitopia, their critiques should be included in the article. If Salter has written a "non-trivial" amount on omnitopia and someone could post a summary of his argument in the omnitopia article, I will change my vote to keep. Given that you (Wood) have a stake here, I think it would be a conflict of interest for you to do so. My school doesn't have International Political Sociology, but I'll try to gain access to it somehow & see if I can write something. Jordansc 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Andywo 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, I have a PDF of the article. I asked its author to send it to me because, like you, my library doesn't yet subscribe to International Political Sociology. If you wish to backchannel me at wooda AT email DOT sjsu DOT edu, I'd be happy to email you the article when I get a chance (within 24 hours). I agree that it would be less than ideal for me to integrate Salter's piece into the omnitopia entry, though it would not be inappropriate if I did so in good faith. However, the issue is moot because I don't have time to summarize his article and add that component to the entry - at least not now. Of course, since Wikipedia's omnitopia entry is a collaborative effort, I'd be delighted for another person (you, someone you suggest, another person with some interest and expertise) to edit away. So let me know if you'd like me to email his piece, and we'll take it from there...[reply]

Comment. I'm with Jordansc on this. Nothing to do with bias or a judgement on the intrinsic merits of the idea. It is simply, clearly, Original Research and therefore something that WP does not publish. Notability (in WP's terms) will no doubt come in the end, but it hasn't yet. The concept has to make bigger ripples, become established, be increasingly widely cited, etc. andy 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andywo 18:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a copy/paste from Wikipedia's statement on OR: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."[reply]

Now, let us review:

A reasonable inference from that policy is that publication in peer-reviewed journals constitutes a warrant for Wikipedia to report about the work. Omnitopia research has been published in four separate peer-reviewed journals, representing two distinct disciplines. These journals have editorial boards that represent the contemporary state of their respective fields. The entry cites those pieces, making them available to any reader who takes the time to peruse them and evaluate whether the material is verifiable. Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [44]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [45], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review. If that doesn't reflect a "part of accepted knowledge," I don't know what does.

Incidentally, in case it matters, I have read these two authors' works, but I could not pick the people out of a lineup.

If the only issue is that these two non-Wood citations of omnitopia -- Mark B. Salter's (University of Ottawa) International Political Sociology essay and Richard Scot Barnett's (North Carolina State University) master's thesis -- need to be integrated into the entry, I have no problem with either (1) doing so myself, (2) inviting another person to do so, or (3) awaiting that revision with no action done by me.

Otherwise, barring some specific statement in Wiki-policy that defines "accepted knowledge" in more narrow terms, I think participants in this discussion should either (1) err on the side of knowledge advancement or (2) bolster their arguments with specific rationales about why these particular publications do not reflect "accepted knowledge." Choosing that latter path calls for substantial responsibility: Respondents must actually read the articles and acquaint themselves with the fields of communication studies and cultural geography. This seems like an entirely appropriate requirement that should be met prior to editing or removing an encyclopedia entry.

Thanks for the lecture. That really helps. andy 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andywo 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) andy, I am unclear as to the meaning of your post. I will read it from the perspective of the wiki-notion of "good faith" [46] -- a concept I presume I too can receive -- but there's little context in your message, so I can't be sure as to its intent. As a professor, I might be forgiven for overly-parsing your use of the word "lecture." But there is no doubt about the order of this discussion. An entry was marked for possible deletion. I was asked to comment. I did so. Comments were posted that, in my opinion, reflected insufficient evidence or supporting material. I have attempted to add those materials to ensure a complete and accurate discussion. Moreover, I have striven to write in a professional tone. If you're thanking me for that, I accept your comments, and I appreciate them.[reply]

You're welcome. andy 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability has been satisfied on this page (though not in the article as it stands); there are four published articles focused on Omnitopia and at least one other independent, non-trivial, published source. (I don't know if Master's theses count as published sources for Wikipedia. Someone should check.) I think the article should be kept with input from the new source or sources. Jordansc 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordansc, thank you for your consideration of the notability issue. I suppose a useful next step is to revise the omnitopia entry to include that independent non-trivial published source. As I've mentioned, I'm happy to do so. But if the group prefers, I'd be just as happy for someone else to take on that edit. Andywo 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. CSD A7 (and a recreation). kingboyk 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Connecticut School of Law Mock Trial Society

Nonnotable mock trial org. at one law school. On-campus groups like this are not notable. NawlinWiki 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable mock trial org. Based on wiki Mock Trial site, University of Connecticut School of Law site and related to a well-known intramural mock trial competition run by the organization. Considering the national success of this group, it is notable to others in this field that would have interest in searching it on wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HartfordWhaler (talk • contribs). Single interest account. --kingboyk 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

BarleyGreen

Article has no content other than to promote product called BarleyGreen - Spam 99DBSIMLR 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product with no attribution to reliable unrelated third parties. --Charlene 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest adding Yoshihide Hagiwara to the AfD, since that article (of the "creator" of BarleyGreen) is only linked to this one, and there's also no attribution on that one. --Charlene 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wow, is this ever a snowball. >Radiant< 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Invasion of May 6th, 2007

Massive amounts of OR and POV. Wikipedia is not a news report. Phony Saint 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news channel for forum drama. --Charlene 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN forum drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is not the place for Gaiafag-tinted bullshit. Keep it in ED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.53.154 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete No more worth having up than an article about me having my wisdom teeth taken out. --Sothicus 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yes this could probably go speedy with nary a claim to notability.--Isotope23 16:26, 9 May 2007
Speedy delete No need for propaganda on my Wiki. --ThisIsRealPuma 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lashing out for attention with biased material isn't going to get you any supporters Keith. You brought it on yourself. --Shoozle 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete This is non-notable. Also, how is drama on a few websites considered an "Internet Invasion"? This belongs in the GaiaOnline article --Beetleman 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if we allow this, we set a precedent for allowing nn forum-crust.. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 17:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced junk. Hut 8.5 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pie Crust~~ Speedy delete This is better suited for ED. And it's impossible for this article to have definite facts--128.97.180.222 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:NOT, no notability.The Sunshine Man 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For some reason every group of people who decide to do something to get attention on the net htink that they're the first people to ever think of doing something like that, and make a wikipedia page to gain publicity. I've seen it a thousand times before, and probably will a thousand times again. Delete it like all the other. --Bachrach44 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: GB2 /420chan/ -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and get off my lawn will ya? Wildthing61476 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Removing copyvio text does not require the AfD process. Sandstein 07:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr (1894-1948)

Text taken from http://zar.co.za/hofmeyr.htm with permission. The text is probably not licensed under the GFDL. The copyright holder should be contacted and asked to release the text under the GFDL, but if the copyright holder declines then the text should be deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems more like a copyright problem involving verification than a deletion problem. Are you sure you have exhausted the correct avenues first? --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, John Foley (talk · contribs) remains an active editor, but there are a few licensing/copyright issues brought up on his talk page. I'd say this is worth investigating further, but I think an AFD is precipitate -- the first step, in a GFDL problem, would be to have the article rewritten to eliminate it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment primarily a politician, not an academic, but I think with "Principal of the University of Witwatersrand at 25, Administrator of the Transvaal at 30 and a Cabinet Minister at 39" he is clearly notable. Even if the text can be kept, it will still need the removal of unsourced opinion; but if the text cannot be kept an article would surely be justified, so thereis no point in deletion, just stubbifying.DGG 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. No one here disputes the existence of this publisher -- the argument rests on the question of reliable sources. Of the three citations provided, two are only semi-independent at best, having a self-admitted business relationship with the article's subject. Several good-faith editors (some under the color of "expertise") attest that more print sources exist.

Under the circumstances, sourcing for this article may rightly be considered weak; however, because real citations are present (debatable though their merit may be), the article is not incredibly offensive to the requirements of WP:V. Policy does not demand the removal of this content.

The discussion below reaches no firm conclusions on the merits of the existing citations, or the possibility of finding others in print sources. Assuming good faith of the keep commenters (and recalling "when in doubt, don't delete"), it seems reasonable to allow some time for rewriting and expansion. Certainly, if further citations are not present in a month or two, revisiting the issue of article deletion would be proper. Xoloz 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norilana Books

No sign of notability. Conflict of interest concern. A Google search[47] indeed verifies that this publisher exists, but suggests no reliable, independent sources we can use to write an encyclopedia article. De-prodded without comment, but see creator's and article's talk pages for further discussion. Pan Dan 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because http://norilana.livejournal.com/71426.html, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Question: Does SFWA consider Norilana a professional market? Might I suggest that whether or not this Norilana qualifies under the SFWA (Science Fictiona and Fantasy Writers of America) as a professional market might be a good determinant? I believe that books from this publisher are eligible for Nebula recommendations and that publication by Norilana would be counted as a "publication" for membership in SFWA. Is that not correct? If it is is a professional market, then it's as deserving of a wiki as Tor, one would thnk. And it reads no more like an advert than any other such listing. -- Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff -- kaath9@sbcglobal.net

Delete Reads like an advert (WP:SPAM), no references and I agree with the chance of conflict of interest.The Sunshine Man 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite.Shsilver 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using what sources? Pan Dan 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I've added two citations for one of the claims, and as Doctorow points out, there are several print sources, including Locus which has covered it since it first appeared.Shsilver 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete and reconcider. Where does it read as an advert when it simply lists facts concerning authors and titles released by this publisher? Do you not find the classic Marion Zimmer Bradley's Sword and Sorceress series notable enough? Norilana Books is linked to from various Marion Zimmer Bradley pages. Vera Nazarian 05:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)VeraNazarian[reply]

How is this situation any different than the entry for Tor Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Books) -- it's needed info if you're a writer looking for publishers, or looking for who publishes your favorite authors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.168.129 (talk • contribs)

