Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 31

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

The result was Snowball Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ga Won Middle School

Ga Won Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 00:06, 1 September 2007

(UTC)

• Delete. Completely non-notable. Frickeg 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - Lack of notability / noT directory 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are no indications that this school is notable in any way. Middle schools are often failing WP:NOTABILITY.--JForget 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  TerriersFan 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete, nocontext list of nonsense. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starter Deck Syrus Truesdale

Starter Deck Syrus Truesdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non encyclopedic Cloveious 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless it was used as part of some famous match,
  WP:NNBurzmali 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Can legitimately be speedied for having no context whatsoever. -- Roleplayer 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be somewhat related to
  Syrus Truesdale but exists as an uninformative list of nonsense. Helps no one and cannot be developed into anything that belongs in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 03:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No context, unreferenced and pointless.--JForget 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday

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

Minor local politician that fails notability criteria. He used to be the mayor of a town in Bucks. Previous afd nomination was closed early, after the individual in question (who appears to have created an article about himself) asked for the information to be userfied. It was then recreated, and the lengthy discussion on the talk page seems to have agreed that this was a borderline case, based on him possibly becoming more notable in the future. That does not appear to have happened. Delete Roleplayer 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

• Delete Absolutely nothing to distinguish him from ten thousand other local councillors; Mayor of
  iridescent (talk to me!) 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Vanity page for non-notable local politician. OfficeGirl 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was the mayor of a fairly sizeable city/town/urban area (118,229) and there are numerous and numerous articles of mayors of towns of similar size and even much lower.--JForget 00:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Mayor is a mainly ceremonial post in many towns up and down the UK including this one. The holder of the title has no extra powers or scope for decision making than any other councillor and in most of the other articles I would expect the individual to be notable in other ways than just being the mayor. -- Roleplayer 08:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE HE IS WELL KNOWN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyozzyolm (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) — Ozzyozzyolm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Was the mayor of a fairly sizeable city/town/urban area (118,229) and there are numerous and numerous articles of mayors of towns of similar size and even much lower.--Carstairs123 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— Carstairs123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong keep bad faith nomination, ban the user, not the article 86.146.214.146 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— 86.146.214.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Treasure in Iraq

Finding Treasure in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've googled "Finding Treasure in Iraq" and the corresponding hangul name, and there's not a single hit between them, which seems a bit odd for "one of the most famous Korean comic book series". Since the article also has no references or external links, I can only conclude that this is a hoax. PC78 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless sources are found. Julius Sahara 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Frickeg 06:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

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

)

• Delete or Transwiki in universe information with no real world notability Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an article not just listing but giving rather full information about the Daily Prophet and the other newspapers and magazines in HP. some of these are probably individually notable plot elements throughout the series, and might well be split off into articles by themselves. Combining them in this fashion is a sensible conservative move that should be encouraged. Given the amount of published reviews and other work on HP, this should be sourceable, though it has not yet been properly sourced. How this counts as indiscriminate escapes me, writing an article describing obvious plot elements is not OR, and this is no more a guide than any article about fiction. DGG (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the information in this article is notable enought to deserve its own. The Prophet and the Quibbler and others have been "notable" enough through out the entire series, however this article does need cleaning! **Ko2007** 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series - even if that series is very popular
  WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." - no evidence of this has been presented - without this how can any claim of notability be justified? [[Guest9999 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]
• Keep per DGG and Ko2007.--JForget 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Guest9999 is wrong in saying that Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series . Patently false as evidenced by thousands of uncontested articles about objects in fictional universes. This seems to be part of a campaign to improperly redefine what is and is not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 03:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Please see
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that there are a lot of articles that go against policy/guidelines mean that they should exist. If you disagree with the guidelines - which are decided by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community - then you should challenge them on the policy/guideline pages not in an AfD discussion. [[Guest9999 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

• Reply Most guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive. The fact that there are so many articles is a far better indication of consensus than the specific phrasing or interpretation of a guideline at a particular point in time. That many of these types of articles have survived AfDs is further evidence of what the real consensus of the community in contrast to the focussed wordsmithing of a handful of policy wonks. If the actual guidelines or, perhaps, your interpretation of the guidelines, is at odds with the acceptance by the community of certain types of article, that is a very good indicator that one or the other does not reflect the actual consensus of the community. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see how anyone could interpret
  WP:NN
  in a way that means that this article meets the guideline. No one has even mentioned a secondary source yet which is what the guideline is all about. There is always room for interpretation but if the definition of notability is:

having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

and "the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability"

then I do not seen how it is possible to claim something is notable without even trying to suggest that such secondary sources exist or presenting any objective evidence. [[Guest9999 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• I don't see that anyone is claiming that the article meets the criteria of the guideline as it is currently written. But that guideline is only a guideline (and a very contentious one at that) NOT an absolute, inflexible rule. Invoking a flawed guideline as if it were clear-cut policy is not helpful. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability on Wikipedia is defined by the
  WP:NN is a big guideline - giving a clear objective way to decide whether a topic should be have an article in Wikipedia - and I don't think it should just be discarded in terms of this debate. The guidelines are formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community and just because they are not absolute, it does not mean they should be ignored without a very good reason; I do not feel one has been given in this debate so far. [[Guest9999 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

• I'll concede that
  WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not saying it needs to be discarded, but it should never ever be interpreted as being the definitive word on what is or is not notable. It should instead be regarded as a starting point for discussions about notability. That particular guideline was NOT in fact "formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community" but was the product of a relatively small group of narrowly focused editors. It is deeply problematic in many regards and constant appeals to it as if it were a definitive rule are not at all helpful. older ≠ wiser 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For those who won't except well established guidelines such as
  WP:5P - which states "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - encyclopaedias are tertiary sources based upon secondary (and sometimes primary) sources; I do not think that this article falls within that catagorisation. [[Guest9999 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

  ...wha? Isn't the work itself the exact definition of a primary source? --Kizor 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Pottercruft. JIP | Talk 10:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are no reliable secondary sources to attest to the notability of the newspapers and magazines as a separate element of the Harry Potter Universe. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Loving the term "Pottercruft". No secondary sources cited (or even available) - this is the kind of thing that belongs on a fan wiki. •
  97198 talk 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • you may also enjoy "
    John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete or transwiki to a Harry Potter wiki. Fails
  talk•contribs 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No one has established notability. Those interested should be transwikied or mentioned in the respective book/film articles. Judgesurreal777 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into an appropriate arcticle. This information is important, but not important enough to deserve its own page. Cdlw93 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Harry Potter Universe. This article is very crufty, but SOME of the contents can be mentioned in the target article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as DGG pointed out, there is academic coverage of these fictional newspapers, both because every element of this series is worth putting under the microscope in order to understand its success, and because people use successful popular culture elements as learning aids and to hang general discussion on.
  John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Most of those articles are about other things and mention The Daily Prophet or The Quibbler. Mentioning something in a Law Review article does not mean that it has "academic coverage." Are there are any articles that are actually about these fictional papers and magazines? It needs to be the primary focus of academic material (not just mentioned in passing) in order to have "academic coverage."
  talk•contribs 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've expanded and referenced the Daily Prophet section; let me know what you think.
  John Vandenberg 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - nothing here to establish that this particular aspect of the Potter novels is in any way notable. Gatoclass 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitauri

