Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to

Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Choice and sexual orientation

)

There is nothing in this article that is not covered by

reparative therapy. One might sum it up as "Gays do not have a choice. See Biology and sexual orientation for why. Some people disagree with this." This does not an article make and I think it should be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete has all the appearance of a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. Fireplace 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant an it does have a little bit of NPOV problems!
addict^{Editor review!} 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. POV problems can be corrected, but there is no need to as the article is redundant to Biology and sexual orientation. -- Black Falcon 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does the APA reference exist anywhere else, for it should be retained and used? -- Black Falcon 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the APA reference and language is found at
reparative therapy. Fireplace 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. -- Black Falcon 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Warhorus 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant article and POV. --
Nevhood 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It would serve better as a sub-section to an article on
sexuality. --Ozgod 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as POV fork. Perhaps redirect to help prevent recreation. Natalie 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Biology and sexual orientation. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
reparative therapy cover everything that this article tries to. Further, I think reparative therapy and Biology and sexual orientation should stay distinct articles. Cedlaod 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & Redirect per above. -- Pastordavid 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV pushing and redundant. WMMartin 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this?? Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. forking Usedup 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daemonraco

No established notability beyond an equally non-notable OSS library

* 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete; shouldn't have an article for the same reason the volunteer
Qxz 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:COI since the authors name is User:Daemonraco.--John Lake 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Userfy and delete. User page contains nothing more than a link to this page. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet requirements under
WP:BIO. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable programmer. --
Nevhood 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely fails
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete per above. Pea ceNT 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Totally fails
wp:bio. // 3R1C 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, by far. Warhorus 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to assert his notability, which violates
WP:BIO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Refs not properly formatted, spelling problems, fails
addict^{Editor review!} 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No claim of notability. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Drlibs

Non-notable software package

* 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete non notable per nom and unreferenced (the reference points to another article by the same editor thats on AFD).--John Lake 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Nomination. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, also tack on
WP:COI under teh circumstances. The package doesn't do anything particularly unique, and we're not Freshmeat, either. --Dennisthe2 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Nevhood 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely fails
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference or delete: if I have insufficient data to assert notability, it is be default non-notable. Alba 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and fails
WP:COI. Google search yields only 77 results. - Anas ^Talk? 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Its making a joke out of
addict^{Editor review!} 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Empty, no claim of notability. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no context. Natalie 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to

List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. —Quarl ^(talk

) 2007-02-25 05:21Z

Martha Quimby

)

Contested speedy. My own inclination would be to

PROD this, but as the speedy is contested I think we can safely assume that the PROD would be too, so here we are. The original tagger expressed the following rationale: "unsourced Simpsons cruft. Minor character (at best) who has only made a few appearances." Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per the nomination, and sterilize - dear God, that's hard to read. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced non notable minor character and the writing style is hard to decypher.--John Lake 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not much of a fan of The Simpsons, but all of the other "Minor" characters have articles. Seeing as this is an encyclopedia, I believe the more encyclopedic content the better. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are tougher standards for characters having pages (usually, to qualify for a page, a character must have been central to at least 2 episodes or appeared in hundreds of episodes), so not a lot of minor characters have pages. Not even Bumblebee Man has a page! -- Scorpion 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebee Man doesn't have a page?! ¡Ay, caramba! Dugwiki 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unsourced and it is hard to determine notability. I am an avid Simpsons fan myself, but I barely remember who she is! --
Nevhood 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Most "minor characters" in The Simpsons have memorable and notable gags. Other than not being able to make up her mind whether she's a parody of
Jackie O or not, Mrs. Quimby has none. JuJube 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

If the standard for deleting characters is whether they have recurring gags, you'd better nominate this one next. Otto4711 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost want to take you up on that. ^_^ JuJube 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into
List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Natalie 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rewrite then Merge Clearly suitable for the
List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, but needs a little work. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. I rewrote it into something that I think resembles English. Otto4711 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to aforementioned article. VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. -- Scorpion 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Otto4711. Seems worthy of inclusion in that article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete, nn character
Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rewrite then Merge with
Joe Quimby --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or merge to
Nevhood above) they barely remember her, then she's not a recurring character, is she? So I'm leaning more towards Delete. Icemuon 11:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm a fan and I remember her. She's appeared, off the top of my head, in the episode with the burlesque house and the episode with the Red Hat ladies (with Lily Tomlin as guest voice) "I haven't heard of it" is not a valid deletion criterion. Otto4711 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge and cleanup per Otto. // 3R1C 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup; to
List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, maintainer's choice. Alba 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Really not important except for establishing the fact that the mayor is married. Never really had any significant role in the show. At all. I'm not even sure her first name is "Martha" either. No need to merge, all the info is in the Mayor's article. Just axe it. --UsaSatsui 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup per Otto4711. Gran2 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although
addict^{Editor review!} 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Otto4711. -- Black Falcon 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
List of recurring characters from The Simpsons linking to the newly merged spot on Quimby's page. Seems sensible to me. Warhorus 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to
Joe Quimby, per many above, as this information does not deserve its own article, but should be retained somewhere. Create link from the appropriate character list(s) to the section in the Joe Quimby article. -- saberwyn 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect either to
unsigned comment was added by Gimlei (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Merge and redirectd to
Joe Quimby. There really is not much information on this page, not enough even to add to the recurring characters list. However, if more information on her is found, she appears more often in the show, a name for her can be agreed on, and she gets a picture (if possible), then she would deserve to be on the list of recurring characters page. Rhino131 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge or Redirect to either list of reacurring characters or Joe Quimby. It fits to be included in both articles. 11kowrom 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was userfy. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 06:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Joseph Deamond

Alexander Joseph Deamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-promotion. Delete. Georgia guy 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nomination...And it doesn't meet
WP:BIO at all! :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. It is a vanity article (against
Nevhood 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I would have userfied this article rather than nominating it for AfD. See {{
userfy}}. And I would have left a {{userfied}} message on the author's talk page. --Eastmain 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete per Eastmain (above). --Dennisthe2 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Being an "amzing person" or a "pirate ninja" is not such a claim (amazing might be, but that is not the case here). :P -- Black Falcon 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ebony Anpu

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

The initial AfD with the original nominator's comments concerning veracity of the sources and notability may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try.

Okay folks, revisiting this AfD I have decided to reset it. Bare with me here. There were procedural concerns with the initial drafting of this AfD, namely that an Anon initiated it. However, the anon and or anons that started it have valid points, but such points have been lost by the fact that there has been use of proxies, and actual discussion about the merits of the article has been lost amongst folks disagreeing with the legitimacy of the AfD. So I am restarting the AfD, period. I have no opinion on the article, but here are the issues addressed by the anons, and I feel that they are valid reasons to initiate an AfD...

The individual is non-notable. See this Google Search, for instance.

There are serious concerns with the veracity of the references used in the article.

With that out of the way, the discussion in this AfD will remain limited to the whether or not the article's claims meet our standards set up for proper references, and whether or not the subject of the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Procedural brouhaha shall remain on the talk page of the AfD only. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See (Old AfD). [Discussion about procedure moved to this
More personal attacks removed][reply
]

No vote from me either for right now, but I think Jeffrey did the right thing by refreshing this discussion.
(jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [Discussion about procedure moved to this AfD's talk page.][reply
]

Notablility: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent.'-Wikipedia. Already Ebony has attracted a lot of Notice in the week he has been on Wiki. Everything against him has been character assasination with no validity. The proof of his notability is found in all AfD records. I mean, seriously, how could someone who is _not notable_ cause so much interest and concern in the first week? Captain Barrett 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] and similar can't have done any harm... Dave 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good point. I was trying to get more sources, but I ended up getting vandals. Captain Barrett 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what the article is talking about, and therefore it cannot reasonably be said to be asserting notabliity. Happy to change if article improves. Dave 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain myself further: It is impossible for me, with no knowledge of thelma etc, to judge the subject notable as the article currently stands. If the article was modified so that notability was clearly asserted, then I would be happy to change my vote. Dave 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless independently sourced. I have no problems finding independent (= mainstream, scholarly, literary) sources on Aleister Crowley. This person otoh only seemed to exist within the confines of O.T.O., so unless independent sources are found a neutral biography can't be written. I checked Newsbank and the local rags here, (eastbayexpress.com, sfbg.com, sfgate.com) for appearances but no luck. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that a good article might be written on this topic, but the current one is hopeless. There seem to be no reliable sources. As someone else wrote, 'No reliable sources => no article'. If someone sincerely wants to do research on this, they might be able to rescue it. Mentions of this person in the press would certainly be useful. EdJohnston 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless sourced but that means two separate things: (I expand on my comment in the earlier AfD:

the first is whether there is any reliable evidence that the person existed. We usually do have data that supports the bare existence so it rarely enters into the discussions here--the private imaginary worlds and non-existent musicians almost always get filtered out quickly in speedy or Prod. When a hoax gets discussed, it can usually be eliminated on the grounds of contradictions, as well as sources. (There may still be some more clever flights of the imagination in WP undetected) But in this case there is zero out-of-cult documentation that there ever was such a person. Given the general nature of AC's writings, I think we are justified in asking for at least one source from someone not involved with the groups who has actually seen the person.

I have examined all the external links. The page at http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml lists 33 related groups, with varing amounts of documentation, and uses language implying hat the compiler has some doubts about some of them. Our guy is "no.27 Hawk & Jackal the sun and the moon conjoined: Thelemic Witchcraft. Founded by Charles Reese a.k.a. Ebony Anpu, who died far to soon, so you can't contact them anymore. Check out his work." (with a link to http://home.earthlink.net/~charlesreese/HawkJackal.html, which gives a "page not found" error. ) The oregon site is "cannot find server," The Arkansas one does have a real page, but "2/10/2007 Hotmail/MSN NOTE: Hotmail/msn are NOT accepting email from the Witchvox server at this time - we are working with them on this issue." The site on geocities lists some SF address he is said to have inhabited, and has a photograph. But a testimonial there reports "At the age of 18, Ebony was forced to leave Texas due to legal difficulties. At this point one begins to run into the problem which faces any attempt at biography of Ebony Anpu: his extreme penchant for tall tales concerning his own life." http://www.leapinglaughter.org/archive/charlesreese/ebonylog.htm has a saved chat session. So we have that and the photographs and the memoirs.

the other part of sourced is sourcing the information given in the article. For documentation of what he thought and wrote, in-universe sources are i think acceptable, since they seem to consistently identify the body of materials. The article (wisely) avoids any biographical discussion, and considers him only as a teacher and writer. If I understand correctly from a very brief reading, this religious movement does not believe in reincarnation. Pity, for that might have been some better evidence than now available.

I will support the article if there are two truly RS mainstream sources to base it on--not about the religion, for that is well-documented. About the man, which is the subject of this article. I write this hoping that someone will find something, not hoping they will not. DGG 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your commitment to NPOV, DGG. Thank you. I would point out that the use of the term "cult" in reference to the OTO is not acurate, and possibly libelous. They are a recognized non-profit religious corporation. If you discount data from all religious organizations Wiki would be very scant indeed. Think about it. Captain Barrett 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony has at least three living relatives: His daughter :Chandra Reese-Fries, his Mother, and his ex-wife Leisle. I am currently working on contacting them for more info. Captain Barrett 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid original research. --Bejnar 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "Cult " is a neutral term to me, meaning a relatively small religious group. It also has the meaning of a pattern of worship: Catholics refer to the cult of the Virgin Mary. I apologize if others understood it differently.

I note that a resource mentioned in another discussion, http://www.egnu.org/thelema/ , does not mention him. It would take considerable OR to decide if this is because of relative unimportance , or religious differences. I have mentioned in that other discussion (Sam Webster) that ministers of conventional religions have well known and stable structures and offices and distinctions, which can be used for assessing N. They also acquire their knowledge through established divinity schools of some sort, and they sometimes publish in peer-reviewed journals. This makes establishing N much easier and much more objective.

I consider all religions to be notable provided there is some V way of finding out about them--I think this is the only possible standard, as WP is not a judge of theological truth. Individuals are another matter--any group with more than one religious leader has some who are more notable than others in that group. It's that which can be judged objectively if there are objectively visible criteria. If not, they can still be established as N through 3rd party mention. If this fails as well, it is beyond human ability to judge. DGG 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: Ebony had an "Official" Office, as published by the OTO. Here is the problem, as DGG pointed out on Sam Webster, with individual-oriented religions. They are prone to massive ego-battles and no standard set of rules. You cannot fault the religion for not imposing more strict rules, but if you are an honest researcher you need to take into consideration personal infighting. Any researcher of Thelema can tell you that everyone disagree's with everyone else. The point here is Notability, not popularity. Sam Webster is popular. Ebony is Notorious. So notorious that we are inlvolved in this here word-sling. Although Ebony is not listed on Sam's page (as sam is not listed on any of Ebony's), the same editors who edited sams page also edited Ebony's (see history). From that is it _obvious_ that Ebony is known buy the same people who knew Sam. This is an issue that will not go away. If you truly wish to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of Reality, rather than bias, you will need to find some way to deal with individuals who are very notable, but otherwise do not conform to your standards of "religion", or who have enemies who wish to not see them on wikipedia for personal reasons. Captain Barrett 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are many interesting things about Ebony not yet verified, I will not mention them here because I do not have the proof (that you need), yet. These things made him avoid publicity and especially the Law, for many years. I have given many verifiable sources for him. Notability is not only about "your name in a paper" - that would be stupid. What if the unibomber had never been linked to a real person? Would the Unibomber be not notable because there are no articles with his name in it? Yet he is well known. Think people. Captain Barrett 01:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet BIO or verifiability requirements.--Peta 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote pending deletion review & RfC for out-of-process
WP:AFD. —Adrian~enwiki (talk
) 2007-02-14 04:19Z
Please don't wait - if this is brought to deletion review while this discussion is live, the deletion review will be closed. Deletion review is for 1) already deleted material or 2) already closed discussions.
GRBerry 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify or establish notability. If this is really an out of order AFD, then an admin will overturn it. However,
Jackhorkheimer 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment In the context of this discussion, i interpret 3rd party to mean sources outside of Thelma. As Captain Barrett pointed out, it is very obvious that the different groups don't acknowledge each others existence, but--as he also said--this has no bearing on this AfD. However, I find it incredible that none of the Bay Area papers ever mentioned him--he is just the sort of person they would have talked about. We are asked to consider Reality, but the standards of evidence presented are those of in-universe role-playing games. I would not be adverse to reconsidering if they find real sources. DGG 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even close. Not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify existence, let alone establish notability. And as a former consumer of Bay Area alternative media, I echo DGG's comment about the lack of coverage. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are largely self-referential - notaility claim looks like an attempt at halo effect from things whose notability is open to question. No evidence that this individual is independently notable. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. Again. Per DRV, the previous closure was premature, so, give it FIVE DAYS from THIS DATE STAMP.
With all previous discussion still valid, please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Needs Sourcing! :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the authors of this article can obtain more third-party sources, rather than sources from the individual himself, then the article violates
Nevhood 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment How can this AfD get sources, in order to fairly let it run its course, as long as it is protected? Do I need to get an Admin on my side to post them for me? Captain Barrett 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected it. But if you try to ad even a single image that has been repeatedly deleted, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey is reffering to [Charles Reese's Picture which he does not want me to post. It is currently up for DRV. Captain Barrett 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think it is all me, but if you look at the DRV, I did not delete the image originally, four admins agree with the deletion, and it has been deleted on Commons. It is in your best interest to drop the image issue for now and pay attention to the focus of people's arguments here: the references. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete it fails
WP:CITE.--Dakota 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - needs further sourcing and cleanup, but I think it barely meets the bar for notability. - WeniWidiWiki 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking part in this so I can't mess up again by closing it early. Does not meet
desat 08:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO and has significant sourcing problems. JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No vote. I do not feel qualified to vote on this one, one way or the other. However I do want to interject from reading the discussion above. It seems like people are having a very hard time attempting to find hard fact on this person and I even saw some mention of contacting people for facts. I would take a moment to say to anyone interested in keeping this article to avoid OR in your attempts to bring the article up to snuff. If you simply cannot find admissible sources, then you will have to wait and attempt to recreate this page in a more thorough form somewhere down the line. If Ebony Anpu is truly N then as time goes on, sources should become more readily available. If time goes on and less and less information become available, then I hate to say it, in the long run he wasn't really that N and he didn't deserve a page on Wikipedia. Either way, here's hoping this all get straightened out, because this seems like a sticky one. Warhorus 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Guy, Calton and such. BIO, self reference, and lack of clarity what the notability factor is... mceder (u t c) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The closest things to reliable sources here seem to be the Hawk and Jackal links, but he started that order so they can't be reliable sources about him. There's no third-party notability. — coelacan talk — 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And by the way, the correct spellings are "magic" not "magick" and "magical" not "magickal." Wave the magic wand and make this article disappear. Edison 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all aboveOo7565 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. The sources cited in the article appear to be either articles that are written by him or otherwise do not have him as their subject. ObiterDicta 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please check the References. Behutet Magazine is an Independent Magazine Issue #12 and #13 lists "Ebony Anpu's Hawk and Jackal system". Thanks.Captain Barrett 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So should the article be on the Hawk and Jackal system (if the system rather than the person is the subject of the articles)? Frankly, though, two articles in the same publication is a weak assertion of notability. A better one would be articles in separate magazines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable - period. --Bejnar 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Tarendra Lakhankar

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — ERcheck (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN per nom --⁪froth^T 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nomination and it doesn't meet requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
Nevhood 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the guidelines of
⁸⁶ 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
addict^{Editor review!} 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
John Vandenberg 12:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Some of the above -cited guidelines are pretty uncertain, but under the general criteria he NN. Few if any postdocs are N because of their scientific work at that point in their career.DGG 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRamduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete If a degree made you notable, we'd run out of server space. Mocko13 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) my head hurts just thinking about trying to define notability based on degree.
John Vandenberg 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:22Z

Know More Media, Inc.

Know More Media, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, but I am going to give this the benefit of the doubt. Some references have been added that need some further review, so I'm bringing this to AfD. (consider me a neutral at this point, but AfD isn't a vote of course...) --W.marsh 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable, has sources... --
Nevhood 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has two references from reliable sources, but pretty minor; very borderline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, otherwise weak delete: While the subject is demonstrated to be notable and verifiable by the multiple references given, the Wikipedia content fails to describe said notability. I *think* it's notable for the business model of paying bloggers for quality content, but someone more expert than I should do the editing. A bit of NPOV work is needed. Finally, should the title include "Inc."? Alba 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The references given are definitely ... gray. The Orange County Register article is certainly legitimate, but the other two are niche reporting services. // 3R1C 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this business is notable, the prose is strongly promotional in tone in a way that suggests
WP:WEB either, which ought to be relevant in that it is about a collection of blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This smacks of advertising to me, and it doesn't seem particularly notable. fraggle 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
addict^{Editor review!} 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I hunted around, and found little in the way of
reliable sources outside of the business blogosphere, and even there I couldn't find much that looked notable enough to pass the required guidelines. Plus, it's definitely written in a marketing style. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page kept for now. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

Strong Keep. I don't think the page (which I just created) should be deleted, but, because the topic is controversial, to show good faith and avoid COI, I wanted to be the first to raise the issue. The topic is notable, has been discussed in law review articles, in newspaper and magazine articles, in litigation, in books, and in a Senate report, and may arise in the 2008 presidential election because of the ties of one of the parties to the John Edwards campaign. Google: 821 results.
TedFrank 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Veesicle, how can you say 'delete per nom' when the nom was for strong keep? THE KING 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a branch of another article, on a lawyer, which the nom editor wrote to do an end run around the complaint that the criticism of a lawyer was overweighted. He also said that the AtLA was a "pack of lies". I understand he does not like lawyers, and is evidently willing to destroy anyone who disagrees with him (see my AN/I), but Wikipedia does not seem like an appropriate vehicle for furthering his political agenda.Jance 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a notable and complex event with a lot of different things happening; if I include a full recounting in the main article, I'm accused of undue weight, and my edit is deleted; if I instead create an NPOV article that tells both sides of the story, I'm accused of "furthering my political agenda." But the standard for Wikipedia is notability and verifiability. I think this article meets both standards. --
TedFrank 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Cleanup and merge, Clean the article up, wikify it, and insert it into the main article, assuming that article is kept. // 3R1C 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails
addict^{Editor review!} 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Although is
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Two people have flatly stated that the topic is not notable. But when I look at the
TedFrank 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Plenty of reputable sourced citations, article will most certainly be expanded upon and quality improved in the future... Smee 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep This event meets a number of inclusion criteria into Wikipedia. It is frequently referenced in the main stream media when tort reform or asbestos litigation are discussed and the events themselves have been featured in more then a handful of widely read journals & periodicalsDroliver 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Family Reunion (Cory in the House episode)

The Family Reunion (Cory in the House episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no verifiable source that lists this episode, or any episode similar to it, airing for Cory in the House. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice for rampant crystal-ballism. Alba 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. YechielMan 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mega Supreme Ultra Delete per Alba :P // 3R1C 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Nevhood 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments regarding notability according to
WP:PROF based on publications proved persuasive. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hiram Caton

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

Fails
reliable, non-trivial sources establishing notability. A minor figure even within the fringe community of AIDS dissidents. MastCell 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs and too little info and actual relevance to make it notable.
addict^{Editor review!} 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "Hiram Caton" gets 901 Google hits. With such a distinctive name, the vast bulk of these must be relevant to this particular person. The first few pages of hits certainly are. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment: Yes, but Google hits are not a criterion per
conflict of interest guidelines. MastCell 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I note that you're a physician, and since Caton's work (especially, though not exclusively, his AIDS-related work) frequently attacks the medical establishment, please be sure you're not violating Wikipedia's
conflict of interest guidelines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs
).

Comment: Thanks - I took another look at
WP:NPOV exists just for such cases. MastCell 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Now, wherever did I say that "[no-one] who works in medicine cannot edit any articles critical of the 'medical establishment'"? I'm merely asking you whether you're capable of removing yourself sufficiently from your profession to maintain objectivity, as I'm sure that others no doubt can. Please have the courtesy not to put words into my mouth.

Perhaps you didn't look quite closely enough at WP:COI, which states that "there is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest." Just because you didn't find a box to tick doesn't exonerate you. I find it very curious that when attempting to defend yourself, you take this very literalist approach, yet when presented with the solid proof that Caton's The Politics of Progress has been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources", and that in 1982-83 he "received a notable award or honor" (two boxes to tick against WP:PROF) you somehow appeal to a manufactured notion of "independent sources demonstrating notability", when WP:PROF calls for evidence of quite a different kind. Why the double standard? WP:PROF asks to be read literally, WP:COI specifically asks not to be read literally. Simply put, you've got it backwards.

Just as "if you are involved in a court case...you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about another party to the case...was entirely objective" (WP:COI), so too some physicians would no doubt find it difficult to demonstrate that their motivation in calling for the deletion of an article about a man who's spent a sizable chunk of his professional career attacking their trade were entirely objective either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment: I'm not "defending" myself, I don't have a need to be "exonerated", and I don't feel like engaging in a back-and-forth with you. I've stated my opinion, and the reasoning for it - at this point it's up to the community. MastCell 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's incredibly disingenous of you to make assertions that there's no evidence for Caton's notability, citing WP:PROF, and then as soon as you're presented with exactly the evidence that you yourself have demanded, (a) you attempt to shift the goalposts of the discussion and (b) you're now going to take home your bat and ball rather than deal with the observation that that's what you've done. You've thrown around insinuations about others' COI based on "evidence" as flimsy as geography, yet cannot stomach the suggestion that you may have COI issues of your own here. Likewise, while at the same time as you're willing to put words into others' mouths, you attempt a lame linguistic slight-of-hand to avoid addressing the accusation of double-standards.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you accept my observation that you are defending youself. What does matter is that you now refuse to admit that once presented with evidence of notability under exactly the guideline you quoted, you instead appeal to some notion of notability of your own devising, not borne out in WP:PROF.

So, to clarify, there are really only two options here. Either you are asserting that The Politics of Progress has not been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews...in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" and that a National Humanities Fellowship is not "a notable award or honor" or you must concede that you are actually using some other standard of notability different from, and at odds with WP:PROF.

If it's the former, I'd be truly intrigued to see your reasoning. If it's the latter, as the nominator of this AfD, you really do owe it to the community to spell out what criteria for notability you're using, and why they should be favoured over WP:PROF, especially when you yourself have appealed to that very guideline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment:
personal attacks. Specifically, please confine your comments to the issues at hand, and refrain from commenting on the editors involved as much as possible. MastCell 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'm well aware of WP:CIVIL and have studiously avoided making any kind of personal attack on you, as tempting as it's occasionally been. You, on the other hand, apparently have no such compunctions; first insinuating, and now practically alleging a COI. You also seem to believe that no-one could disagree with you so vehemently unless they were "taking this personally". Frankly, I find that position more than a little condescending.

Yes, you spelled out your reasoning at the very top; but that reasoning was based on the article as it originally stood, with - I'll freely admit - no evidence presented that Caton met the WP:PROF guidelines for notability. However, that evidence has been there for a couple of days now, and you have not altered your position. Which, you'll forgive me for saying, does seem to indicate that you've shifted the goalposts from the time you invoked WP:PROF.