- The question in every case is, are there reliable sources that discuss the subject that can be used to write an encyclopedia article? You are welcome to find and add appropriate sources to both Norilana Books and Tor Books that could help to verify and/or expand the contents of those articles. In the case of Norilana Books, I doubt that such sources exist, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. Pan Dan 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above, or Doctorow's below about one legitimate source. Another is SF Site, which has discussed the press on its news page and SF Scope.Shsilver 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see the conflict of interest here. It's a very brief entry, tells you the organization exists and a little about what they (or she, rather) has published. I say keep it. -Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.30.249 (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Go ahead and delete. It isn't important.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.174.23.11 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Innumerable sources mention this press, including Locus Magazine, the venerable, respected trade magazine of the science fiction field; Vera can certainly cite to any of the many issues of Locus that confirm the press exists, that it is notable, and that it publishes books Doctorow 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, please add those sources then I will change my delete voice. — Indon (reply) — 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorow's account primarily exists as a SPA for Cory Doctorow as Special:Contributions/Doctorow demonstrates. Since Cory is a scifi author this is another example of COI. Incidentally contrast the article Cory Doctorow article has a large number of non COI editors exactly what you would want to see for Norilana Books is this were a naturally occuring wikipedia entry. and not a promotional article jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Roger Danger Field 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Norilana is notable for resuming the venerable Marion Zimmer Bradley series and is publishing new works by well known science fiction and fantasy authors, such as Sherwood Smith, as well as reprinting many classics. I'm new here so forgive any newbie errors, but if the criteria for notability is "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic" then Norilana qualifies as it has been directly addressed in independent sources such as Locus, SFSite, SFScope, numerous blogs (from independent sources), and the numerous books appear verifiably for sale on Amazon, Barnes & Noble. Andrewburt 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for this user: — Andrewburt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * Norilana is a legitimate small press and should have the same access to Wikipedia as larger presses. As others have noted, it has been discussed in multiple independent sources important to the SF field, providing factual information about the press and its activities. Its books are available through standard outlets. Its release of classic titles, and its reviving of the Marion Zimmer Bradley series, are notable and of value to writers and readers in the SF/F community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E n moon (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note for this user: — E n moon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for this user: I can independently confirm that the identity of this user is Elizabeth Moon, a widely published Science Fiction writer and expert on Science Fiction publishing, and should be given suitable weight to their argument. --Barberio 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Special:Contributions/E_n_moon SPA/COI jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doctorow and Andrewburt: Yes this press exists (which I acknowledge in my nomination) but existence is not notability. Notability comes from independent coverage of Norilana that we can use to write an article. Andrew, you correctly quote the requirement of "significant coverage" but fail to provide any examples of such coverage. An acknowledgement in a book review that the book was published by Norilana is nowhere close to significant coverage. Thanks to Shsilver for actually looking for sources. He's added one source (that's reliable) to the article. I still don't think it's enough to write an article (it's enough to verify one sentence about Norilana) but if other sources are provided that would go a long way towards establishing notability and improving the article. Pan Dan 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doctorow himself would seem to me to be a sufficiently independent source, as (if it's Cory) he's a published author in the field, and published elsewhere than Norilana. Brashley46 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for this user: — Brashley46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This livejournal post may be of interest to whoever closes this debate.Geni 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed your concern with the template above. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relatively new publisher, but seems to be valid. We, or you as I no longer consider myself part of this place, don't have much on the SF/F/H small press world but that doesn't mean we/you can't or should not.--T. Anthony 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry to say that the editor violated WP:COI and the article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The current references do not explain about the subject but the Sword & Sorceress book which is trivial for this article. Therefore the article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography about the subject to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 08:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability let alone evidence. No reliable sources. Nuttah68 10:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. This is the Webcomics deletionisim all over again. Two *major* authorities in Science Fiction writing and publishing, Cory Doctorwow and Elizabeth Moon have both posted here, and made statements elsewhere that verify this, that they consider the publisher to be noteworthy. Are Wikipedia's editors that arrogant to ignore this? Notability of this has instantly been acquired via the attention given to the publishers by Doctorwow and Moon. In fact, in cases where any notable external group starts publicising a deletion process to argue against it, any argument over Notability becomes immediately moot as such campaigns are inherent examples of notability. It seems hugely arrogant of Wikipedia's editors to place themselves above Experts in the Field in deciding what is an is not notable. The last remaining concern is that of 'reads like an advert', to which the solution is not deletion but rewriting. --Barberio 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The advertisement of this deletion discussion on a blog--which appears to be Norilana's own blog--surely fails to lend Norilana notabilty. If anything, the advertisement supports the idea that some participants in this discussion, just like the article's creator, have conflicts of interest. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to note that an article being created by someone with a Conflict of Interests is not a reason to delete the article, WP:COI applies to content and edits, not the existence of an article. Issues raised over WP:COI are to be corrected by editing, not AFD. --Barberio 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but the conflict of interest is an indicator that Norilana may not be (independently) notable. The lack of non-trivial reliable sources confirms this. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-trivial reliable sources have already been referenced in this discussion multiple times. Here's a SFWA press release about Norilana and their activities, [48], SFScope reporting news about Norilana [49], print issues of Locus and other magazines that have reviewed the books produced by Norilana, and of course two major Science Fiction Writers publicly stating that this is a notable publisher... Can I ask what more you want? --Barberio 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliable sources, independent of Norilana, that we can use to write an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability. Your first link is a reprint of a Norilana press release. Your second link is about a book, not Norilana, and is enough to verify exactly one sentence in the article. Existence is not notability. Pan Dan 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - um, listen to experts, or this entry will be waved around as further evidence of Wikipedia hostility to experts. (See WT:AFD discussion on how AFD is one of Wikipedia's biggest public relations problems, to an extent where it's blatantly inviting a Foundation smackdown similar to the one that created WP:BLP.) I went to the LJ entry and asked them not to pull this crap, and I still think "keep" based on the evidence - David Gerard 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Barberio and David re: experts. First, Wikipedia is not hostile to experts. But, unlike traditional encyclopedias, editorial decisions on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources that are external to Wikipedia. For this reason the argument of an expert is given no more weight than that of any other editor here. I have no interest in checking whether User:E n moon and User:Doctorow are in fact who Barberio claims they are. Their real-life identities are not relevant, only their arguments are. If fact, if they are who Barberio claims they are, and if they are professionally close to Norilana, then their recommendations should be given less, not more weight, because of obvious conflicts of interest. There are no experts on Wikipedia, only pseudonymous or anonymous contributors; and arguments and decisions on Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable external sources.
Second, notability of a subject has nothing to with pronouncements by anybody, even a confirmed expert, that that subject is notable. Notability has to do with the quality and quantity of reliable sources that exist on the subject. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply here that we have to give experts less weight is the exact reason why Wikipedia is seen to be hostile towards experts. WP:COI is not to be used as a brick bat to dismiss experts, this is like saying Boeing engineers are not allowed to edit or create aviation articles. And yes... There are Experts on Wikipedia, or would you rather live in the world of Harrison Bergeron? --Barberio 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please read what I said more carefully. I didn't say that we have to give experts' recommendations less weight in general. I said that in this case, if the editors who you claim are experts are professionally close to Norilana, then they have a conflict of interest. The point is that your argument that we should give their opinions more weight because of their real-life identities is self-defeating. Finally, your comparison to Harrison Bergeron is grossly inapt, because Wikipedia is not the real world, and verification of editors' credentials is not (yet) policy. By contrast it is Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia operates on external sources (written in some cases by experts), not expert editors. See also Essjay controversy. Pan Dan 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, in this case I believe we can apply a clear test to your interpretation of how the wiki works... Will this make for a better encyclopaedia?. Well, in this case Experts in the field believe the article is warranted to be included, people have presented independent sources noting the publisher, and the article can be edited to be worthwhile. I have yet to see a counter argument that refutes this. There is no other basis to remove the article, or any other article, than clearly explaining why it is unencyclopaedic to keep it. --Barberio 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I pretty liberal and if other regular editors are voting keep I almost always vote keep in these mixed arguments. There is far too much conflict of interest here. Vera Nazarian, Special:Contributions/Vera_Nazarian is an obvious SPA. I see nothing but Spam/promotion coming from this account. Norilana books seems to be a legitimate publisher and most likely will get an article written about it by an editor who doesn't have a vested interest in its success. Worse yet we now have multiple posts by SPA's and canvassing. I think keeping this article sets a terrible precedent with regard to spam. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but watch carefully for COI. It does look like some source material is available, and from looking at the SFScope site, it appears that it is editorially-controlled and meets reliability. COI is not a reason to delete an article, any more than ILIKEIT is a reason to keep one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, COI is not the main issue for deletion, but what about WP:CORP? In the section about Special note: advertising and promotion, there are three items for solving advert in the following order of precedence:
1. Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
2. Delete remaining advertising content from the article
3. Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.

I'm not sure if the first two steps have been performed, but this current AfD is legitimate for the last step because there is no independent & reliable secondary sources to pass the notability criterion. — Indon (reply) — 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already clearly identified several independent sources that have reported on Norilana Books and their releases. And to quote Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.", so can we please suspend the demands for a shrubbery? --Barberio 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Correction, we've identified one independent source (SFScope), which has given us enough information to verify two sentences about Norilana. Pan Dan 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even so, that's established notability. The article's content can be referenced from primary source materials published by Norilana. End of discussion? --Barberio 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can verify at least two sentences about myself in independent sources. I got some run-of-the-mill award in a high school ceremony reported in the local paper, and I'm listed in the phone book, for starters. And the government keeps records on me. But two sentences do not make an encyclopedia article. If Norilana attracted enough notice to actually be the subject of an independent write-up, as WP:N suggests, then that would be something we could work with. Pan Dan 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, you're now taking this to ridiculous levels of requirement, in direct contradiction of the above recommendation from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please try to remember, these are guidelines. Apply some common sense here, and try to listen to what's been said rather than demanding we meet some artificial requirements. SFScope's write up of Norilana, and Locus's coverage of their book releases is notability enough. and your comparison of 'entry in a phone book' is absurd. --Barberio 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Barberio, could you read carefully again the Primary Criterion section of WP:CORP, please? It says: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The references you talked about is incidental for this subject, because they talked about a book which incidentally was published by this AfD subject. — Indon (reply) — 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Release of books is not an 'incidental' event to a publisher, it's what publishers do. Magazines reporting on and reviewing the books released by a publisher is identical to magazines reporting and reviewing the games developed by a video game company. Would you say games reviews did not count as notability for a games developer? --Barberio 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Games reviews do not count as notability for a games developer. The reviews of the book may or may make that notable, but under the principles of 'notability is not inheritable' Norliana must be the subject of articles itself to establish notability. Nuttah68 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Barberio, game (or book) reviews do not count notability for the game developer (or the book publisher), but for the game (or the book) itself. — Indon (reply) — 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The items published by an individual or corporation do not exist in a vacuum where they can have notability but the publisher can not. If the item published is notable, then the publisher is notable for publishing it. --Barberio 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice, a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED argument. — Indon (reply) — 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're trying to argue that the books published by Norilana should be kept a separate and distinct entity from Norilana, in which case WP:NOTINHERITED might apply. But this is a spurious argument as it implies that we could have a 'List of books published by Norilana' article, but not a 'Norilana Books' article, which is clearly absurd. Again, you're applying guidelines contrary to common sense. --Barberio 13:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitary break to sum up
1. Norilana Books has a non-trivial independent write ups in SFScope
2. Norilana Books's commercial activities have been independently reported on by Locus and the SFWA. The release of a book by Norilina Books is a commercial activity of Norilana Books, and not a separate entity.
3. There are verifiable sources of information about Norilana Books, from the above secondary sources, and from Norilana Books themselves, and there should be no problems in citing.
4. Concerns over conflict of interests can be corrected by editing the article.
5. Two experts in the field have attested to Norilana Books being a notable publisher.
This whole AfD seems completely predicated on satisfying arbitrary and artificial requirements rather than investigating the merits of the article. And it has already generated a moderate amount of bad press towards Wikipedia. It should be noted that this is almost certain to be taken to WP:DRV, and that the Notability guidelines are currently being re-written precisely because of inappropriate AfD arguments like this. --Barberio 13:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't respond to most of your points because I would be repeating myself, but I will respond to your claim of "bad press." A complaint by a woman posted on her own company's blog that the article she created about her own company on Wikipedia (in violation of our conflict of interest guideline) is being considered for deletion due to lack of notability (i.e. sources) is neither bad nor press. It's chutzpah. If I create a Wikipedia article about my company, claim that it's notable because it does business with notable companies, and then complain on my blog when it gets deleted, would you call that bad press too? Pan Dan 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seen discussion about this on various Science Fiction forums, not via the Norilana LJ. And people are not being complimentary to Wikipedia over it. --Barberio 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pan Dan, you seem to be arguing for deletion based on the fact that YOU do not consider the press or the sources to be notable enough. However, those within the SF field DO consider it notable. The fact that published, established authors came here to lend credence, even if they've never contributed to wikipedia before, proves that the press is notable and important. I defy you to provide a qualitative definition of notable that does not apply to this press or the Wikipedia article. Theangryblackwoman 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This account was active from Feb-March on a few debates and then stopped being used. Special:Contributions/Theangryblackwoman. There were several sci-fi related posts during this period of time. I think they came as a result of the live journal and/or other canvassing. jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, jbolden, why exactly does it matter how I came here? Second, no, I don't spend every day of my life on Wikipedia, and for exactly this reason. having to constantly truck with petty tyrants is wearying and I have other things to do, like live my life. One of the reasons I created an account was to correct mistakes in articles and add to discussion where necessary. Lately, I haven't seen anything to edit or a discussion I wanted to be involved in. Now, I do. Barberio is quite correct, I think you're being wildly inappropriate. Theangryblackwoman 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user appears to be a good faith user, just relatively new. Surprisingly, not every user makes edits every day, or even week. Additional, the "several sci-fi related posts" seems to be a mistaken reading of the Scientology related edits. This, and above accusations of 'conflict of interest' for being science fiction writers, and accusation of 'single purpose accounts' towards new accounts that have made good faith edits is out of line and inappropriate. I suggest that jbolden1517 retract his comments, apologise and not bite the newcomers. Especially not bite a newcomer who may well write about the incident in Boing Boing.--Barberio 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm aware of the difference between scientology and science fiction. The posts in question: [50][51][52]. And I think what's going on here should be written about, I hope it is. Wikipedia should have a reputation for being hostile to spam. jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that two edits about a Fantasy book not published by a mainstream publisher, and one edit about a Science Fiction TV show, somehow 'proves' bad intent on behalf of this editor? I suggest your logic is severely flawed, you should read and understand Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, and apologise to the editor. I'd also like you to back up your assertion that the article is "spam", as has been repeatedly pointed out here the article itself is not spam, and any issues over potential conflict of interest are corrected by editing not deletion. --Barberio 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N. Pan Dan 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is a guideline, and should not be followed when it goes against common sense. I also remind you that WP:N is currently under review after consensus failed to support it's current state. --Barberio 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Barberio, why are you denying all the Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Everything in here can always be reviewed. At the moment, we use the current guidelines, okay? — Indon (reply) — 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Barberio is correct. It's a guideline currently "under active discussion" and isn't actually policy. Common editing sense should always come before a guideline. The amount of people coming here to defend this article, whether regular editors or not, shows that the publisher is notable.