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

There is nothing here or in the first few pages of Google indicating that, except for a few of the followers of David Icke, the 'Chitauri' are anything other than a part of the Marvel universe, where they appear to be synonymous with Skrull topynate 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per norm, Google isn't considered to be a universally reliable indicator, particularly when are searching for a foreign term from a region that has only a marginal history of web publishing. If you used an Arabic language search engine to search for details of an 8 track cassette, you might might not be able to find evidence of its notability even if it went to number 1 in the US.- perfectblue 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of real world sources giving significant coverage to this term Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and cleanup: David Icke and his brand of reptio related conspiracy are notable and verifiable, despite being unscientific, therefore this page should be merged with either Icke's page or one of the pages regarding reptiods and alien conspiracies. They are the father page this is a child page. It might not be notable enough on it's own but the history and usage of the term still have a place on Wikipedia. If this page is deleted, please post a copy to my user page so that I may kull it for information relation to the term in popular culture/modern conspiracy myth. - perfectblue 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable term, and possibly made up. Article seems to be
  original research. --Gavin Collins 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's a citation, so not all of it is WP:OR, as for being made up? So what? somebody made up the story of The Hook, too. Being fiction isn't a good reason for deletion. - perfectblue 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaaaaaay, It's probably a good time for me to mention that this is a foreign language term in a foreign language context and that google therefore probably isn't a good source of information (Google is only really any good at topics being covered in places on the up side of the digital divide). It's also probably a good time to mention that this is a cousin of a much more western and much more notable modern conspiracy/myth promoted by a man named David Icke who believes that giant lizards secretly rule the world. It's nuts, but its true (that he believes this, and that his ramblings are notable). Therefor at the very least this page should be clipped and merged with Icke's lizards. As it is, there is enough here for a stub entry. - perfectblue 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"except for a few of the followers of David Icke" - David Icke is notable as a loon, and so followers of his work. What you're saying is akin to "Babe Ruth is only relevant to baseball fans" - perfectblue 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just what I said - even amongst Ickeites, it's hardly a well known term. We're talking Goldie Holt, not Babe Ruth. I favour a redirect to Skrull, as insofar as the word Chitauri is notable at all, it is in this context. I have seen statements that David Icke inadvertently gave the Skrull their original name, which cannot be strictly true, as they first appear in the 60s; he may have given rise to use of the word Chitauri in a modern series set in a parallel universe.

There is in any case no information that does not better belong either in another Icke article or in Skrull. topynate 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that we should keep the skrull out of this debate; at most they are a distraction, and Proposing that a page be deleted simply because the term is more notablely used elsewhere simply isn't in line with current wiki policy. At most the Skrull issue should be dealt with through a disambiguation link. Chitauri (Comic book) would be my favored solution.

However, I still hold that Chitauri (as lizards) are a record worthy subsection of the wider conspiracy/modern myth about reptilian humanoids. While the term might not be as well known as Icke's other mutterings, and might have become deprecated, it forms part of the topics history and thus needs to be recored. If not here, then at Icke's page of one of the pages about Icke's books/beliefs. Keep as a stub or merge, but there are no real grounds for deletion. - perfectblue 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Notability and RS needed to be address given its been listed for 14+ days at afd something beyond a single news article attributed to LA Times(not dated) should have been forth coming. The nomination of a You tube show for a You tube award doesnt make notability. Gnangarra 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmen hunters

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

Non-notable Youtube series. No claims of notability, no reliable sources of notability. Nothing at news.google.com. I gave up looking for reliable sources after the first five pages of Google. Nothing has changed since this was closed as a rather disputable no consensus back in March. First Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowmen hunters. Corvus cornix 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Just a youtube series, fails

• Delete per lack of any notability outside youtube Corpx 00:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Previous discussion was dominated by
  reliable sources (and two of the references in the article point to the same trivial mention). Most of my comments in the previous AfD have been taken care of (the article is a damn sight better then it was when the first AfD started), but I still think that 700k all time views is just a blip in the YouTube world, where even the most 100 most popular comedy clips have over 3 million views. I don't have anything against truly notable and widespread viral videos, but Wikipedia just isn't for whatever happens to tickle the fancy of folks trolling the front page of YouTube. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion (in much the same way that

WP:N. These problems are not new - they were brought up before, and as is now, your arguments were not for the merits of the article, but rather the inadequacies of the guidelines. I can appreciate that, but they don't actually get you any closer to keeping this article from being nominated for deletion every other month or so. Believe me, I have tried to find something that adequately convinces me that this article belongs here, but I have come up short. Thats not to say that sources don't exist - its just that I have been unable to find them. Rather then question if the other editors are applying the guidelines fairly, perhaps you can help where Google falls short. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

My comment about Google was not about "how many" Google hits there were, but the quality of them. I couldn't find a single one which qualifies under

reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Cosmic: believe me I'm not here to pick fights with other editors about applying guidelines. I was just responding to a comment and trying to make sure we were all on the same page. Text is sometimes a poor medium to use in discussions as it's easy to read emotions in where none exist. But, as you just said that you "personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion," (emphasis mine) it would seem that you are trying to apply a double standard by saying it's ok for you to ignore guidelines that you disagree with, but I should be held fast to those same nebulous guidelines. This series is notable by vertue of the over 2.5 million times the episodes have been viewed across the web (not just on YouTube) and the amount of on-line mentions from various sources. Notability is all about popularity, worthy of notice, and being memorable.

To try and clear up where Snowmen Hunters are talked about in print and on videos I've added a few more links in the article to mentions of the series on Digg.com and from the LA Times. I could have added more from the well known bloggers but didn't want to clutter the article with too many of the same type of mention. The show has been featured on CMT's Country Fried Videos and will be available via Comcast's Video On Demand service in the near future. I haven't added links to these as this information is about how, due to the popularity of the series, it is getting picked up by other media outlets. As more data comes in about how many times it is demanded by Comcast subscribers that information will be added to the article.