Being civil doesn't preclude pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's statements or position. Does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

To answer your question, being civil here involves avoiding comments that cause other editors to believe the
John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - references now in place. Notability meets at least criteria 2 (The Politics of Progress) and 6 (National Humanities Fellowship) of
WP:PROF. I am not Hiram Caton, although I do know him, and have requested his help in fleshing out the article today.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs
).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He is a full professor at Griffith, a major university. Full professors at universities are generally N, because they have survived several rounds of faculty peer review,. But it its not a major re3search university we don't necessarily assume they have published much, but in his case he has written several academic books.The book was reviewed in more than 20 professional journals.so even if there were doubt, the books and the reviews would be enough by all possible standards of N. PROF is just a guideline, but he meets it. He is N among other fields than AIDS dissidence, such as Mead/Derrick. ::As the article says, he has written over 175 articles, mostly peer reviewed, and we accept official web sites for that.

All of the above are referenced in the article, sourced much more fully and competently than academic bios usually are. I cannot help wondering if it were not his positions of issues that was affecting the discussion here. Absurd positions do not make an academic less N--it could even be argued that they make him more so. I am not an australian, and I consider his position of AIDS not merely absurd, but dangerous. Doesn't make him less N, and the documentation holds up. Article does need to be trimmed a bit--it should quote his views instead of presenting them.DGG 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strongly disagree that full professors are automatically notable, as does
WP:PROF. I still don't see the independent sources demonstrating notability - the sources that have been added haven't been very impressive to me in that regard and have mentioned him fairly briefly - but I've said my 2¢ there already. MastCell 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:
WP:PROF requires that only one of the 6 criteria for notability be met. As for "independent sources demonstrating notability", you now have no fewer than 9 reviews of The Politics of Progress in peer-reviewed academic journals (you can verify all but one of these in JSTOR, if you care to). So, how does this still fail to meet WP:PROF 3.1 "The work must be the subject[1] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[2] reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. "? Secondly, you now have independent verification (from the NHC itself) that Caton was indeed the receipient of a Fellowship there. WP:PROF 6 states "The person has received a notable award or honor". If you're not familiar with these fellowships, read our own article on the National Humanities Center to realise that the award of one is a Big Deal in humanities scholarship... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs
) 05:52, 24 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I agree that being a full Professor does not in general make you notable. However I think being a full Professor in Australia or UK does as it is a more restricted position than in the US and is more like the named or distinguished Professor in the US. Being a foundation Professor in a new university in Australia adds more to notability. BTW, Griffith University has a strong research focus although perhaps less so than the larger and older University of Queensland in Queensland. An earned D Litt requires extensive publications. It is awarded entirely on the basis of publications. He is quite clearly a notable professor. Let me add that I do not agree with him on AIDS and do not know him, but I do know the Australian academic system. --Bduke 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs work but he appears notable in terms of publications as a start. Some of the sources are not strong though. Paul foord 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bduke.
John Vandenberg 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, Per Bduke, clearly passes wp:prof, internationally recognized. --Buridan 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, revised article shows notibility, and has verifiable data from reliable sources. --Bejnar 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete
Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Freetar

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

The article does not meet with the requirements of notability. If you can fix this article please do so as written it does not belong on Wikipedia. Phatom87 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be terribly popular if nobody's heard of them. Delete. Alba 05:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 or A7. Phatom87 previously tagged this as speedy A7, and his judgment was correct. YechielMan 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy -Drdisque 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Jacki-O. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:24Z

Jack The Ripper (album)

Jack The Ripper (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no information in this article that is not in Jacki-O. Other than one song, there isn't a tracklisting, the release date is unknown. Seems a bit premature for an article of it's own as it's only restating facts that are elsewhere. It's somewhere between WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N Malla nox 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Artist's article is small enough to easily fit discography info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jamie. // 3R1C 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Holism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:25Z

Holistic_living

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

NN cruft, contains no actual information. 2 of 3 references go to the same NN web source.
Delete Per nom GideonF 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef and neoligism and no assertion that the term is notable.-Markeer 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing for me to add. YechielMan 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with holism. ConDem^Talk 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per ConDem. - WeniWidiWiki 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be so bold as to say Transwiki to Wikt else Merge per above. // 3R1C 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holistic living! It's just so. . . oh, wow, man, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked? (Redirect to holism, not sure there's much to merge here.) - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

View AfD
)

Fails
notability guidelines. MastCell 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: since I nominated this advertisement the first time it has turned into a soapbox for a scam posing as medical therapy. Just to be sure violates
WP:RS, need I continue?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Comment:~~ Strikes me as a useful source of objective information for those poor gullible individuals who might be taken by scamsters. On the other hand I can see where the article might be hijacked by those same scamsters. ~~So put me down as firmly undecided.~~ Raymond Arritt 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep in light of later discussion. It's on my watchlist. Raymond Arritt 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not worthy of being noted. --Parker007 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree that the article in its original form violated both
WP:NPOV. Djma12 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I think this sounds good in theory and was the basis for the Keep decision in the prior AfD. But in practice, defending the article against
single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting such a scam is a major time and effort sinkhole. If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated. MastCell 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete regrettably. Ideally I think it should stay as a source of information on a scam, as~~
~~WP:SYNT stop anyone properly explaining that biology. So, unless anyone can show a way around this, delete~~. Tearlach 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed vote to Keep in light of discussion. Tearlach 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well said. MastCell 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an monitor per Djma12. Reasonably well-sourced; a good place for someone doing a web search on the topic to discover for themselves that it's pseudoscience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, and I too am going on
WP:FRINGE here, if only for lack of good references. --Dennisthe2 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- The arguments as later make good points. Keep, with a stipulation that it be protected in the event of continued means of spamming. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and monitor per Djma12 and Ohnoitsjamie. Being a frequent target for vandalism is never a reason for deletion. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any topic relating to the Iraq War or Israel-Palestine. The article is about a scam, but the scam itself is notable given the multiple references. -- Black Falcon 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be notable psuedo-science. Problem editors should get a page block and the article left under semi-protection for a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Tearlach and it's already mirrored on Answers.com [2].--Dakota 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Weni and Falcon... But it needs significant cleanup and maybe a little bit more obvious of a caveat that it's pseudo-science/scam. // 3R1C 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djma12, Raymond Arritt, Ohnoitsjamie and others. Close monitor and warnings to user per 3R1C's vote. D Mac Con Uladh 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable fraud per everyone above, and figure out some way of refuting the claims using published sources. There's got to be something reliable out there which talks about how silly of an idea this is. If all else fails,
WP:IAR and do what you can. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep there appear to be reliable sources for this being a fraud, and the fraud is undoubtedly widespread. Past vandalism is not a reason for deletion, tiresome though it is. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with this kind of article is there is no reliable source refuting it. There are only reliable sources not naming it, which is not the same! Stating the concept is not accepted within the medical community is correct, but proving it by showing it is not mentioned in
OR. Believe you me I have looked but can't find an article or medical organisation speaking out against this and calling it a fraud. Seems like a major problem. Second, the last AfD had editors promising to keep an eye on this article. Nevertheless they are not around. Our little friend promoting this stuff is, which is evidenced by the fact that I had a recent encounter with him resulting in his block. Not sure what will happen 4 months from now when everybody has forgotten this and Mr PR steps in to remove the caveats from the page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Agreed - it's like writing an article about how lemon juice is the cause of cancer. There are no reliable sources refuting such a claim, because it's just not notable enough. I think this fits in the same
non-notable category. But obviously, others disagree. MastCell 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. All contributors please keep in mind that the point of this AFD discussion is not whether or not mucoid plaque is a scam or pseudoscience, but rather whether or not it is a notable and verifiable scam. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on scams and pseudoscience. All we have to determine is if the subject is verifiable via reliable sources and is reasonably well-known. ●DanMS • Talk 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. Obviously, I think it fails notability per
WP:FRINGE, but sounds like many others disagree. MastCell 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, as an article describing it as an urban myth. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. But also; I don't see revealing fraud and describing urban myths as natural functions of an encyclopedia. I think more suitable in glossy magazines. Amarone 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, is protection and/or surveillance realistic, or will the article again be edited? I don't trust this option. As MastCell wrote 20 February 2007, it sounds good in theory, but difficult in practice; "If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated." Amarone 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since it looks at least somewhat likely the article will be kept, I've gone through and edited it pretty comprehensively, along the lines discussed here. It's on my watchlist. But I'm only human and not on Wikipedia all the time - so if you feel the article should be kept and watched closely to prevent it from becoming an advertising vehicle, then could I ask that you-all add the article to your watchlist as well? It doesn't get edited very often, and it would be worth having a few sets of eyes on it, since it slipped under the radar this past time. Thanks. MastCell 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raymond Arritt 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my watchlist now too. Djma12 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Michelle Kim

)

Non-notable actress. IMDb lists four appearences on one television show and no other credits [3]. IrishGuy ^talk 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating (unorthodoxly) the following related pages with the same motivations] Cate |_Talk 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

The following arguments were added before the addition of the four other articles.

Delete, can find nothing that would establish any
notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely fails
VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per
WP:BIO. Djma12 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Artaxiad 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. So non-notable, in fact, that the article even gets the sex wrong. ConDem^Talk 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following arguments were made after the addition of the four other articles.

Delete all - non notable. I added the other article, to speedy up the process, and I think there will be no objection (on deletion and on addition of other articles). Cate |_Talk 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Generally, you should not add new articles to an AfD after discussion has already begun. I personally agree that the four other articles should also be deleted, however, you'd be much better off to reverse the addition and start a separate AfD for the four others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I know, but personally I had done a speedy deletion. Cconsidering your comment, the next time I will follow better the rules and not assume to much ;-) . Anyway to simplify the admins work: the articles are short and very similar (but the names, sex and imdb link). The imdb pages are similar. A small note:
    Michelle Kim, but it was an other person: Assistant Concertmaster of the New York Philharmonic Cate |_Talk 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

- Delete. I put some forward for speedy deletion, they should have gone out there (A7, non-notable bio). MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not voting on this one, but I do want to point out that IMDb is not a good source for television information. Movies, yes. Television, no. Many, many shows are not up to date on who did what episodes, and many of them don't display the main characters on the main page. I think for TV stuff, I'd take TV.com, TVGuide.com, and Zap2It over IMDb... -- Grev 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tv.com and TVguide.com have absolutely nothing on Michelle Kim. IrishGuy ^talk 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Cousteau Jr.

~~Makes no claims to notability per~~

~~WP:BIO aside from his ancestry. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Changing to keep based on article expansion and new sources. Nice work! RJASE1 ^Talk 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article and added some references. --Eastmain 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and either expand or merge to Philippe Cousteau. The stub is hovering on the edge of being an independent article; please make it tip one way or the other. Alba 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. The subject is easily more notable than his father (half of whose article is about his son), and quite active politically. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a lot of work though because it still does not reflect Cousteau's real notability despite the good effort by Eastmain Alf photoman 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more notable than most of the notables here. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs fleshing out, but is still is about a person of some notability. --Ozgod 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is certainly not an issue here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets
WP:BIO
with reliable sources

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Idol contestants

)

This seems to amount to a

directory of all contestants/televised performers associated with American Idol. I don't see the purpose of this. Plus, the redlinks encourage creation of non-notable biographies, or, alternatively, redirects to American Idol seasons. Tinlinkin 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Delete As it stands now the number of people who are eligible for this list is astronomical. If I am not mistaken hundreds of thousands of people try out for this show and are considered contestants. I wouldn't mind a list of American Idol finalists as many of them are notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#IINFO. Djma12 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a big list of mostly non-notable people. Wikipedia is not a directory. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk)(Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep; i have removed all the redlinked names and cleaned it up a little Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this perhaps be improved by:
- Retitling it "List of notable American Idol" contestants
- Removing all the red-linked names
- Adding a brief one-sentence blurb to each
much like University Alumni lists? I would be happy to do this and would support keeping in this instance. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- If anything, it should not be renamed to "List of notable American Idol contestants." I don't remember the exact policy, but I have seen arguments that a list of anything should imply notability; thus adding "notable" would be unnecessary. If you are willing to do it, you can add the additional sentences to as many of the names as possible and we'll see how it looks. I would not remove the red links until after that is done in order to see how non-notable those people are. Tinlinkin 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that's not quite true. It's possible for a list as a whole to be notable, but not have every single member of the list be individually notable. For example, a prolific actor might appear in hundreds of television shows and films, not all of which are notable enough for their own article. But the "list of works" for that notable actor would probably be notable as a whole and worth including in some form in his article. Likewise, not everyone on the cast of a notable film is always notable, but the cast list as a whole for a notable film would probably be worth including. So basically the premise that every entry in a notable list must be notable isn't correct. Dugwiki 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I started by creating a mirror article as a subpage to my userspace which wasn't looking too bad:
  talk | contribs | esperanza 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Here's another consideration: Could each season of American Idol handle the names of notable contestants in their respective season? In other words, if the people are mentioned in each season, would the master list be redundant? Tinlinkin 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good to me. There's a similar debate over at
    talk | contribs | esperanza 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - The redirects are intentional; they are to avoid a potential article being made when it would not be notable. If they have a subsection in the article, they should redirect. CrazyC83 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those cases where a category, namely Category:American Idol participants, works better than an uncontrolled list with rampant redlinks. YechielMan 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Directory list kruft in the extreme, and patently unencyclopaedic. - WeniWidiWiki 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Axl 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page as it is directory. However, many of them should have mentions and brief sections on their season page (needs to be done for the first three seasons). Such a directory belongs somewhere else like on an Idol Wiki site... CrazyC83 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Keep as this will be more useful once all the redirects are done and sections written on their season pages, or their own articles. CrazyC83 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel J. Leivick for being too inclusive. If this were a list of finalists, then maybe, but a list of all contestants ever? No way.
(jarbarf) 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as long as it is limited to people notable enough for articles, I see no reason why the list has to be limited to finalists. Savidan 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean actual articles? Or including redirects? (Anyone with a section in their season article should have a redirect to that article) CrazyC83 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I definitely wouldn't want a category like this, as this is basically a list of combined guest spots and full contestents who appeared on television competing on the show, and we don't categorize by guest spots. However, list articles go by a different, easier to meet standard compared to categories, and a list article to handle guest stars on a show is probably ok. I also do see the potential use of having a list article index of existing Wikipedia articles about Idol contestants, since the show presumably has a fair number of readers interested in looking at articles about various singers on the show. So overall I'd say no to a category, but I generally don't have a problem in principle with a list of contestents who had the opportunity to sing on the televised show. Dugwiki 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the category already exists, ergo the list should also exist. Jcuk 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep participants on a show as notable as American Idol are in themselves notable, and so would a list. Just H^{editor review} 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly disagree. Like I said above there are probably nearly a million Idol participants. Nearly all of them are in no way notable. Even the small percentage that appear on TV do not get notability by default,

Jeopardy is notable, but there is no need to list every contestant. The argument that the category exist therefore the list should doesn't make much sense to me either. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No other TV show gets 30 million viewers every week though! This is the #1 rated show on television, so there is nothing to compare it to. CrazyC83 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So just because it is 1# you wouldn't be opposed to a list that had everyone of the million Idol participants? --Daniel J. Leivick 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with a list of all the million, but I don't think anyone other than those who make it to the final rounds are notable, this is what I assume when I think of "contestants". Those people waiting in line are trying out to be contestants. Just H^{editor review} 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disclaimer at the top of the page though... CrazyC83 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a regular contributor to the Idol articles, but frankly, this list just isn't needed. The American Idol Participants category is sufficient. And as many have mentioned, it's an impossible list to maintain. And figuring out notability is a nightmare as it is when it comes to the Idol articles. This list is just too hard to keep up with. And it's redundant to the cat. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and definitely DON'T create a "List of notable American Idol contestants" because the only sure way to become notable as an American Idol contestant is to become (at least) a finalist. If anyone is notable for another reason, they could have an article, but it doesn't make sense to have a separate list to accommodate finalists and the odd random non-finalist who also found note somewhere else. --Dystopos 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Too many

SPAs here stating keep; consensus by legitimate means is delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

John Taylor Bowles

Verifiability and no credible sources. Non-notable unless this "National Socialist Movement" candidate gets on any ballots or at least gets some mainstream media coverage. Dimitroff 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - FEC Federal Election Committee verified Candidate. Search P8003320 at FEC Disclosure Site. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P80003320/ Candidate also has a federally registered PAC called 88 PAC. This candidate is fully credible no matter what anti-Americans may think. Candidate Bowles is fully registered with the Federal Government in the spirit of American politics. This is truly an example of a government by the people for the people at work. Deleting this candidate in favor of corporate sponsored, foreign sponsored and owned bigger Parties is a disgrace and against everything America stands for. You can't delete facts especially those with verifiable sources just because you don't agree with their platform. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 12.75.232.56 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Strong Keep - Granted, candidate Bowles is a registered candidate with the Federal Election Commission (#)80003320) and has established an official political action committee with the FEC for his candidacy (Bowles for President 2008, #C0041148) and established a campaign website (Bowlesforpresident.com). Candidate Bowles is receiving widespread newspaper coverage --
unsigned comment was added by 66.191.222.111 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

- Provide a link for your claims towards registration. Searches on for the registration numbers provided on both Google and the FEC website do not produce any hits. Until they are provided, the comment violates
  WP:V. Djma12 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

~~Weak Keep~~ - Granted, this is a minor candidate, but he does seem to fit Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. Djma12 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I have tried to do some additional research on this candidate. The party that he espouses is not registered, nor is he a registered political candidate. Delete per Dimitroff.Djma12 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly? Reading over Wikipedia:Candidates and elections it says "That does not mean, however, that all candidates for office should automatically receive their own articles in Wikipedia. Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability." As far as I can see this article fails those standards. We don't even have any evidence that this is a registered candidate. Dimitroff 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to him actually getting some press coverage. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence that an even moderately mainstream media source has covered his candidacy. --Delirium 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The comment from Djma12: "Granted, this is a minor candidate.." needs expanding. In fact, this a major candidate (Presidential election!). That is surely enough to make him notable, even if he is from a minor party. Plenty of Google hits to back up this candidacy, mostly from the NSM unfortunately, but there's also this [4]. Emeraude 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (belatedly signed)[reply]
- The "minor party" is not a registered political party. There is no evidence this is a registered political candidate. Just because Joe Blow in Springfield, NH says he's running for president doesn't mean that he is and doesn't mean he deserves a wikipedia article. Dimitroff 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to have had any press coverage. Anyone can declare themselves a candidate for any office. Let's delete this article until there are sources available. -Will Beback · † · 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; if he gets some coverage at a future time, then hey, fire away, but at this point 1,200 Google hits for a Presidential candidate is pretty weak. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm working on his Wikinews article, and he was written up by the Columbia City Paper [5]. Also, his party, the National Socialism Movement is the largest Neo Nazi group in the US, which in turn has ties to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the controversial 1978 Supreme Court Case that upheld the Freedom of Speech, and allowed Nazis to parade in a traditional Jewish community. So, when put together, I believe he is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - A quick scan of the "Columbia City Paper" shows it to be some minor newsletter, not a credible source per
  WP:BIO notability criteria. Heck, even I'm three degrees of separation from the past four U.S. presidents. Djma12 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep I find that he is usually referred to as Taylor Bowles, and doing a LEXIS newspaper search got 125 hits for the last two years. In just the first ten hits, I found articles about him in The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.) August 21, 2005 and June 12, 2005; The Olympian (Olympia, Washington), June 19, 2006; Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News - The Olympian, June 19, 2006 (and other dates); Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 9, 2005; The Roanoke Times (Virginia), October 18, 2005; Associated Press Worldstream, June 25, 2005; Associated Press Online, June 25, 2005; and others. The newspaper articles are not flattering, but they do establish notability, as well as a certain notoriety. --Bejnar 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I was in South Carolina at the time that his campaign came through. The local, mainstream paper contained an article about the campaign. It also listed that this camdidate is receiving matching funds. The candidate is listed on many internet polls of registered Presidential Candidates, including the folowing link:

It seems obvious that some people do not want this article because they do not like the message. However, that is not a consideration for an unbiased encyclopedic service. This articl should stand. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Strong KeepPolitical opponents of the National Socialist Movement obviously wish to deny their party and their message any legitimacy whatsoever. Mr. Bowles is a presidential candidate registered with the National Election Commission. He has a campaign committee and his party has held numerous political rallies in various states around the U.S. in the last several years. He has been interviewed by newspapers, and portions of his speeches have been broadcast over national cable news networks. Perhaps his chances of actually gaining the Presidency are small, but he is a legitimate candidate with a legitimate political platform from a legal political party. His Wikipedia entry should remain, if for no other reason, in order that Wikipedia should be an exhaustive source of information on who is running for President. Low Profile Low Profile 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Swanson family

Article is split into multiple articles. TigerK 69 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a "family" article when we already have individual articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moving any material necessary for maintaining links to the main article of Family Guy. Alba 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each character has his/her own article, shouldn't need a family one. Isn't that baby born yet? --Nehrams2020 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Peter arbor

Does not seem to meet

WP:COI issues. Failed prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. As the person who prodded this, it looks like a vanity bio to me. The fellow seems to be quoted in a couple of news articles, but is not the primary subject of any that I could find, making almost all of the contents unverifiable. The only thing that struck me as maybe possibly notable is the claimed listing in Forbes, but I think that's too weak on its own and couldn't verify it on the Forbes site anyhow. William Pietri 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note the username of the original author. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, most likely made-up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable. But I cannot understand why people cannot write surnames uppercase. Cate |_Talk 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references = not notable Alf photoman 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-wood High School

)

It is a public K-12 school article that fails to assert notability Butseriouslyfolks 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL as most High Schools pass this. -Drdisque 05:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aside from the fact that WP:SCHOOL is a proposal, not a guideline, how can it be said that most high schools pass it? I think the converse is true. "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works." If you show me some, I might change my vote on this article, but I haven't seen one to date. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced sub-stub. --Delirium 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnn 7 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn sub-stub with no references; this qualifies for speedy deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A non-notable schools and a pretty poorly done article. Soltak | Talk 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Lincoln, New Hampshire article. That should be sufficient at the current level of development. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just pointing out that the school apparently also serves Woodstock, New Hampshire. Lin(coln)-Wood(stock). Get it? Butseriouslyfolks 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. -Seinfreak37 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My general reasons are here but I was tempted by RJHall's idea, given that the district is so small and the article is such a stubby little thing. But it is part of two different communities, as Butseriouslyfolks points out, so putting a section in one or the other doesn't seem appropriate. It is distinctive in being New Hampshire's only school that covers all grades, which might make it interesting to people studying education. Noroton 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:IAR. This article needs improving. --Masterpedia 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is not just a school, it is a school district that covers multiple communities. As a governmental body it has suffucuent standing to justify an article. Alansohn 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the school, not the district. They are two decidedly different entities. I agree that school districts are notable, most of the schools in those districts aren't. Soltak | Talk 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Deletion serves no purpose. If merged, a redirect is still needed. --Dystopos 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion serves the purpose of removing a worthless article from the server. Soltak | Talk 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your appraisal of the article or your estimation of the server requirements. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a redirect be necessary? WP's search function finds terms in articles even when they are not in the title. So does Google . . . Butseriouslyfolks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. By Wikipedia's typical practices, a redirect would be advisable, though not, given the power of Google, strictly necessary. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is considered a guideline not Wikipedia Policy. Lack of notability is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions
WP:V, not truth. Wikipedia is not a matter of truth. Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia. --Masterpedia 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment I think it is interesting that you support your argument against a guideline by citing essays, which are even weaker authority. The policy in question here is not
  WP:NOT. Incidentally, a guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." It is not something that should be disregarded just because an essay says its ok. Butseriouslyfolks 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment
  WP:NOT you feel this article violates. Alansohn 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment
  WP:N. In plain language, notability distinguishes subjects worthy of articles from the sorts of things that one would only find in a directory. Butseriouslyfolks 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment Let's take a look at what
  WP:NOT#DIR actually says: "1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). No; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; and, 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. No" Unfortunately, humble or otherwise, there is no element of your referenced policy that is relevant here. Alansohn 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment I see you missed my point. It's #3. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. If they pass
  WP:N, they go in. Otherwise, they stay out as directory fodder. Butseriouslyfolks 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment You just claimed that the relevant issue is
  WP:NOT#DIR, and insist that this article is a directory of schools. Let's quote #3 in its entirety "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Clearly, it is an article about a school, not a list of them. I don't see anything that looks like "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, [or] programme lists" in this article. "Directory fodder" is just a rewording of "I can't come up with an actual Wikipedia policy that this article violates so I'm resorting to excuses." Any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  
  Comment I guess it's a lot easier to prove me wrong when you misconstrue policy and put words into my mouth. The policy does not merely prohibit 'articles' which are themselves directories. Rather, it declares that 'Wikipedia' itself is not a directory. (Look above the subsection you quoted and you will see the following text: "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.") Similarly, I did not insist that the 'article' is a directory of schools. I argued that if every non-notable school is the proper subject of a Wikipedia article, then 'Wikipedia' would become a directory of schools. As you can see, this is touching on
  WP:NOT#IINFO as well. Butseriouslyfolks 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment You stated above that "The policy in question here is not WP:NOT does NOT apply, then you no longer have an argument. The problem with your quote that "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." is that the policy then goes on to state what constitutes such a directory and none of the three items fit. Do you have any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep per -Drdisque reasons Oo7565 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a K-12 school meets notability. --Djsasso 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this school articles fails to assert any notability whatsoever. It meets speedy deletion criteria; those arguing that notability does not apply are applying special pleading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability neither asserted nor obviously apparent, and references/sources are inadequate. WMMartin 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability of the article is the only "single school" SAU (School Administrative Unit) in the state. --Masterpedia 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that makes it notable how? If it were the only school built with brick, would it be notable? The only school with a maple tree? I'm sorry, I dont' see how that is notable at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only "single school" SAU (School Administrative Unit) in the state to be the argument of notabilty. If in your opinion this is not notable, based on cockeyed, crazy, loony, and loopy comparisons than your opinion is right. Here is another comparison for you; Every guy has one dick, but this one guy has a double dick. His claim to double dickness is verifiable and has regional interest in San Francisco, however every guy could have a double dick if he went Dan's House of Double Dick Installations, would no longer make the article notable. I understand your argument without the comparisons. Hopefully my articulateness expression on comparisons being useless is understood. --Masterpedia 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 1^st grade teacher just informed me I was rude with my delivery. That being said the comparisons are elementery. Since anyone reading the above comment can conclude this on there own, I figured wikihumor
WP:LOL was nesscacery. Please do not take my wikihumor seriously. --Masterpedia 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to comment on the facts, without getting back into the keep/delete mishegas, it is the school district that is the only SAU in the state. The subject of the article is the school, not the district. Butseriouslyfolks 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely false. All School districts is NH are SAU's [6]. This is the only single building SAU in the state. --Masterpedia 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not false, just ambiguous because I shorthanded the sentence. I'll say it again, this time including what I thought was obvious: "It is the school district that is the only SAU in the state [with only one school]." Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that the article is about the district, not the school, so something that makes the district notable would not necessarily make its school also notable. Butseriouslyfolks 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve or merge. Cooljeanius 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public high schools are inherently worth inclusion. --El on ka 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article has substantially improved, expanded beyond stub status, with reliable sources.
(jarbarf) 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Crew of Square One TV