You also need to ask yourself how many sources are going to exist on book publishers specifically and not on books themselves. You'll find that generally the only sources on them are expert sources....ones of which we've found for this article.

It's also worth noting that the person who put this AFD up has a history of being aggressive and rude to new Wikipedia users using AFD procedures to an excessively pedantic nature. A troll if you will. Roger Danger Field 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...please see User_talk:Pan_Dan#Shepherd's Pie Advert for what has brought Roger here. Roger, please provide evidence of me being aggressive or rude, or strike out your comment. Pan Dan 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aformented deletion and your aggressiveness in pursuing administrators to overturn their decision of "no consensus" which it clearly was, and the petty listing of a stub so shortly after the articles creation and when it had sources is pedantic. Pestering administrators to change decisions and the results of CLOSED AFD's is against AFD procedures and thus is rude to the contributors of the article, and the community at large.

ps - I brought myself here originally through the AFD logs itself originally and commented to keep without realising it was you who put this up. Seen as you have no evidence that I came through your user page to here, then perhaps you should strike out your own comment, sir. Roger Danger Field 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double sigh. Others, feel free to ignore this puerile exchange. Roger, I listed the article for deletion a week after it was created; it cited no sources that verified any of its content; sources were thoroughly sought in the course of the AFD; and discussing an AFD closure with the closing admin is encouraged, not "aggressive" or against procedure. Pan Dan 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Dan, I have to agree with Roger's assessment. I don't know you and have never interacted with you before this, and I feel you're being rude and unnecessarily aggressive. Theangryblackwoman 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're mistaking discussion for aggression and rudeness. Pan Dan 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rapidly losing patience with this whole discussion. I will admit that I finally created an account here in order to contribute to this discussion, but I've been using wikipedia as an online resource for a couple of years now, and I thought this was a worthwhile discussion to get involved in. If you research my contributions since this started you'll find I have added to the material in a couple of political articles and may contribute more, if I feel like it.

I feel less and less like it as my friends and acquaintances get shortshrifted here. Wikipedia's admins don't seem to give much thought to the usefulness of any articles on publishers. Brashley46 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah lovely, another strawman from Pan Dan. YES, well done, constructive criticism is encouraged. BUT the proper channel to do that is through the Deletion Review, NOT whining and complaining on an admin's talk page until they change a decision already made and closed (This is against the deletion procedures and policies).

Did you or did you not go through the proper channels to review the deletion, or did you not play a part in changing an already closed AFD? Is it not also true that you used voting figures to do this, despite there being clearly two sides of the argument and despite it clearly been said on multiple occasions that AFD is not a vote and is a place to find a consensus? Is a decision against the wishes of several editors and a sizeable minority disagreeing a consensus? No, it clearly isn't.

So as I said and I've shown. You either do not know or are unwilling to follow AFD procedures properly in the past and have been rude in doing this as well, suggesting once again, that you have erroneously listed an article for deletion. i.e. this article.

In regard to the other article, the information was sourced, you simply didn't like the sources used. It could have had more, but the citation template would have been the way to go until the small problem was rectified. Roger Danger Field 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The previous debacle is already out of topic. To others, please stay focus on the topic of this AfD discussion. Please discuss the content and not the editors. Roger Danger Field, please go to WP:DR. This is not the venue to resolve your disputes with other editors. — Indon (reply) — 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right Indon, and I suggest this thread be removed from this AFD to Roger's or my talk page, and if no one objects soon, I'll do that. Until that happens, I have to defend myself here. Roger, if you actually read the link that I posted in my previous comment, you will see that it says If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You have yet to provide a single example of me being rude. Pan Dan 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What exactly needs to be done to the article at this point to make it less like advertising and more like a wikipedia article. I see three sources listed on the page and four paragraphs noting what the publishers does and books they publish. What else, exactly, does it need? If nothing, then it needs to be removed from deletion consideration. If it still needs work, what needs to be done. Because this whole thing is getting off topic, out of hand, and less and less useful as it goes on. Theangryblackwoman 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct in previous AFDs when similar to this one is clearly relevant.

and yes I can "read". You still should have put it through the deletion review as a matter of courtesy to the people who were against the deletion and whining to change the decision using information you know people are going to disagree with is a backhanded and unfriendly thing to do. It's now the case that the people who want to contribute to that article have to put it through the deletion review, rather than the person who wanted to remove content and the chance for users to edit Wikipedia. You are just not getting this, but its probably down to your lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about.

ps - removing my relevant comments will be treated as vandalism under WP:Vand.Roger Danger Field 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. Your gripe is with established procedures, not me. If anyone's breached any policies here, it's you who's violated WP:CIVIL.[53] Pan Dan 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite (and I note that Shsilver has already started on this). There were indeed genuinely clear and strong COI concerns with the original article - but that in itself is not a conclusive argument against notability and, even allowing a measure of COI in some of the contributions, the subsequent discussion both here and on the article's talk page suggests to me definitely sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article given that sufficient independent sources are available. PWilkinson 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a legitimate business isn't one of the notability criteria under WP:CORP. There are few to no independent sources of info about this business. At this time it is impossible to write a neutral article that is more than a very short stub. Therefore, this should be deleted. If you want a Wikipedia article, start a PR campaign to generate coverage in reliable sources. Once the sources exist you can come back and request the article by posting a comment on a relevant talk page somewhere. Avoid writing about yourself or your business. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few independent sources demonstrating notability is not the same as no sources demonstrating notability. It's already been established that Locus (Print), Locus Online, The SFWA, and SFScope have reported on Norilana and it's corporate activities. This is sufficient to mark note for a small press. And while Conflict of Interest issues should be resolved, they are not a reason to delete an article. --Barberio 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does not read like an advertisement, and it seems to be a notable publisher to me. It is a proven fact that Wikipedia is very picky about notability, and I wonder if this strict policy should be changed. If an article is well-written, has reliable sources, is about something legitimate, and does not read like an advertisment, I myself see no reason to delete it. This article fits all those requirements. After all, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover." WP:N says that "notibility is not popularity," so, in other words, it doesn't matter if not many people have heard of this publisher; it is still notable. Tikallover 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CORP, and kindly leave the sock drawer closed. >Radiant< 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably retract that sock comment unless you're willing to back it up with a formal accusation. Incidently, I know you like using 'per', but can you explicitly tell us which part of CORP you think this fails, and why you do not accept the provided evidence of notability. Otherwise you're just making an 'I don't like it' vote, which should be ignored. --Barberio 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking people who disagree with you. >Radiant< 10:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument. --Barberio 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable nor encyclopediatic. --Tom 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both author and book, despite the jolly good show by our IP friend and his single purpose accounts. Sandstein 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways England Ruined the World