Corvus: I understand when you say you can't find a "reliable source" on Google because what you consider reliable for WP is not a criteria that Google uses. They rank pages by how many other websites link to a particular webpage. See: How does Google find and add sites to its index? My quick Google search yielded over 1.7 million hits. I had to go past the first 300 just to get beyond the many bloggers that have written about the series. In this age of the blog-o-sphere many notible web-based events and entertainment are not written about in the dying paper-based press that is rooted in the the 18th century. If you don't believe the print press is dying, just ask yourself why they are all going with digital editions? All of which I stated six months ago when the article was first put up for deletion. steveoutdoorrec 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you debate the guidelines, rather then the content of the article. I admit, its an effective strategy, since there are only so many times we can say, read
  WP:N. I do want to point out that the same source is linked three different times under News Articles, and one other time as a reference in the article, and the LA Times article is linked twice, so if this is kept, the article should be tided up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It has been tided up. It's not that I don't care enough to only improve it when challenged as you will notice that the article is continually updated as new episodes are added. I'd say it was that I have a very busy late spring and summer managing a wilderness park and don't get on-line as much as I do in the off season, so when I'm on I don't have time to go back and check for broken links on every site I have a hand in. Checking here and the two websites for snowshoe racing that I run for just this kind of thing is a priority in the fall. Thank you for helping improve the article. Going back to the original AfD, one of the reasons given was that noone could find mention of the creators or the series in IMDB. There is a new website for user-generated content at UGCDB steveoutdoorrec 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UGCDB does not appear to be a
  WP:RS because its primary method of listing is people adding themselves in [1]. Leuko 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Leuko: As stated on the UGCDB homepage "The information comes in part from the ugcDb community contributions as well as dedicated editors." This should sound familiar as "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." Anyone can add content to either, not just a person "adding themselves." I'm happy to report that the creators of Snowmen Hunters didn't add themselves to the database. The entry was made by the site editor after he did an interview with the creators of Snowmen Hunters steveoutdoorrec 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is reference to the LA Times. Not to mention EVERY other person nominated in the Best Series category for the 2006 YouTube awards has an entry in Wikipedia. The removal is without merit. No need to single out these guys. ScottS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottS (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that that LA Times article is not hosted on the LA Times website, but on a different website altogether? Corvus cornix 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article expired. It's not uncommon. It was linked here on Wikipedia through the LA Times for a while. ScottS

I repeat - I went to news.google.com to look for "Snowmen hunters", and came up with nothing. Nobody in the mass media appears to be interested in these guys. Corvus cornix 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody that is except the LA Times and the Chico News and Review. These publications have documented articles on the subject (see links in article), yet they do not come up on a Google search. Is it possible that Google has a way of ranking items found from a search that precludes some subjects from being listed? On the Google.News' FAQ page for How do you decide which stories appear on the Google News homepage?they state, "Our headlines are selected entirely by computer algorithms, based on factors like how often and where a story appears online. Google News has no human editors selecting stories or deciding which ones deserve top placement." I don't know about you but I don't find that machines know what news items I want to read. Google is not a credible source, in my opinion, to base decisions on what constitues news. As I've stated above, and in the original discussion, that in this day and age we have to take into account alternative sources for articles written on many subjects. Especially for web based entertainment. The print media is dying and with most of them being owned by the same people that control traditional media (TV and radio) there will be a dreath of stories about the new competition. The reporters and editor know who signs their paychecks. steveoutdoorrec 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One LA Times column doesn't impress me - notability means more than that. And Wikipedia doesn't change its rules for web based content. If the only coverage comes from some guy's blog, then it isn't notable. MarkBul 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you noticed that no blogs are or ever were listed as links for the article. So your point is moot. They are honored by YouTube by being asked to represent the comedians on the site. The show is picked by YouTube to be one of the top ten comedies in a contest in which they placed 8th. The show has at least two other YouTubers doing paradies. The Snowmen Liberation Front and the Snowmen Hunter- English Version. Some would say that all of these as well as the other links in the article point to some notarity steveoutdoorrec 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see what's wrong with sources like this one, among several others. Substantial coverage from reliable sources >> notability. 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs)
  • The New America Foundation has an agenda, I'm not sure anything on their site is particularly neutral. Corvus cornix 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably right, but I don't think the
      New America Foundation has any outstanding biases that would prevent the group from qualifying as reliable. And it was published by the Los Angeles Times. Seems fair enough - probably not exactly neutral, but I don't think there's anything remarkable here compared to other sources that are considered reliable. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I don't think there's a mass media outlet that doesn't have an agenda. Whether you agree with it or not depends on your personal outlook and which side of the aisle you lean toward. This does not preclude them from being a credible source for items that are non-political in nature such as the entry under discussion. steveoutdoorrec 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The New America Foundation is not a "mass media outlet". Corvus cornix 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was refering to XDanielx and the way his wording implied that the LA Times was not exactly neutral. In my opinin no media outlet is, main stream or otherwise. But that's for another discussion on some other forum. steveoutdoorrec 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just a highly successful, press-garnering YouTube series. Chubbles 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Ridiculous, no refs, non-notable. If we had articles on every you-tube that got a passing mention in a newspaper.... NBeale 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the article? It certainly includes many assertions of notability beyond "a passing mention in a newspaper." — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rlevse 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we nearly there yet equation

Are we nearly there yet equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An in-joke from someone's personal website. no evidence of notability, neither in article, not in google `'Míkka 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on notability grounds. It's just a joke page from an academic's web space. — BillC ^talk 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add: further to Iain99's comments below, news articles like this are particularly common during the summer silly season, when genuine news is in short supply, and newspapers resort to frivolous filler articles. I have variously seen formulae for calculating the funniest joke, the ideal beach holiday and we now have the Are we nearly there yet? equation. You can see that all these stories date to the summer months. As Iain99 and MarkBul say, there is no lasting notability here beyond what papers print for a few days during a slack period.— BillC ^talk 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  self-published source. Might even be speedily deleted because there is no assertion of importance. --Pixelface 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep, meets notability. [2] [3] [4] Carlosguitar 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per

• Keep per CarlosguitarMandsford 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After being cited in the British media above, it will never be heard from again. A one-off mention in the media is no different than any other news item - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MarkBul 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete from keep I have re-evaluated, and I now conclude deleting is the best option. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am inclined to agree with MarkBul. This is a news story, the same story repeated in a few media outlets on and around 20-22 July. There is no evidence of long-term, historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This was one of a number of mathematically meaningless equations which appeared in the British media last year . Essentially they were a novel form of advertising - dreamed up by PR companies, who found academics to put their names to them to get them into the press and get publicity for their sponsors (Skoda in this case). For one analysis of the phenomenon, see [5]. As such, I don't think they're particularly encyclopaedic, nor do I think they meet notability guidelines, having got a little press for a day or two and then being rightly forgotten. (
  WP:NOT#NEWS). The phenomenon itself might have merit as an article, but I haven't see any sources describing it apart from Ben Goldacre's Guardian columns. Ergo, delete. Iain99 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into and article per Iain99 if one can be found, otherwise DeleteBurzmali 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR.--Sefringle^Talk 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The article appears pretty ridiculous and meets
  WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInfinityZero (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. You can find lots of such math jokes on the internet, and that does not mean they are notable even if they have received a one-shot mention from a journalist looking for a fun news story. Agree with Iain99's analysis and MarkBul's point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not notable. I agree with MarkBul, BillC, Iain99 and Sjakkalle's comments. Unlikelyheroine 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Bubba the Love Sponge --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Radio Network