Crew of Square One TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of crew members involved in the production of a TV show (no actors!) that reads like an IMDB listing.
Not encyclopedic. Tinlinkin 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We also have a Crew of Sesame Street page, which doesn't seem much better (except that the show itself is more notable)... DMacks 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should nominate Crew of Sesame Street as well. - Ozzykhan 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You got to be kidding me. This isn't IMDB. --UsaSatsui 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT#IINFO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Highly unlikely that it will be expanded upon, and just a mirror of IMDB. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Train-Driver Superbowl

Train-Driver Superbowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No
proof that this movie exists. ^{[Check Google hits]} Google search for "Train-Driver Superbowl" brings up only another Wikipedia article about Owen Wilson. Search for "John Effchrane" results in same article. IMDB shows nothing. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yuser31415 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I sure don't see any evidence this movie even exists (Or will exist, according to the article) Delete unless notability can be established.
Eeblefish 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Until verifiable sources appear, this is a crystal ball article. Delete with proviso that article may be re-posted when verifiable sourcing appears. Alba 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without sources, it cannot be kept. YechielMan 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until real information about this film appears. I also agree with the above comment that sources are needed. fraggle 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy as allowed - I could not find any information connecting Superbowl and/or Owen Wilson and/or Casey Wurzbach and/or John Effchrane and/or Ed Asner, each mentioned in the article. This appears to be a hoax created essentially by
hoaxes may require a similar opinion of several editors. -- Jreferee 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Jreferee's fine reasoning. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. –mysid ☎ 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Hui Gek

Ang Hui Gek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per
talk 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable bio. *drew 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yuser31415 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless someone can find a notable mention in the Singapore press. (I can't imagine someone like this being covered in any other verifiable source.) Alba 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If someone can find even a single decent source then I'd say keep. --Delirium 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:BIO Alf photoman 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The homepage of the Singapore Pharmacy Board does include a listing for Ang Hui Gek under the "A" section of this page. It says that she is affiliated with the Allied Health Division of Singapore General Hospital. This government report lists her as president of the Singapore Pharmacy Board, and also confirms her title as chief pharmacist on page 9. Since those are official publications, that should satisfy WP:V, at least. I'll start checking for newspaper coverage next. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, she's quoted in her official capacity in this article by
Channel News Asia, but that's it. Did anyone check whether there's an article in Malay/Mandarin/Tamil Wikipedia? Those might have additional sources... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Somebody should put those references in the article because they don't help in an AfD that hardly anybody bothers to read again Alf photoman 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like Lexis-Nexis has five articles in The Straits Times that mention her by name between 1995 and 2002, though I can only search, not read. -22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Though her existence and title are definitely confirmed, I do not feel that they add up to sufficient non-local notability as to meet
WP:BIO. --El on ka 07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenius (band)

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

Article makes claims that are not backed up with sources, other than a Geocities site (which is hardly reliable). Author of article insists on signing it, violating
WP:NN too despite its claims. JuJube 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
SkierRMH 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Eugene Kelly. Ac@osr 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable band, two notable members, released albums on Atlantic and Creation records, as an Amazon search would have quickly proved.
EliminatorJR

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yuser31415 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep per EliminatorJR. Seems borderline notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per
reliable sources would be good though. WjBscribe 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

More info Only one album on Atlantic, but also this one [8] on
EliminatorJR 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Seems notable. fraggle 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:MUSIC. 2 notable members and 2 albums: Oomalama and Mary Queen Of Scots. -- Black Falcon 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the reason I went with a merge is because, AFAIK, Brendan O'Hare, the second notable member only did a few gigs with the band when they were still Captain America; he was busy with Teenage Fanclub and Telstar Ponies throughout the group's existance. If he's one one of the albums I'd have gone with a keep but I'm pretty sure he never recorded with the group (except possibly the Captain America EP).Ac@osr 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ah - but in that case, if the Captain America incarnation are brought into it, they're even more notable - as Captain America they supported Nirvana on their 1991 UK Nevermind tour[9]
EliminatorJR 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A tour O'Hare can't have done as TFC were touring at the same time. I don't mind really...Ac@osr 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the "if I've heard of them here on the other side of the planet, then they must have some notability" criterion :) Grutness...wha? 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As all of the informations is legitimate, notable band.The City 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Might I also add that "Oomalama" and "Mary Queen Of Scots" were both released on Atlantic records. Ampersandfrabjous(mark)

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Invaderman

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

Zero claim of notability, nor sources that are not the author's own words. Google almost exclusively returns forum member pages. Prod removed without comment. Nifboy 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOIMAGINARYENTITIES. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yuser31415 03:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with extreme prejudice: Copyright grant is questionable with regards to GFDL compatability; no claim of notability; not verifiable; and most important, Wikipedia is
not for things made up in school one day, which this is a grade A example of. Alba 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Alba.
Eeblefish 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete hoax and/or copyvio. Storm05 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter nonsense with no sources. The copyright bit in the bottom is definitely the last straw on my camel. Natalie 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with enough prejudice to run afoul of federal civil rights law. Imaginary, not notable, not verifiable, and a rather amusing copyvio to top it off. ShaleZero 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Şampiyon

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

Restaurant with no claim to notability. Macrakis 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. El Cid 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Punkmorten 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yuser31415 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. We can't have articles on every restaurant in existence and this article makes no claim as to why this one is any more notable than any other. WjBscribe 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, but it did make me hungry. mceder (u t c) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Lee

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

Non-notable reality tv contestant --
talk | contribs | esperanza 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, notability Dave6 ^talk 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a growing sentiment around here that reality TV contestants are not notable unless they win. I'm on board with that. YechielMan 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying hard to keep pages in check and I've been going after most of the non-Top 5 finishers, unfortunately, some have done minor things, ie. news anchor, winning minor awards, being on low-rated cable shows and it is not that easy. I think finishing third is above the notability line although many pages need clean up. -- Scorpion 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that her making it to the final tribal council makes her notable enough. Other Survivors who didn't get as far, and have no previous notability, also have articles. Jordan 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She finished third AND made tribal council. -- Scorpion 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All she did was place third in a game show. Hardly notable. I'm not persuaded by the
WP:INN argument. Agent 86 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Reality TV contestant does not make you notable. mceder (u t c) 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of sufficient references for notability For the article to show notability she is supposed have references to multiple independent articles about her. Unfortunately, the only reference in the article is the CBS biography, which isn't entirely independent and doesn't qualify as "multiple articles". Note that losing contestents can be notable, but at a minimum they must have published independent articles about them for reference. This article doesn't. Dugwiki 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep didn't we go through all this with Big Brother a while back? Jcuk 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Dugwiki and per second runner up =non-notable loser. Edison 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. Lack of references, and I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Bekah Ferguson

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

Does not seem to me to meet notability criteria of
WP:BIO. I can't find any reviews or mentions of the works aside from promotional info. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, Why is my article pending deletion? I don't really understand, but I would like to fix it so that the article can remain.
Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djrobbief (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 February 2007

Comment please refer to
WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Note to the previous commenter: please sign your posts "~~~~" so that we know who you are. This is a typical case of a fan's bio, or an autobiography, of a non-notable figure who thinks she's notable because she published some books. See the details at
WP:BIO. There may not be much of a way to improve the article if the facts are what they are. YechielMan 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:BIO. janejellyroll 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Titles published by a vanity publisher. Victoriagirl 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A vanity publisher is a company that charges authors to publish their book. The books in question appear to be published by the author and her husband, rather than a vanity publisher. If multiple reviews or articles about the author from reliable sources can be found, then she would be notable. --Eastmain 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no indication that Rock of Ages Publishing is anything but a vanity press. Victoriagirl 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, a few standard books have been published what is called vanity publishers, the question is not what type of publisher put out a book but how many have actually been sold and how does that figure relate to comparable books published by standard publishers Alf photoman 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by "standard books", I believe my comment concerning Rock of Ages Publishing has been misconstrued. In no way do I believe that self-published and vanity press books should be disregarded, rather I argue that they should be recognized for what they are: publications paid for by the author. I think this fact is relevant to any AfD consideration... as are sales, influence and profile. Victoriagirl 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also appears to fail
WP:COI: author is Djrobbief, and husband of subject is one Robbie Ferguson. He also attempted to hijack the page Rebecca Smith. Ohconfucius 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundra Oakley

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

Non-notable actress and reality TV show contestant. Has appeared in a couple of episodes of prime-time tv but I can't see her being notable for that.
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment What makes her less noticeable than other Survivor contestants (Christy Smith, for example)? Irk _(talk) 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't. I'm currently going through a purpose of nominating nn Survivor articles for deletion (have already put up at least five) so will get to the others soon... although the fact that she (Christy) is deaf makes her more notable than most, I guess. Anyway we'll see. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being on a reality TV show does not make you notable. mceder (u t c) 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game-show loser. Edison 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Made it to the final 4, and also part of the infamous fire-making challenge in which neither her nor Becky could start a fire without matches. Jordan 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kanegai

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

You're welcome to disagree with me, but being medevaced out of Survivor does not make one notable. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maybe so, but being medevaced did become a national story. Why were all of these Survivor pages nominated seperately? -- Scorpion 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A footnote to a gameshow. As for separate nominations, we just had a bulk nomination of Who Wants to be a Millionaire contestants closed because it was a bulk nomination. I'm sure the nom didn't want to have the same results here. Agent 86 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being on a reality TV show.... mceder (u t c) 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is one of only two people in the show who have been medevaced. Michael from Australia has a page. Jordan 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-winner on game show who lacks relevant reliable independent sources of biographical information. 253 unique Ghits, all being either wiki, show marketing, or otherwise trivial mentions. Having had those near-brushes with death is but trivia, and does not at all contribute to notability unless he has been perhaps struck by lightening twice and survived ;-). Ohconfucius 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - same reasons as Jordan above. Unlike Arnzy's case, the individual appeared on 17 hours of television and the U.S. version is broadcast internationally. JKPrivett 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Judkins

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finishing third in Survivor is notable enough. -- Scorpion 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Third place contestant on one of many, many game shows. No big deal. Agent 86 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article lists a number of interviews and articles about the person in the references section at the end. The minimal criteria for notability is to have multiple independent articles written about the person by reliable publications. So if the references in the article are reliable and independent of the person, then he would be considered notable. If not, he isn't. Since I'm not in a position to verify the references, though, I'll have to defer to other editors to check them out. Note that whether or not he won Survivor or placed third has nothing to do with his potential Wikipedia notability or verifiability for the article. It's solely a question of how much published information there is about him. Dugwiki 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity does not mean quality - or notability. We are not blindly bound to a guideline that sets forth criteria that are used as a tool to determine notability. Numerous puff-pieces, human interest stories, or page-fillers do not necessarily make one notable. Notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. Agent 86 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're trying to make a subjective call on what is a "puff piece" versus what is "an article about the person". The fact is that notability is a reflection of whether or not there is sufficient, independent published material about the person to support an article. I'm pretty sure you won't find terms like "puff piece" or "page filler" in policy or guidelines. The only question is whether these articles are 1) non-trivially about the person (ie they don't just mention the person in passing), 2) independent of the subject (ie they're not just written by the subject or their agents), and 3) independent of each other (eg they're not recopied versions of the same wire story). If the references meet those criteria, the person is notable. Dugwiki 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add 4) references must be from reliable sources. Blogs and forum posts aren't considered reliable. Dugwiki 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a puff-piece, etc. (words I never said were expressly incorporated into the guideline) would not constitute "non-trivial" coverage. I refuse to believe that we must be automatons that slavishly adhere to a guideline. If we are, I'm notable for the bowling trophy I won in elementary school. Agent 86 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you wouldn't be notable for winning a bowling trophy unless there were multiple independent articles written about you because of it. So your sarcastic example doesn't apply. Dugwiki 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He made it to the final 3, which is pretty good in Survivor. Jordan 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-winner per nom. If a TV producer wants an actor enough, he/she will be prepared to pay for services rendered - not the case here. Maybe
WP:BIO guidelines should specifically exclude unpaid appearances on TV as a notability criterion ;-) Ohconfucius 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeopardy is a bad analogy, because most of those contestents don't have multiple, independently written reliable articles published about them. It is not whether or not the person has won or lost the game, it's whether or not the references available rise to the level required to reliably provide a useful article to the readers. Dugwiki 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has links to multiple independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. Otto4711 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Otto4711. SirSam972 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Add to list of survivor contestants.

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e.delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Brandon Bellinger

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant --
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. (Couldn't these all have been grouped into one nom?) WjBscribe 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merely a contestant on a game show. No faulting the nom on the separate nominations, especially after the bulk nom of Who Wants to be a Millionaire contestants was summarily closed yesterday. Agent 86 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's only references are not independent of the person. To demonstrate notability it needs multiple independent articles from reliable sources. Dugwiki 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he lost, and although he was on a reality show, he was indeed a notable person during the broadcast of one of the most popular television shows ever. His status as a winner or looser is irrelevant, and removing this page makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic. If keeping is deemed unpractical, the contestant should be folded into a mergec character article.Transcendentalstate
The above would possibly be justifications for having some information about him in the appropriate article about the show, but wouldn't necessarilly suffice for him having his own independent article. A person needs to meet a slightly higher threshold of notability and references to have their own individual article. Dugwiki 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
quality of biographical information about the subject. I found nothing of substance in amongst the 253 unique Ghits, most are the usual wiki mirrors, show marketing (trivial and non-trivial), some directory listings and links to photo galleries. No independent and reliable sources for his biographical information. He does not appear to have any achievements of note since the show. As an aside, the highest quality article on any person of that name is from the Harrisburg PA Mayor's Office. Ohconfucius 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep and rename. A Train ^{take the} 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbeville Horror

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

Lot of problems here. The name itself is POV. The article is almost completely unsourced, making it almost all OR, and since Steven Bixby and his father are still alive, it's a raging BLP vio. We've got a solid accusation of POV made by an anon user on the article's talk page. The individuals involved may merit articles (Steven Bixby in particular, see [10]), but I think this page should probably go. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs immediate, massive NPOV editing to survive deletion. Alba 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. 'Twas ever my understanding that crime and criminals form a partial exception to notability guidelines, one that is moreover hard to capture in a formula. Though local crimes are often subject to non-trivial coverage by independent, citable sources, reliable in the context of daily journalism, most of them are of purely local interest and fade quickly when the next one occurs. In order to merit encyclopedia coverage, there needs to be some measure of long-lasting or national interest. I am not sure that this incident qualifies. If kept, it certainly wants a more descriptive and neutral title and heavy editing to remove journalese and editorializing. Not sure that this should be broken up or moved into articles about the alleged perpetrators if this is a single incident. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not willing to make a judgment call on the notability of crimes but the POV and BLP issues are incredibly serious. I would almost recommending stubbing until this AfD is decided. And, of course, if it is kept it needs to be retitled. Natalie 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this, but thought that there might be an objection to me stubbing an article and THEN nominating it for deletion. If someone else wants to pare it down, please be my guest. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there is precedent for stubbing an article for BLP problems even if it's in the middle of an AfD. I remember this happening, but can't remember the names of the articles themselves, so I couldn't point to specific discussions. Natalie 05:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be renamed Bixby standoff or Abbeville standoff for POV and neologism reasons. Obviously, needs major copyedit and cleanup, but there are quite a few very notable sources and refs. - WeniWidiWiki 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it clearly has multiple coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects. For a group of U.S. citizens to gun down multiple law enforcement personnel in defense of their libertarian beliefs is highly unusual and seems encyclopedic as well as newsworthy. This is no common crime of passion or in the course of a robbery. Renaming the article seems appropriate because it sounds like a Steven King novel. The article is too "chatty" in tone. Statements should be sourced to solid sources per
WP:BLP. Edison 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I should probably clarify my position a bit. I'm not arguing that this incident shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. I'm arguing that this article has so many problems (BLP foremost among them) that it should be deleted, with a new article or articles created to cover the subject under more appropriate article titles. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename - Abbeville Horror - where does this name come from?
fix them. --Richard 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't know if it is appropriate, but I vote keep, subject to some work, hopefully by myself and others. There has been much more information come to light in the media regarding the entire Bixby family, and their side of the story, and basic facts of the case are now readily available from neutral sites around the Web (not just SPLC or Patriot sites). This should help clear up the NPOV problems. 95% of the BLP issues seem to be gone as of Sunday evening, when Steven Bixby was found guilty on all 17 counts (murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, &c.) I believe that verdict actually qualifies him as a murderer (&c). As I write this, the jury is hearing testimony in Abbeville in the penalty phase of the trial: the only two options under SC law are life without parole or death - judging from the pace of the whole trial thus far, we might know the penalty by this evening. Rita and Arthur, the parents, have yet to be tried (and there is no trial date for either of them, as far as I know). Arthur is reported to have increasingly severe Alzheimer's, and many believe he will die in jail without a trial. If we can gather enough info on Steven's life, it alone probably merits an article (especially considering the length of, say, the
John Mark Karr
article!)

I suggest that we work on fixing up the article (maybe this indeed will involve dumping this one and starting anew) and moving it to something like "2003 Bixby standoff" or "2003 Abbeville standoff", &c. (This appears to be in line with Wikipedia naming conventions for similar events, cf.
2007 Boston Mooninite Scare for a recent example.) WYFF
, the local NBC affiliate, has been referring to the event as the "Abbeville standoff". I agree "Abbeville Horror" sounds a little edgy and needlessly dramatic, but at the time I first wrote the article, I was just learning about the event myself and found that most places around the Web had given it the "Horror" nickname.

So, let's rename the article to
Abbeville standoff and then have Abbeville Horror redirect to it. --Richard 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

At the very least, even if we kill this article completely, I would say that a mention of this event in the Abbeville article seems appropriate.

Everyone chime in, and let me know your ideas/suggestions. BobbyLee 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep because of the political dimensions. This was not a routine crime story. Someone will have to rewrite it & rename it. What do the news stories call it? DGG 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Steven Bixby was sentenced to death this afternoon. It only took the jury an hour to decide on the penalty. In the next few days, I will work on the article, now that (one of) the Bixby trials are over. BobbyLee 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be completely reworked. The main title and huge chunks of the text were stolen verbatim from an article about the "Abbeville Standoff" in one of the sources. It qualifies as plaigarism. I authored the neutrality dispute on the talk page. There are major, major problems with this article. Someone needs to rewrite it. 70.157.144.186 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? If it's a copyvio, then that's a whole different procedure, and the offending text will be removed or the article will be deleted. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New name for this article: How about 2003 Abbeville Right-of-Way Standoff? Or perhaps 2003 Abbeville (S.C.) Right-of-Way Standoff, as there are many Abbevilles in the South, and one in France. What do you think? 128.192.134.161 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Heistand

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

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no case for itself.
-- roundhouse 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. This article is very weak: it has no sources, and tells us absolutely nothing about the career of the subject beyond the bare fact that he was a bishop. However, I do think that the role of a bishop is sufficiently important that they should get some sort of automatic presumption of notability in
WP:BIO doesn't try to address religious careers, so I can't sa more than a "weak" keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to know how many bishops of the different churches there are at present in a given area in the US. I think the answer in the UK is 2 - an Anglican one and a Catholic one - certainly notable. Eg how many bishops in total (approx) preside over Ohio?
-- roundhouse 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There are 2 Anglican Archbishops (Canterbury and York). Many many bishops. Two Catholic Archbishops (Westminster and Liverpool). I think
WP:BIO must be amended as BHG says. It would be ludicrous for minor sportsmen, pornographic actors and Pokemon characters to be deemed more notable than some religious leaders. - Kittybrewster 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I meant for a given area - eg where I am there is the (anglican) Bishop of Derby + a Catholic bishop (perhaps the Archbishop of Liverpool). I don't think there are any others. In the States there are or have been Mennonite bishops, Lutheran bishops, several sorts of predecessor UM bishops etc etc - are these all notable?
-- roundhouse 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

There are quite a few denominations with episcopal polity in the USA. In my area, we've got an Episcopal bishop, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, an
ELCA bishop, bishops of overlapping Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox (arch?)bishop... you get the idea. I hadn't heard of the denomination in question here. In general I think bishops are notable, but in this case I'm not sure if they're individually notable. Neutral for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks - that is what I was trying to establish - a bishop sounds impressive but not if there are dozens of them of differing persuasions.
-- roundhouse 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep and expand - per above. Broadly, why not? - Kittybrewster 11:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of a set of methodist bishops which should be treated similarly - Kittybrewster 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question isn't what the church is now but what it was then, and where his office then fit into their organization--if he was the head of the denomination he would be N. Its founder were two famous evangelists, who were entitled Bishops by the group, & the denomination is very much a N part of US history. But since they did not actually have a formal organization until 1841, it is not easy to tell. If he was considered the equal of Otterbein and Boehm, he was unquestionably notable, & the article needs expansion. (The question I had whether this was one of the denominations where every congregation has its own Bishop, but according to the article there were 6 bishops at a time when the church had 500,000 members.) Other denominators aren't part of the qy, so we don't have to consider their N qualifications right now. DGG 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What did he do? Nothing except have children. Not notable. --Bejnar 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many people are notable, not by which what they have done but by which what they are or were. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

People like that are for lists not articles. --Bejnar 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protest The problem is probably with the article rather than the bishop. One ought not to have to do any work or delving into Wikipedia to see whether someone is notable. The article doesn't even say that he is on
-- roundhouse 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment He is on this list - 1833 [11]. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Strong Keep This is one of hundreds of articles on Bishops currently being worked on or planning to be worked on (all within the constraints of time). Bishops are presumed to be notable. I assure you, when this one was alive he was VERY notable to his contemporaries. No one is elected a Bishop without such notability, at least in the United Methodist and related churches. Delete it now, if you like. But I intend to write an article on this Bishop at some point. Thanks. 70.104.101.220 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anons aren't allowed to "vote," are they?
Diez2 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Yes they are, but this is not a vote as such. Since the article is up for deletion, it might be good if 70.104.101.220 were rapidly to expand the article to explain why this chap was particularly notable (which for all I know he may be) rather than creating more articles for relatively obscure (mere?) bishops. I.e. turn him from a weak keep into the strong keep that 70.104 thinks he is. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 70.104.101.220 said "Bishops are presumed to be notable." Where is that written in stone? Bishops might make a list based on their status, but that alone doesn't justify an article. Come back when you have written an article based on reliable sources, not original research and genealogical records. --Bejnar 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an incumbent of a higher ecclesiastical office. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Keep and speedy expand. The problem isn't whether or not he is notable—his position in the church indicate he almost certainly is notable to someone. The issue is that the article does not enumerate his notability. The addition of a single paragraph could render this whole discussion moot. —xanderer 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrzej Rychard