PROD'd and then Deprodded by the creator. This book doesn't really meet any reasonable definition of notability. As far as "sources" there is the "British Reparations" website (which appears to be affiliated with the author of the book), a press release from that website, a couple mentions in a catch-all article on the Philadelphia Inquirer website, and a brief mention on the "Hot List" in that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Post. I don't see any serious, reliable 3rd party coverage here. My opinion is that this should be Deleted. Isotope23 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bundling Steven Grasse with this as well. Author of the book has no claim to WP:BIO, particularly if his book is deemed not notable.--Isotope23 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. (If anyone's interested the author puts up a fairly poor show in this BBC interview) andy 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, POV, COI, not notable, possibly a hoax. Or as the British say, pure rubbish. Bearian 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax... the book does exist... it's just not a particularly notable piece of literature.--Isotope23 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure rubbish indeed. Nick mallory 02:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a hoax, but neither article meets the notability requirements, and the book article is just not salvageable. Hatch68 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable third party coverage is available. Mackbuck 9:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly the vitriol on this page shows that this is a notable subject. Vieques2007 10.21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Quite apart from the fact that this discussion isn't vitriolic, the views of editors don't make a book notable. The nominator commented that there's no serious, reliable 3rd party coverage and that's still true despite the flurry of recent additions to the article by Mackbuck. It's clear that the book had its 15 minutes of fame but no more than that and most people have now forgotten about it. andy 08:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is notable. It is notable in that it is the first mainstream book of its kind to lay the blame at British Imperialism as being the root of the modern world's problems that wasn't written by Marx or Engels or some other communist, in fact as far as I can see the author is somewhat right wing. It is also notable for the controversy it has stirred up in the mainstream British press, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Richard & Judy show etc as well as the controversy it seems to have stirred up among some Wikipedians whose dislike of the book seems to outweigh impartial editorship. It's also fairly notable in that it points the finger of blame to areas in a way that clearly nobody else is. Further, the foreword was written by notorious and notable anarchist Penny Rimbaud. It is however true that the article is not particularly well written, can someone rewrite? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.149.28 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hmmm... It's interesting that we're starting to get Keep votes from hitherto unknown users whose only WP contributions are to this debate. One shouldn't read too much into it, of course. andy 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Andy, keep, keep... that's interesting that you don't seem to have any understanding of dynamic IP addresses, where a service provider assigns a random IP number for the duration of time that you're logged on for. So, er, if you log off it reassigns the number elsewhere but if you don't shut down you keep the same IP number. Is that beyond your comprehension? Of course it would just be coincidence that you would be looking for any reason at all to discount an opinion that differs from your own. 212.139.248.79 08:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'So Andy, keep, keep... did you notice that? that if you shut down you get a new IP number? but that if you don't shut down between two posts a few minutes apart that you still have the same IP number? did you learn something andy? 212.139.248.79 08:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Hey Andy, keep, keep... It's still me, but look, is my IP address different? Want to know why? That's right, between the last time I posted and now I've shut down and rebooted and, during that time, my service provider assigned me a new IP address. Click on my IP and the chances are that almost certainly you won't see any of the articles I've contributed to, or any of the real vandalism that I've cleaned up.... What's the point of all this? The point being that yesterday I made some legitimate observations on the book's notability which you sought to discount for really quite spurious reasons, please don't do that any more Andy, now that you understand about dynamic IP addresses, right? 80.47.64.42 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone with no apparent history speaks in defence of an article in an AfD debate other editors are right to be a bit suspicious. There are plenty of examples of sock- and meat-puppetry in this kind of situation. But when the effect of that suspicion is to provoke a sustained personal attack what else can a fellow think? (Of course if you do have a history in WP that you would care to share with us I'm prepared to eat my words). andy 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sustained personal attack? What? Did I call you mean names? Did I criticise you for the colour of your hair or the cut of your shoes? No, I made some valid observations about the possible notability of this book, and rather than discuss or debate those observations of notability you decided to dismiss them all out of hand because you couldn't trace any other contributions I might have made to Wikipedia from my IP address.... Since then I have tried to show you, perhaps a little sarcastically, why a dynamic IP address doesn't necessarily show you anything, but to interpret that as a sustained personal attack is sort of intellectually dishonest.... I'm certainly not going to use this as a forum to list articles that I have contributed to just because it takes your fancy, nor can I remember every subhead in every article on Socratean philosophy that I have removed rogue "fucks", "shits" and "cunts" from. This is supposed to be about the relative merits and notability of the book in question. Which brings me back to the real issue. It's certainly weird to me that this book which has been debated and discussed on several highly respected BBC radio shows was certainly considered notable enough by teams of BBC researchers, production assistants, producers, directors, presenters and panelists but because a couple of overzealous Wikipedians take exception to the contents of the book it's suddenly not notable... If you don't believe me just have a look at the discussion page (not this page) for the article... Certainly the book is notable, and certainly the article is not particularly well written, it reads like it was written in a hurry, but what it needs is a rewrite, it doesn't merit deletion 80.47.64.42 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. andy 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, those Daily Mail and Philadelphia Inquirer articles seem to make it notable. Needs rewrite, though. 96T 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability requires more than a few newspaper reviews. The references in the article are all to a brief controversy generated by a publicity campaign. That happens all the time with book launches - and the next day another "controversy" comes along when another book is launched (as a result of the PR this book shot up to #20 in the Amazon best sellers list but now, a month later, it's down to #36,811). But WP:N#fn_2 explicitly states that "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." I.e. newspaper reviews are not necessarily indications of notability. The books of, for example, Bill Bryson are notable because long after everyone has forgotten the reviews and the radio and TV appearances people are still buying them, recommending them and talking about them on the net and in print. Not so for the works of Steven Grasse. andy 10:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you read the newspaper articles, or listen to the radio excerpts, or watch the Richard and Judy episode, it becomes pretty clear that they are not "publishing the same article from a news wire service", nor are they "merely restating the same information", indeed it becomes pretty clear that they are "independent works". Are you suggesting that Bill Bryson deserves his entry on WP only because of his relative longevity, because by the same criteria if Wikipedia had been around twenty years ago then he woudn't have been listed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.242.95 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think that footnote is a good fit to what happens when a book is reviewed. PR material is not a "news wire" as such but it's pretty much the same thing - information from a single source which is either rehashed or only developed very slightly by the writer. In fact two of the articles focus on the level of PR and four of them do little more than restate the PR material the writer has received. IMHO these references don't meet the standard required for notability. On the other point, notability does not require longevity but it helps. In the case of a book if the controversy had continued to grow then notability could have been established in as little as a month. But it clearly died down as fast as it blew up and most people have already forgotten about it. No-one is talking much about it as far as I can tell and sales have fallen dramatically. If you have references that rebut this please add them asap. andy 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article on notability also states that "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing" which seems to suggest that even if coverage of this book has died down relatively recently that in itself does not constitute any reason for lack of notability. Further "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." You yourself have said things like "(If anyone's interested the author puts up a fairly poor show in this BBC interview) andy" and "the book had its 15 minutes of fame but no more than that and most people have now forgotten about it. andy". These appear to be fairly subjective reasoning on your part, no? And if anyone should put forward reasons for notability you attempt to trivialise them, without actually addressing those reasons for notabilty. Clearly you have it in for this book but seem unable to engage in honest academic argument. How do you feel about the fact that this is the first modern mainstream book of its kind to take a position against British Imperialism that doesn't come from a Marxist/Leninist perspective, indeed rather from a right wing one? Do you not consider that to be notable? If not, why not? How do you feel about the fact that the book's foreword was written by notorious and notable anarchist Penny Rimbaud? 88.108.242.95 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't progressing the AfD debate. My personal views are irrelevant - the only important issue is whether the article meets WP's notability requirements. I've explained why I think it doesn't. Other editors may take their own point of view on the matter. However I suggest that you supply stronger evidence of notability within the article as soon as possible because (in my opinion) it isn't there yet. If the book has become notable in the WP sense you need to make sure that's clear. The nominator said "This book doesn't really meet any reasonable definition of notability". IMHO that's still true, but we will have to wait and see what others think. andy 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire. Your personal views are now irrelevant, yet earlier in the discussion thay were apparently profound and important. And rather than enter into academic discussion you sought to trivialise that academic discussion for spurious reasons. And still you are unable to enter into that academic discussion. Why? Is it because you don't feel you know enough about the book, its context and its subject matter? In that case why are you so vociferous in seeking deletion? In my (perhaps limited) experience of AfD debates I have never come across any editor quite so partisan on the side of deletion, in other discussions I've seen plenty of partial, partisan nonsense opposed to an article's deletion but this really is a first, perhaps that in itself is, er, notable 88.108.242.95 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review AfD etiquette which requests that contributors should be civil and avoid the use of sarcastic language. How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette explains important aspects of the process of which you may not be aware, including the relative weight given to the opinions of editors and this point in particular: "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." You clearly feel that this article should be retained so why not improve it by adding the references that will establish notability? andy 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VAI

No notability according to WP:CORP established. A previously added {{Notability}} was removed without any improvement in this area. S.K. 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. IMHO could have been speedied. andy 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everything stated by Andy; including that it should have been speedied. Unschool 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep `'mikka 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshade

This is unsourced, speculative, OR. The single blog entry, that may be by the same author, is insufficient. Delete. Bridgeplayer 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable, could be more suited for Wikitionary.The Sunshine Man 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a legitimate concept discussed by reputable news sources, for example BBC News - ~~I'll put a couple of sources in the article~~ I've added a few sources & also put a link to Roger Angel's original paper — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the image seems to be a copyvio from here though — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Seems to be from here and free for use with attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand with history as this is an idea that has been proposed and studied several times e.g. 1997, and this particular proposal was widely reported and discussed.[54][55][56] --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look over the older versions, originally this was about the earlier proposals (particularly Kim Stanley Robinson's), but somewhere along the line Angel's "lots of little shades" has crowded out the earlier "one big shade" proposals — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, although the other proposals seem to be differently named, e.g. "solar shade". --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and discuss the title on the talk page. DGG 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / expand - a few ok sources. The article only talks about a space sunshade though - what about the sunshade you have in your car? Maybe move to Sunshade (Planetary engineering) or something similar? Think outside the box 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navgachia District

This district does not exist according the Official site of Bihar. See also Talk:Divisions of Bihar#Navgachia District --Jeroenvrp 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a district in anything but policial terms, and there's not much hear to say or to salvage, so I would say delete. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a police district is still notable. Just to be clear, we're not talking about a random bunch of houses under a police station here, but a section of a district, which is a single unit for tax collection purposes, that is different for law enforcement purposes. Frequently the chief civil servant, the District Magistrate, is considered to be a joint magistrate of both police districts. Whatever, its all very confusing, and left over from 1768 or whenever. Just leave it be, its not a hoax, or non-notable. Hornplease 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the estimated population of Navgachia ?
Delete. As of now, the article contains only one sentence about Navgachia being a district of Bihar (which is inaccurate). If necessary, a new article about the police district can always be created at Navgachia police district. Since the new article will have to be anyway written from scratch, I don't see why this inaccurate piece of information should be kept. We already have an article on Naugachhia. utcursch | talk 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. this calls it a "block" of Bhagalpur District: the full list is: Pirpainti, Kahalgoan, Sanhaula, Sabour, Nathnagar, Jagdishpur, Sultanganj, Sahkund, Bihpur, Navgachia, Gopalpur, Kharik, Narayanpur, Gauradih, Ismailpur, Rangrachowk. There are many articles about tiny area's in the US, such as Littletown, Arizona, so if this has a formal name, it sounds appropriate to keep per Hornplease. John Vandenberg 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it's not a district and the article has just one sentence that says it's a district. If it's a block, a new article can be created at Navgachia police district/Navgachia block. The page should be deleted because "Navgachia District" is an inaccurate title. There is nothing to move or merge -- we already have an article on Naugachhia. utcursch | talk 09:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a district as defined for other districts in the state. There is so little information that it is almost close to zero so recreating it under a correct name with better information would make more sense. -- Whpq 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per utcursch. John Vandenberg 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete this per G1, A1, G3 (created by vandal) and restore the original valid dab page, which was vandalized and then somehow speedy deleted by an admin per G3. Prolog 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Boy

garbage page from a person who has contributed nothing but vandalism Jac16888 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1. --Charlene 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fat Man or Little Boy. Current page is nonsense.Chunky Rice 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Christian Union

Incomplete nomination by 80.6.127.0 (talk · contribs). See this edit for xyr rationale. No opinion. Uncle G 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against. No arguments for deletion provided by proposer. No edit to talk page before my own. DFH 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I work full time with UCCF, the network of Christian Unions of which NUCU is one. Indeed, I am on the same team as those who support NUCU. The article at present does not make a claim of notability, and I don't believe it has any. Only a few uni CU's are notable by wikipedia standards - CICCU is the only example I can think of. To be notable, the CU must be significant enough to the subject of multiple non-trivial independent published sources. This article presents no indication that NUCU is - and from my own knowledge of the CU, I would be gobsmacked to say that it is. However, having said that NUCU is non-notable by wikipedia standards, I don't wish to imply at all that the work of NUCU is not notable by God's standards - quite the reverse... I fully support the important work that the NUCU do in universities.TJ 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:CORP Thunderwing 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's slightly suspicious that this article was edited by an IP with only one edit; it is hard to assume good faith, and indeed my strong suspicion is that it might be found that it's a specific vandal using the birmingham uni computers, who has a fondness of vandalising any page connected to UCCF... which isn't to say the article shouldn't be deleted (I still think it should be), but I felt I should bring that to the attention to voters on this section. TJ 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ. -Amatulic 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete `'mikka 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CookiePie