Bubba Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

This article seems more a collection of random information than anything. It is hard to articulate precisely why this article doesn't seem to belong, but it just doesn't seem like it should be here. (I admit, I am completely unfamiliar with this particular subject, so I cannot determine how notable this really is.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So because you don't know anything about Bubba and the Show, you feel it shouldn't belong. That's a real fair way of looking at things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.123.210 (talk) 22:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
• I agree you cant expect a page to be built in a day and be 100% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seman209 (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
• The BRN is the brand of the BUBBA THE LOVE SPONGE SHOW, If
  Bubba Radio Network — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seman209 (talk • contribs
  ) 16:39, 26 August 2007

• Merge & Redirect into
  Original Research and then Requests to edit a protected page to add material back to the Bubba article. Optigan13 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I admit that I was trying to put the same material in this new page, but please do not merge with Howard 100 and howard 101 If you do that you will make it look like Bubba is just some hack that has time on howards station, Bubba is his own show and should be shown as. All info is verifiable. seman209

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hu12 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & Redirect `'Míkka 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect (after pruning) into Bubba the Love Sponge. Only one of the third party sources seems to be clearly about the show; the others are about the man. The show does not seem to have sufficient notability as a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect This is an easy one - per Mikka. MarkBul 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've restructured and cleaned up some of the sources to the article.[8] The article as it stood at the time of the initial nomination is here. Although at this point I still think only the cast section is suitable to be merged, the rest can be recovered from the Bubba history, and then citations added later. Although the Clearing of cruelty in pig case, Sheriff, Marriage, and brooke skye lawsuit are all useful links for citations.Optigan13 07:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'delete JoshuaZ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hunt

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not possible to find
  reliable sources to meets notability. Carlosguitar 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  non-notable Peter Fleet 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOT.TUNES

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

Speedily deleted twice by me; after the a complaint from the creator I have decided to give it a chance. Promotional of an apparently non-notable software. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I just wanted to point out that the creator has sought advice through {{helpme}} for satisfying requirements for this article and been instructed on sourcing, neutrality & notability. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the AfD because of that, but I will note I have some doubts that notability can be established. As the page is, it's obviously unacceptable. --Moonriddengirl 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:WEB. Maybe the author can improve the article, but I don't think notability is, or will be, met. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I have added a ref or two and fixed the formatting. No opinion regarding the keep-worthiness of the article. - TwoOars 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as references look like product placement. Article appears to be thinly disguised
  WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Page has not been edited since August 31st, so I suppose it's safe to assume that the developer has taken it as far as he or she intends. While there does seem to be some claim to notability (its sources show it has been covered in
  WP:RS for the purpose (ZDNet does not refer to DOT.TUNES; Tipmonkeys looks like a blog). We're cautioned at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) not to create criteria that unfairly discriminate against smaller companies, which are less likely to attract major media attention but which may have equal notability (as opposed to fame) to the large companies. However, there's really no assertion in the article I can see to suggest encyclopedic inclusion is appropriate for this. --Moonriddengirl 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fowler

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

A no-name political wannabe asserts notability by being a serial candidate but never actually winning any of the elections. Lots of statements made in article with no 3rd party references (I added citation needed tags). Has been speedied on 3 different occasions but keeps returning. Nomination based on: doesn't meet

• Delete - Now that I've thoroughly scrubbed it, delete. --Isis4563 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dlw22 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete didnt even win town council.DGG (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failed candidate.--JForget 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete
  Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007.--Mifren 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sandstein. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvThreads

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

)

The article is on a internet forum that has no notability, the article has previously been speedy deleted [9] --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Ordinary life in Japan during WWII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

A very long, great mish mash of information, that is all totally unreferenced. Borders on original research in places. If you read the talk page it was a questioned copyvio when it was first created almost two years ago but wasn't detected as such because the original was in Japanese, and it has been listed for cleanup ever since. I suggest deletion unless anyone has any better ideas. Roleplayer 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking verifiability. It's been tagged unsourced since June of 2006 and an unattended article in a WikiProject since August of 2006. "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." Hmm. :) Ample time for repair. Barring sudden herculean achievement from some editor, I don't see how this one can be saved. Too bad. It's an interesting article, but it's not Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on
  WP:PROD. — BillC ^talk 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Obviously, this one needs to be sourced, but it's a worthwhile article, similar to United States home front during World War II and Home front during World War II. The content in the latter article for Japan is pretty meager at the moment, but it cites a number of books that could be reveiewed by the author: (1) Cohen, Jerome. Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction. University of Minnesota Press, 1949. online version (2) Cook, Haruko Taya, and Theodore Cook. Japan at War: An Oral History 1992. (3) Dower, John. Japan in War and Peace 1993. (4) Duus Peter, Ramon H. Myers, and Mark R. Peattie. The Japanese Wartime Empire, 1931-1945. Princeton UP 1996. 375p. (5)

Havens, Thomas R. Valley of Darkness: The Japanese People and World War II. 1978. and (6) Havens, Thomas R. "Women and War in Japan, 1937-1945." American Historical Review 80 (1975): 913-934. online in JSTOR; If it can add some meat to the bones, keep it. Mandsford 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and improve If an article needs help, then help it. Get over the 'delete' philosophy. This article is a good start; unfortunately, many articles in WP are not referenced/cited (yet). Hmains 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Smerge to
  WP:V. If deleted, or if redirected or merged, there should be no barrier to recreation from the refs added and from other reliable sources. The topic is notable, but the statements in the present article seem like a hoax magnet and a miscellaneous collection of supposed factoids of unknown origin. Edison 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and improve. The Japanese military history taskforce has worked wonders on other articles, and they could likely do so here. Letting them know rather than putting an article up for deletion would have been much more effect, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to much OR, not enough proper use of sources. This is a fine subject but it would be better to start over. Eluchil404 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - sigh, I sympathize with user Eluchi that it would be better to just start over with this long and badly written article. However, it does contain some refs at the bottom of the page that maybe someone a little more competent could use to do a total rewrite from the ground up. There's nothing inherently wrong with the subject matter, just the treatment. But if neither of those are good enough reasons to keep it, then delete per Eluchi. Gatoclass 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

Rise of Persia

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

Unlike other Rome:Total War mods such as Europa Barborum, which have third party reviews, I cannot find any for this. It's been uploaded to a few places...but apart from the project's own site I can't find any third party sources. Frankly it reads like an ad. Gekedo 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, barring verification of notability. I haven't been able to find anything, either. --Moonriddengirl 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are found to give notability to this mod Corpx 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Elementary