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

Prod removed by creator without explanation and replaced with a claim that "Andrzej Rychard is very famous now.". Sigh. No references. Does catching a criminal makes a policeman famous? Kudos for doing a good job, but I don't think so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It could be argued that the police chief of a city such as Kielce (population 202,609) is automatically notable. There is another person by the same name, a sociology professor from the Polish Academy of Science, who generates a a fair number of Ghits, who may also be notable. The Polish article at pl:Andrzej Rychard is also a stub. --Eastmain 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept that being a 'Police commissioner' may be grounds for notabilty, first, consider that a Polish commissair (komisarz) is actually an equivalent of a lieutant (pl:Komisarz Policji). I looked at the first 10 hits from Google search: none of them refer to the commissioner. A search for AR+komisarz (Polish for commissioner) yelds 620 results, 2 first two are Polish Wikipedia, third is the scientist again, and as far as I can tell none in the top 10 reffers to the commissair again. The search repeated with Kielce [12] yelds 8 results, none of them seem to reffer to any 'komisarz Andrzej Rychard' (!). As I cannot find a single reference to the story, my current verdict has actually worsen: 'possible hoax/police-cruft' ;) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non-notable per
M. Salleh 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to problems with
WP:V Alf photoman 12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per wise assessment by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk D Mac Con Uladh 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but once the article has been deleted, could someone start an article on the sociologist by this name? The Polish article about the police officer at pl:Andrzej Rychard has been deleted and replaced by a new stub about (I think) the sociologist. --Eastmain 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will - I nominated the article for deletion on pl wiki and seems it got an express treatment :) Update: it seems that the author of the article on pl wiki admitted it's a hoax.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Survivor: Palau. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rosenberger

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Finishing third is pretty notable. What makes him less notable than fellow 3rd place finishers Rudy from Borneo or Keith from Australia or Lex from Africa? -- Scorpion 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list. I also agree with the above comment, and the other finishers should also be merged. fraggle 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third place contestant on one of many, many game shows (of which this particular one is one of many versions around the world). Hardly notable, and
WP:INN doesn't wash for me. Agent 86 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. Also, just because there are other articles that are equally un-notable is not a good reason to keep this one. mceder (u t c) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is the only survivor to be voted out of the game outside of the tribal council fire. Also, he has been on other television, such as, Made. --Joe 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article only has one reference, and it's not an independent one from the subject. To qualify as notable it needs multiple articles from independent reliable publishers. Dugwiki 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no inherent notability for game show losers. Edison 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was voted out away from tribal council, and that is the only time that has happened. He also made it to the final 3. Jordan 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above are justifications for him being mentioned in the Survivor article, but not necessarilly sufficient justifications for him to have his own article. To have your own article requires meeting a slightly higher bar of verifiability and notability. Dugwiki 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - links to multiple independent sources exist that attest to the subject's notability. SirSam972 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Defense in Depth (computing)

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

Reads like original research, and even if it's not original research, it's written wackily. Delete unless it is shown not to be original research. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's an important IT security principle, not original research at all. See "defense in depth" security on Google. Gazpacho 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that I've removed the rambling bits. Gazpacho 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Military Defence in depth or Keep. This is not OR. - WeniWidiWiki 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs work. Move to defense in depth (computing) as this is not a proper name. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article only pretends to be about the real military concept, defense in depth. It is instead a slogan for the apparently government-sponsored organization "Information Assurance Technical Framework" which may be a real and notable organization, but the slogan that it uses is not Notable in its own right..21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Keep, important IT security concept. Should also be moved as per Dhartung. Spacepotato 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this topic is real, it deserves considerably more coverage, and its more than a slogan. renaming Depth to depth is good too. GB 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article at this point, but a very important concept in computer security. Agree with Dhartung re lowercase. —David Eppstein 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Sasnal

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

"Wilhelm Sasnal (born December 29, 1972 in Tarnów, Poland) is a painter who lives in Poland. He studied art at the Krakow academy of fine art and graduated in 1999." That's the content of the article. Graduating does not make one notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's all the article said, and I agree graduation isn't enough! But there was a Saatchi Gallery link that gave a clue, and there's plenty on Google so I've added a bit to the article. He's won a major European award, worth 50,000 euros (though we haven't got an article on the Vincent Award yet) and his works have bought by major museums, like MOMA and the Tate. So, on the evidence now, it's a keep. For new readers - see the discussion on Notability (artists) --Mereda 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Planetneutral for adding the Vincent article before I did! Mereda 07:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question A number of Polish artists of perhaps borderline N have been nominated for AfD lately, and I'd like to ask Piotrus whether he thinks there has been a concerted effort to insert articles about them, or whether he is being exceptionally vigilant, and we might perhaps want to watch those from elsewhere with as critical an eye? DGG 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My vigilance is a result of the immensly helpful
Wikipedia:Notability (artists). In conclusion, I strongly recommend going through non-Polish artists categories - I expect they may contain quite a few cases that we should discuss at the very least. I don't think we are dealing with anybody inserting 'borderline WP:N Polish artists', but rather with many someones aall around the world - little knowjn artists and their fans - thinking that they are notable enough to be on Wiki. Some may be, some may not, but quite a few even if notable seem to confuse encyclopedia with a phone book...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep, graduating makes only ~~does~~ those notable that graduated with top honors, the Van Gogh price makes even a monkey notable if he gets it ( no offense to monkeys intended ) Alf photoman 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion, but he seems notable. For example, he's exhibited at
The Financial Times[14] and Welt am Sonntag [15], among others. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notability has been reasonably established, although the original nom was justifiable given the evidence presented by the article at that point. Still needs substantial work, but the reliable external sources seem to exist to make improvement possible. Planetneutral 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't see anything wrong with the nomination, someone should commend Piotr for the outstanding work he is doing cleaning out articles with Polish origin. Alf photoman 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now it's justified. Tyrenius 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
John Vandenberg 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Planetneutral & others. Thanks to Piotrus for addressing these issues. Johnbod 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e. delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jennifer Lyon

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely a game show contestant. Agent 86 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To demonstrate notability article should have multiple independent articles/interviews from reliable sources about the person. Only reference directly about her appears to be the CBS bio, which also isn't entirely independent. Dugwiki 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winner on Survivor. Neither her breast cancer nor her association with other Reality contestants do anything for notability. Amongst the 324 unique Ghits - the usual wiki mirrors, blogs, links to porn sites, CBS promotional stuff. Not much relevant, independent and reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturne in G Minor

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

This seems a bit non-notable to me. If we have an article about this nocturne, shouldn't all Chopin's nocturnes have articles? (Maybe instead of deleting, we could merge the relevant information into articles which deal with Chopin's music.) — $PЯINGrαgђ 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
SkierRMH 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge a quick look at
List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin shows that several of his works do have individual articles. I personally wouldn't object to a merge into a single article on Chopin's works, but I am not sure of the best way to merge. FrozenPurpleCube 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems at least weakly notable. I figure we can probably manage to write at least a decent-length article on it; one guy managed to write a 23-page paper on it and get it published in an academic journal, for example. [16] cab 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this article would also be a ground for deleting other articles about other notable musicians' equally notable keyboard pieces. (Examples:
Transcendental Etudes and Hungarian Rhapsodies; and, for the sake of discussion (although it isn't a keyboard piece), maybe even Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings). These pieces, as well as others, have been the subject of numerous musicological treatises and studies, and have received much scholarly attention that they are in itself considered encyclopedic. On a performer's point of view, information about these articles would also provide valuable information about the history of the piece, notable performances (which may be used as points of comparison), and maybe even a discussion of the music itself. However, in this nocturne's case, it needs more sourced information to make it at par with the other articles, if ever. So I would also say, expand.--- Tito Pao 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
In fact, all of Beethoven's sonatas have articles. I see no reason we can't do the same for Chopin. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty much any of Chopin's compositions could support an article, I'd say; if we don't have articles on each, it's because nobody's gotten around to writing them yet. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. How could anything by Chopin FAIL to be notable? Jcuk 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending proper references I don't have a problem with Chopin works being notable in principle. However, this particular article appears to have no actual references to establish notability or to verify any of the biographical background information about the piece. It also has some unverified/unverifiable "weasel phrases" like "The piece is one of Chopin's most famous noctures, and its playability has made it a favourite amongst students and masters alike. Both Anton Rubinstein and Arthur Rubenstein are acclaimed performers of this piece." There are no citations here, so the article hasn't verified that the piece is, indeed, "one of the most famous" or "accliamed by Rubinstein and Rubinstein".

Thus my recommendation would be to keep, but that is contingent on the article providing proper referencing. If the references never improve, I would eventually have to recommend deletion and redirect to an appropriate Chopin related article. Dugwiki 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I went ahead and added an unreferenced tag, since the only reference is the sheet music itself. The article needs references for the biographical information and opinions in its text. Dugwiki 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a frequent concert pianist piece and there's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the Frederic Chopin article. If there was an article entitled
Nocturnes Op. 15 (Chopin) (he wrote 3 in this series), I'd consider a merge there. --Oakshade 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps you or I could create that article. (I never would have thought of it myself.) — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clarify that my current concern is that the subject specific information in the article isn't referenced. The lack of references really does need to be ultimately corrected or it might eventually lead to the article being merged (if it turned out a lot of the article is either editorial opinion or unverifiable). Dugwiki 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete an article on a staple of the piano repertoire for going on 200 years? No. Rewrite it, source it, and merge or re-name it. It would probably work best as one section in an article on Chopin's Nocturnes, or just the Opus 15, as Oakshade says above. But if it's kept as a separate article, shouldn't the title be something like "Chopin's nocturne in g minor?" The composer's name to differentiate it from nocturnes in g-minor by any other composer, and lower-case g for the minor key. Dekkappai 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e. delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gregg Carey

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant. Article was previously
talk | contribs | esperanza 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than a game show contestant. Agent 86 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does have a couple of references to published articles other than the CBS bio, but I'm not in a position to verify them. If the article has multiple independent published references about the person, then he meets the minimal notability guidelines. If the references don't check out, though, then the article hasn't demonstrated notability and should probably be deleted. Dugwiki 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Greg Carey" is a fairly common name - of the 16,500 Ghits, most are for namessakes. Search for Gregg Carey gives 205 unique Ghits. Other than show marketing, most are trivial or are not from
reliable sources. Ohconfucius 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeopardy analogy, though, isn't quite right because most of them don't have independent articles published about them. The main question is whether this person has multiple, reliable independently published articles about themselves. Whether or not they won or lost the show isn't really relevant to whether or not they have sufficient references. Dugwiki 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ensamble Gurrufío

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

Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable, as all of their releases were independent releases (self-releases?). Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating related-article Cheo Hurtado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion for the same reason. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
SkierRMH 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. One of the releases, El Trabadedos, is identified as Sony/Independent (released both by Sony and by an independent label - the source shows two different album covers) and El Cruzao is identified as Independent/Dorian. Dorian was a "classical audiophile" record label in Albany, New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005. http://www.audaud.com/audaud/JAN-FEB05/news/newsjan19.html So I think it passes the two albums on real labels rule. Even if it doesn't, eight albums over 11 years is pretty impressive. And the review in the New York Times at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7DB1439F935A35751C1A962958260 is a further proof of notability. --Eastmain 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whoever (User:NIu) nominated this article for deletion is basing such proposition on just an assumption, not on actual experience. I quote: "Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable". In contrast, I have watched Gurrufío in actual performance, several times. I wrote the article (which is still incomplete) on the basis of the extraordinary brilliance and quality of the ensemble in question (and I've been to concerts worldwide, I assure you), and as a musician I know what I'm talking about. But don't believe me. Ask a celebrated musician, such as Leo Brouwer, or Carlos Barbosa-Lima, or Alirio Díaz, what do they think of the Ensamble Gurrufío. You would be surprised. I don't see the point in your reasoning about "their releases were independent releases": so what? Moreover, I hope to have news soon, as I am in contact with the group, and plan to add a wealth of additional information, and will ask their persmission to upload sound clippings to Wikimedia Commons. After you have liestened to them, I guess you'll change your mind about this article's deletion. The same goes for the article on Cheo Hurtado. Regards, --AVM 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether their releases are independent releases is highly relevant under the
WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Using information from the group itself to establish notability contravenes the requirement that the information be independently verified. In any case, whether the group is notable or not, the article itself, when I nominated it, did not establish the notability. --Nlu (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The purpose for procuring information from the group itself is not "to establish notability", but to enrich the article with additional information, practically unavailable elsewhere; and, as already mentioned, to obtain permission to use recorded materials. Thank you for the reference to Wikipedia's notability criteria. I'll study it and abide by its postulates. --AVM 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Powerpuff Girls Z attacks

List of Powerpuff Girls Z attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Thoroughly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
SkierRMH 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm usually sympathetic to inclusion of even barely encyclopedic material on television/movies/games/etc., but this doesn't qualify. --Delirium 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced,
not even remotely encyclopedic. And I'm a fan of the show! _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT#IINFO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be unreferenced, original research. (I'm not sure WP:NOT#IINFO applies here, though. That section is pretty specific about what it covers. See the talk page of WP:NOT for more discussion about WP:NOT#IINFO. ) Dugwiki 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Trashketball

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

Wikipedia is
not for stuff you made up in school one day, nn neologism superapathy man 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
WP:NFT, what more can you say? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete drop the "ketball" and you have an accurate description of what this is. JuJube 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've played a variation of trashketball which I called garbage-basketball. Shame I made it up in school one day... Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- blantant hoax. Storm05 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G1. Also note the users only other edits besides this article: [17], [18], [19]. While it is important to assume
good faith, this editor seems to be trying to prove that they are unwilling to constructively contribute. -- Pastordavid 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Lists of names derived from other names

(View AfD)

List of names derived from Laurentius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of names derived from Marcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of names derived from Hlodwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of names derived from Aikaterinē (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of names derived from Miryam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:WINAD
. These article are merely lists of names that were derived from other names (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text other than a bit of etymology (dictionary material) and no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete.
t 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete after transwiki of course (as with all those that have come before) per
WP:NOT a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information etc. WjBscribe 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:WINAD and completed transwiki. Just to clarify (and also for future reference), the "Transwiki:" prefix will be removed from the article titles eventually, correct (or at least redirects established without a prefix)? -- Black Falcon 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not very informative. Articles on first names get usually deleted from WP so I do not expect the red links to disappear soon. 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was {{
Mailer Diablo 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

What Computers Can't Do

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

This article currently reads like a book report, and it contains a lot of text that appears to be at least arguably copyright violation. Delete and start over if necessary. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyright infringement. TJ Spyke 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - needs a total rewrite for length and clarity, but notable. OR: I Googled several complete sentences and no hits turned up. - WeniWidiWiki 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless copyright infringement can be shown, I don't think it should be assumed. It seems to be worked on almost every day and the main contributor left a "This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping" tag on the article. Why would it be deleted now? Bbagot 06:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a copyvio is proven. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book is very notable. The article itself should definitely be cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia article, but not deleted. --Delirium 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article sounds like the person just copied parts of the book word-for-word. I can't check myself at the moment since I don't have the book. If someone else can confirm this, then the article would be speedied. TJ Spyke 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seminal work that needs an article. The summary, though, is ... pretty nerdy. As far as I can tell from Google Books (which blanks large chunks) this really is a conceptual summary, section by section. I'm pretty sure that isn't the best way to write an encyclopedia article about a book (it's more like a Cliff's Notes approach). I suggest excising it and rewriting it all in a handful of paragraphs. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that since it's free and clear, a transwiki of the book summary to Wikisource would be one way to salvage this editor's obviously diligent work. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OMG - How many assumptions can be cast without any knowledge!? I am actively writing the article. The book is 1. VERY noteworthy, 2. Difficult to decipher, as it is written in a very polemical style. I am summarizing the book, section by section, as a prelude to any better work that can be done later. If anyone thinks they can just sum up the work in one swoop, let them go ahead! I have read the book several times, and without first summarizing it diligently and systematically, it would be impossible to glean the actual argument from the forest of polemical debates which seem to permeate the book.

I particularly resent being accused of copyright violation! Where? This is a summary, my own work, with minor quotes which are totally "fair use". Samfreed 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give us an indication as to how many quotes there are. That will be a big determining factor as to whether it is copyright violation or fair use. --Nlu (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way, most of the quotes are from places where Dreyfus himself is quoting others, though not all. This is definitely fair use. Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samfreed, please take the questions about the article in
original research (and thereby jeopardizes the existence of the article itself). --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Not to quibble, but how notable is the book? I see two assertions the book is notable, with no evidence of such being given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to give evidence that something is notable? I have yet to meet anyone who is seriously interested in Philosophy of AI who does not either love or hate this book. (I am busy completing my MA in Cognitive Science) Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability gives some guidelines. "Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability." for example. Is this book mentioned, preferably prominently, in two or more non-trivial secondary sources? NYT book review, for example? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would [20] count for you as evidence for notability? Samfreed 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, they are inclusive not selective. Right idea, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you seem a much more experienced wikipedian than myself, so teach me. This is Dreyfus's most important work in the field of AI criticism. Everyone agrees that he is an important thinker in the field (see [21]) - So how do I "justify" the central work of a central thinker? Philosophy of AI is not an easy-to-grasp subject, and this feels like justifying
Phenomenology of Spirit, or Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" - like, I feel, anyone who knows anything about the field would agree.... Samfreed 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Certainly more than two or so; it has thousands of citations, and at least hundreds of prominent ones. Here is Google Scholar's list of 264 citations to the book. And here is a review of the book in
AI Magazine by John McCarthy. --Delirium 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There are as well 614 Google Books citations. This is not a minor work. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for Cleanup - notability established, however article reads like a (lengthly) book report. Suggest editor(s) remove "work in progress" part to subpage, edit massively, citing sources, prior to attempting to integrate with article, or simply remove all that and add in little tiny well sourced bits. Should be article about book, with brief summary, not condensed version of book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. The book seems notable to me; it meets the "heard of it before I read a Wikipedia article about it" test, and I'm fairly sure it's been discussed by Daniel Dennett. On the other hand, I suspect that portions of the text here might find a more worthwhile home in the philosophy of artificial intelligence article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable book. Needs proper referencing and an overhaul, though. Quick advice to the author, you can work on articles in a subpage of your user page and release them when they are done in the future. - Anas ^Talk? 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very notable book (see the statistics provided above by User:Delirium and User:Dhartung). However, it does need to be cleaned up and improved so that it is not a summary of the book (possibly transwiki to WikiSource but without deleting the article). Also, "appears to be at least arguably copyright violation" is no reason for deletion unless the copyright violation can be proven. At the least, the nom should have raised the issue on the talk page or contacted the primary author of the article. I could not find evidence of either action being taken. -- Black Falcon 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep A read the full article and alot of the book now. The author is paraprasing and is definatly not directly copying. The article needs a focus more on the book itself, and not on preaching the books message--155.144.251.120 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to understand are appreciated. I am writing this article - and as you, who read the book, can see - to even give a summary of what Dreyfus is trying to say, I need to first clean out an awful lot of polemics. This is work-in-progress. As I said above, if anyone can do a better job, go ahead, this is the wikipedia.... Samfreed 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a notable enough book - but the article still needs work. But that's a cleanup issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book looks notable; however, the summary needs to be shortened immensely to the summary length at
ShadowHalo 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Agendism

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

Neologism I can't find in a real dictionary; thus
WP:NOR --Clay Collier 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, along with Agendist. Non-notable neologism with no even halfway reliable references. --Delirium 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school in one day. Storm05 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fraggle 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the term is used in the four references provided in the article. Whether they are
reliable sources is a different matter. -- Black Falcon 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Of the four sources used here, the first two are blogs- one where the term is defined in a blog, and another where it is used without being clearly defined. Neither blog appears to be particularly notable or significant. The third source again uses the term without definition- it's an editorial on a gun ownership site by the same guy who wrote this piece- his bio is at the bottom. The final "citation" is actually just a link to a Google search result page for the related term 'agendistic', which returns a Urban Dictionary page and a few other uses in blogs and web editorials. None of which, in my opinion, constitutes adequate sourcing for an article on this term that wouldn't constitute original research or, at best, a dictionary definition. --Clay Collier 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with Agendist. Non-notable neologism, it seems to me. Might offer it to Wiktionary, but I suspect it fails their guidelines. WMMartin 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Donkey Kong characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:34Z

Lanky Kong

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

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

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

grouped
Tiny Kong
into one AfD
Delete all. Chunky Kong is in one game as playable with one minor cameo in another, Lanky Kong is in one game as playable only, and Tiny Kong is in one main game as playable, minor cameos in a couple of games, and a character in a couple of racing games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (more information from these articles) into List of Donkey Kong characters. JackSparrow Ninja 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES! Merge them all, right now! --PJ Pete

Strong Keep Tiny Kong is a definite keep, because of the many games she is now in. Chunky and Lanky also both deserve articles. Link's just trying to delete everything that's only been in one game. His profile mentions how he's going to merge/delete articles for Earthbound characters, even though they're important. And no, I'm not biased. Don't judge me by my name. ChunkyKong12345 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if I believe being in only one game to not be enough to warrant them to have articles? It's not like I'm the only one of them. Why does a character who appears in only one game and has no character warrant an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to be mistaken with the notability criteria of video games. For Tiny Kong, it is not the sheer number of appearances, but the importance of these appearances. The only games in which Tiny Kong is of any importance are Diddy Kong Racing DS and Donkey Kong 64. Two games is not enough, especially when these games' plots are not very important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! This article is REALLY important, do NOT delete it. If there's an article of a character than makes only one appearance, please merge it into an article of a list of characters. I merged Lanky Kong in the
unsigned comment was added by PJ Pete (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Merge/Redirect them all into List of Donkey Kong characters or into their respective video game articles. None of these characters are notable outside of their video game appearances.Jonny2x4 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into List of Donkey Kong characters. According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction),
Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."

Clear case here.
Gracenotes^T § 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Individual articles are capable of meriting multiple paragraphs (already two of them do). In that case, it would fail the definition of a minor character on
WP:FICT. Also, it passes the "interesting and importance" test. Tuxide 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Many entries on
Gracenotes ^T § 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Edison 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abundantly clear Merge. Nintendo characters in general, no matter how minor, are clearly worthy at least a redirect. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for reasons above. Suriel1981 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed early - The nomination concerns no longer apply, the article is fully fledged, so I closed the debate early so that it can be used on
WP:DYK. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gokak agitation

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

Appears abandoned by its creator, and right now contains no real useful information. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Do NOT delete. Gokak agitation is probably the single biggest agitation in recent Karnataka history. It is just a stub that needs to be expanded and improved. I just marked it as stub. But the issue is 100% encyclopedic and notable. Sarvagnya 08:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an an encyclopedic topic and the current article is as at least useful as a basic stub, with two references from which it could be expanded. --Delirium 08:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are good sources on this 1980s language rights campaign, though they weren't in the article when it was nominated 14 days after creation. --Mereda 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep - This article is not for deletion. I just came across this article, when it was linked to Rajkumar article. It was/is certainly an important topic, with a wide coverage from both people and media. The article is undergoing further improvements from several users, and certainly there is a huge scope for improvement. I am doing whatever I can to improve this article. - KNM ^Talk 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is an important topic which defenitately needs improvements. I have worked on providing some more references and imporoved some sections. -- Naveen ^(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- abandonded by it's author. What sort of reason is that for deletion? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are ever a work in progress. Abandonment is never grounds to delete worthwhile information on a worthy subject, which this seems to be. Even if this is incomplete, I learned something from reading it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Gokak agitation is an important chapter in the history of Karnataka. I don't think "abandoned by creator(which apparently is me)" can be considered as the valid reason for deletion. In that case there are thousands of articles in wiki to be deleted. And regarding "real useful information", it does contains now, thanks to editors like Mereda, KNM, Sarvagnya and Naveenbm. Gnanapiti 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A very important social issue pertaining to the history of modern Karnataka state and Kannada language.Dineshkannambadi 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per significant improvements. "Abandoned by its creator" should never be a reason to delete unless the article would have been deleted anyway and the creator requested some additional time (which I don't think is the case here). -- Black Falcon 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very prominent part of kannada history.Baka man 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Sarvagnya and Black Falcon --Iwazaki 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball - the current article is not the one-line stub, that was nominated for AFD. -- Petri Krohn 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

John Wesley Lord

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

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no different from a mayor, anyway, but many links show up on google books. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Does a mayor necessarily get a page?) How many bishops (of different churches) are there in a given US state? (Google gives 105 hits for "John Wesley Lord" most of which seem to be valid. Some are for John Wesley, others from wikipedia + clones.)
-- roundhouse 09:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - A Google search on '"John Wesley Lord" -Wikipedia' turns up a number of interesting articles on Lord, including this Time article where he makes some anti-Catholic statements and this New York Times article where Lord joins Martin Luther King Jr. in an anti-segregation protest. (I almost wonder if both people described in the articles are the same person.) Clearly, this individual was once an influential spokesperson. The problem with this article is that the primary author (Pastorwayne) cannot distinguish between stating historically relevant facts (the person's anti-segregation work or his anti-Catholic statements) and facts that describe the individual but have little relevance to the modern reader (the schools where this person was educated or the exact dates on which the person was ordained). The article needs to be rewritten to describe the person's notability, but it should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per Dr. Submillimeter. -- Black Falcon 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per Submillimeter. (And in 1960 that was a normal attitude toward a Catholic President...) --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if so, was his making them a notable event? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).Carlossuarez46 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think the fact that TIME was asking Bishop Lord to effectively represent the feelings of skeptical Protestants generally speaks for itself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Submillimeter . The cites establish notability. Please add thenm to the article. Edison 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (change vote) Dr S makes a convincing case for this bishop, although the primary author (
-- roundhouse 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Although I do not feel that the article currently has adequate references/sources, I am confident that such references can be found. Tag for Cleanup/References. WMMartin 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I recommend using Template:Importance on this article. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Daniel.Bryant 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

English Football Teams

English Football Teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Abandoned by its creator, and right now contains no useful information. Moreover, even if fleshed out, it appears that the content belongs either in another article or a template. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in England, which may not be what the creator of this article had in mind, but would probably satisfy a reader who was looking for an article on English football teams. --Metropolitan90 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly pointless article which seems to have been abandoned before it was even properly started. No idea what the creator was actually getting at..... ChrisTheDude 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in England or Football in England, as the article would likely duplicate the content of one of these. WjBscribe 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had left a comment on the creator's talk page and they said it would have been expanded by last weekend; as it hasn't then Redirect to List of football clubs in England per Metropolitan90. Qwghlm 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in England. "English Football Teams" is a plausible term one would search for if looking for the main list of FCs. -- Black Falcon 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in England. HornetMike 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Easily meets guideline of WP:PORNBIO for notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avy Scott

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

I'm unconvinced that simply doing your job earns you a place in wikipedia, even when that job is in the nature of "Butt Lick'in Sweethearts 1 Platinum X Pictures Facial Swallow IR." This person has Zero Gnews hits and of the 747 unique hits I was unable to locate anything from a
inclusion guideline for humans. Delete unless reliable sources provided demonstrating that she is in some way distinguished from the other hard-working souls like her. brenneman 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, and I'm not 100% sure what to make of this but it looks pretty damning. - brenneman 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I find very few references to her on UseNet, a search of AdultDVDTalk.com reveals 205 movies. SubWolf 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should have searched for this or this, corresponding to an Alexa ranking of >600,000 or <2,500. -- Black Falcon 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per nom, but it's good to know that people are still doing their jobs, thereby fueling the economy of this great nation, increasing the standard of living for all, and providing essential services to the people. Or something like that. --N Shar 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 100 movies, really? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no source so the 100 movies figure is rubbery and there is no other assertion of notability. I wondered where my toolbelt went - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete myspacecruft. Storm05 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain that remark. --JJay 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has starred in 116 movies and directed 4 movies ([22]). -- Black Falcon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poor nomination and the nom's patronizing attitude regarding Ms. Scott is insulting. The nom neglected to link to our WP:PORNBIO guidelines, which Ms. Scott seems to pass with over 100 film appearances and four directorial efforts. Furthermore, according to our AVN award list, Ms. Scott ~~won~~ was nominated for two AVN awards in 2004- see AVN Awards 2004. Lastly, the nom's assertion that MS. Scott gets "zero GNews hits" is false. She actually gets 22 News hits [23]. --JJay 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she was nominated for two awards in 2004, not winning two awards. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "number of films" criteria is under "dubious methods of establishing notability"... It's a double-edged sword in this case. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Although the exact wording: modern American heterosexual performers are not usually notable if they appear in fewer than 100 films...implies that 100 films is a benchmark. Coupled with four director credits, I believe Ms. Scott qualifies for inclusion. --JJay 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, where to begin...
What's wrong with my tone? "She does her job" is only insulting if you think there is something wrong with her job. I don't, but it is just her job.