I can't find any good reliable sources about this; everything that turns up on Google is either a forum, blog, or copy of the official page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone can make a Firefox extension. Like all the others, this one is not notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete First: there are plenty of RSS extension but you can't find an extension doing the same of CookiePie, so not anyone can make a firefox extension like this. And there are many references:
  - http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Feature_Brainstorming:Security
  - http://freshmeat.net/projects/cookiepie/
  - http://groups.google.com/group/Nektra-CookiePie?lnk=srg
  - Comment It may be unique, but so is the program I wrote to launch Firefox tabs for my webcomics. And anybody can start a freshmeat project, and fora discussions are not reliable sources. The Mozilla wiki mention is basically "hey, it should be like CookiePie" and doesn't really give any information about it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I referred to sources and notability, I meant that you need multiple non trivial secondary sources that are independent of the of the subject. Please see here for more information. None of the ones that your provided would qualify. A google group is a forum, definitely not a reliable source. The freshmeat site only talks about a couple advantages and appears to be affiliated with the extension. And I'm not sure why you linked to the Mozilla page as it just talks about how to keep your computer safe. It does not mention the product, at least not that I can see. --Cyrus Andiron 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's some freeware. So what? There's lots of freeware out there. Lots. Is this so special that it deserves to be in an encyclopedia? Where are the rave reviews, the awards, the mentions in the computer press? Compare with, for example Spybot - Search & Destroy. andy 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see clear what's happening now. I complained Veinor about Reverse Engineering so he deleted all my articles. The lack of sources is a problem of most softwares made by small companies. You have to pay to other companies to talk about your software. Most of good software is used and you see only references to download pages, that's all. You can see in Wikipedia a lot of first line softwares without references like MSN, Windows Address Book or Outlook Express but they are made by a big company so you say nothing. It's a pitty because I believed in Wikipedia but now I know that if people like you have power here Wikipedia will end as a big failure. User:Pyabo

Sorry you feel that way but you need to listen to what we're saying. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on notability (see WP:N). And this isn't the place to promote your software - it's not a catalogue (see WP:NOT). There's a lot of freeware mentioned in Wikipedia but it should all pass the notability test. Your software doesn't, at least not yet. andy 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Veinor removed my articles is revenge, that's all and it's very clear. CookiePie was created on 25 February 2006, deleted today. OE API was created on 4 September 2006, deleted today. NKT WAB was created on 4 September 2006, deleted today. It looks as they were notorious before and after I complained with Veiner they became unknown. Pyabo

- Comment Wait... deleted all your articles? NKT WAB doesn't show any significant edits by anybody other than FZwp; are you saying that that's you? Because if it is, then you're going to need to pick an account and stick with it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not me but that article is of a product of my company and it's clear that it's a personal problem with us right now and a clear power abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyabo (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment Power abuse implies using administrative powers. It doesn't take those to search for 'nektra', or to do a linksearch for nektra.com, or to look at another user's contributions... there are endless ways to find these pages. I don't have a personal problem with you at the moment, and even if I did, I'm smart enough to know when to stop and take a break. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In Wikipedia the time you dedicate it's the administrative privilege. It's clear that you removed my articles after I complained (see submitted dates) with you and that is a personal attack and Wikipedia is clear about :No_personal_attacks. I think that we should stop here and keep our articles. That's all. The reserve engineering link should be discussed in that article with the contributors. Pyabo
  - Pyabo - you should focus on the immediate issue, which is that several editors agree that these articles should be deleted. If you can add references to show that the software or your company meet Wikipedia's basic criteria for notability then the articles will be retained. If you can't show notability then they will be deleted. You're wasting your time and everyone else's by trying to argue with just one editor. andy 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to Pyabo What? Are you saying that the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia is administrative privilege? And one of the other things Wikipedia is clear about is assume good faith. Besides, the articles haven't actually been removed yet, this is the process to see whether they will get removed. This is what happened: after I read User:Sebastianwain's first comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio, I decided to see whether that user had a history of personal attacks. I noticed CookiePie, saw what it was, and nominated it for deletion, because I didn't think that it satisfied the notability criteria. I then figured that there might be more, searched for 'nektra', and found OE API and NKT WAB. Nothing malicious ever happened, and I can assure you that this discussion will not stop simply because you want it to.
  - Comment CookiePie is an article that has more than 1 contributor. This article wasn't even touched by me. Before you've removed CookiePie article you've removed First, before you've deleted CookiePie article you've deleted a contribution made by another user that I don't know: User:Widefox saying: 'for major Firefox articles only, please'. I don't know if you know better than Widefox what it major. I saw his contributions and look much better than yours in the subject. Now, it's clear that this is a personal attack since you've done this after you've felt attacked by Sebastianwain. I understand your behavior: when you have a problem with someone you look all the related articles and act as a policeman: that's clear power abuse. Just tell me 2 things: why you remove the TAC from CookiePie and why you realized about the problems in our articles TODAY after I we complained? You should be removed as a user. Pyabo
    - If you would read what I had said, you'd understand that I found this article through the contributions of User:Sebastianwain after they made a personal attack on a different Article for Deletion nomination; you had nothing to do with it. And I keep telling you I haven't deleted this article. Here it is: CookiePie. I've just nominated it for deletion. There's a difference. I also don't get how nominating a bunch of related articles is a personal attack, but calling someone an 'ignorance dictator' isn't. And I tell you again that I did nothing whatsoever that a non-administrator could not do. I removed the TAC because I don't think that it's necessary on every single Firefox-related article; that's why we have categories. And I already told you why I realized about the problems today, but it seems to me like you'd rather assume that I'm drunk on my power. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GreaseMonkey is notable because it's a ridiculously well-used and well-known Firefox extension. CookiePie isn't notable because no one has heard of it. Case closed. As an unrelated side note, I was under the impression that, in most cases, Firefox can pull off opening two Gmail accounts simultaneously with ease. Shadow1 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow1 you don't know what you are talking about, having cookies separated on each tab is a complex thing not supported by Firefox and being 'hacked' by CookiePie because it's not in the API and planned for Firefox 3.0 or beyond. sw—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - We're here to discuss the notability of the subject at hand, not argue how useful it is or call me out because I don't have the technical knowledge of a Firefox hacker. Shadow1 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That what I see here: You had a problem with someone and look for all his articles to see problems: that's drunk on power for me. A person that start looking what can delete of others after he complains: that's drunk of power. You already know that you've committed a mistake, see the contributions of Widefox and tell me if you know better than him if CookiePie should be listed in Wikipedia and if the TAC is needed there. If you have doubts you should keep our articles. I say nothing against you and I have all the articles of my company removed after I complained, that's what I see and that's drunk of power for me. Pyabo
      - What power? The power to nominate articles for deletion? Anybody can do that. And I keep telling you again and again, the articles have not been removed yet. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This looks as in the middle edge: If you're not a witch you'll be judge innocent. You and your friends will decide it so the article will be deleted. And it'll be deleted because you had problems with Sebastianwain, that's all. Meanwhile, you and your friend removed a link to our product, just by change, nothing personal. You and your police friends should be removed from Wikipedia, it's a shame to have an SS here. Pyabo
        Like I said, personal attacks do not help your case here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What in the world is the problem here? If your article is deleted, who cares? It isn't like Wikipedia is that important anyway. It's a mildly respected encyclopedia with plenty of flaws. If your product doesn't make it in, you aren't losing any visibility. If Veinor had as much power as you seem to think he does, he wouldn't need the computer for deletion, he would smite people and articles using only his mind. He only nominated the articles. I doubt very much he gets any satisfaction from the process. Had he been filmed at the time of the nomination, I'm sure we would have seen a very stoic expression on his face. I doubt very much there was any sense of jubilation or hint of malicious intent. Now, AfD is a process, let it take its course. There is no conspiracy. No one that I'm aware of wakes up in the morning hell bent on deleting Wikipedia articles dealing with software extensions. Take a step back and relax. --Cyrus Andiron 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That's not me but that article is of a product of my company... In that case, we're also dealing with WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues. -- Kesh 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable software, and no reliable sources in this article. Also, accusing everyone who disagrees with you as somehow "abusing power" and engaging in personal attacks is not helpful. --Haemo 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing here to me, is that is obvious that Veinor puts for deletion my article after more than one year living in peace. Not just this, when I put the article for first time an editor from wikipedia marked it for better edition, I edited it. After a year an extension guy edited my article and added some common format between extensions (although at that time it was not in the firefox extensions anymore). Just today after I joined the discussion with pyabo Veinor put it for deletion, so it was a matter of chance? Vernon won the lottery and find my article?, obviously not, he didn't like what I said and decided to take action against me, because if efficiency matters nobody has complained before. If I edited my article a year ago to comply with an editor policy it can not be possible another editor cames and decide against it, may be in two years somebody in wikipedia will remove Microsoft from the list... who knows... may be in the future companies makes an IPO just to appear in wikipedia. Sebastianwain 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I openly admitted that I found these articles while looking through your contributions as a result of you calling me an 'ignorance dictator'. Also, you're treating this like this is a featured article or something. As far as I can see, there hasn't been any sort of assessment of this article before, and it looks like the community thinks that it should be deleted. And I honestly can't believe you're comparing Nektra to Microsoft... Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's totally immaterial how an article was found by a user, and this does not appear to be a nomination in bad faith, nor is it to prove a point. The duration of which your article has persisted on Wikipedia is not an indication of quality - some very poor articles have remained for literally years. Comment on content, not on editors. --Haemo 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history can see a more reliable editor has passed by my page, changed it and not putting it under deletion. My point about Microsoft is that somebody can put more restrictions in the future and remove articles that are approved now, and I prefer a wikipedia where I can find any reliable information about any company, from my perspective the web give this benefits, you can sort them based on a ranking. In sourceforge you can see projects from 0 downloads to millions, a bit of site creativity enable them to coexist. Sebastianwain 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm uncertain how you determine that editor to be "more reliable" than Veinor. Second, you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia if you want it to have an article on every company in existance. Wikipedia has strict rules on notability. -- Kesh 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Widefox, and in the Wikipedia notability page says: This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.. Sebastianwain 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "more reliable" editor without due cause, and since Veinor has no cause against, he's as reliable as any. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every company that exists, and no conceivable change in consensus can get rid of unambiguously notable companies. And a guideline remains a guideline, even when it is being discussed. --Haemo 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question as to how that user is "more reliable." As to the second point, "disputed" does not mean you can ignore it. There are arguments about the finer points of the policy, but the general concept stands as outlined. Further, the proposed revision would still render most companies non-notable. -- Kesh 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is more reliable of another, because the second one shows animosity, and since from the wikipedia perspective one who has the same judgement or who applies the same judgement taked a different decision and improve my page, I can't trust Veinor, he is sincere but can't judge in this case. And I am not talking about my company in the Cookiepie page, just talking about the addon relative notability. Sebastianwain 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense. All I'm getting is that you think Veinor isn't trustworthy, because he nominated your page for deletion, but you think the other fellow isn't because he didn't nominate it for deletion. That's not compelling logic, and you still haven't explained why this software is notable --Haemo 05:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Where did I admit animosity? I just said that you attacked me when you called me an 'ignorance dictatorship' on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio, and that I wanted to see if you have a history of them. Also, I am not the person that's actually doing the judging here, it's the community that is, and so far I don't see a single person that's agreeing with you.

Regarding the links you posted: The DMOZ link provides next to no information, as does the firefox.hk link, the nematzz.blogspot.com and forums.mozillazine.org links are not reliable sources due to the lack of fact-checking (no forums and blogs are, unless we're referencing a recognized authority in the field), the splitbrain.org link mentions it in the comments... which is again not a reliable source for the same reason, all the info that the paradigma.pt link has is a direct copy from [57], and in the final link, CookiePie is mentioned in one sentence in one of the comments, which again tells us no information.