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

Contested prod. Non-notable elementary school. Nothing that sets this school apart from numerous others that share this identical name all over the United States. No assertion of notability, merely a listing of staff and an annoying photo slide show of students. Realkyhick 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• why do you want to delete it? i know there are a lot of other schools with the same name, but someof them are on wikipedia and not marked for deletion like mine! why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudebenz (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But Johnny's Mommy lets him do it is not a sufficient argument on Wikipedia. MarkBul 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability asserted. Eusebeus 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no attempt to assert notability and a quick google suggests that may be this is because there actually is none to assert. • nancy • 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:N. Primary schools are not inherently notable, and no sources here indicate otherwise. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Per all of above. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable per above. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obvious fail of
  WP:N. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete As per WP:N. 3tmx 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i have a problem in general with the fact that so many schools that blatently fail WP:N have Wikipedia articles- is there not a specific policy regarding schools?? How many schools that have WP articles would ever make it into another encyclopedia?? School article IMO are usually created by people that have a connection with the subject and the articles are arguably advertising (then the creators want to add names of there teachers, school song, members of the football team etc) . There seems to be no consistency as to whether they are tagged or not. 3tmx 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heres one i saw earlier today [[10]]. I don't know if its notable but I can't even be bothered to give it a notability tag because its just one among a million. Sorry for going off topic 3tmx 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were efforts to create a subject-specific guideline

• Delete WP is not a directory and this is a local neighborhood elementary school like a gazillion others across the world.--JForget 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same brain

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

Contested prod. Subject was probably

• Agree with nom - it appears to be a
  neologism if nothing else. No notability or sources provided. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There's a word for this, but it's basically "great minds think alike".
  Wikipedia is not for things made up in philosophy class one day. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Interesting kludge for a
  made up in school some sunny day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Indeed it was probably
  neologism. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above 3tmx 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm reminded of that expression from a TV show, with the punch line being, "So which one of you is using it now?" Mandsford 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia After 1990

Georgia After 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one's an

Delete merge and redirect. Don't be so negative, I'm sure it is within the remit and ambition of Wikipedia to attempt such a task. However with only three entries and the perfectly functional History of Georgia (U.S. state) available, this article is unneccessary for the time being.KTo288 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czac (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant effort to existing article. Not a plausible search term, so redirect not warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I think it is a valid search term, but a confusing one (its capitalisation not withstanding), I don't know why 1990 was chosen as a starting point in the history of the US Georgia, but when I saw the title I thought it was going to be about the former SSR of Georgia, as 1990 was the year it declared its independence (though actual independence came later). If redirection is in order, should be redirected to the disambiguation page History of Georgia.KTo288 10:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, speedy for {{
  db-content}} is remarkably tempting. There's not much here to begin with, and there's no connection or cohesion to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Why 1990??? History of Georgia already exists as pointed out above. No redirect. Would support speedy deletion. 3tmx 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why 1990? Why 1990? Because THREE very exciting things in the 17 years since then! And you thought Georgia was boring.... Mandsford 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They left out
    iridescent (talk to me!) 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete very arbitrary choice of year for this article's title and probably arbitrary events chosen too and anyways this may be duplication of the main history of Georgia USA article.--JForget 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - two events are already covered in History of Georgia (U.S. state), and the election of C. Jack Ellis is covered in Macon, Georgia. As an aside, History of Georgia (U.S. state) could probably be a much better article if it cited its references inline. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - you nominated this two weeks ago and it was speedily closed. Renominating it again so soon is slightly disruptive - in any case this article is well-sourced and debating this is not necessary as the outcome is easy to guess.

Jimmy Wales

Last nom was closed after just 1 keep and 1 delete vote. He may have founded wiki, but is he really notable? The founders of IMDb et al. don't have their own articles, so why this guy? Fails

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elie D. Al-Chaer

Elie D. Al-Chaer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This self promoting article should be considered a vanity article. Content is not a neutral point of view and is self-submitted. Wikipedia is not a directory. While importance is asserted, real importance is low and for the most part unfounded. Redgrip 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I would admit the article has undertones of neutrality and COI issues, it would appear that the subject is at least somewhat notable, as the references listed show, and a quick Google News search [13] . Being noted by Science News, being director of a U.S. University Medical facility, etc. I would suggest a re-write of the article aimed to remove any neutrality concerns, properly formatted references, and a helpful notice to the creator of the article about
  WP:COI. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep Appears to be notable, remove the COI issues and clean up the POV. ~ Wikihermit 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutrality is concerning as is obvious conflict of interest in self promotion. Noted in science news does not mean anything other than was in the news. Might be ok if written by unbiased 2nd party. Recommend deletion. ~ padyel 17:07, 4 September (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the
  notability guidelines for academics. --Crusio 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The claim of a discovery of a new spinal cord pathway that conveys visceral pain is actually more attributable to Mr. Al-Chaer's graduate thesis advisor William Willis. See Willis et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 96, Issue 14, pp. 7675-7679, 1999.--redgrip 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson vs. Buckle

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

)