If we're going to fling guidelines around, don't pick and choose... she fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors).

I'm not 100% clear on what jiggery-pokey resulted in more news hits than I (still) get, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to show she has multiple non-trivial mentions in
reliable sources
.

brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Afd is not a forum for you to make coy remarks about article subjects. Don't do it again in the future.

2)Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is the applicable guideline for porn actors. You should refer to it if you are going to nominate porn articles for deletion. By my reading (and that of others), she passes.

3) Your nominations continually misrepresent the number of google news hits. If you don't know how to search using google and/or google news then you should not cite those tools in your nomination. The article is fully sourced. Add more sources from the google news hits if you are not satisfied. --JJay 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources present in the article and over 100 films. And I have to agree with JJay regarding the tone taken by brennerman in presenting the nomination. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the poor tact of the nominator (what happened to
WP:AGF, anyway?), the article does not meet any of the valid criteria laid out in WP:PORNBIO. The only criteria this presently meets is dubious at best, which is hardly enough to keep the article. Sorry. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - over 100 films and nominated for two AVN awards. --Oakshade 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part of the guideline that is not widely accepted and/or nominated doesn't mean "won. "- brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a guideline nonetheless, even if someone
doesn't like it. And nominated for 2 AVN awards in an extremely crowded profession demonstrates distinction and notability. --Oakshade 07:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. In addition to being nominated for 2 AVN awards, she also won (see the first source) a Rog Reviews Critic's Choice award. In addition to starring in >100 films, she is a director. Finally, she has been the subject of at least two interviews (which I think is enough to establish multiple non-trivial coverage). Please keep in mind that the central criterion for WP:PORNBIO is that "An erotic actor or actress may be demonstrated as notable" if he or she has been "the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable." The two interviews alone suffice. -- Black Falcon 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominated for two AVN awards isn't really enough. Not bad, but not enough. However, Rog Review's Critic's Choice award isn't, from my point of view, equal to an AVN award. It's merely some website award, despite Rog's significance in the field. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that the award nominations alone are enough. I think she passes WP:PORNBIO by her film history, directing credits, and multiple coverage (interviews). The award nominations are just extra. -- Black Falcon 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Krimes

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

Non-notable driver. Has not participated in any National series. All wins came at low levels of competition. Written in vanity/fanity style. Drdisque 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sign of any significant acheivements to indicate
notability --Pak21 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:Wikipedia is not myspace or for things made up in school in one day. Storm05 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one of the raceways mentioned even has an article (and the other two appear to be the same raceway? I cant tell, but neither is in WP). So, if the raceways themselves are not notable, then how is the (alleged) winner notable? Further the one raceway that is in WP doesn't mention him at all. It's hard to take this article seriously. - grubber 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" - No sources or notable achievements to make him seem like a notable driver. (Third3rdIII 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas Brownback

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

I've looked all over and can't find any references. Cannot find any published papers contrary to articles claim. Can't find any reference to subject as a musician. Nominating for deletion on basis of hoax or at least non-notable. Glendoremus 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a reference is produced for verification. --Delirium 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any references for any of this. I certainly can't find anything to back the claims that he played with Monk, Davis, or Coltrane. Probable hoax. IrishGuy ^talk 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unverifiable (I tried) article created by an anon? Yeah, my hoax alarm's going off. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Goldman v. tyngsborough county sch. bd.

Goldman v. tyngsborough county sch. bd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This case describes a purported U.S. Supreme Court case from the current term. However, no such opinion is reported on the Supreme Court's list of the current term's opinions. [24] Furthermore, there are several reasons to believe this is a
WP:PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to be a hoax. TJ Spyke 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax. --Delirium 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete silly hoax, possible attempt to use wikipedia as myspace.Storm05 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious facile hoax. AlexTiefling 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G1, G2. -- Pastordavid 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:HOAX. -- Black Falcon 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Cusack

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

Survivor contestant with no real notability outside the show. She has posed for Playboy but nothing more (and I can't see that making her notable).
Article was nominated for deletion in March 06 and was kept but for reasons I'm not sure would stand up now.
The fact that she stood out on the show because she was a lesbian and was a "villain" still does not make her notable. --
talk | contribs | esperanza 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable. fraggle 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep How does being involved with both a major publication and national broadcast television make someone "Non-notable"? imdb profile shows multiple other involvements with broadcast television. Inappropriate nomination. i kan reed 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not convinced of the notability. Being a contestant on Survivor is not sufficient but she does have some other claims to notability. --Yamla 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Thoroughly unnotable. Her only claim-to-fame is as a contestant on Survivor, and with the proliferation of reality television this will quickly get out of hand, if it indeed has not already. --
DavidShankBone 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I also think that only the top two contestants on a reality television show (barring other notoriety) should receive articles. --
DavidShankBone 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Aside from being a Venus Swimwear model, Survivor Contestant and Playboy model, Ami was also once the girlfiend of/engaged to well-known author and supplement mogul
Muscle Media (Muscle Media 2000) in the mid-late 1990s.^[29]. She's notable more in the bodybuilding/fitness industry - similarly to former beauty pageant contestant Carol Grow Yankees76 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Yankees76 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:N, as it seems straightforward, that there is substantial coverage of this person, from multiple sources (a hit international show). The article needs to be improved to cite all those sources, but that calls for fix-up, not deletion. Also, the logic that the first AFD-keep doesn't apply, isn't explained. Notability never goes away. --Rob 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Ami Cusack was one of the best players in Vanuatu and arguably to ever play the game. If this page had clean up it would be a more substnatial article --Flowerkiller1692 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, since game show losers are not inherently notable. Edison 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being a contestant on Survivor is not sufficient, nor is her association with whoever. Admittedly, she's not centerfold, however what tips the balance for me is that all this most probably considerably increased the commercial value of photos Playboy had in its archives. Ohconfucius 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The combination of her modeling career and being a contestant on survivor is enough to make her semi-notable. (Third3rdIII 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Lots of models out there with reality TV appearances, not notable. mceder (u t c) 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over W:N, I don't see where "lots" is a disqualifier. There are "lots" of things in Wikipedia widely accepted as worthy of inclusion. Would you like to make that "few"? --Rob 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I had a point when typing that remark. I am of the opinion that every Survivor contestant is not notable enough for an article. I think the combo of being on Survivor and having posed in Playboy still is not enough to be notable for an article. I would like to see it deleted. mceder (u t c) 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Sense and reference, by unanimous opinion after the suggestion was made, and concurrence of nominator. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sense (philosophy)

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

Appears to be a mediocre translation from Russian, despite reading it through a few times I still have no idea what it's about. Vicarious 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bad machine translation. ~~Delete~~ unless someone can make it make, well, sense. —Cel ithemis 06:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May as well make it unanimous: redirect per Pomte. —Cel ithemis 10:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Pomte 08:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as suggested by Pomte, although "ale for what do?" is a question I ask myself every day. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like the lyrics from a
EliminatorJR 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as suggested. This gem of an article should be preserved in history :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can't imagine who would type in Sense (philosophy) looking for a page but no harm done, redirects fine with me. Vicarious 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Roberts

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant --
talk | contribs | esperanza 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable gameshow contestant. Anything here can be included in the article on this particular season of Survivor. Agent 86 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His "accomplishments" are already in Survivor: Pearl Islands, which is the best spot for now. - grubber 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is one of only two contestants in the history of Survivor to be allowed to return after being voted off, which makes him notable. Jordan 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's hardly coming back from the dead! ;-) Ohconfucius 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. Unreferenced article. Biographical information is all but 50 words or 3 sentences. Ohconfucius 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete per
WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. Also lack of references per Ohconfucius. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Very weak keep based on my turning up one source (an interview with Windy City Times) but the article is not good. Otto4711 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Morris

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

Non-notable Survivor contestant --
talk | contribs | esperanza 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable gameshow contestant. Anything here can be included in the article on this particular season of Survivor. Agent 86 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dislike her immennsely, but she did finish second, and all other second place finishers have Wikipedia pages. -- Scorpion 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The encyclopedic value of these articles are.. minute. Several of them reads like an article out of Reality TV Magazine.. Keeping this article because there are others like it does not make much sense. NN. mceder (u t c) 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Next to no biographical information, and a dearth of reliable independent sources from amongst the 500 unique Ghits, and a best-case redirect to Survivor: Pearl Islands. Ohconfucius 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is one of only two players to be allowed back into the game after being votes off. I think this is notable. Jordan 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only did she come back in the game, she came in second! Every other second place winner has an article, as well as third and sometimes fourth and fifth! This is really a no-brainer. 11kowrom 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. The contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:38Z

Sex ant toys

Sex ant toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has a lot of sources, but none of them meet
WP:CRYSTAL. Because of the presence of sources, I'm giving this article the dignity of an AfD, but it may even be a speedy candidate. N Shar 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no claims of notability. MLA 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No claims of notability. TJ Spyke 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, it's posted on the Official Site of the band, in the official site of their music label, and I work for Apple: its confirmed, what else do you want? Eddy Cue 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have to be discussed by multiple non-trivial third party sites, all i'm seeing are things like MySpace and user submitted press releases. The music label appears to be non-notable (among other things, doesn't even have a Wikipedia page). This isn't about whether they exists, it's whether they are notable or not. They also seem to fail
WP:MUSIC. TJ Spyke 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's notable here: | iTunes Music Store On the label of every single album and the website link within iTunes. Manny Vidal NYC 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Product listings are not in-depth (or, to use the older terminology, "non-trivial") because they contain little more information than the name. The "official site of the band" is not independent of the subject. We don't doubt the existence of the band; we doubt its
notability. (Please note that very few bands are notable before they have released records.) --N Shar 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It's official and notable. Pia Watson 09:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and when (if) this record comes out and gets some independent reviews, then re-create the article. Whoever does, make sure to use a spell-checker. --UsaSatsui 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:MUSIC as pointed out before... -- Ben 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Two albums on notable labels, national tours, stuff like that... when they've achieved those, then an article may be supportable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A delete vote here consisted only of a personal attack and was was removed. --N Shar 05:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Eddy Cue reasonsOo7565 05:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band has no independent reliable sources to show notability. Edison 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent label is a reliable source Pili Busy 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Music clearly states about the album and the band. All Music Pia Watson 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic has the band down as having one album here. The album hasn't been released yet.
WP:BAND number 4 is not satisfied... it asks for two or more released albums. -- Ben 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Interestingly enough, the keep arguments provided just as many reasons for deleting as the delete arguments. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

A meaningless collection of
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles are a bad idea and citing the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture. MLA 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Yes, a lot of it is crap. If I remember correctly (and anyone interested can check the diffs), I contributed a lot of the crap to it. Any crap that I did contribute came straight out of the article on the novel or that on the character (amazingly, the latter exists as a separate article). My reasoning: a large and vociferous contingent WP editors stand on their rights to insert trivia, whoops I mean contemporary cultural references, to WP. Without this article, the article on the novel or character or both would be stiff with it, as (it seems) every tenth popster who's gazed in the mirror, contemplated his own (real? imagined?) beauty and vaguely remembered what his sister told him about PFG as her A-level text has made a "reference" to the novel or the dude. Well, I thought, let them have their own little playpen. But maybe I was wrong. -- Hoary 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Perhaps we should have "Wikipedia is not a playpen"? Anyway, keeping indiscriminate collections of trivia out of main articles is definitely not a valid reason to have an article. (What of
Qxz 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not indiscriminate - it is a very focused and targeted in scope. To say it is indiscriminate requires some justification, not just stating an opinion. -- Stbalbach 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every fact is of encyclopedic importance, despite a tendency to think that it is.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Which facts, exactly, do you think should be removed and why? Why do you think the article is indiscriminate? Listing movie/literature/play/music re-makes is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, including in featured articles, it is not indiscriminate or open ended. -- Stbalbach 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivia list that is really a strong case of
WP:NOT per Moreschi. Trivia lists like this should be avoided and I cannot see any sense in a merge to the The Picture of Dorian Gray article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

How is listing derivative works "trivia"? This is important information for anyone tracking the cultural influence of a work. -- Stbalbach 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of this is
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The only part of this article that is valid is the list of film and TV adaptations, which belongs in its own article under List of movie and TV adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Grey. Everything else should go. Walton monarchist89 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to
List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray to preserve edit history and cut the rest. Cultural influence is nicely covered in the main article. —Cel ithemis 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment In one hand, the article could be deleted, but then people would add the trivia stuf to the main articles again. Plus articles like this can be good, for instance Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Garion96 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is first choice, based on how WP is not for indiscriminate lists or directories of every appearance of a fictional character in pop culture ever. This minutae does not belong in its own article or in the main article and editors of the main article need to be vigilant about removing it instead of just dumping it off on another article. Would support a sourced article for adaptations. Otto4711 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Celithemis. While most of it is absurdly trivial, this page appears to be the only account of the film adaptations of the novel, which are encyclopedic (or at least as encyclopedic as any film, and we have thousands of such articles). That being said, feel free to treat this as a delete, I suppose, for consensus building purposes (I hate it when articles are kept due to a lack consensus from vote-spilitting, especially when there is a strong consensus to not keep the article). We can probably retrieve the encyclopedic parts and edit history after deletion. -R. fiend 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current manifestation of the article, under its new name and without all this "I think Nancy on
Eight is Enough said the words 'Dorian Gray' once" crap. -R. fiend 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - wow I am really amazed at this vote. How many "in popular culture" articles do we have on Wikipedia? It is a well known fact you can't stop editors from adding this stuff it is a veritable daily flood -
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is an essay, not a guideline - it represents one opinion and IMO an idealistic and impractical one. No one is going to actively engage in edit disputes on a daily basis trying to keep popular culture junk out of articles, it is not worth the time or effort - in reality, no one does it and so the popular culture sections just keep growing like weeds. The only solution is to segment this stuff out and keep it out of the main articles. IMO the real problem here is people trying to delete the "in popular culture" articles over some idealistic notion of what Wikipedia should be, without taking into account pragmatic realities. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I am amazed every time that someone wants to keep one of these articles giving a variation on "people are gonna do it anyway" as a rationale. People are going to put up hoax articles anyway, so let's keep those. People are going to unwitingly enter false information, so let's keep it because we can't stop it. People are going to vandalize articles and put up articles on non-notable topics and do all sorts of things and there's nothing that can stop them, so why try? Otto4711 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax articles and false information are clearly against policy. If something is notable or not is a much more difficult challenge - what is trivia to you is notable to someone else, otherwise they wouldn't have added it! The guidelines about trivia and notability are guidelines, not policy, and much more difficult and have to be judged on a per-case basis. Surely you must recognize this reality of Wikipedia, notability and trivia are subjective. Yes, people will add it anyway, that is a fact. I've been here 4 years and I've tried every method possible to discourage people from adding junk and the only method that works is to isolate it out of the main article space. Attempts to delete in popular culture articles are well meaning and understandable but will not work in the long term. It just creates cycles of add/delete, either in article sections, or in AfDs. -- Stbalbach 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See proposed policy addition at
WP:NOT talk page regarding "...in popular culture" articles. Otto4711 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:V i kan reed 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Verifying film and TV adaptations is a simple matter of checking
IMDB that could take 10 minutes, hardly reason to delete the entire article. When the title of the work says "Picture of Dorian Grey" there is a certain amount of Good Faith that the work is what it claims to be.-- Stbalbach 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per Hoary's arguments (if he is, in fact, arguing to keep this article) and those of Stbalbach.
Pathlessdesert 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually I'm not, no. -- Hoary 09:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per ~~Hoary and~~ Stbalbach. Geuiwogbil 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "keep". -- Hoary 09:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. No, not limited to film and TV, as for all I know there could be an opera (consider Zemlinsky's Florentinische Tragödie) or other full-blown adaptations. These would not include whatever's on the A-side of the first and perhaps only single by Swindon's 47th most famous band, Freddie and the Forgettables. And if something is worth doing, it's worth doing in a proper article, not a mere list. Delete anything that isn't an adaptation of PDG. -- Hoary 09:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stbalbach. Kolindigo 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Stbalbach and per
WP:SUMMARY. This topics is notable enough, with substantive material. A brief summary section of pop culture references in the main article on The Picture of Dorian Gray and a link to this subarticle is a good way to organize the material. --Aude (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete These lists are messy research notes rather than encyclopedic articles. Greg Grahame 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a general opinion (which I strongly disagree with) that doesn't address the specific facts contained in the article. It's not messy, nor is it "research notes" - articles like this are a part of Wikipedia, many have strong followings and easily survive attempts at AfD, there is no general rule against them. -- Stbalbach 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to
List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and remove the music section. As Hoary says, there's no reason not to have THAT list. This is not really that indiscriminate in its actual content although it contains a few nn passing references that must absolutely be removed. However, the title implies that anything referring to Dorian Gray might be okay, and that should be discouraged. Mango juice^talk 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The article has been significantly changed. It is renamed to
List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray and many entries have been deleted and cleaned up. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anniversary Celebration Part 2

Third Anniversary Celebration Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A previous Afd for shows by the same company took place, and the articles were deleted. Non-notable wrestling DVD. One Night In Hackney 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. These are compilation DVDs rather than an individual show, and a similar previous Afd determined they were not notable:

Say Your Prayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Prophecy Foretold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Night In Hackney 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable wrestling DVDs. TJ Spyke 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion I quote The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed.

I believe I have provided sufficient information that the articles in question are not stubs. In fact the level of information contained within the articles is superior to many of the WWE DVDs listed. The articles are not simple matchlistings, a reasonable amount of background information is given.

The RoH article states Ring of Honor has developed a loyal fanbase in the Northeast and around the country. Ring of Honor also broadcasts on The Fight Network to viewers in Canada and on TWC Fight! to viewers in Great Britain and Ireland. I believe that these articles are a useful reference point to anyone interested in RoH, it's history and an impartial description of what they offer. I think there is sufficient evidence that RoH appeals to more than just a tiny subsection of wrestling fans. Suriel1981 08:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other thoughts RoH do not do Pay-Per-Views as per WWE/TNA. A DVD article is very akin to an article on the actual show itself. Would it perhaps be more palatable to alter the articles from "RoH DVD" to "RoH Show"? I do not personally agree with this however.

The DVDs are just compilations of matches, and the nominator provides examples to show similar articles have been deleted (which is encouraged when nominating an article). TJ Spyke 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote again from Wikipedia guide The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. I understand the nomination process and feel that the articles nominated have a better quality of information than those which have preceded. I feel the information provided far exceeds that of
Hulk_Hogan:_The_Ultimate_Anthology, Phenomenal:_The_Best_of_AJ_Styles and Best_of_The_Bloodiest_Brawls,_Vol._1 to name a few.Suriel1981 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)***[reply
]

For one thing, all those DVDs you just listed are available in big chain stores like Wal-Mart and FYE, whereas ROH DVDs are online only (maybe in some small specialty DVD stores). Also, past experience has shown that admins like it when you show similar articles have been deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first four ROH shows are available in stores like FYE and Sam Goody.PepsiPlunge 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The introduction of cruft - Incidentally, PUMA also trained under Homicide's allies Ricky Reyes and Rocky Romero but that isn't mentioned - does not make the DVDs any more notable, in my opinion it makes the articles worse. The nomination is not based on article quality (or lack of), but due to the fact that the individual DVDs are not notable enough for articles. One Night In Hackney 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to keep this, the last lot of RoH DVDs where deleted. Which I felt should of been kept. I think these DVD listings are a good source of information of what goes on in RoH. These DVDs as Suriel1981 said are on the TWC channels, notable enough to me. Also you mentioned these RoH DVDs in shops, I have seen some in Virgin Megastore here in England. Govvy 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ring of Honor being shown on TWC makes the promotion more notable, not every single DVD they produduce. Your claim that these DVDs are in Virgin Megastore is unverifiable, in fact a search for Ring of Honor on the Virgin Megastore website returns no relevant search results. Neither can I find any mention of any Ring of Honor DVDs being classified on the BBFC website, which would need to happen before any mainstream retailer would stock them. One Night In Hackney 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One Night In Hackey, I enquired about the RoH DVDs in Virgin, but they told me they shouldn't of been on the shelf, the manager upstairs told me that they were sent to them as a demo set. He also told they were not interested in selling anything of that poor quality!! So it seems those DVDs shouldn't of been for sale. Govvy 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Djsasso 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Between the absence of spoilers and the subtle hype, this is a clear example of advertising.
McPhail 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Having written the articles in question I can state that they are by no means intended to be adverts. Subtle hype? Please give examples. Suriel1981 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could also say all the WWE DVDs are clearly advertising also!! Govvy 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This kind of thing is silly, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. NBeale 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - not notable, probably better just to include in an article listing these DVD's if at all. --
Milo H Minderbinder 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Good Company Players

Good Company Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. No demonstration of notability for this local theatre group in evidence, am not able to turn up any convincing independent mentions. Also written in a rather advertorial style, and is presumably based mainly if not entirely on the original research / first-hand knowledge of the article's main contributor. cjllw | TALK 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; unsourced, original research, and lacks an assertion of significance –
Qxz 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Hartman