A simple mention of CookiePie is not enough; we need something much more comprehensive about CookiePie specifically in a source that has a good reputation, not a one-off mention in a blog. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, first of all, proposing an article for deletion is not a mark of "animosity" against anyone, and I don't see any evidence of animosity here on the part of Veinor. Furthermore, I tend to agree with his assessment of the links you've provided - they're either trivial mentions, or non-trivial mentions from unreliable sources. --Haemo 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable software, possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues noted above. -- Kesh 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete OE API I can talk only about OE API. I used it for a project and it's really the only product that you can find to create add-ins in Outlook Express. There are some others that only wrap the official API provided by Microsoft some years ago. I've added some links to the article that show Microsoft MVPs recommending this product. May be I'm wrong but this product is much more useful than a lot of articles there and is the only working product in Outlook Express and Windows Mail. Matias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.92.4.2 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So, in other words, it's it's useful? --Haemo 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only tell my expirience: the company where I work wanted to do a software for Outlook Express and I looked everywhere and I found some storage documented APIs in Microsoft and this product, that's all. All people in the newsgroups pointed to this product. I added in the page some links of Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals for you to see it. The problem is that this guys made a terrible page of their product and instead of improving it they argued :) But they did a complex product, they reverse a lot of undocumented interfaces, it's a good job done. Matias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.92.4.5 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What Haemo was trying to say is that usefulness is not a valid argument for deletion discussions. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources have been cited which would demonstrate notability. This software is not even included in the main software repository page for distributing Firefox extensions, http://addons.mozilla.org -- Johann Petrak 06:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of motivations for the nomination, the article still fails WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N WP:COI WP:ADVERT. See http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=547807 for further evidence that the author sees Wikipedia as a free marketing tool which he has the "right" to use. This also violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy section 3.4: "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the debate in order to sway its outcome". Phil Bridger 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When was the page of notability created? Sebastianwain 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several months ago. History says it was created September 2006, but I suspect the concept has been around for a while longer. Oh, and like Phil Bridger said, asking for people to vote off-wiki, while not as bad as vandalism, is considered bad form. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably notability was added after the CookiePie page, so rules can change again in some years from now and enable it to be in Wikipedia. About my "bad form" of posting outside wikipedia, I don't see it incompatible with Internet style and taking the attention of others not reading this discussion, I don't signed or click in any Agreement when I use Wikipedia. Sebastianwain 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author's attempt to drum up support at http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=547807 draws a pretty near unanimous response from other forum users that the software isn't notable and this isn't an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Surely WP:SNOW now applies? andy 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your rules, but if you want to be clearly democratic in the creation of rules and deletion of articles, you will need a bigger feedback from the community, we can post to other Internet places to know other people opinions, may be contrary to me but now there are many few people in the discussion. Sebastianwain 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other question: Do you store this discussion to be find by a search engine? Sebastianwain 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is stored on the Wikipedia servers in order to show consensus. As for on search engines, we don't control them. If they are going through Wikipedia itself and obey the Robots.txt standard, then they won't look at it. If they're going through a mirror site or they don't look at the robots.txt, then this might come up. Searching for a couple of other articles that I've put up doesn't show it, so it looks like this probably won't either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no valid rationale for keeping it and no notable sources to reference it. WP:NOT freshmeat. Chris Cunningham 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mason Stanley

I cant see this being notable, it has no references and its about an un-notable individual, google search results brought up nothing relevant, so I'm bringing it here. Regards - The Sunshine Man 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has zero references to non-trivial secondary source coverage. Mwelch 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~subject is not profiled or indexed in Allmusic (a different Mark Stanley is, though), suggesting his contributions to the notable bands listed were not significant.~~ AllMusic credits index provides minimal verifiability but lack of a biography suggests he is not himself notable. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus As a "closer-keeper", I felt obliged to do some research, and indeed it seems to exist ans awarded for several years. I updated it a bit, for easier search. `'mikka 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Carré Trophy

non-notable C5mjohn 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment depending on what it actually is and who gives it the subject might be notable, but the article doesn't give any context.DGG 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost a speedy under WP:CSD#A1 for failure to provide context. In any case, it does not assert the notability of the subject, does not cite any sources, and a Google search reveals almost entirely wikipedia mirrors. --Ybbor^Talk 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In Dutch it is "Oscar Carré Trofee" and makes some hits. If you disagree with my closure, You are free to relist due to lack of discussion. `'mikka 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Mountain Ski Area

non-notable businessC5mjohn 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with Whitetail Ski Resort, a well known ski resort that meets Wikipedia's standards. Article can be updated and I'll do some research to update the page. Wildthing61476 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit that more can and should be written on this, but this is a relatively well-known ski area for skiiers throughout the Mid-Atlantic States. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named geographic location & that aside well known in the winter sports world - not "a business" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even less documentation than Whitetail. Named places with inhabitants are inherently N, not named locations, or every small patk would be. The occupants of a hotel don't count, or all hotels would be. DGG 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think "because its a ski resort" should be enough to warrant notability. I'm sure there are many restaurants that are reviewed in local and regional newspapers and also reviewed in restaurant and dining magazines, but that doesn't make every one of them notable enough to have an article. Having the non notable ski resorts listed in List of ski areas and resorts should suffice most of the time. C5mjohn 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regionally well-known ski resort that receives thousands of visitors each winter should be notable. In my opinion the size of a major ski resort's operation sets it apart from a restaurant or a small business; it's more akin to a theme park. Propaniac 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Frasier

This biography seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO standards of notability. It's been deleted twice as an unremarkable biography, but I've brought it here now for full review. Google doesn't help the cause for the article with only about 268 hits. Metros232 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DB_DataObject_FormBuilder

The sites that a google for DB_DataObject_FormBuilder turn up are about as notable as the sites that a google for wp-blog-header.php would turn up. Misterdiscreet 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure it's a fine bit of software but it clearly fails WP:NOTE. andy 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. PEAR is notable, its individual components are probably not. DB DataObject and this are the only listed packages with articles. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M4 (Star Trek)

Non-notable support character with no real-world significance or impact. User:FrankWilliams seems to have ownership issues with redirecting the material to the sole episode, "Requiem for Methuselah", in which M4 appears. Episode article at least has the potential to be an appropriate article that covers episode's notability. EEMeltonIV 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No ownership issues just think the article should stay. There are many other articles in Category:Fictional robots that fall under the above criteria. If we are going to remove M4 (Star Trek) we should also remove many of the one in the Category:Fictional robots group. I just want to be consistant if the argument is out of principle. Also, think there is a significance. The "M" designation was mentioned in Star Trek many times. The article even has verbiage about not confusing M4 with the "M" series of multitronic computer invented by Dr. Daystrom. FrankWilliams 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just repeats material from the episode article. It's hard to imagine that anyone would even know about this thing without knowing about the article. Mangoe 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for real world context. The fact that other pages should be deleted for the same reason is not a reason to keep. If the pages aren't that closely related then they should have separate discussions. Different works of fiction have different availablity of sources, so we can't just lump them all together. Jay32183 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article, as it stands, justifies its self to a level I deem acceptable for a separate article. I'd also support a merge to "Requiem for Methuselah", but not deletion. Matthew 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom & per WP:FICT, if it belongs in the Requiem... put it there. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No importance. Valrith 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character appeared in all of one episode. Hardly a WP:FICT major character, so no need for a separate article. Anything that needs to be said about it can be said in "Requiem for Methuselah". As for other articles about fictional robots, well WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to nominate those that are similarly non-notable so we can vote to delete them too. A reference to another entirely fictional machine from a different Star Trek episode hardly indicates real world significance. Mwelch 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT guidelines for separate article from the episode summary, which already has sufficient information about the robotic character. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems to be ok on it's own. A merge might also work but keeping it is preferable. 206.125.176.3 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Jay32183 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on that I think the article is ok on it's own. 206.125.176.3 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was asking why you think it's ok on its own. What policies or guidelines are you basing it on? Jay32183 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article, as it stands, justifies its self to a level I deem acceptable for a separate article. 141.156.213.51 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it was the focus of one episode. As per WP:FICT, this should be covered in the episode article rather than a separate article. -- Whpq 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Kalonaros

non-notable person C5mjohn 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would say to keep an actor who has played a role on a prominent series such as General Hospital, however, IMDB has NO listing of "Rosemary Kalonaros" or "Kayciee Scorpio" for the show. Doing a Google search for Rosemary Kalonaros only brings up hits for Wikipedia and Answers.com, which is a copy of the Wiki article. This is looking like a hoax to me. Wildthing61476 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution; apparently unattributable. I agree that it's a hoax. --Charlene 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax -- Whpq 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayciee Scorpio

non-notable fancruft C5mjohn 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated in the AfD for Rosemary Kalonaros, this appears to be a hoax character/actress. No IMDB hits for either character or actor, only Google hits refer to the Wiki article or copies of said article. Wildthing61476 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character does not exist per network and IMDb. --Charlene 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator because issues with sourcing were settled. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lazerow

This is an unsourced orphan biography of a living person I proposed for deletion. The prod tag has been removed so here it is. I sugges that we delete this article unless it can be adequately sourced and brought up to Wikipedia standard. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Five minutes on Google. Washington Post, Chronicle of Higher Education, eContent, PR newswire. The first two absolutely RS, the third OK, the 4th has some COI but is used at WP for details. Needs expansion. GOLF.com is apparently very notable indeed, & needs an article. I've listed it on requested article under Sports, as I'm ignorant about the subject DGG 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 02:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Cameron

Delete: Does not satisfy notability guidelines in WP:BIO. A number of commendable extra-curricular activities while a student and co-ordinating an NGO do not merit an article. Neither does her political career (as a student politician) - see the criteria for politicians in WP:BIO.

Delete per WP:BIO. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most notable thing she's done is been elected President of Edinburgh University's Students' Association. However, so have many other people, and we don't have articles about them, unless they're notable for some other reason. She doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Terraxos 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The first notability criterion at WP:BIO is: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." She does seem to meet this, albeit narrowly; for example, her opposition to Boris Johnson was covered by UK national media. The other WP:BIO criteria (for politicians, etc.) are inclusionary rather than exclusionary. EALacey 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ashok Sinha, the leader of Stop Climate Chaos doesn't warrant an article; the leader of a regional sub-group certainly doesn't. It's hardly Greenpeace — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The other former presidents of Edinburgh University Students' Association don't have articles either; neither do all candidates in the recent Scottish elections. TreveX^talk 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a bit of work on this article a few weeks ago, I had notability concerns then, and I still do now. As the president of the Edinburgh University student association, Ms. Cameron's name has appeared occasionally in the local press. However she has definitely not been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. We can't build an article on an individual based on a few one-sentence quotes, and the inclusion of the photograph screams WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edinburgh University is an institution of 30,000 people and Stop Climate Chaos has many million members, she is well known in Scotland and therefore warrants this page. Fair enough the photo can go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave Bellamy (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Dave Bellamy was the editor who uploaded the picture & added it to the article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Delaware. Xoloz 03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware trivia

Trivia articles are to be avoided in Wikipedia, according to WP:HTRIVIA. Additionally, the information in this article is not referenced. If references can be found for the facts here, they should be merged into the main Delaware page, and this article should be deleted. Terraxos 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Send the info found to be fact to the main Delaware page. Useight 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced trivia -- Whpq 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is essentially an indescriminate collection of information, though some of it has now been more or less sourced. Pursuant to WP:TRIVIA, I think a few of the items can be merged with the Delaware page, where they can hopefully be ultimately integrated. The bulk of the article probably should be deleted per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Based on the good word of Hahnchen, and the suggestion of Maramusine that foreign-language sources do imply notability, there seems no reason to overturn the latitude given at the last AfD. It will be quite reasonable to revisit this article in a few months if no further sources arise. Xoloz 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion

Still no independent references since it's afd last September. Claim to notability is a listing on http://www.mpogd.com/ based on user reviews; but popularity is not notability. Incredibly it seemed to pass it's last afd on keep arguments such as "I used to play this game a couple of years ago so in my world it is notable." Two further references were pointed out: ciao.co.uk (based on more user ratings) and uk gamer (not sure on it's reliability). I propose deletion on basis of WP:WEB Marasmusine 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just reduced the Ciao score by a half star, so it's defintily an unreliable source. I'm not sure about the other source. It seems to be reliable, although I can't really get much background info on the site. I'm gonna wait and see if more sources appear before I make my mind up. DarkSaber2k 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can guarantee a whole page review of this game was printed in PC Zone, however, I will not have access to that issue until mid summer. This game was quite popular before the dotcom crash killed its advertising revenues, Googling it came up with only a few sources however, and not too many reliable ones. MPOGD does have quite a few Google news archive search hits, and there are some non english mentions such as [58] and [59]. - hahnchen 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well those foreign language references actually look okay. A rough translation in order to get their context would be in order. In terms of the PC Zone review, perhaps we can strip the article down to a stub (by removing all those statistics in the Races section, for example) until you can retrieve it? Marasmusine 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a view to re-listing for deletion if no solidly reliable sources turn up. - Following the extra sources turning up and assuming the PC Zone article pans out (I do actually vaguely remember the PC Zone article too, now someones mentioned it.) But I will state now I don't really want to see the article scrape through, and then remain in a poor state once again. These AfDs and other deletion nominations happen for a reason, and that's something most people who say 'Keep and clean-up' overlook every damn time. DarkSaber2k 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update it is currently in the running for game of the month on http://www.mpogd.com/ Cupelix 12:15, 14 May 2007

Planetarion is always in the running there when I visit, but please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Massively multiplayer online games#Sources resources for current reasoning on why this is an unreliable source of notability. In a nutshell, these browser games can (and do) organise their fans on their forums to spam such 'award' polls. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were any independent third-party sources in English at all, it might be worth checking to see if this game meets the notability requirements of WP:WEB. I looked at the German and Dutch references mentioned above, but I couldn't tell if those were real magazines offering independent opinion. The ciao.co.uk website looked like a shopping site that gave the opportunity for users to submit reviews; thus the reviews carry no more weight than reader reviews on Amazon. EdJohnston 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Data Objects

Is this article a joke? What's next? A new article for each paragraph on php.net??? Misterdiscreet 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to PHP Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dekimasu よ! 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish bike ride

Better suited for a dictionary than an encyclopedia, and quite possibly a hoax. BassoProfundo 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can cite references confirming this is not a hoax, delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution, searches find only Urban Dictionary and references to an episode of South Park. --Charlene 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Pre-School (South Park). Article creator also made Texas chilli bowl from the same episode. I boldly redirected that. PrimeHunter 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a underground practice that if you can't learn about it on WP where could you? I can get photos of the procedure, just let me know so I can get in touch with my cameraman. CheeseyPuff 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is the article creator. Many of CheeseyPuff's contributions are vandalism, for example changing several articles to all caps with a template he (or she) created. CheeseyPuff redirected his user page to God [60] and awarded himself a barnstar for preventing fraud, signed "Great work! Jimbo 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)" [61]. The other barnstar was also selfawarded.[62] User talk:CheeseyPuff has been moved twice, maybe to hide warnings [63] from the history. PrimeHunter 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I don't read anywhere that you cannot give yourself barnstars. I never linked to any real admins in them - Jimbo and the Jet Set, come on that's amusing. There is no rule against leaving a redirect on your user page. Though several people seem to have disputed the idea since (what policy are they enacting???). As far as I know, I am allowed to archive my own talk pages, so I don't know what your issue is there. I'm too tired to fight, just tell me what I've done wrong. I'm not one for games, though you may be. CheeseyPuff 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not one for games? I asked CheeseyPuff to please stop vandalising pages by turning the text into all caps [64], and he just did it to my talk page [65]. He used Template:Upc which he created. Just providing information for other editors who are judging his reliability in defending the article. PrimeHunter 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, he blanked his "archived" talk pages. PrimeHunter 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~By the way, blanking of talk pages is considered a legitimate form of archiving..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsc83 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC).~~[reply]
        Blanking it and moving it two times within 20 minutes seems a bit excessive, and makes it necessary for others to do some work to find old warnings. Jsc83's edit summary was "PrimeHunter just seems to have it out for me". Account hacked by CheeseyPuff? PrimeHunter 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my account was not hacked. My computer was left unattended, I live with other people. I've shouted at the people concerned and I don't think either of them will be touching my PC again. Sorry for any inconvenience. Jsc83 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced hoax.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tasteless joke. Balcer 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the struck out text above... It was not me. I have struck comment and will be reviewing any contributions MY OWN account has made. Thanks. Please hold off for now while I see what "I" have "contributed". Jsc83 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On review, please Delete. There is no need for the article. Jsc83 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Whpq 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. W.marsh 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freakum Dress

Yet another non-article by the Beyonce brigade. - eo 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystalballism. DarkAudit 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dekimasu よ! 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Rappers From Coast II Coast

Unmanageable list, article is similiar to others created by same author Wildthing61476 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't even figure out what context this is in. Is this a list of artists on a record label? Resolute 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This probably already exists in some other article, as it is just a list of all rappers in the U.S. There is the same information in an article: list of rappers/groups/producer, which should be renamed to List of Rappers, Groups, and Producers. Proper grammar is necessary, especially in the article's title. Useight 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the article is Lists of Rappers/Groups/Producer, which is ALSO up for AfD for the same reason. The author of these article created a number of article with basically the same content (and as of 5/14/07 has been deleted). Wildthing61476 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this is just a list of American rappers, it is still unmanageable. We already have Category:American rappers with about 850 entries in it. There is no reason to have a list as well. Calliopejen1 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unmaintainable list given a lack of criteria. Categorization better serves this purpose. Resolute 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangies

No incoming links for months. Inaccurate content which is never likely to expand. Mal 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - moved to wiktionary. MER-C 04:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically a dicdef, and already transwikied. Resolute 04:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth West

One of literally tens of similar developments in central Manchester alone. Whilst some of these clearly have notability (such as Beetham Tower - due to its height) I dont know of any notability for Whitworth West Pit-yacker 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary or notable about Whitworth West. ---- Eric 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Quarter

One of literally tens of similar developments in central Manchester alone. Whilst some of these clearly have notability (such as Beetham Tower - due to its height) I dont know of any notability for the Green Quarter. Pit-yacker 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess, per nom. Just doesn't assert encyclopedic notability, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:N. Can't find much of relevance elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a proposed development with nothing notable to say about it. ---- Eric 02:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slumber Party Massacre 2

Film with no coverage in WP:RS. Fails notability criteria including Wikipedia:Notability (film). Valrith 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Roger Corman produced internationally and theatrically released film up for deletion??? --Oakshade 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- IMDB entry and possible to find more sources- defo notable Thunderwing 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are actually lots of detailed reviews on the net for this film. I added a little bit of what a couple of them said. - Peregrine Fisher 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, it was a clear copyright violation of a number of websites, |[66], [67], [68]. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Cell Technology

Notability not demonstrated in article Aboutmovies 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability appears to be established in the second paragraph. This article is terrible and needs a re-write, preferably about the significant technology developed rather than about the company. Nonetheless, I see notability established here. -Amatulic 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable enough per WP:CORP Thunderwing 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Before deciding, please take the time to read WP:CORP:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources.

This article has zero reliable sources that demonstrate the notability. Notability is not "best cell tech company" its is coverage via relaible, thrid party sources. This article has none of those. They may exist, and if they do then they need to be added. But the article has been tagged for over a month the editors involved have not done so. It needs to go. Aboutmovies 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these articles assert notability. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. I'm not going to source the article, but this should help. Let me know if you need more. --Cyrus Andiron 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this more clear as apparently the "artilce does not assert notability" at the top has been overlooked. The company may or may not be notable, I really don't care, but the ARTICLE does not show it. So posting links here does not fix the problem. Furthermore, the second source is a press release issued by this company so it would not be a third party source. Then the wright reports and Hoovers articles should not be used, as they get their info from the companies. Those two are fine to use for sources in general (where they are headquartered, revenue #s), but not to demonstrate notability. If anyone out there wants to make the article demonstrate notablity, then this discussion would be over. Aboutmovies 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my comment above, the article asserts notability in the second paragraph. Sources apparently support that assertion. The fact that these sources aren't included in the article isn't a reason to delete it. Instead, it's a reason to tag the article appropriately. -Amatulic 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject is notable, then the article will not be deleted. AfD is not supposed to be used to improve an article. Cleanup tags have only been in place for a month. Give the original author some time to work on it. This is taken directly from the top of the AFD page:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

Perhaps next time you should read and adhere to that warning. --Cyrus Andiron

00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's only valid for deletion if, as Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion states, "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed." If an article lacks sources, you at least try to look for sources before putting it up for deletion. Phony Saint 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of what, ten reasons for deletion. It can meet any one of those and this article does not for notability. It says nothing about needing to do so before deletion. It says nothing about every editor needing to look for sources. The editors who want this article to stay have had a month to do so as it has been tagged for sources/notability for that long. I find it rather odd that everyone says keep, but no one has actually added reliable third party sources to the article. Again if this happens the discussion ends. Aboutmovies 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misjudged the purpose of AfD judging by your comments. You're not going to convince anyone to delete an article for lack of notability if sources exist that show evidence of the contrary. It's laughable to suggest that the article be deleted simply because it is not sourced properly. Also, it might take longer than a month. Not everyone is on Wiki every day. Give it some time. We aren't working towards a deadline here. --Cyrus Andiron

01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable company and an article that can be improved by proper sourcing. Aboutmovies, if you have ten reasons to delete the article, why did you only list one? AFD is not cleanup, and should not be used as "cleanup with a deadline". I have limited patience for editors who yell to get their point across. If you can't firmly cite policy, you probably should not be making the nomination in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite policy, notability. Since this is a company I would assume editors involved in this debate would be familiar with this concept as defined by WP:CORP. I did not say there are ten reasons for deleting this article. I was refering to the fact that the policy cited by someone else about deletion was one of around ten reasons to post an article for deletion and are not instructions for how to go about the AFD process. I tagged the article a month ago and all the editor did was remove the notability tag and write in the edit summary that the company was notable. If you read about notability, that is not enough. The article has to show it through the third party, reliable sources. Simply saying something is notable does not make something notable. As I have said numerous times now, simply add the sources. It's not my job to do this, its not your job either. But if an editor wants an article to stick around, then the onus is on them. When someone AFDs an article I edit on (rarely happens since I make sure they meet the guidelines) I go in and fix the problem, then I go vote. You've cleaned up the article, but did not address the notability issue. However if people would like additional reasons, since there is only one source and that is for some of the finacials, this article would be original research which I believe is not allowed. That's why sourcing is required to avoid all these issues. Otherwise there would never be a need for an notability requirement with reliable sources, since someone can just say, this person/place/thing is notable without having to demonstrate it. And with the dozen or so AFDs I been associated with, they all were about notability. So no need to show the notability of a subject would mean no real need for the AFD process. And then Wikipedia just becomes a blog. Aboutmovies 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should become familiar with the policy yourself. This is taken directly from WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. I'm pretty sure that a few of the sources I listed above would qualify. --Cyrus Andiron

12:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source from the Nature journal that was mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, a big chunk of the article contains material lifted directly from the Advanced Cell Technology website [75]. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and making waves in the biotech industry [76]. However, the article will definitely require an overhaul in order to adhere to Wikipedia policy. --Cyrus Andiron

12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I nominated it for Speedy Deletion. The article has been a copyvio from the very beginning as explained on the talk page. It needs to be deleted. The company is notable, but the article will have to be created from scratch if someone desires to do so. --Cyrus Andiron

12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to preserve this somewhere specific, let me know and I'll make the content available to you if you need it. W.marsh 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Preserved at User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. PrimeHunter 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

The article's topic seems to be non-existent. When typed in to Google, there were no definitely relevant results. Also, Epaphroditus Ransom was not hanged, as mentioned in the article, and died 18 years later that it said he did, calling into question the existence of the article's topic. Also, no Enabling Act was passed in 1843, according to my research on this. This seems to be quite an elaborately constructed hoax. If anybody can give definite proof that such an event occured, I will withdraw my nomination. queso man 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a hoax. Sophisticated perhaps, but a hoax. FrozenPurpleCube 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WTF. There was no boundary dispute between Britain and the US surrounding the Michigan-Upper Canada border in 1843. The boundary survey began, certainly, and there was a dispute over the land which is now the southern half of British Columbia (about 3,000 km or so west of this area), but I see no reference to a "Canada-Michigan War". Then there's this excitement:

“

This 7, 356 square mile piece land, an area half the size of Denmark, would lead to the first hot war between Canadian and American forces since the War of 1812.