• Comment While there is precedence for having articles about lawsuits, (
  cited to add the title, etc, to help with readability and reference. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Due to the stricter enforcement under the
  WP:V-compliant names for articles that should not be biographies. If people have a problem with recounting the "causation" of the lawsuit in such articles, then my argument that these are not optimal names has some merit. I think that "Dwayne Buckle assault case" or some such name might be more appropriate, because it would encompass what people actually want to write an article about as well as what the sources for that article focus on. We can decide a name here or let the editors come up with one. Either that or we just go back to covering these within biographies, but I don't think that would go without controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I agree with Dhartung about naming--we might as well use a more direct name. Normally it would be better not to have an (apparent) victim as the primary name, but when there are a group of alleged attackers, its the only practical way. There are sufficient sources for an article. That said, this is an extremely poor article, with selective sourcing and POV. The rewriting should be done with care for BLP with respect to everyone concerned. DGG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I rewrote part of the Dwayne Buckle page, which at that time was essentially an attack page attacking the new jersey seven. Arguments ensued, and thus the discussion was spun off to form this page. I will admit to a personal POV, however if someone wishes to produce a better article outlining neutrally all of the claims, counter claims, and media portrayals reasonably then I can tell you they are in for a rough ride, it is neigh impossible to obtain any "official" statements on anything (I tried to obtain a court transcript, for example), and there are barely any facts agreed upon by any of the articles published. I don't know how similar cases are to be handled, so at this point I just have to deliver some article, however "poor" it may be, which referenced everything I could find. Until investigating this case I was blissfully ignorant of the extent of media bias, but seeing so much disagreement in a highly publicized case has enlightened me. I think the article should be kept, and if someone can present the available information without selectively dismissing one article for another they are more than welcome. Danielfong 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I wrote the Dwayne Buckle article and it was not an attack on the New Jersey seven. The article was very straight forward and presented the facts as agreed upon by the courts. In fact the information about the attack was intentionally kept to a minimum and did mention Buckles verbal assault of the women before the fight ensued. The fact is your problem and the problem with this article is that you view neutrality as an attack on the New Jersey seven. Now that being said I think this article is worth fixing to a NPOV so I will vote Keep --The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article has a dozen sources from multiple accounts: it surely fulfills notability. This page needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. Nyttend 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment To The Emperor of Wikipedia: This shouldn't largely effect policy decision, but, are you aware that (a) courts have been known to make erroneous judgments, (b) media sources such as the New York Post and the Gawker are frequently biased or incorrect, and even newspapers of record, such as the New York Times, are known to be biased and self-censoring (see for example, footage captured in Chomsky's movie, Manufacturing Consent) (c) selectively ignoring reports or discrepancies in the media (such as for example the physical violence that Buckle was reported to have engaged in), and to report conviction of offense as fact (further, for a case set to be appealed), does not seem to fit the sensible definition of neutral? That to deny even the existence of alternative claims of the case in question it fails to provide a meaningful perspective on the issue? I don't have the energy to argue endlessly about this, but I want to make my point clear, again, that I do not believe that that article as it stood was NPOV, that I have reasons for believing this, and that I think many sane people and editors would agree with me. Danielfong 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While, as I said in the nom, I know nothing about the case and am not in a position to judge who's right & wrong, regardless of the justice of the courts decision, the fact of what the decision is a verifiable fact that should be stated in the article should the article be kept (as can, if necessary, discussion of people who believe it's a miscarriage of justice, providing they can be
  iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment, not keep or delete. Cases need notability but no point in law is clarified by this case, unlike Supreme Court cases. If the article is rewritten and retitled about the attack and not -- v. -- then maybe it's a keep.
  UTAFA 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment I have no reason at all to write an article attacking these women. I wrote the Buckle article because of an E-mail I received about the case from a friend who believed it was a miscarriage of justice. I simply wrote an article with the facts available. Anyhow none of that is important I just don't much care for being accused of authoring an attack site. I think this article ought to be renamed the New Jersey Seven and redirect be established for the name each of the seven defendants. I also feel a template similar to the one for the west memphis three ought to be used. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it's an article about the lawsuit, then I agree with UTAFA; I see no notability there (maybe there's a joke to be made involving a Johnson against a buckle?) The title of one of the sources.."Saying 'hi' lands man in the hospital" says it all (or "Man attacked by seven lesbians" might say it better). Notable because it's a straight guy being attacked by homosexuals, instead of a gay guy being abused by homophobes? Different, yes; notable, I'm not sure. Mandsford 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as it's sourced, but needs cleanup. Man bites dog story means it's news, but notable? Bearian 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minazo

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

)

• Delete, not notable (as I originally tagged shortly after the article was created). Realkyhick 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Agreed, on second checking Minzano unfortunately isn't quite notable enough as a stand-alone seal (walrus). Searches on Japanese news may turn up more but I have no idea of how to do so with Kenji or other character sets. Redirect to
  Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually, for the record, as poorly referenced and lacking in notability as this article is,

WP:ILIKEIT. -- Vary | Talk 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I really dont see the historic notability as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Minazo Vol. 2) — Not notable on its own. However, it is clearly notable to either of these 2 Merzbow albums.--Endroit 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable animal. Keb25 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely no merge to lolrus. The animal was marginally notable in Japan (its death was on the news, and probably in the papers, if Japanese news sources had any sane way to search archives; but, I digress). The point being, it was notable before lolrus. I was going to suggest Redirect to Enoshima Aquarium,　but, that article is a red link. Japanese wikipedia has a section of the aquarium article devoted to the seal. The kanji is 美男象, and hiragana is みなぞう if anyone else is interested in tracking down sources. [15] is a news article about the death, and [16] is a scientific report about the cause of death; but, that's not probably enough to keep the article as a standalone. Maybe the best thing is to create a DAB page between the aquarium and the albums. Neier 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Japanese wikipedia article on Minazo per Neier. Seal is notable as the subject of an album by Merzbow and as the subject of an internet meme.Aharon 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under

Ploegmakers Publications

Ploegmakers Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)Article purports to be some kind of novel theory of science and creation in which the universe came into existance one dimension at a time, and then these merged.

Already tagged by other users as

I'm not a scientist, but I'm fairly familiar with the field having edited a lot on

"Number of publications made on Wikipedia by Jeroen Ploegmakers from The Netherlands that contain new insights and findings from the author as investigator himself in Astronomy, Quantummechanics and Cosmology...."

Either this is 1/ genuine science dressed up very poorly in a rambling essay format that goes nowhere, or 2/ it's a snip from genuine science which is used to build rambling OR, or 3/ its pure OR.

Policies which this seems to falls foul of:

1. WP:NOT
   a publisher of OR
2. WP:NOT
   a publisher of tiny fringe articles
3. Apparent self-promotion of own publications and website
   WP:SPAM
   .
4. Lack of
   WP:RS
   reliable sources
5. Lack of
   WP:V
   verifiability to independent credible sources
6. Possible
   WP:AFD
   "patent nonsense"
7. WP:AFD
   no assertion of importance/significance
8. Possible
   WP:HOAX
   ?

A case of

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, this article, whether the content is true or not, is just a place where someone claiming to be a scientists posts his theories and findings.
  WP:V all apply, perhaps other as well. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator's arguments. Jakew 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It hurts to read this. The title of the article has nothing to do with the content (it would allude to a publishing company), and what this appears to be is a repository for things that Mr. Ploegmaker once stuck on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely, positively NOT for this! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:OR, and all the other above reasons. Sxeptomaniac 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete on so many levels. OR, bollocks, you name it. Realkyhick 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes.

WP:BOLLOCKS too, I forgot that one. Probably ran out of space to list it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - given my comments and the nom's blurb, is it possible that I can pull
  WP:COATRACK out as well? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per
  WP:OR. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per the nominators very thorough reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only question is whether it can be speedied. Perhaps as
  WP:SPAM? Leibniz 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and above. Once on AfD, it should be closed per procedure. Bearian 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyHound

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

There are sources, but it is unclear that they are significant enough to demonstrate notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple pages. This AfD also includes the redirects My Hound Media, Myhound and Myhound media. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like mentioned before, MyHound is notable because it is the first centralized alert system for the entertainment industry. Various sources, including well-respected blogs and online tech portals (not to mention Newsweek!) lend credibility to this claim. These sources exactly fit the criteria for this article to be "notable." Admittedly it is not a very large firm yet, but this is not to the detriment of its importance as the creator of an original online concept, and thus its inclusion in Wikipedia is more than justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDB6000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — JDB6000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found - the Newsweek article referenced is a one sentence mention, Google News brings up nothing of relevance, the first few pages of ordinary Google hits consist mostly of press releases, blogs and forums. No sign that this passes
  WP:WEB Iain99 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless
  independent sources are found Corpx 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:N. Bravedog 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Another source that proves it is getting more and more attention: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/08/startups-to-wat.html (from the Silicon Alley Insider). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDB6000 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment That's a two sentence mention. But two short sentences. Sorry, this is still a long way from "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Iain99 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not notable. Realkyhick 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Attard