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

It is with great reluctance that I nominate this article, but by now, anyone familiar with
Jewish denominations think of this subject. IZAK 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: See related votes at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendel Shapiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. IZAK 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to state an actual criterion for nomination. Nom has alleged
COI policy and there is simply no problem with having an article on a topic an editor happens to be interested in as long as the usual inclusion criteria are met. The nominator needs to assert an actual policy basis for deletion to have a legitimate AfD and avoid a speedy keep. --Shirahadasha 04:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Although non-notability has not been asserted as a basis for this AfD, as an FYI the following sources are sufficient to meet the central notability criterion of
WP:BIO: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. In addition, the fact that Professor Hartman's works have been published by the Harvard University Press (e.g. [36]), Duke University's Common Knowledge (e.g. [37]), the APA (e.g. [38]), etc., is also an indication that her academic work has been peer-reviewed and is notable independently of her work as founder of Shira Hadasha and as a popular writer and lecturer, as is the fact that Stanford University uses one of her books as a text. [39]. See also this source. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Shira, we all know how to use Google, but let's try applying our brains also. While Tova Hartman may be a lovely lady, she is just one of millions of professors and tens of thousands of Hebraica and Judaica academics in the world with nice articles about them and with books they may have had published by universities, BUT that would in no way qualify them to become icons or guides for new ways of re-inventing Judaism. What you are saying Shira, is that this lady Tova Hartman, because she is a professor and has had her words printed can now come forth and change Judaism and as you argue in the article that that is her "claim to fame" -- nowhere in Jewish history have academics had ANY standing in the world of
WP:RS but that still gives them less than ZERO credibility in the world of Judaism. Wikipedia cannot teach lies it has a responsibilty to facts as well. IZAK 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. On this site and in the article there is nothing that shows she is more than a lecturer with degrees and strong opinions. No news articles or books with her as the subject...misses the
WP:BIO criteria about multiple non-trivial reliabile independant publications about her. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, the fact that there is a group of people going through the pains of getting all references to Jewish Feminism out of Wikipedia in itself makes the notable Alf photoman 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hartman is important enough to have refutations on the web by major figures like Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. But the criteria is less Judaism and more feminist academics. It should be debated on a more appropriate project group--Jayrav 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Here is a source for Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's commentary on Hartman: [40]. --Shirahadasha 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Merge to Shira Hadasha - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with
assume good faith - failure to do so does not help their proposals.--Cailil 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I have no affiliation with
Kadosh Hakadashim, Mikveh, Mechitza, and many more. I am simply not a one-issue editor. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep; see my comments on the AfD below regarding this bad faith nomination.
RGTraynor 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets
John Vandenberg 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. 15 articles in Google News archive, three in current news. Clearly notable. Bad faith nom. —David Eppstein 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of material above. --MacRusgail 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the current state of the references I still feel that my delete commentary was correct; although I feel the same way about the nom as per RGTraynor's comments. None of the references or news articles are about her, just mentioning her work as part of a larger article. It does seem that if she was a Professor of Education involved in feminist issues in say England with the same level of news commentary there would be a lot more deletion feeling. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she was in England, and there was more feeling for deletion, someone would need to justify deletion using
John Vandenberg 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep but expand. From this discussion its clear that she is notable in several ways that are not properly brought out by the article. But even if she werent, full professors at major universities are notable, and Hebrew Univ is the principal national univ. There's a major book by Harvard UP,and media mentions--and I gather there are more to be added. (It would help to add them now)

It was argued in the discussion that Jewish women have never been traditionally Torah scholars, and therefore she, as a woman scholar, could not be notable-- that comment is of course the most extraordinary POV pushing. It was also argued that she represents only one possible group of Jewish feminist scholars is equally POV, for it can be remedied in the obvious way, by including the others. I urge those who did not say keep to go a few paragraphs back and re-read those 2 arguments. I hadn't known her work before, but now I want to see what accounts for these extraordinary feelings. DGG 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Kolindigo 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMSimple

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

Non-notable software per
M. Salleh 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability per
WP:SOFTWARE; no evidence of multiple coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. The above "30 links" is not correct. The actual search at Google.com returns almost a million hits. (The fault in the first search is the inclusion of "num=100" which limits the search to the first 100 hits) The list of sites dedicated to templates and styles for this CMS means it is relatively prevalent. This is a KEEP in my mind. - grubber 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: num=100 does not restrict the search to just 100 results. It tells Google to show 100 results per page instead of 10 so I can see more hits on the same page. The million hits figure is non-unique hits - click to page four and the unique ones peter out [42].
M. Salleh 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

My bad. I was reading the Google API ("Maximum number of results to include in the search results.") and understood it to mean to limit the search depth. However, a more appropiate search is "-site:wikipedia.org" rather than "-wikipedia". This makes it to 13 pages. I still think this is a notable topic. - grubber 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a considerable number of sites that mirror Wikipedia.
M. Salleh 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. CMSimple was awarded "Empfehlung Der Redaktion" in Internet Professionell 7/2004. CMSimple got 4 out of 5 stars in .net issue 118! So it is regarded by the Computing press. It is supported by a forum with 1062 registered users who have posted 25893 articles in the four support languages EN, FR, DE, DK. A Google on cmsimple phpbb gets 61,300. It is customisable to work in any language. A book has been published in Danish to support it, ISBN: 87-7843-711-3. There are 93 licensed resellers in 18 countries, though itself id AGPL Open Source.. It is a internationally significant piece of software. ClemRutter 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the
M. Salleh 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sources- goto the website www.cmsimple.dk or www.cmsimple.dk/forum for the stats. I have provided content for the helpfiles (no commercial benefit)so am familiar with the package.ClemRutter 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could add to the article- I will add it to the to do listClemRutter 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are interesting -wikipedia distorts the results. All sites that are running open source are obliged to leave a tag in the template source code that says Powered by CMSimple</a> this can be searched for. A standard search for CMSimple will mainly bring up the developers sites and discussion on the package- as all CMSimple sites contain significantly similar Template code around the unique content, I surmise that Google takes all 930000 pages it found as being 'too similar to report'. Users who have bought a commercial licence have bought the right to remove 'CMSimple' from the Template so it will not show up in Google search.ClemRutter 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs expansion not deletion. There are a multitude of CMS's available and trying to decide which to implement is better if there are decent reviews / comparisons. Elwell 12:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a CMS software directory. There's always Softpedia and the rest.
M. Salleh 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with the sentiment, but in reality
Comparison of content management systems. The latter links to CMSimple, so necessitating an article. The discussion of CMS even is flagged in Wiki Section 6. Expansion is needed and I can do it if you point me to a 'model' article so I can maintain consistency, without being accused of promoting a product.ClemRutter 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. No reliable sources at all. NBeale 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel Shapiro

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

This person is totally not notable either as a
WP:COI. IZAK 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: See related votes at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tova Hartman

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant guideline is
Yehudah Herzl Henkin, a major Posek, whose scholarly commentary also asserts that Shapiro's contribution is notable. In addition to scholarly coverage, there is also extensive media coverage by e.g. [46], [47],[48], [49], [50] --Shirahadasha 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Shira we all know how to use Google, but let's try using our brains as well. While Mendel Shapiro may be a fine man, he is just one of tens of millions of lawyers and hundreds of thousands of minor rabbis over the ages in the world with nice articles about them and with books they may have had published here and there, BUT that would in no way qualify them to become icons or guides for new ways of re-inventing Judaism. What you are saying Shira, is that this pesron, because he is a lawyer with a "semichah" yet and has had his words printed can now come forth and change Judaism and as you argue in the article that that is his "claim to fame" -- nowhere in Jewish history have lawyers had ANY standing in the world of
WP:RS but that still gives them less than ZERO credibility in the world of Judaism. Wikipedia cannot teach lies it has a responsibilty to facts as well. IZAK 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - while not agreeing with much of the above, the article does not assert notability. The only reference is a paper by the subject and all of the references listed above either mention shapiro in passing or refer only to the paper that is the sole reference for the article. No evidence that Shapiro has been the subject of multiple, independant, non-trivial published works - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - my first instinct was to say "See my comments at
~~notability standards to all biographies.~~ Walton monarchist89 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment'
WP:BIO requires only notability due to major contribution within ones field, notabilitiy outside it is not required. There are multiple articles asserting Shapiro made a major contribution --Shirahadasha 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Modified article to make notability assertion clearer. --Shirahadasha 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - fair enough, the sources now appearing in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Walton monarchist89 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep if we would have gone just by
WP:N in the nomination I probably would have had less of a problem with voting delete, but it is very hard to do that if the basis of the nomination is the fact that somebody does not like the content of it. On the other hand, all the pains certain people go through to get the Jewish Feminism out of Wikipedia in itself shows that the theme is noted and therefore notable Alf photoman 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed to keep in light of the references found by David Eppstein Alf photoman 23:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
Partnership Minyan. He is not notable- he just wrote one article, used by others. --Jayrav 14:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Thoroughly NN posek, not even important enough to merge - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If this AfD was presented on its own merits, my view might change, but I don't believe in rewarding obvious bad faith nominations. It says much about the nom that his rebuttal comments are nearly a complete cut-and-paste from the Daniel Sperber AfD.
RGTraynor 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable Avi 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four relevant articles in Google News Archive, one in current Google news seem clearly enough for
WP:BIO. The theological validity of his views is irrelevant for determining notability. Bad faith nomination. —David Eppstein 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep for similar reasons as for Tova Hartman. If it werent clear that this was not a good faith nomination for lack of notability, the AfDs on the three of them together would make it very clear.DGG 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's notable Kolindigo 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shira. JoshuaZ 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sperber

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

This person is totally not notable either as a
WP:COI. IZAK 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: See related votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendel Shapiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tova Hartman.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Strong Keep. ~~The nominator has failed to substantiate a legitimate criterion for deletion. Disagreement with an article subject's POV is not a basis for deletion.~~ The subject is clearly
notable award for contributions. See also the list of sources in the article. --Shirahadasha 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
Nonsense. Your request for haste only heightens the supicions of your POV agenda. We all know how to use Google, but let's try applying our brains also. So put him in
WP:RS but that still gives them less than ZERO credibility in the world of Judaism. Wikipedia cannot teach lies it has a responsibilty to facts as well. IZAK 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Changed to Strong Keep (above) because a criterion for deletion, non-notability, has been asserted. --Shirahadasha 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of any imbalance in the article and the appropriateness of the references the article clearly shows notability and sources. IZAK...you seem to greatly dislike this man which is
not a good deletion reason. The pertinent bit of WP:Notability is the phrase A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article.. Seems to clearly pass the line - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record: I have absolutely nothing against this man at all. This vote is only about the supposed status he has within the world of Judaism, and right now, aside from the propaganda coming from hostile
Jewish feminists, it is at about zero. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - long list of references is provided (although more independent third-party sources are needed) and I feel the nominator is acting in bad faith. IMHO you should always avoid attacking the article's author in an AfD - judge the article, not the person. Although I accept that the author is probably trying to promote a POV, the nominator clearly has their own views on this issue as well, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of neutrality in any of the arguments above, on either side. So I'm unconvinced by the nominator's rationale. Walton monarchist89 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced and referenced, should pass
WP:PROF with enough space to get an elephant through. Not liking the content of an article is not enough reason to nominate it for AfD Alf photoman 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong KEEP - with greater presentation of his serious academic work on Talmud and minhag, for which he won the Israel prize. He meets the criteria of a famous academic and he is head of Torah studies at Bar Ilan. A google search shows articles about him and his Talmudic work in newspapers in England, US, FSU, and Israel. --Jayrav 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the Israel Prize is not worth a hill of beans in JUDAISM. All sorts of characters get nominated by the SECULAR state of Israel and none of it has any bearing on Judaism. The only reason this article was created and is used is to promote a POV agenda of
Jewish feminists, otherwise he would be lost in oblivion -- even with his Israel Prize in hand. If one does not grasp this, then one does not understand the world of Torah and Talmud where the notion of "giving" or "getting" a "prize" would be regarded as a complete joke. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It seems to me that the current section "References" should rather be titled "Publications". So actually adding some references in the sense of articles about him and his work would be helpful. --
Tikiwont 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. Anyone who wins the Israel Prize is automatically notable. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to add to the article this week- but there are important statements on the web from him, as a BIU figure, on human rights, stem cell reserach, ecology, art, and education. The feminism is just a small part of his scholarly and public life. --Jayrav 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lots of people write about lots of things, but he is just not notable in the world of Torah scholarship. Don't let the web fool you as it can dish up "sources" about publicity hounds (or those who wish to stoke up publicity about issues, and note that he is quoted on all sorts of "hot button" topics) but true Torah scholars, notable in the true sense may not be known to the world at large. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as winner of the Israel Prize and publisher of over a dozen books.
WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This man is simply not notable in the world of Judaism, something you do not seem to understand. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above, strong enough to overcome any qualms about citing this as a bad faith nomination. Nom's soapbox would better be employed in a discussion forum where he can push to his heart's content his POV about what does or doesn't constitute "proper" Judaism. Even were nom's insults accurate (which I don't myself swallow on faith), the factual accuracy of a subject's philosophy has zero bearing on his suitability for a Wikipedia article. Nom plainly mistakes his own (quite subjective) assessment of the subject as a Torah scholar for a Wikipedia official guideline. Ravenswing 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot "manufacture" definitions of what constitutes a Torah scholar because Wikipedia is obliged to report reality and not lies. What do you know of Torah scholarship sir? IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as above. To the nom, if you feel that your worldview is not inadequately represented, by all means write encyclopaedic articles on topics close to your heart and work towards
John Vandenberg 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The subject is just not notable and is unknown in the world of Judaism, right, left, or center. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, you have completely missed the point here. This person doesnt need to be notable in the field of Judaism as defined by people within Judaism or by any other group of people. He is considered notable for the purposes of this discussion because he meets Wikipedia's general criteria for "
John Vandenberg 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
John: I get the point very well. To use a
role of women in Judaism. He has been a participant in conferences of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance" and then use him as a Judaic "authority" for "Jewish feminism" and all the other stuff that flows from that on Wikipedia. To point out this man's worthless credentials in the world of serious Torah scholarship is key to understanding that neither he, nor User:Shirahadasha should bend Wikipedia to their POV agenda of furthering Jewish feminism alone. Let them do it on its own merits, if it has any, but to create such artificial "props" flies in the face of the very subject it puports to revolve around, mainly Judaism, and in the world of Judaism this man is entirely not notable and thus should not have his own Wikipedia article, speaking objectively. Wikipedia is not a medium to spread neologisms and this guy is only on Wikipedia in order to spread the neologism known as "Jewish feminism" which is neither "Jewish" nor connected to classical Judaism -- it's just a late twentieth century invention that some now wish to foist on Judaism, similar to a zillion other social issues and phenomena that have zilch to do with Jews, Judaism, or what being Jewish truly means. IZAK 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep as with the two other scholars. Nominating the three of them together makes it obvious that it was not a good faith nomination for lack of notability The assertion that as there were no universities in talmudic times, university teachers cannot be considered qualified as religious scholars is rather remarkable. So is the assertion that a scholar would have to revolutionize the religion to be considered sufficiently notable, especially as I suspect the nom would have regarded any such innovation as unqualified because non-traditional. DGG 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness to User:IZAK, I would actually agree that religious/rabbinic scholarship and academic scholarship can be regarded as somewhat different fields, and it is definitely possible to be notable in one but not the other. Tova Hartman's notability is exclusively as an academic and an activist -- no-one's claiming she's a notable religious scholar in the rabbinic-studies sense. Mendel Shapiro's claim to notability is as a religious scholar plus his press coverage -- he doesn't have much notability as an academic. Daniel Sperber has some notability in both worlds. His notability in the academic world is especially clear, so discussion has focused on that area simply because it's most obvious. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shira, now can you imagine if you really made it clear to the world that being educated in Judaism at university still leaves one a total am ha'aretz in Torah Judaism. IZAK 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your general argument is that the fellow is an ignoramus because he cant provide a set of begats that stretches back to Abraham. Your assertion that an academic cant understand Judaism would only make this fellow more
John Vandenberg 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

As the Torah Judaism article indicates, the term is generally associated with Haredi Judaism. All of these individuals have notability, if any, only in the world of Modern Orthodox Judaism, academia, or the general media. No-one is claiming that they have any notability in the Haredi world or that this world regards them as reliable scholars. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, he is not an ignoramus (about Judaism), it's the majority of people reading and commenting on the article about him, to be quite blunt. I was encouraging Shira to do a public service on Wikipedia by not constantly leading people on who do not have the required backround to fathom who and what does and does not count in the world of Judaism. By way of analogy, if you had a bunch of shoemakers who knew nothing about serious music vote on the merits of a whether someone should be called a notable musician, and then you told the shoemakers that the musician in question was also a professor, and then the shoemakers go ahead and nod their heads and go kluk kluk and mutter that presumably the musician must be notable because he is a professor and got a prize from some banana republic and that ergo he must be a notable musician -- would be pathetic, ludicrous, and comical, and that is exactly what is happening here, if you see what I mean. P.S. Your comment about "begats" only proves my point, so watch how you phrase things, 'cause your slip is showing... IZAK 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your insinuation that only people with the "proper" background ought to comment on AfDs is what is ludicrous. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not an in-depth scholarly tome only permitted to the properly screened cognoscenti. As such, the verification standards are readily grasped by all. If you cannot defend (or refute) the notability of a subject to the satisfaction of the laymen who use this encyclopedia, perhaps it should be left to someone more qualified or articulate than yourself. (Come to that, I rather doubt that you were required to prove your Judaic knowledge to a board of Torah scholars before you were permitted to make related Wikipedia edits.) Ravenswing 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, you are also missing my point. One can only judge an editor by his or her proven track record on Wikipedia. Noone has to go in front of any boards for anything to write in Wikipedia. But, if say, one was to pop into subjects on Wikipedia one knew little or nothing about and then on the basis of one's ignorance of the subject make misinformed statements or edits, as evidenced by what one writes and the way that one writes it, and if one then adds insult to injury by sitting in judgment deciding on the validity and notability of that subject (when it may be totally bogus and useless as understood by experts in that field -- not just on Wikipedia) then one would surely make a laughing stock out of oneself, or worse. Now, back to this subject of Daniel Sperber. He was only dredged up and written up by User:Shirahadasha to promote a POV "Jewish feminist" agenda because on his own merits Daniel Sperber, while being a very learned man, is in no way shape size or form recognized or regarded as an authority in Jewish law and is therefore totally not notable as a rabbi. Many rabbis have taught at universities over the years, and that does not make them notable. The question about the Israel Prize is a side point and misses the mark of what is happening here, it's a decoy if you will to avoid facing the real tough questions here, and it has no bearing on his standing as a rabbi since rabbis are not "measured" by the "prizes" they receive from secular governments or from anyone. IZAK 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "missing" your point; your points are quite obvious and easy to grasp. Where you are going wrong is in indulging in the most common error of any debater: presuming that failure to agree with you can only stem from a lack of understanding. As it stands, you are now stridently maintaining your POV against unanimous opposition. Whether or not you believe yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of Judaism on Wikipedia, you've failed to convince a single other editor of the merits of your position. You've certainly convinced me that your opposition is founded far more in attacking Shirahadasha than in the actual merits of this article. Ravenswing 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waxing lyrical about the injustices of this man being considered notable DOES NOT HELP. Read
John Vandenberg 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Heh, you caught on more quickly than I did that what
WP:N for their specific importance to the Jewish faith. There's no doubt some message board somewhere where IZAK can more properly debate the subject's credentials, and this discussion should go there. Ravenswing 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep very notable. Kolindigo 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Daniel.Bryant 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Senate majority leader

)

This article says hardly anything and the topic is covered elsewhere. The title really relates only to the US Senate, and there seems little point in trying to generalise it - we'll only get into issues of global perspective. Peeper 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
United States Senate Majority Leader. If there are enough other countries where the majority leader in the Senate is called that (and not the "Leader of the Government in the Senate" or something else), it may make sense to do something else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Party leaders of the United States Senate. Everything that we could want for the the SML entry is there. Naraht 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - my first instinct was to argue for its expansion to reflect a global perspective, but on reflection, the number of different legislatures described as "Senate" around the world is too great, and too diverse, to have one useful article on this topic. A disambiguation page might be a good idea, however. Walton monarchist89 12:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, however I would suggest it point to
Floor Leader instead. --UsaSatsui 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Naraht & BigHaz. "Floor Leader" is wrong because it is not limited to the Senate.--Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect not enough content for an article yet, especially since there are no sources.--Sefringle 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Muzikus

I think this article should be deleted because I don't think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. Robinson weijman 08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability outside the university; all external links are to the organisation's own sites and the university site. Nothing to show that they've been the subject of multiple coverage in independent sources. Walton monarchist89 12:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. YechielMan 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student society per abundant precedents. Not particularly historically or politically significant, relevant or notable to the outside world - fails
WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Garro

Maybe its just me - but how is this person notable. Peter Rehse 10:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, he is not notable. And it appears to be a vanity article, with a quote like, "Many were surprised that he didn't win or at least make the top 5." Robinson weijman 11:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - reads like a vanity page, and his notability is certainly borderline; however, the external links do show that he's been the subject of multiple independent coverage by external sources, which just about satisfies
WP:BIO. Better to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Walton monarchist89 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No notable sources, and all the work of one editor. This kind of thing gives Wikipedia a bad name. NBeale 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement

)

WP is not a crystal ball. This agreement does not exist and may never exist. Time enough to have an article on it when it does. The article contains an old statement by Australia's justice minister which is now outdated on negotiations. The rest of it is really not to the point, and seems to be cut and pasted from somewhere. Wehwalt 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I've removed a whole slab of inappropriate material before the afd. Merbabu 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. change my mind. I don't think it deserves its own article and hence won't be that upset if it is deleted, but a refined, shortened, heavily referenced one should be OK if merged. I removed a slab of apparent original research, I'm sure there is more. Merbabu 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup - it may not be a very good article, but it isn't speculation per
WP:CRYSTAL; the external link given below clearly states that this agreement is in the pipeline, and it's sourced from a reputable website (ABC). Walton monarchist89 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- [51] - the link in question

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article could be renamed 'Proposed etc agreement' or could be expanded to Aus-Indo justice cooperation with more information on the Extradition and Crim Assistance Cooperation Treaties which DO exist. DavidYork71 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: is the agreement still in a proposal? — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Should we have one specific WP article for a specific bilateral relation between two countries? How does this article notable enough? I would suggest to merge it into a section of Australia-Indonesia relations. By the way, I noticed the creator suggestion above. Is the subject (agreement between Indonesia and Australia) still in a proposal? In that case, I would vote for delete. — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've introduced the article to the happy stick. Please have another look and see what you think. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given DavidYork71's other contributions to Wikipedia, I'd say we're dealing with someone not very familiar with Wikipedia and its policies:

[52][53] (sexually explicit - [54]) and [55]. Rklawton 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to something like Australia-Indonesia relations unless and until this is more than just a proposal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, rename it to "Proposed Australia-Indonesia...". Calling it by its current name makes it sound like it's already in existence, which it isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStill think it should be deleted. But if not, suggest merging content to Schapelle Corby or Bali Nine articles, since those are the people who it would most affect.--Wehwalt 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis agreement is also of importance to Indonesian
the article again; it describes an issue of current topical significance in both countries. DavidYork71 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentA dozen comments so far and only the initiator demands deletion. Time to remove delete tag. DavidYork71 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. There's one other voice that's been raised arguing for a deletion or a merger. Additionally, unless there are very unusual circumstances (such as an AfD on the "Indonesia" article, for example), AfDs tend to run to the full term. It doesn't appear that this particular one will result in the article being deleted, but a pre-emptive removal of the tag is bad form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There is sufficient evidence that this is an active project and is notable enough for mine to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. There's enough there to keep, but not too much to merge. We can always split it out again later if it grows. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable... but only if it actually gets signed. Otherwise, it's all basically speculation and quotes. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc etc. Lankiveil 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into
Australia-Indonesia_relations. (Caniago 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply
]

Comment Should be renamed to "Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange", whether it gets kept or merged, and regardless of whether the agreement gets signed or not. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wiki has capacity to tolerate articles about foreshadowed events (which may not occur as envisioned) see
the article demonstrate that the sealing of an agreement has some reasonable likelihood of occurrence and should not yet be dismissed as a failed cause.DavidYork71 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and tag {{
Orderinchaos78 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentWould it make people happy if the article were renamed "Negotiation towards a . . . "?--Wehwalt 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why can't this article be a section in
Australia-Indonesia relations ? — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep and let the editors discuss a merge on the talk page. The article is not attempting to be a crystal ball as the content is well referenced, and DavidYork71 is doing a great job of expanding this article. If in the unlikely event that the agreement falls apart, it can be merged then.
John Vandenberg 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
John Vandenbergs argument. AntiVan 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete textbook

M. Salleh 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sigil Studios

Contested speedy deletion. The authors comments and terms are here:

Tikiwont 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Personally, I think this is a bit silly. It is a company the author created less then a month ago with no products. All he has done so far is prove how it is not notible. I don't think the speedy delete tag should have been removed. Turlo Lomon 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that 'being silly' is something other than an opinion, and that a request for a list of requirements needed to fulfill the obligations for being notable was worthy of being ignored. I do not contest that this *may* be a non-notable subject, which would then be worthy of deletion, but rather all I want is just to be given a list of specific things which would satisfy the requirement for notability and more than a few hours to go over it, as not all of us can sit around at 5am on wikipedia preventing ban-happy editors from going roughshod over their work. In other words, I've stayed up far later than I should have to try and work this out with all of you, and I really would just like for you to ease up, relax, be slow and let this be worked out over a period of days, rather than minutes or hours. Dante-kun 11:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using the phrase "silly". Bad form on my part. I realize this is an important issue to you to have it resolved in a formal manner. I will be more careful in my phrasing in the future. Turlo Lomon 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article contains hardly any information; only external link is to their own website. No evidence of independent external coverage per
WP:CORP. Walton monarchist89 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per both A7 and G7: "If [verifability is] a hard and fast requirement, you can just delete it and I'll leave it up to one of the fans to stick something up when we have our first release" by the page creator on Talk:Sigil Studios. --Pak21 14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawkins Delusion?