”

This is indeed surprising, because our article on Canada–United States relations mentions that the last "hot war" was the War of 1812, and doesn't mention a thing about this "war". Other interesting discrepancies include:

Epaphroditus Ransom is said to have been executed for treason a full 18 years before he actually died (of natural causes in Kansas);
One of the battles was supposedly called the "Rudyard Massacre" at the time, which is interesting because the town of Rudyard was only named that in 1890, 47 years after the massacre was supposedly named so;
I have two of the books listed under References, and neither reference this boundary dispute between the US and Canada. Hoax. (Edited.) --Charlene 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but archive ~~somewhere~~ at WP:BJAODN. It would be a shame to lose such an artfully crafted example of a hoax article. -Amatulic 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to archive it like that? This would be an excellent example of a hoax, and, as you said, it would be a shame to lose it completely. --queso man 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- hoax article Thunderwing 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Another point is that the article has E. Ransom as Michigan's governor during this supposed 1843–1844 war. Ransom actually served as governor from 1848 to 1850. Deor 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:BJAODN Hoax. DarkAudit 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded! I edited my comment above accordingly. -Amatulic 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thirded! This doesn't quite seem as funny as some of the other articles I've seen sent or sent myself down there, but this is a very interesting hoax. --queso man 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I'm not sure that it's funny at all. There seems to be some militia guys with guns here (click on "The 164th Anniversary of Epaphroditus Ransom's Capture"; WP rejects attempts to provide a direct link) who take some of this nonsense seriously, or at least pretend to, and use it to justify their strange ideas. Deor 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN! as a masterful hoax. --Haemo 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and BJAODN. Kudos to the author, but please don't do this anymore. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN for sure. I can't believe somebody had the balls to construct such an elaborate hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, this is a must. One of the most sophisticated articles I've ever seen. --Swing65 20:42, 10 May 2007
BJAODN as much as I hate to reward a vandal, this is the most elaborate hoax I've ever seen here. I almost admire the author for trying to pull this off.--Isotope23 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and preserve at BJAODN or elsewhere -- not to reward a vandal, but as an example of just how thoroughgoing a hoax article can be. -- Shunpiker 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. 132.205.44.134 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete please maybe for uncyclopedia but not very good a hoax yuckfoo 00:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, a masterpiece hoax. GregorB 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Music Group

Unsourced article on minor label. Very minor. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even the listed songs and albums by Sisqó mention it but rather refer to Def Jam--Tikiwont 12:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Hearts

No WP:RS to indicate notability, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Leuko 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would meet WP:MUSIC if the national tour the article mentions was reported in WP:RS's. The article offers no such sources, however. Mwelch 00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources whatsoever; poorly written. With sourcing (and a complete re-write) I could see keeping it but otherwise, no. Closenplay 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's about time we had a policy stating "MySpace does not equal notability." A1octopus 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subset theorem

A clear hoax and a good example of WP:MADEUP nadav 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This AfD was wrongly listed. Mr Stephen 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Mr Stephen 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a totally obvious hoax, bordering on nonsense. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Sadly, hoax is not a speedy deletion criterion. But this is the clearest example I've seen of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. It even explicitly says "the theorem simply came to Vasimalla one day in maths class" right in the article. —David Eppstein 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious hoax. Article was created by User:Archibald Egglestein, and it references "The Memoirs of Archibald Egglestein". More of this subset theorem nonsense here has been reverted. PrimeHunter 21:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. This could be speedied under WP:SNOW andy 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as I've just noticed it's already been deleted once before. andy 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syndal South Primary School

~~A primary school with no assertion of notability. Since there seem to be no reliable published works about it it fails Wikipedia:Notability Pax:Vobiscum 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep In it's new form the article doesn't seem to have any problems with notability. Pax:Vobiscum 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable school. J Milburn 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As modified, article makes explicit claims of notability for its environmental efforts, documented with reliable and verifiable sources, with more to come. Alansohn 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn primary school (per the arguments re notability at the discussion at WP:SCHOOLS), with a chuffed up section detailing its commitment to environmentalism as an attempted stab at notability that, being a primary school, is unavailable to the subject. Eusebeus 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Let's get this one straight: The claim of notability is based on multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources, all of which make support the claims of notability. However, as a primary school it is ineligible for notability!?!? Can you reference which Wikipedia policy this one came out of? Where on earth was this discussed at WP:SCHOOLS? You're really grasping this time. Even the nominator has changed his vote to Keep. Alansohn 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' LordHarris 11:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. --Vsion 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please references show this is notabel for us to have yuckfoo 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has unquestionably been established. TerriersFan 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Minor allies in Kim Possible. W.marsh 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Go

The subject only appears in one episode. Perhaps a merge to Kim Possible would be feasible. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minor allies in Kim Possible. In-universe and supported by zero external sources. Appears to have been copied from Minor allies in Kim Possible, which itself is in-universe and supported by zero external sources and should probably be redirected to Kim Possible. Pan Dan 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Majorly (hot!) 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxworthe Cortet

Subject appears to be fictional, or at least grossly misspelled. Cannot find any external reference to subject. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a clear hoax. It's very unlikely that a "band" (apparently consisting of a couple young children) which returns no Google hits outside of Wikipedia would have a gold record and top the charts. --Ali 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an A7, with a side order of WP:HOAX. So tagged as A7. A search on the RIAA's searchable database turned up nothing that was a gold album. It is complete and utter balls. Note that the author of the article not only made no other edits outside of the article, s/he hasn't done anything since. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark Brawl

Contested prod. Non notable minor league wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, article is little more than a list of results. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nominator has history of prodding every wrestling organization that is not WWE or TNA.TheNewMinistry 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because none of them meet notability guidelines, just like this one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete THere are wrestling articles about other then WWE/TNA (around the world even), they just need to be reliably sourced, like all articles need to. This is a collection of results, makes no claim to notability from either side (the fact it was held after a baseball game, or as a wrestling event), and as such, if sources are not supplied to provide notability, then I'm sorry, there shouldn't be an article on it. SirFozzie 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All very notable workers, making this promotion semi-notable. I say keep. Also, Hackney does just delete everything that isn't to do with WWE or TNA, so his opinion seems to be biased. Kris 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And just like the other member of WP:PW above, your !vote to keep totally ignores Wikipedia guidelines and the problems with the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having notable workers does not make the promotion inherently notable. There have been many minor promotions who have attempted to use the fact that a notable indy wrestler has wrestled there but it means nothing. People are getting so hyped up over other issues they've become inclusionists to articles which don't merit them. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails notability guidelines with no reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Shamrock Memorial Cup

Contested prod. Annual wrestling show by a minor league wrestling company, no assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Felix 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 05:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish headquarters of the British Transport Police

Truly crappy article - and I'm supposed to be the inclusionist one, remember. However, I can just see (faint) rescuability here so not prodding/speedying. However, I'm not in the least convinced this will ever warrant a separate page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is currently no salvageable sourced content which I would want to merge into British Transport Police. --Tikiwont 11:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed trivia

Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. This guideline explains it much better: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. When a whole article is just trivia, that's an issue. While the information is "interesting" to fans, it certainly isn't very encyclopedic at all. The previous AFD debate can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmed trivia. It was a keep vote, with very little discussion overall. RobJ1981 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page was made to keep this info off the main article because of its length. Some of it could use a bit of trimming, but most of it is sourced information. It also contains pop-culture references. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pop culture references are yet another form of trivia. These "moved to relieve stress on main article" pages get just as cluttered as the main page (if not worse). This belongs on a Charmed Wiki (if one exists), or a TV wiki. Sourced or not: it's still trivia, which Wikipedia isn't for. RobJ1981 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely indiscriminate information of no encyclopedic value. The color of Piper's car and her license plate number and whatnot is pointless. The rare tidbit of information that has some worth, like how the same actor played two major demonic roles, belongs in the articles on the actor. This article is crap. The notion that these garbage dump articles have some value in keeping the garbage out of the main article is unconvincing. The correct course of action in dealing with bloated trivia crapfests is to resolve it as a content dispute on the main article, not fork it off into a steaming pile on its own thereby making it someone else's problem. Otto4711 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge what can be salvaged into the main article, season article, or individual episode articles, but delete the page. Like the nomination says, WP:TRIVIA says to avoid trivia sections and whole trivia articles are even worse. Many of these points can probably be saved into other articles main sections (like the Behind the Scenes section could become a part of a Production section, etc.) to give them some sort of context, but pages like this, with just random, non-relating points are against policy and should be deleted. Just my opinion. Phydend 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - horrible, horrible collection of trivia. Save what you can, and the rest can burn. --Haemo 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a trivia guide for fans. The "better here than there" argument doesn't hold water, because the information should not be on Wikipedia at all. If the main page is getting bombarded with this, then keep a closer eye on it. Jay32183 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most important information back into the Charmed article. Many tv shows, film, books, etc have a small triva section, I see no harm in it. Having a whole seperate article for triva should be avoided though. Think outside the box 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, trivia sections are to be avoided as well. "Trivia sections should be avoided" is part of the automated peer review script. Jay32183 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually all "trivia" is by its very nature unencyclopaedic. - fchd 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Advanced Access Content System, as per previous AfD. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnezami

Will this ever be anything other then a stub? Jon Lech Johansen is notable because he developed DeCSS but rather because of the high profile lawsuite the development of DeCSS resulted in and the activities he's done after the fact. Arnezami has yet to do anything that isn't already discussed in the Advanced Access Content System article. Besides, if doom9.org, the source of all these hacks, isn't notable, I don't see how Arnezami is, either Misterdiscreet 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see there was already a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnezami to merge and redirect to Advanced Access Content System. The new stub is not much different than the originally merged one, but on the other hand the editor who reinserted it, may not even have been aware of this AFD decision or might have accepted a revert based on it or open to a more elaborate argument. As we are now here, let's confirm the redirect. --Tikiwont 11:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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