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

Local politician. Unsourced article, contested speedy. Other articles mention that he's a leader of a non-notable

• Delete per
  WP:BIO. Also, there are at least 3 other Joseph Attards on Malta. It would be very hard to source which is which.--Sethacus 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO. Bravedog 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unsourced and per
  WP:BIO. Hello32020 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - A mayor of town of 11,000, definitly notable, not. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Representing Malta in bowls at the Melbourne Commonwealth Games would qualify him under
  WP:BIO as the Commonwealth Games is the highest representative level for that sport. However, it wasn't that Joe Attard [17] Being mayor may qualify him but I would want more information of having had a wider impact past his town. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete Don't think it is a town large enough for an individual article unless I'm wrong. (Was is the minimal population that would give the notability of a municipal mayor - I would have thinked about 25,000-50,000 +).--JForget 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of cricket delivery

List of types of cricket delivery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article provides no useful information other than a list of delivery names and nothing more than what's in template {{

Create a category for this information. Charles Matthews 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category existing, delete, assuming the list is pretty much complete. Charles Matthews 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category already exists, see

talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Doosra was the only one missing, with the exception of

talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(Oops, technically wrong,

talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There already exists Category:Cricket deliveries —Moondyne 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. ——Moondyne 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to the category with no potential to gain any extra usage over said category.
  talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Improve it - add a brief description for each term, and remove the redundant template from the article. The Transhumanist    17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does doing so *really* constitute any major bonus? The only thing from

talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, redundant version of category. Realkyhick 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary, redundant. Eusebeus 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know a lot about cricket, but maybe someone who does could clean it up and organize it in the style of "Pitch (baseball)". J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: article is orphaned. Nothing links to it. —Moondyne 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have
  List of cricket terms as a superset. Tintin 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Redundant per
  List of cricket terms and Category:Cricket deliveries -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey)

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Never played professionally, fails

• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO and ice hockey project notability standards. Has never played professionally and doesn't even play in a major junior league. --Djsasso 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:HOCKEY. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, still not drafted by the NHL.--JForget 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Thomas

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

Patent hoax; technically not proddable/CSDable under WP policy so bringing it here —

• Speedy delete - 57 Google hits, none of which are related to the article subject. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless 'another man' can rapidly 'impregnate' this article with sources. Pursey 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete References are of no relavance whatsoever. No google hits that are relavant. No references to backup article content. Assume hoax. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This has clearly given sources from the British library and not all historical events are posted on the internet. It is true that lately there has been vandalisment on this article, beefing up his criminal status, but the sources clearly indicate Joseph Thomas's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.115.37 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first post in

iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1 x Open proxy, blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks awfully hoaxy to me. Delete unless someone comes up with really definitive sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable sources have been cited as to this man's existence- i think we should keep this article unless someone checks the sources and sees if he is actually mentioned. Pekaak 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some of the facts themselves may have been exaggerated by vandals, however there should be no doubt at all that Joseph Thomas existed.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Strong Delete per nomination. The sockpuppets have been less than convincing about the existence of this 'reliable source'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Socketpuppets indeed - all 3 edits made within a timeframe of 15mins. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reported
  iridescent (talk to me!) 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Delete The google search gives us virtually a big donut outside of Wikipedia.--JForget 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep This article has clearly given sources which are books. Wikipedia allows these sources and you don't need an internet source. This article has clear historical importance and has a rightful place on wikipedia like any other sourced article and it would be an outrage to delete it. Johnthepcson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Very Strong Keep I own the book 1912 that is sourced and can confirm that it deals with the attack on taft by Weasel Thomas.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
  • This is actually 62.31.128.207's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in the first one, it somehow slipped his/her mind that he actually owned the book in question...how odd! Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN criminal. Bearian 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as almost certain hoax created by a team of sock/meat puppets. In the unlikely event that any established user would like to take the time to look up the refs and check whether there's a shred of truth in it, I'd suggest userfying it until they have time to do so. Iain99 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources referenced are definately real books... perhaps sources which could be verified should be found by the author of the page, or alternatively give further proof? The links to the British Library cannot be followed without a British Library user account. Alternatively, this page could be categorised under myths and legends, as its content seems rather unlikely, but without further research into Taft, and the subject of this article, it should not be deleted.

The books do exist, however the links do not show this. Their relavence to the subject is however to be questioned. Also, some extreme exaggeration of what is no more than a myth causes this article to be no more than nonsense. The author must be asked to either improve on this article, or leave it for deletion, as it cannot remain in its current, ridiculous state. Presenting Weasel Thomas as a real life figure can only lead to deletion, since it is verifiably untrue.

A suggestion: Rename this page "Legend of Weasel Thomas". regds. Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) — Save the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Legends have to be
  made up at school one day doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover it as a legend. Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beast (state of being)

Beast (state of being) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be entirely

• Delete The proper approach would perhaps be to tag it with {{
  would never work anyway Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I prodded this article because it reeked of original research. It wasn't verifiable, nor sourced. There are also issues with
  WP:NEO and the article doesn't exert its notability. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does seem to violate
  WP:N. Best case scenario would be to condense and transwiki to Wiktionary as a slang alternate definition. Saturn 5 14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per Saturn 5. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per saturn 3tmx 23:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I do love using this term- in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a beastly word- it's an NN neologism. -- Kicking222 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Cordoba

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

Contested prod. Only 5 movies & no awards, nothing to indicate passes

• Delete per nom and WP:PORNBIO Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Carlosguitar 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and a nod to the nom for one of the better comments I've seen on an AFD Saturn 5 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:PORNBIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burnett