Book which meets none of the critera for notability: see Talk:The_Dawkins_Delusion?#Notability_and_article_length. There are no sources, no reviews, no media attention. The only source for this article is the publisher's site. Author is notable; this pamphlet is not. Book is already mentioned on the author's page; nothing verifiable to merge. Also please note the article is being used as a soapbox: the "summary" is a mini-version of the book. The book purports to disprove the bestselling book The God Delusion; the "summary" section in this article for the Is religion evil? section, for example, is 5979 characters (for a book with no reviews at all) compared to The God Delusion summary of 530 characters for the corresponding section in that article. As such this article is also a POV fork of The God Delusion, as it is being used to soapbox against the controversial content of that book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a 75pp book by a major author is not a "pamphlet"; the source for the summary is the book itself (obviously - just as it is in TGD), it was published last week so reviews and British Library catalogue will follow shortly. The length of the section complained of has almost halved (and could be shorter were it not for complaints about OR!) but seems irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted - there is no policy which says delete long articles but not short ones! Disagreeing with the content of a book is not a reason for deletion. NBeale 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~very weak~~ keep. As an atheist interested in the philosophy of religion, I think per notability criteria 5, all the work of Alister McGrath would deserve an article on Wikipedia. However, all other concerns of nominator regarding this article seem valid! --Merzul 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that I'm slightly disappointed that none of McGrath's theological books have any articles. In fact, the only books by McGrath that have articles are
- Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life
- The Dawkins Delusion?
Draw your own conclusions... --Merzul 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, User:Neural started the one, and User:NBeale started the other, perhaps you can interest one of them, or both of them, in collaborating on an article of a more notable book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and they seem to have very different POVs. Anyway, I guess the only conclusion is that Dawkins is right in his response. *ducks* --Merzul 14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW there are now 3 more books by McGrath with articles - more help strongly welcomed. Only 2~~/18~~ of his books have Dawkins in the title, ~~the same fraction of~~ Dawkins's books with "God" in the title (and another 1/9 has "The Devil"). Dawkins is right in his response in this sense: having no intellectual argument to counter McGrath's criticisms, he responds with a rhetorical attack that will seem witty to his admirers. NBeale 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's way out! McGrath has authored over 100 books so less that 2% of them have "Dawkins" in the title, compared to over 22% of Dawkins's that have God or the Devil. NBeale 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And 0% with "McGrath" in the title... ;) Still, I agree with you on McGrath's notability, and I was just being a bit sarcastic about the coverage on Wikipedia. You have done well to answer this by starting articles on McGrath's scientific theology; the additional numbers aren't impressive (see Snalwibma's comment below). And in light of Barte's comments below I'm changing to a clear "keep" vote. --Merzul 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting ... If McGrath has indeed "authored" (whatever that means) over 100 books before his 55th birthday, that is perhaps very telling. Assuming he didn't start until he was (say) 20, that's a rate of three a year. Which (IMHO) suggests that on the whole a book by McGrath is not notable, and probably not worth a WP article. Just a thought. Snalwibma 09:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This book is not even listed on Amazon.com, and would properly belong in Wikisource, if anywhere. The book plainly is a very weak afterthought to McGrath's earlier book about Dawkins, the earlier book having sold many copies starting immediately after it was published. ... Kenosis 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is on amazon.co.uk. --Merzul 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for the moment. It's a bit early to delete it. I think the book/pamphlet hasn't yet come out in the USA, and maybe we should wait until it has, and see if it gets reviewed, before getting rid of the article (it is on amazon.co.uk, BTW). But it needs to be kept down to a reasonable length, and not used as the basis for bloggish soapboxery about how Dawkins is evil and incompetent (even if that is what McGrath says in the book - and as far as I can gather from a quick skim, that's about all of any substance that he does say). I share Merzul's concern that only these two books by McGrath are deemed worthy of WP articles. If he is such a notable theological thinker, why are none of his other books worthy of note in their own right? In summary - leave it a month, and then delete if it doesn't meet the criteria. Snalwibma 14:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barte[56]; at this point in time it doesn't appear notable. If this changes, we can re-create the article. Guettarda 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - soapboxing. And, contrary to Snalwibma, don't wait a month - notability is not something that depends on a book coming out in the USA!!. Emeraude 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's notable primarily because McGrath is notable. From the look of it, it's only been published in the U.K. thus far, but, once it's landed on the other side of the Pacific, I'm sure it will generate a lot more publicity. It's also less than a month old, so, a lot of reviewers simply might not have gotten around to it yet. I'm taking an eventualist approach to this article; let's reduce the book summary to a reasonable length, as KillerChihuahua suggested, primarily cutting down on the current polemic, essay-like tone. If it doesn't meet notability, size, NPOV, BLP, etc. standards after a month or two, then renominate for AfD. -
Severa (!!!) 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The book may eventually become notable with a U.S. edition, but so far, it simply doesn't qualify under
~~WP:BK, not even meeting the exclusionary criteria of a national library catalog listing. At least I couldn't find one in the online British Library catalog.-Barte 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Amending to Weak keep and wait, in light of strong Amazon numbers and an interview with A. McGrath in connection with the book on the "Belfast Telegraph" website. In terms of non-trivial outside notice.....it's a start.--Barte 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I couldn't either; of the 121 entries on McGrath listed by the BL, this one is not included. --Merzul 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 20 editors have worked on this article (which is surely strong prima facie evidence of notability!), there are 23 references and 16 books are cited in the summary (out of the c 48 that are cited in the book). It has only just been published in the UK so it's understandably not on amazon.com but the pubisher
SPCK his highly reputable and the 3rd oldest in England apparently. I agree with Merzul re notability criteria 5, McGrath is one of the world's leading authors on theology - his textbook on Christian Theology is into its 4th Edition since 2001. It would be good if people could work on articles about his other books, but with Dawkins (alas) so topical you can understand the problem. I should add that his book has endorsements from Francis Collins (on the book cover so admittedly a Blurb) but also Michael Ruse and Owen Gingerich which is prima facie additional evidence for notability. (PS I didn't start the article, I was the 6th Editor to work on it, though I have worked quite hard on it). If people don't like the arguments McGrath makes they should deal with this in other way than trying to supress them. Wikipedia users are entitled to the information and to make up their own minds. NBeale 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- There are no problems with including McGrath's arguments; the question is here about the notability of the book. I know it hurts when people delete material, but keeping a cool head when responding will be more helpful. It might be that this article is a bit ahead of its time; maybe it might be good idea to move this article to user space for now and put it back once the notability issues are resolved. --Merzul 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book has only just been published, there seems not to have been any time for things to be written about the book itself. An encyclopaedia article by this title is about the book itself. McGrath's arguments from the book should be presented in articles on the topics that McGrath is arguing about, giving them weight in proportion to their acceptance by the world at large. In other words: That the book is a source does not automatically mean that it warrants an article. Encyclopaedia articles about books are for commentary on the books themselves. Uncle G 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability can be demonstrated by cites from multiple verifiable reliable sources. If kept, this should be trimmed extensively to a reasonable length. -- The Anome 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a real book by a notable author. It needs major trimming, though. fraggle 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is currently 226th in sales ranks on UK Amazon [57]. For a book not out a full month yet, that's extraordinary. The notability of the book should not remotely be in question.
RGTraynor 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- You are conflating notability and sales. Notability is not popularity, fame, or importance, and is not measured by sales figures. You could make an argument for keeping this article that actually holds some water by showing that multiple non-trivial published works about this book exist. That would satisfy The Anome's concerns, for example. Uncle G 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate you have strong enough views on the subject that you've written an essay, which you've hyperlinked as if it were a Wikipedia guideline or policy. That being said, even accepting the curious argument that popularity is not a factor in determining whether a subject is notable (which I don't), you're seizing upon the "multiple non-trivial published works" guideline (and it is a guideline, not a be-all and end-all official policy) devoid of any other content. Of all the books in existence, this one is in the top 250 of sales in a nation of sixty million people. That's huge.
    RGTraynor 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete Jim62sch 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the *very least* needs major copyedit, because it reads like a plug for a barely notable book(let). - WeniWidiWiki 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book is being discussed widely. Just because it's not out in the U.S. doesn't mean it should go. I wasn't aware this encyclopedia was solely for the U.S. And no doubt it will reach you soon enough. The book has contemporary relevance due to Dawkin's book and the contoversy around it (due to Dawkin's media savvyness.) And McGrath is well-known too. I mean, we have list of museums and on secondlife on here lolMerkinsmum 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If its being discussed widely, perhaps you can provide a source? I can find no mention of it anywhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to be over 23,000 google hits [58] and the amazon.co.uk sales rank has climbed to 114 BTW NBeale 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is not a source. I followed a ton of GHits; all were blogs discussing The God Delusion, not the McGrath book - even when put in quotes. I see that there is now finally one source on the article besides the publisher - an interview with McGrath. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more telling indicator are Google News hits. And here, so far, there isn't much. [59]-Barte 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which turns up one unbiased source, which I believe (I'll have to check) is the one already in place, and two clearly biased sources, which may still yield something useable. Thanks for checking though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete
Non-notable. Madhava 1947 (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but edit for POV "The God Delusion" was a best seller on both sides of the Atlantic. This book is a well publicised response, and key in the debate on religion. An article on the main points of this book and its reception is useful. I see no reason to remove it. It encourages healthy discussion SolarBreeze
Note the above is the user's 17th edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Author is notable and this book is a rebuttal to a well known book.--

Ted-m 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

keep because the book will almost certainly become N, because of the popular desire to read this viewpoint.The length is absurd, however, and indicates that the article was not written from an objective POV. Once the article is down to the appropriate 2 or 3 paragraph size, a suitably sized section --not a 5% size paragraph--can then be added of quotation of the views of this author's opponents, as they appear, which they surely will, and then there will be a NPOV. Whether or not the book is intrinsically trivial is not a question for WP to decide.

There doesn't seem to be a rule against editing the article while the debate is in progress, so I just did along the lines just suggested. The gargantuan version is in the page history. DGG 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the article is rather biased and in need of neutrality, but I see no real justification for simply deleting it. McGrath is a noteable author, even if half his books have Dawkins in the title.... Neural 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book has a strong POV and since the summary is a summary of the book, this POV is made clear. But I think the summary always uses terms like "suggests..." for anything remotely controversial and takes no position on whether the suggestions are valid. I don't think that extensive quotations, thus sanitised, make it a POV article. And to be fair to McGrath, the proportion of his books that have "Dawkins" in the title is exactly the same as the proprtion of Dawkins's books that have "God" in the title (2/18 vs 1/9). NBeale 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, as mentioned above -- it seems to me that the opposition to the book at least from some people stems more from its content than its notability. Which, frankly, stinks. -- John Smythe 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Obviously some editing needed, but I see no reason to delete this article. In Cambridge at least, the book is quite high profile. 23:40 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Definite Keep. It's got pages and text, so it's definitly a book, and it's directly related to a world-famous bestseller that is already here. So it's definitly notable. Plus you won't get bonus Dawkins points just for attacking people who point out flaws in his... book... through wikipedia. Tohya 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author. Notable book. Laurence Boyce 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I still don't see enough reliable sources to write an article from. Some people here are saying that this book is going to become notable soon, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the book ever becomes notable, then
WP:DRV can resurrect the article. — coelacan talk — 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment There are 25 refs citing 5 sources for the article (and 13 other reliable sources) and 4 "external links" - mostly not by McGrath - so I honestly don't think lack of sources to write the article is a problem. NBeale 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just asking: has the book gotten any independent reviews anywhere (beyond blogs), online or off?-Barte 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable book by serious scholar, only just published. Keep, particularly as the critical reaction will only be becoming clear in the next few weeksLaura H S 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is quite high profile in Cambridge at least Think-it-through 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia... :) --Merzul 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see any sensible reasons not to keep the article based upon the above discussion. Arguments based on multiplicity, notability, in practical terms are excuses to exclude the content of this article which is citable and categorically very relevant to the God Delusion article. If one is confident of Dawkins and the God Delusion logic, surely his logic can stand the criticism!?!? Mclaugb 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes like this really entice me to change from "keep" to "delete", of course I won't do that, because that might even be the intention here; but if that's not the case, and you are interested in this article staying; don't include serious
personal attacks in your post. --Merzul 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete Not very notable. Having an article as such here is giving credit to a weak, completely predictable, non-original and uncalled for rebuttal. Rodrigo Cornejo 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagreeing with the content of a book is not a reason for deletion - see comment by John Smythe above. "not very notable" suggests that it's notable, and if its notable then, according to policy and the nomination for deletion, it should be considered a keep. NBeale 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the rather looking glass argument above, there's little evidence that the case for deletion here is being waged on the basis of content. That assertion seems, um, faith-based.-Barte 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Trela

Delete - winning a million dollars on a game show does not strike me as being sufficient to confer notability, even if that win leads to another appearance or two on another game show. Note the previous mass nomination that was trending toward deletion before it was summarily closed. Otto4711 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Blonsky

Delete - winning a million dollars on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road. Note the previous mass nomination that was trending toward delete before it was summarily closed. Otto4711 13:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Bob House

Delete - winning a million dollars on a game show is insufficient to establish notability. Additionally the article has no sourcing. See also this nomination that was trending toward deletion before being summarily closed. Otto4711 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fraggle 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hunt

Delete - article has been put up previously and kept for apparently procedural reasons, because the closing admin doesn't like mass nominations. Article should be deleted because winning a million dollars on a game show does not confer notability. See previous summarily closed mass nom here. Otto4711 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to
(jarbarf) 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Agent86. Mention in game show article is sufficient. I'm ambivalent about a redirect as it is a pretty common name. This Kim Hunt's claim to fame is so relatively minor that I suspect someone searching for "Kim Hunt" is probably looking for someone else.--
talk) 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ed Toutant

)

Delete - winning a million dollars or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability. Note mass nomination that was trending toward delete before being summarily closed. Otto4711 14:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fraggle 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nancy Christy

Delete - winning a million dollars does not automatically confer notability, even if it leads to an appearance or two on another show. Note mass nomination that was trending toward deletion before being summarily closed. Otto4711 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fraggle 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. The fact she was the first woman to win (but not the first winner) is not enough to merit a separate article, and this fact is also in the WWtbaM article. Agent 86 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Coreworld

No

WP:SOFTWARE. Delete --Pak21 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I found lots of news stuff and the follwing source [60] but have no opinion yet. --
Tikiwont 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Looks kinda fishy (nn). YechielMan 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable, no significant refs and looks bogus. NBeale 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Daniel.Bryant 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dan Weisman

Delete - winning a million dollars on a game show does not automatically confer notability. This article also suffers from

crystal ballery since the episode where the event allegedly happened hasn't even aired yet. Note this mass nomination that was trending toward deletion before being summarily closed. Otto4711 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Agreed. Non-notable. fraggle 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Other than being non-notable, it hasn't even been confirmed. It's almost March and still the episode hasn't been aired. Aidepikiwym 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not verified. --Libertyernie2 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

David Goodman (game show contestant)

Delete - winning a million dollars on a game show does not automatically confer notability, even if it leads to being on the show a couple more times. Note this mass nom that was trending toward deletion before being summarily closed. Otto4711 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as I gave on the "mass nomination": It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. This person is already listed in the
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no independent notability. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --El on ka 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island Hot Dog Stand

non-notable roadside attraction, unoriginal design "Tail of the Pup" in California existed for 20 years prior with the same design. Does not meet notability guidelines for unique architecture. Contested PROD Kyaa the Catlord 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn (see below - 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)) - Mereda 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for full disclosure I am the article creator, and Kyaa proded this after a confrontation on

Tail O' the Pup artcle. There is little to no resemblence between the two buildings except the fact they are both based on hot dogs. I think the only reason Tail o' the Pup is more notable is that it's in LA and not hidden away in the mountains of Colorado. This could very well be a wiki stalking nomination. ([61] Tail O' the Pup Image to compare with Coney Island.) EnsRedShirt 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please

WP:AGF and make arguments based on notability guidelines. A big hotdog is a big hotdog. Kyaa the Catlord 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see your talk page, AFD is not a place for personal fights. As for notbility it is notable for it's moves, and its history as being the first, and only, of a failed chain of big "hot dogs." Notability has also been proven with the number of stories linked from the article. EnsRedShirt 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sort of. First of all, please refrain from using wording such as "speedy keep" and "wiki stalking nomination". That implies bad faith on behalf of the nominator, when Kyaa is clearly not a bad-faith editor. This object clearly exists but the sources provided do not currently show it to be of anything other than local notability: I doubt that this passes
reliable sources are provided that show this thing to be of more than local notability, then things are different. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

What is more reliable than a USA Today article, an article from the Rocky Mountain News, and a link to a nationally shown TV Show? (Might I add that the USA today article notes this as the largest Hot Dog in the USA?) EnsRedShirt 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability criterion says that "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article." The USA Today "article" isn't much more than a passing mention and provides little context. Three of the other articles are, seemingly, local news stories that don't affirm encyclopedic notability. As far as the Rocky Mountain News article is concerned, that article is all about the move and provides no encyclopedic context for us to use, as indeed are quite a few of the others. Indeed, I would say that as far as we have any notability asserted the move of the object is more notable than the object itself. As far as I can see the TV programme made only passing mention of this. Furthermore, three of the articles cited are by the same person. I do not think the primary notability criterion is satisfied. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage and historic value. It's maybe not quite as notable as the Benewah Milk Bottle (listed on the National Register of Historic Places), but it's unusual enough to keep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is an oddball, but it is very similar to the earlier Tale o the Pup in spirit, albeit not identical. The notability guidelines stress the uniqueness of design, not how interesting the object can be. If just being interesting was a primary notability guideline, we'd have articles on all the funny Paul Bunyons and such which are better suited for a website like Roadside America. [62] Moreschi discusses the media coverage better than I could above. Kyaa the Catlord 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you please point to the specific guideline language underlining "the uniqueness of design"? Could you further explain how to judge uniqueness (as these are not identical designs) in a way that is not subjective? --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: "In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have architectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable." The first giant hot dog, unique. Another giant hot dog, built 20 years later is not unique. Kyaa the Catlord 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line of argument seems to be going off-track from the primary notability standards. Regardless if it is of "unique design" or not, there is now an abundant amount of published works about the subject. Just because it doesn't satisfy the single "unique design" criterion doesn't mean it doesn't pass others like

WP:CORP. Deleting this becuae it's not a unique design would be like deleting Stephen Hawking because he didn't pose in Playboy. --Oakshade 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Unique design is a key portion of WP:CORP when dealing with gimmicky restaurants like this. The primary reason this hot dog stand has a wikipedia article is due to its unusual design.... Moreschi's statements about the news articles being cited not providing encyclopedic context for this hot dog stand continue to be unaddressed, and add to the question of the stand meeting WP:NOTE. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published works about the subject is the primary criterion of WP:CORP. Whether any editor's POV is that the design is not unique is completely irrelevent. All the references cited support the encyclopedic content in the article. Some my not think it's "encyclopedic", but WP guildlines dissagrees with that. --Oakshade 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I refer you to Moreschi's question about whether the primary notability guideline is met. Is the object notable or is the movement of the object notable? Are there multiple, non-trivial independent sources? As Moreschi showed, the answer is "no". Kyaa the Catlord 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "yes". And it's the subject that's notable. There would be no story about the move without the notable subject. That's why multiple non-trivial independent sources are written about it. --Oakshade 08:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elkman. --Djsasso 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would be happier with more sources, but this seems sufficiently notable as an example of
Tail O' the Pup was the first; most of the others are gone. This is notable for surviving several moves through several cities including a major tourist town.--Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Please address the concerns as to why the movement of a fast food restaurant makes it notable and encyclopedic raised by Moreschi. Hundreds of other buildings are moved, why are they not notable for the same rationale? The article for Tail o the Pup claims it was built in 1946(although the claim is unsourced, but I'll AGF on the part of whoever added that date since it was prior to this AfD), which would make it the first "giant hotdog shaped" hot dog stand and this an imperfect copy. Kyaa the Catlord 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please restrict your opinion to this article Kyaa, not the Tail O The Pup article. This article does not claim notability by being the first of anything, it claims notability for appearance in a movie and being the subject of some media attention. If you feel that is not enough to pass notability, great, please state your case. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I'm not a fan of

Tail O' the Pup article about 3 or 4 times now, and it is not the article at issue in any way. -Markeer 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Instruction Please review the Notability guidelines for such articles. The argument I make with the Tail O The Pup is DIRECTLY related to policy, not some twisted take on other crap exists. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my new vote, having added four print citations to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung, and for having more than one non-trivial secondary source (yes, USAToday and the Rocky Mountain News are non-trivial, although obviously we would all be happier with a published book or journal article on regional landmarks). The movie use adds a little something. I don't think this is VERY notable, but it seems to clearly squeak by the guidelines. -Markeer 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple published works that are primarily about this subject satsify
WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Based on the titles of the works listed in the article, it appears to be a stretch to state that they are "primarily about this subject". Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what titles (or article) you are looking at, but I'm seeing "A Dog's Tale", "I thought it would be fun to restore Dog" and "Moving Day for the Dog." --Oakshade 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that those are all by the same writer? Did you forget the word "independent?" (And actually read those articles, she recycled the same thing three times.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response was to your "title" comment. There's also "Giant hot dog set for move" independent of the prolific Ms. Lawson. --Oakshade 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the books (to which I presume you refer) has a one or two page article/entry/section devoted exclusively to the subject. They are not passing mentions. If you are insisting that a subject must have two entire books written about it to be notable, you are stretching the guidelines to unheard of length. (I will never understand the deletionist mindset, I suppose.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with around 9 reliable and independent sources, it is one of the better sourced Wikipedia articles. Edison 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate to Deletion Perhaps a move to wikitravel, since this article has improved over the past day. Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD WITHDRAWN This nom has pretty much reached SNOWBALL level. The article is MUCH improved however, so some good was done here. Kyaa the Catlord 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheeze Club: Saviours of The Mothership Funk

Backstory looks to be a hoax, no notability asserted, author username same as name of person who supposedly wrote it cartoon in the 70s. Attempted to tag it with problems, author continues to remove tags w/o explanation despite repeated warnings not to. Improbcat 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or factual re-write if notability can be found. check talk page of article for other statements by me regarding this article. Improbcat 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, now that I've seen the some total of the video for this, I change my vote to Speedy Delete. The series does not exist, there is no notability, therefore it does not belong in wikipedia. If after it has been released it gains enough notability that a fan decides it is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia then let them create the page. Alsoauthor of a not yet existent series creating a wikipedia page about the series has major conflict of interest issues. Improbcat 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. fraggle 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. This link shows that this isn't something from the seventies at all. IrishGuy ^talk 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line was meant to be humourous and not taken seriuosly. I can remove it immeditaely. The rest of the content is genuine and the project is most certianinly real and not a hoax. I would very much like to continue constructing this article and making it a viable Wiki entry. I know that you can respect that this takes time. Regards

16:17, 20 February 2007

- If you are adding content to an encyclopedia, you are expected to ensure the content is real and truthful. Improbcat 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would greatly appreciate some tips or advice on how to make it notbale, how the article gets to be verified to be kept. I am new to Wiki and would appreciate restraint and patience. Thank you.16:33, 20 February 2007

**Some things to review Wikipedia:Notability, and follow the link labled subject-specific notability guidelines. There I am specifically refering to the info box on the right, ignore the pages in catergory section at the bottom. Improbcat 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let me try that again with more coherency. Visit Wikipedia:Notability and review the information there. Also note the links in the info box to the right there with more information. As of now I can find no notability for your cartoon as it appears to essentially only exist as some youtube files. If it is more than that, or has been featured or reported on elsewhere please provide that information and links. Note that things are supposed to be notable before they become a wikipedia article, the wikipedia article is not supposed to be used to make something more notable. Improbcat 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - just hype based around a simple computer generated trailer this guy has put on YouTube. Saikokira 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III

)