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

Non-notable (there are many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), and the article is basically a press release. Appears to be written by several related user accounts and IPs whose only edits are to insert Chris Burnett into articles, raising COI and spam issues as well. Special-T 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Has, according to the article, won a prize and is affiliated with a label that may make him notable. However, I believe the article needs a lot of trimming per
  WP:UNDUE, as most of it reads like a resume. I'll avoid trimming this myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment His affiliation seems to be with his own record label (see the contributors to the article), negating any claims to notability. - Special-T 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. As written it seems borderline on
  talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you SineBot :( Saturn 5 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again, I think too much weight is being given to his self-listed promo. Those 'unrelated references' are: BMI - anyone who's written a song can be an affiliate; a restaurant listing him as playing there; an endorsement of Lomax mouthpieces; membership in IAJE - anyone can join; an entertainment calendar listing - anyone with a gig would be there; a local magazine feature; another gig listing at a local festival; AFM membership - again, anyone can join; and his military service record. All indicate that he's a working local musician in KC. All well and good, but not encyclopedic. - Special-T 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence or reliable source that indicates he passes the standard at
  WP:ILIKEIT. Eusebeus 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The article's badly written and promotional, to start with, and there's not a whole lot of sources to go by (note that the BBC link at the bottom refers to a movie character, not this musician). I'm not sure that he quite reaches
  WP:MUSIC at this time. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Can't find much on this guy on the web that hasn't been written by himself (or rearranged wording written by him), no apparent discography other than a selection of songs he claims royalties on. Once you've dived below the blanket of rhetoric there doesn't seem to be much that meets
  WP:MUSIC--WebHamster 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and cleanup. This guy has obviously had a noteworthy career. I am the intern who posts all of these types of things for their record label. So, this bio is not "self-listed promo" and anyone making a case to delete is mostly doing so without due consideration of the objective standards at
  WP:MUSIC. The man has already had a very distinguished musical career of 22 years in the military and is continuing in the commercial music world. Keep this and please clean it up, that is what wiki is about. Knowing the inherent competitive nature of musicians, doesn't anyone else find it particularly curious that a saxophone player started this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - In the jazz world, there are not (many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), especially in the major US jazz market cities like Kansas City - New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Orleans, etc. Add the factor Chris Burnett's military music career and you have another element of note because only a small number of musicians and people qualify for military bands at any level (some qualify as individuals, but not as musicians and some qualify as musicians, but not as individuals - the number who qualify in both areas is small). Any adding of Chris Burnett's name to sections at wikipedia were done by me to cross reference, not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1- I made no subjective judgments about quality of his music - that is not the issue here. 2- Extrapolating from the number of excellent jazz musicians working in the small-market-for-jazz city where I live (guys who have played with Ellington, Maria Schneider, Aretha, Wynton, the list is nearly endless, and many who have had long careers in military service bands), it is reasonable to extrapolate to, yes, thousands of such musicians in the country. 3- The conflict of interest issues here are pretty obvious - you, an employee of his record label, deem him to have a noteworthy career. Maybe he does, but by Wikipedia policy, the judgment of someone in that position should not be the basis of deciding notability, and I didn't think the press-release-style article proved it adequately. That's why the article is listed here - not because I don't like someone or his music. And, since you've accused me of some personal/professional pettiness in listing this article here, you might want to take a look at WP:No personal attacks. Let's stick to the policy, notability, and conflict-of-interest issues. - Special-T 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for clarification of your position. Believe me, I am as objective as anyone and I am not an employee or biased in the manner you imply. This listing has been here for more than a year. It has survived vandalism and if the pointedness of my remarks are taken as attacks on you, they are not meant to be. It is just easy to sit in the position of anonymous judge and jury in a paradigm like this. Whatever is decided is cool. I don't even think that he looks at this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, whatever the community decides is cool - well said. Just working for a better Wikipedia. - Special-T 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn and page redirected by nominator. Non-admin closure. Iain99 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song)

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

I have redirected as suggested. I'll leave this for someone else to close though. Kevin 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition. That World War II era song is surely worthy of an article. I am not familiar with this particular song or artist, or whether this song is either a cover or just an allusion to the original, but anyone looking for a song with this title is probably looking for the Frank Loesser song. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The forties song is absolutely notable. If it's being recorded by someone else that note can be added here. Nick mallory 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Very) slight assertion of notability due to media coverage of the family in the basement, so not prodding, but if there is anything to that it should be in an article on the family, while anything on the church should be in an article on the building. While I firmly support a page for every named geographic location, I can't believe we need an entry on every individual church parish —

• Delete - article doesn't give any context on the history of the parish, the architecture of the building, or its influence in the community. It also doesn't assert the importance of the Alexi Portnoy and family case, either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant coverage of this parish Corpx 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per proposed guideline as NN parish. 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Bearian 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ^♫ 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (musician)

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

No indication of notability, no important information, no references, looks like a complete vanity entry — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move it back to being a redirect which it was, hence why an IP was able to create the article. Google returns nothing of relevance to "creator musician" and to "Anthony Andrew Keane" so this would seem to be
  unverifiable. I don't think there's a GFDL issue with simply reverting back to the change highlighted in my diff. although of course it could then be reverted back to the article again. If so, delete and recreate the redirect. Pedro |  Chat  12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I prefer to delete it, since it is now no longer located at Creator, which is now a disambiguation page (there are several things with that name). The page Creator (musician) should just full-out be deleted. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current article is about a completely non-notable musician, and there are no logical reasons why anyone else would go to the page Creator (musician) rather than just Creator, so a redirect page isn't needed. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please avoid the v-word as per
  WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Maryland

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

Too local in scope for inclusion per

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as
  WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment This is the author. :) I think this is a fair point, and will fully respect any consensus, but the relevant criterion reads thus: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." I think two defenses can be raised:
  • (1) Is Equality Maryland "local in scope" in the sense intended here? It's not perfectly clear what "local" means -- I think a county chamber of commerce is clearly local, but is a statewide civil rights organization? This is an authentic question; I do not know that there's a definitive answer, but I would say that, if this criterion applies, then many other articles would be subject to deletion -- sticking only to very similar organizations, you'd have to start with Equality California, Equality Mississippi, Equality North Dakota, and MassEquality. I now see this last is in fact nominated for deletion, but I think that's definitely misplaced; that organization has had a very high profile nationally throughout the same-sex marriage saga going on in that state for the past few years. Which brings me to this...
  • (2) Even granting that the organization is local in scope, the criterion says that verifiable information from reliable independent sources can show notability. I hope that I've done that with this article, with at least one citation from a major newspaper (Washington Post) and several others from local and major LGBT publications. kdogg36 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a more standardized reference format would make kdogg's points more clear to others reviewing the article for deletion. Philwelch 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Judging by the references, this organisation satisfies WP:ORG --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tagishsimon and reasonable degree of notability. - Nascentatheist 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The organization, like MassEquality, is mentioned in a number of New York Times articles. kdogg36 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Mentions" don't count. Citations should be to articles written about the subject, not articles mentioning them in passing. MarkBul 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't agree -- citations should support the facts to which they're attached in the Wikipedia article (which I think the citations in this article do). The entire article cited doesn't have to be about the subject. (Thanks, by the way, to Tagishsimon for reformatting the references to make them clear.) kdogg36 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -
  WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. •
  Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep I'm shocked this even got to AfD. Pursey 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per other similar debates started by the same user previously. Given that the other discussions are rapidly leaning towards keep or no consensus, a new listing for the same disputed reason speaks volumes of the bias of the nominator. -- Roleplayer 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a highly notable group, and the cites in the article support that. -- Kicking222 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per above.--JForget 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]