I believe that this article should be deleted because the subject is non-notable. Al Gore is very notable, but his son hasn't really done anything himself. Right from the article: "He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." He was also arrested for a misdemeanor, committed a traffic violation, and worked for a non-notable magazine. If we had an article for every person who got a ticket or had a job, we'd have a lot of pages. I mean, we already DO have a lot of pages, but... I think you get my point. Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page in question has been nominated for deletion before. All previous AFDs are linked on the article's talk page. Please also bear in mind that
consensus can change, so there's nothing wrong with a re-nomination here for further discussion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree that notability is not inherited.
Arkyan 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's also
not subjective. So while it's not inherited, Al Gore III has it. WilyD 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - perfectly normal (read: non-notable) life.
M. Salleh 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Al Gore: this is the fifth, I repeat, fifth nomination for this page. I agree with the contention that Al Gore III's notability stems entirely from his father. However, events in his life have affected his father, and so those events do have notability. Until he does enough to be notable in his own right, any information about him belongs on his father's page. I have spoken. Alba 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alba, it looks as if this is actually the sixth nomination for deletion, the first one was so old that someone just incorporated it into the talk page of the article. Unusual, but there you have it.
  (jarbarf) 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge to Al Gore: not really notable but could be incorporated into his father's page ElHornberg 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you are confusing "historical importance" with verifiability. Notability, for inclusion in Wikipedia, means that the subject has been referenced in "multiple, non trivial sources". The article is well referenced, and non of the sources are trivial. Trivial would be a blog or a telephone directory. Also for this vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the other 4 votes for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without expressing an opinion on this nomination, per
WP:NOTE "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Simply being "referenced" is insufficient. Otto4711 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

merge or just redirect, either will do. Clearly not independently notable. I fail to see what good a redirect at Al Gore III will do, since it's pretty clear where to look if it's not there, but we could do without discussing this every five minutes, soi it might do the trick there. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I don't know that this person warrants an article at this time, however, the information itself is reasonable to include in his father's page. I'd also like some information on Sarah Gore, though it's possible there is a dearth of information on her. FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets
notability is not subjective. While some may argue that ethically, he shouldn't be notable, he is, and we'll just have to cry ourselves to sleep at night over it. WilyD 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, satisfies
(jarbarf) 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Please note that the mere existence of multiple works on a subject hasn't always been enough in the past: the articles must also have something to say about the subject, and none of the articles about Gore III seem to do so. As precedent, I'd offer other AFDs for otherwise non-notable celebrity children, including Sean Preston Federline, Brooklyn Beckham, Maddox Jolie-Pitt, etc. Gore III isn't an infant, but he seems equally non-notable outside of the context of his father (at least to my eyes). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm - I don't know about that, but it seems to me that the criterion of Somebody finds them notable to cover in the press is a far more NPOV criterion for notability than I don't think they're important. WilyD 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's tough to decide but I side with the non-subjective notability people here, and that notability != significance. It seems like he shouldn't be notable, but he has been. Partly that's his political-child foibles like getting arrested. Partly that's his dad's fault for constantly telling the story about the accident. This doesn't apply to all children of politicians, but circumstances have made him notable. Disclaimer: I have edited this article and those of other political relatives.--Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Al Gore. There is not enough information available about Al Gore III to write a balanced encyclopedia article. Kaldari 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable only for being arrested for a minor violation. -Will Beback · † · 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having admitted that he's notable, care to explain why you think the article should be deleted anyways? WilyD 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Al Gore III is notable for several reasons. He is the son of a very vocal former Vice President, who refers to his son in his speeches and movies. And the son comments on his father's future ambitions and he edits a magazine that is a advertisement for Al Gore. And finally, I vote to keep per Richard Arthur Norton and isn't this like the fifth vote on this topic and keep keeps taking the day?--Getaway 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all it took to get an article here were public comments on Al Gore's ambitions, then I should have an article, and the magazine, whatever its subject matter, is a non-notable not-for-profit publication with a claimed subscriber base of 11,000. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote, and only one of the previous five AFDs on the article was closed with a consensus to keep. A second was closed with no consensus, and the other three were immediate procedural closes by an administrator. It hasn't been discussed in this venue in about six months, which doesn't seem like an unreasonably short amount of time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and sooner or later the perpetually-losing side of a discussion has to suck up, deal with the fact that it lost, and move on. Ravenswing 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that your statement is against policy? Please see
WP:CCC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Furthermore, if you don't think consensus can change, how do you explain
unsigned comment was added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment: You are aware that the section you quote refers to the merits of a subject changing with new information or wider prominence. That policy, come to that, addresses the situation more pertinent here, that of persistent hammering at existing consensus by dissidents who just plain don't like it: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors ... Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken." Your constant and verbose advocacy on this AfD isn't, IMHO, doing your cause much good. Either you have a good case or a bad one, but it doesn't need constant repetition. Ravenswing 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent being lumped in with some anonymous cabal of nogoodniks, just because it's more convenient for you to believe that this is the case. You're assuming bad faith on my part, without justification for doing so. I nominated this article for deletion simply because I don't think it can ever be made into a good article, and because the most recent discussions about a possible disposition fizzled out without a proper resolution. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) If you resent the very policy you cited being quoted, no one's likely to be able to help that. If you likewise resent your constant and verbose advocacy of a very simple premise being categorized as such, that's entirely in your hands. Either we agree with you or we don't, and repeated hectoring won't change that one way or the other. Ravenswing 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly because this seems to be a I don't like it nomination and I will suppose it was due to principles and not bad faith. Alf photoman 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although
Alois Hitler, Jr., Angela Hitler, and some of their kids, parents, grandparents, see the various links on the Adolf Hitler article, all of whose basic claim to notability is derived from Adolf. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I see your point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your examples. Prince Harry is a member of a royal family, and the current consensus seems to be that royals are intrinsically notable. The Hitler example is a better one, but I'm still not convinced, since Hitler is substantially more important than Gore when considered from a historical standpoint. I mean, Hitler was the top leader of his country for more than ten years, as well as the instigator of one of the largest conflicts in world history. Gore has a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to meet that standard, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This brings to memory the following quote "Hello, I’m Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States". ;-)
(jarbarf) 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Heh! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only assertion of notability in the article is who his dad is, which is not an assertion of notability for the subject. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he played a prominent role in two of his father's national campaigns, albeit in an indirect manner. As a reference point in a major convention speech, during Gore Jr.'s first Vice-presidential campaign, and as a source of negative publicity, during his second unsuccessful presidential campaign. He's also mentioned repeatedly in a book decrying legacy preferences. Wish I could remember the title. Ruthfulbarbarity 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is about a non-notable offspring of a politician. Edison 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Can we stop continually nominating things until we get the desired result, please? Meets "notability" standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep talking about continuous nominations? There have only been two AFDs on this topic that went full-term, it's been almost six months since the last one, and I wasn't the nominator for either one of 'em. If you think he's notable for whatever reason and that it should be kept, that's great. I disagree with you, but this is Wikipedia, where disagreement falls somewhere between food and oxygen. Just make sure you're basing your argument on something real instead of on some bizarre abstract point about the number of past nominations. The only real value in any past nomination comes from reading it and using those opinions to help form your own. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!): You have responded to each and every comment on this AFDs. I don't think you are helping your position by your constant cheerleading for deletion. In my mind, it makes your case look less strong because you feel the need to respond to each every comment and come up with a way to minimize or belittle the opinions of those who believe that the article should stay. It also hurts your cause because it makes you look less than neutral in your editing and your sponsorship of deletion. It is the fifth nomination for deletion and there is a constant pattern, as you suggest, but the pattern is for keep not the other way around. As Shakespeare said, "I one doth protest too much". (I paraphase badly.)--Getaway 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in an earlier comment, an AFD is a discussion, not a vote. What kind of a discussion doesn't include responses to other people's comments? If we're all just going to sit here and keep our opinions in little boxes, why even bother to post in the first place? If anything, discussion is needed more on this article than on the average one, since there's so little past consensus on the subject. The ancient VFD was deadlocked 5-4 in favor of deletion, the most exhaustive AFD closed without consensus, and there are reams and reams of discussion on the article's talk page since the last AFD, with people voicing basically every opinion under the sun (keep it as it is, keep the article but remove the arrests, add the arrests to Gore's article and convert this one to a redirect, delete it outright, etc.). I could've just Boldly Merged the article with Al Gore and had done with it, but I wanted to have one last go at establishing an actual consensus one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Because there's something to be said for trying the same thing over and over to get the desired result. At one point, you have to stand up and say "stop it, already." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Sounds kinda like you're invoking
  WP:SNOW here, Jeff? —Doug Bell ^talk 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I would never advocate such nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's the issue with having however many AfD's on an article that people want? It's just following process...you seemed to be arguing that we should shortcut the process here. Maybe I'm misreading your statement? —Doug Bell ^talk 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same reasons given for Jeb Bush's kid; take away the fact that he has a famous daddy and we're left with a 20-something who has been in a car crash, had a DUI, and smoked pot. Is that notable? Notrly. Tarc 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. I had no idea we had an article on him, too. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually,
  yes, he is notable. Does he deserve to be? I don't care... (no). But he is. Rather than pushing a POV about who should be notable, let's strive for a NPOV encyclopaedia. WilyD 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

and for a few more .... Alf photoman 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smerge smerge to Al Gore Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: the Jeb Bush Jr. analogy. It's not a valid comparison, since Gore's son has been mentioned in numerous media outlets and referenced, albeit in a peripheral way, in notable published books over the course of a decade or longer. Merely being in the media spotlight for a brief period of time isn't equivalent to being the subject of numerous articles, news broadcasts, etc., over the course of a number of years. Granted, all of these citations reflect mostly upon the national prominence enjoyed by his father, but I don't think that necessarily makes him less notable as an individual. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six moninations. Let it go. --Descendall 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Six nominations for a reason. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That reason is that people keep nominating it without comparing it to the deletion criterion, and it's then kept by editors who are more careful in their checking of whether the article is appropriate or not. WilyD 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3rd party stories about him demonstrate notability. And let this Harold Stassen AfD award condender rest. --Oakshade 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hahaha. Harold Stassen reference. I like that. In all seriousness though, this is getting a bit absurd. In terms of the children of well-known politicians Gore's son is certainly notable. Perhaps not as notable as Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter, but notable nevertheless. A better comparison-rather than Jeb Bush Jr.-would be to Neil Bush. I don't think anyone has challenged the notability of the subject of that article. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, instead of comparing to children of U.S. Presidents, you should compare to children of failed presidential candidates or of vice presidents. There is a great deal more notability in being the child of an actual president (and thus part of the "first family") than there is associated with simply being the child of a well-known politician. Maybe William H. Mondale should get an article if Al Gore III has one. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Thomas

NN actor. Minor appearance in a single film. Does not pass

WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. He played a young Hannibal Lecter, which was a fairly big role in a mainstream film. The article should be expanded, but not deleted. For the record, while I wouldn't start this article myself now that its up it should stay for the time being.--CyberGhostface 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CyberGhostface. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Recreate when he has been in more prominent roles. fraggle 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/~~Redirect - The entry is only one sentence long. It can be easily incorporated into Hannibal Lecter under the Film portrayals section. When he's got a larger resumé, another (larger) article would be appropriate. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Altered my above to remove the "merge," since mention of the actor is already present in the proper section of the HL article. Redirect is all that is needed. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non-notable. One marginal source is not enough. NBeale 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect--Patrick 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NO REDIRECT. This is a common name and there are much more famous people with this name. In particular, there was an NFL player, and there are three other entries on IMDB for the same name. This actor had one bit part in a movie (and as a child, the kind of role that people often get just one of). For all we know, this will be all he ever does. Mango juice^talk 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Student Update

Non-notable TV show; article created by the same user behind

M. Salleh 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Non-notable. fraggle 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Creator of all the above articles seems to have serious misconceptions about the purpose of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Booth (SDS activist)

Stub article, no secondary sources, minor claim to notability. Can be covered with a single sentence in the SDS article. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete He's just some guy, you know. Totally non notable guy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has no notability other than being in on the founding of SDS, and doesn't seem to have been particularly notable in SDS history. His involvement with the organization ended years before it entered the public eye.
RGTraynor 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notability does not expire. If he was notable back then, he is notable today. --Eastmain 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't seem to have been notable then.
RGTraynor 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep SDS was an extremely notable U.S. organization in the 1960's so a vice president and founder of it is notable By this I mean that I expect there are multiple reliable and independent sources to be found given a little time and digging in possible noninternet sources. Funny though, I don't remember the name. Edison 06:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One ref to him in a published source that is pretty marginal (the other is about his wife) does not qualify as multiple published sources notability. NBeale 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Ninja Burger. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:42Z

Day of the Ninja

)

) (added by closing admin)

) (added by closing admin)

Nom - This is another one of those Internet driven made up holidays. Fails

WP:RS in spite of 38,000 g-hits (which taken alone isn't notable). Will this "holiday" be around in another ten years? Not likely. Another editor suggested this article be merged, but there's little to actually merge, so I've nominated it for deletion. Rklawton 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect and merge any other critical information into
⁸⁶ 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and merge if necessary. The material was already on the Ninja Burger page to begin with and was split out this year when the holiday got popular. It is still mentioned on the Ninja Burger website and thus deserves to be part of that article. It is worth pointing out, however, that people here also considered wiping [Talk Like a Pirate Day] from Wikipedia, which is also "another one of those Internet driven made up holidays". Everything will be non-notable if you delete it the year after it begins to gain traction. If this article fails WP:N or WP:RS then a long hard look needs to be given to the Talk Like a Pirate Day article because it fails on many of the same criteria. Will that "holiday" be around in another ten years? In particular, it is worth noting that the pirate article's intro is almost identical in size and function to the Day of the Ninja one, yet for some reason it is considered adequate while the Ninja one is considered lacking. Also worth questioning is the assertion that there is no WP:RS, which is patently false; the Picsou Magazine coverage is at the very least the equivalent of Talk Like a Pirate Day's Dave Barry article, if not superseding it since it includes an international audience. However, all that said, I still think it belongs with the Ninja Burger article, which is where it was originally. aeonite 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "if we have 'X' then we should keep 'Y'" line of argument has long been discredited. We need to evaluate this article on its own merits (or lack thereof). As a "holiday" - this day simply doesn't exist. Rklawton 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My previous comment here did somewhat fail to separate my main point from my tangential commentary. My main reasoning for Redirect and merge is that the content was originally on the Ninja Burger page, and was split out. The content was considered adequate when it was just a subtopic of that page. Thus, it would seem that deleting it would be unwarranted - carve and purge seems less palatable to me than simply restoring an earlier, acceptable state of affairs. I agree that as far as most of the world is concerned, the holiday does not exist, but then neither does Ninja Burger. It seems a fictional holiday might merit a discussion on a page about a fictional company, even if it does not warrant its own page. aeonite

Question - that sounds reasonable - but does the fictional company rates an article? Rklawton 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think so; although the company is fictional, the two published RPGs, best-selling card game, and published book (from the same line as the Real Ultimate Power book and Maddox's Alphabet of Manliness), are quite real and notable. aeonite

Question - so who (or what) is publishing this stuff if the company isn't real? Rklawton 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ninja Burger is a fictional fast food company, the focus of the above mentioned published materials. The creators designated "Day of the Ninja" within the context of the Ninja Burger fans. Does that clarify it?
⁸⁶ 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - yes, thanks. I just looked at the website, and it doesn't look particularly notable on its own, either. A lot of subjects are covered by RPGs, books, or movies, but I'm not sure that makes them notable either. That's a topic, though, for a different talk page. This all does help reenforce the idea that a made up holiday within a possibly non-notable website probably isn't worth its own article. Rklawton 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have my doubts about Ninja Burger's notability. I may investigate it a bit more to see if that needs its own article either.
⁸⁶ 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to 1977 South African Grand Prix, primarily since it's pretty well-merged already.--Wizardman 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen Van Vuuren

)

Very sad person to come accross, but this person I don't think is that notable. Would he be famous if he never died in this horrendous accident? No. Also, I can't see the marshall that died at 2000 Italian Grand Prix (Paolo Ghislimberti) and the other that died at 2001 Australian Grand Prix (Graham Beveridge) get their own article. So just what is different about this person. Nothing. Unless the other two articles are created, then this is a very simple delete in my mind. Davnel03 16:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Flawed logic IMO. Would Michael Schumacher be famous if he hadn't become 7times World Champion? Would Tony Blair be famous if he never became an MP? Would anyone be famous if the event that made them famous/notable not occured. No. The two other marshalls you bring up were hit by debris of race cars, and not seen on TV. They are usually mentioned in passing in the race reports. Van Vurren on the other hand is the only man (AFAIK) to have been hit by a Formula One car, and which was shown on television. In addition many sources are available on his background and the event itself in great detail. I'd say he was notable.
~~Alexj2002 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Merge Having read the arguments presented below, I think Merge would be the most sensible option. However I'd like to respond to the low Google search hits point, by asking people to bear in mind that events that happen pre-1990's are less likely to have online news coverage than those which happen today. See

Alexj2002 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Welll ... the article asserts that this kid is all over the Internet, and you asserted above that many sources are available on his background. Of course uncritical use of G-hits has pitfalls, but the burden of proof of verification remains, and so far verification's lacking on both counts.

RGTraynor 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

- Comment -
  Filippo Raciti was a policeman recently killed in the Italy football riots. That weren't seen live on TV. His killing weren't shown. Nor was the two marshalls. Raciti gets a article, the marshalls don't. Oh, by the way, Blair, Schumacher have articles because the did something amazing (7 time champ; PM}, while Van Vuuren was someone caught up in an unfortunate incident. Davnel03 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Delete or Merge per nom. The "flawed logic" argument is completely specious. Tony Blair did things that made him world-famous. Michel Schumacher did things that made him world-famous. Van Vuuren was an otherwise-unremarkable teenager whose sole and tenuous claim to notoriety is that he was killed in an auto race thirty years ago. For all the (alleged) millions who've supposedly seen the clip of his death, a directed Google search turns up only 77 unique hits [64], the first several and many of the others of which are this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. Anyone think that the YouTubers downloading any such clip have any idea who the kid was other than "Holy s***, that guy got creamed"?
  RGTraynor 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge to Wikipedia is not a memorial. Readro 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge sounds about right to me. Most of the article isn't about Van Vuuren at all. In fact all we learn is that he was 19, from SA, and died by being hit by an F1 car. Most of the article can go into the race report, and the whole "similar accidents" section can probably be modifed into a "fatal accidents" or "safety" section in the history article. Pyrope 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
--Diniz 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above. This fits fine as being a part of the race coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Anyhoo, half of the article is dedicated to "Similar accidents". Maybe details of non-driver fatalities could be listed here:
List of Formula One fatal accidents. MonkeyMumford 12:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Championship

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

I'm likely to get a huge amount of backlash for this, but this is not a really notable article. Half of this article looks like (or rather is) rumours. This supposed championship is not real, I've never seen this championship. Also, WWE, TNA or ECW wrestlers are not referred to as Triple Crown Champions, I've never heard JR say He's a triple crown Champion. Pure fancruft, and speculation. Nobody even refers to this. Davnel03 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I appreciate that a great deal of work has gone into this article, it has largely served as a battleground for opinionated claims about what constitutes the accolade in question. Many of the combinations listed on the page are "unofficial" or "arguable" and are thus non-notable. The Triple Crown undoubtedly did exist in as much as it was referred to by commentators and wrestlers for a brief period of time over a decade ago, but the commitment to maintaing an up-to-date list of "Triple Crown Champions", the vast majority of whom have never been formally acknowledged as bearing that title, is clearly fancruft.
McPhail 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep The article is not based on rumours, it's based on fact. Shawn Michaels is an acknowledged Triple Crown champion, as are Kurt Angle (whose achievement was recognised when he was released by WWE, not a decade ago) and Triple H. The Merits of the US title claim is a seperate matter and has been the most controversial, however those who have World, Tag and IC titles are well known as Triple Crown champions. It is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Darrenhusted 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn. I think it should be kept, but clean-up. Remove unofficial Triple Crown's (like ECW and OVW), and find a way (like voting) to determine if the US Title should be included. TJ Spyke 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNIMAGINABLY STRONG DELETE - this article is almost entirely unsourced. Unless sources can be found, it must be deleted, or these disputed will continue and neither side will be proven right on top of the already blatant
援 -- The Hyb rid 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Much of it is original research and unsourced information. Move it to a wrestling wiki. Alot of the so called "triple crown champions" for some promotions: have never even been mentioned by the company itself. WWE has made some references to triple crown I believe, but other than that: it's internet/fan speculation on if or what makes a triple crown champion for a certain promotion. In response to TJ's suggestion for a vote to determine if the US title should be included: voting to determine something is a form of original research, and that wouldn't help the article much. Articles on Wikipedia are sourced reliable information, not information voted on by the editors. RobJ1981 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER SPECIAL AWESOMELY STRONG KEEP It's on based on fact, and the accomplishment has been mentioned on WWE times before as a very important one. Just because a few people can't agree on a part of the article doesn't merit for its deletion. --Maestro25 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - care to prove what you are saying with sources?
援 -- The Hyb rid 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I don't have a specific date, but I do remember Kurt Angle and at least Shawn Michaels being mentioned as a triple crown champion on TV. And here you go. Pedro Morales is officially recognized as the first Triple Crown champion. --Maestro25 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any sources shown are mentions in passing from WWE's website and the term is not widely used. I've never heard the term used on a broadcast and it has plenty of OR and is lacking multiple/independent RS. Just because a term is mentioned in passing does not mean that it deserves a page here. The page also causes a lot of edit wars since the term is not clearly defined, which wastes time. Wrestling titles are fixed/planned anyway, and there are too many pages on titles (like #s and length of reigns) that are notable and sourced, WP doesn't need a cruft page like this about something that is suspect in its own existence. Booshakla 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem here isn't that we can't prove if a Triple Crown exists, because it does. It is mentioned both on WWE.com and in TNA with A.J. Styles. The problem is determining what constitutes the Triple Crown. In TNA it's cut and dry (NWA World Title, X Title, NWA Tag Team Titles), in WWE is where we find the slippery slope. There is no disputing what makes up the "Classic Triple Crown" (WWF--now WWE--Title, I-C Title, WWF--now World--Tag Team Titles), it's the brand extension belts that are gumming up the works. The World Title and the WWE Tag Titles have been accepted, but the problems start with the U.S. and ECW Titles. While WWE never officially said they were a part of the TC, they also never said they weren't. Their status has been left murky. Some hints have been dropped as to how they see the titles:

--As far as the U.S. Title goes, WWE's Title history page has all of the Titles listed and drawn up on a chart where the Raw belts and Smackdown belts are lined up opposite their corresponding belt, giving the visual impression that I-C on Raw = U.S. on Smackdown. And with the ECW Title now being an option for the Royal Rumble winner (and most likely the Money in the Bank winner) to choose from, that also indicates that they see the WWE, World, and ECW titles as equals.
--However the whole fight is due to the fact that the words "WWE considers the U.S./ECW Titles as part of the Triple Crown/Grand Slam" have never appeared on WWE.com, and all of the hint dropping in the world--even by WWE itself--can be deducted 10 different ways by 10 different people.
--But for the article itself, by all means keep it, as the items in question do exist, it's just a matter of what needs added/subtracted. Ohgltxg 12:37 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Don't agree with this reasoning at all. Again, just because something exsists does not automatically entitle it to a page. It's not a widely used term, barely used, actually. And it's total Original Research. No reason for this page to stain WP. Booshakla 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the TCC is real and notable, but it is not verifiable. No, the two are not the same, and an article must have both to be Wiki material.
援 -- The Hyb rid 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Although I agree with you that it's proper to have notablity and verifiability, if they aren't the latter, thats why they are tagged and placed in a category of articles that need to be verified; thus meaning we shouldn't delete everything we can't explicity find proof to. — Moe 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Fake~~ TV wrestling ~~cruft~~ entertainment. Lacks sufficient proof of notability. Edison 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WWE and TNA each make mention of the distinction. Even if they hadn't, its used widely enough to be notable. Jeff Silvers 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not verifiable. Notability isn't what is in dispute here.
援 -- The Hyb rid 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep Although I strongly dislike the amount of arguing that the article has recieved, the subject itself is notable. It's not clearly verifiable because the term is so unclearly defiable anymore. But there is sufficent grounds to keep this as an article. How is this fancruft? These are terms used by WWE! Fancruft is something created by fans to parody, in this case, wrestling, which it's clearly not fancruft since WWE made the terms Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship. Not hearing JR use the term doesn't make it not notable. — Moe 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also would like to take this time to say that anyone who starts to bring up the United States Championship debate here, this isn't the place, take it to the talk page. — Moe 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here isn't if it ever existed, but if it's worth mentioning, and I believe it is. It's notifiable and verifiable as pointed out by Moe. I also dislike how much arguing goes on about it, but is that honestly a reason to delete this? While Moe and I disagree on aspects of the article, we both agree that it should remain. Anakinjmt 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm assuming that the removal of TCC means that all wrestlers listed must have all Triple Crown information removed as well, and that regardless of how the Grand Slam vote goes that the removal of the TCC page means the removal of the Grand Slam page even if there is a vote to keep that particular page. Darrenhusted 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us worry about that if it occurs, we shouldn't think ahead of ourselves. — Moe 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ungodly Strong Keep This article will have sources pretty soon. I am writing to HHH tomorrow after work. Seeing his high status in the company we can easily use this as a source to the dispute. Anyway the reason that the U.S. and ECW titles aren't listed is that their status is unknown. We will have our answers soon! Big Boss 0 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid original research. --Bejnar 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what it means (origional research) but I feel that a company executive can surly get the answers. Anyway WCW, TNA and OVW do adknowledge Triple Crown Champions and there is no point to delete this article. Big Boss 0 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WCW never had a TV or talked about one (same with ECW). WWE and TNA have (I don't know about OVW, they are only on TV in the Kentucy area).
Lrrr IV 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete appears to be original research with no references provided. Metros232 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Championship is heavily used term thats been used since the 70's or 80's. Calling it original research won't do here. The only thing we can't agree is on is which references to use since the definition is widely debated. — Moe 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references for us to decide to use. That is what I have been saying.
援 -- The Hyb rid 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There are references to use to prove it exists, but the term isn't clearly definable, which is the dispute. We can't delete this article and say it doesn't exist because it will be recreated by wrestling fans who will readd close to the same information that we already have. Original research is something drawn on a conclusion/results based upon research based upon ourself, which the Triple Crown Championship could not accuratly be defined as that. — Moe 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to get at is since the term isn't clearly definable with sources, then it is impossible to write an article on it that passes
援 -- The Hyb rid 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep for the same reasons just stated--
Cowboy From Hell 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave[reply
]

Delete it's not remotely refed enough to survive an AFD debate. NBeale 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern School District

Eastern School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Seinfreak37 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that schools are typically not notable, this is a school district. Soltak | Talk 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So a district of non-notable schools is notable? -Seinfreak37 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See my comment below. There are articles for many school districts in Canadian provinces, many with fewer students than the ESD. I recently finished adding remaining districts for New Brunswick and I can assure you, there are many which would not meet your standard for inclusion, but they do meet the standard for many others on Wikipedia.Plasma east 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what if
other crap exists? -Seinfreak37 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I recognize that it's probably a stupid position but yes, I do think that a school district, even if it's completely composed of non-notable schools, is still itself notable. I guess I reach that conclusion because a school district is also a governmental division. Again, I recognize the hypocrisy inherent in my position and I apologize, it just is what it is. Soltak | Talk 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can actually buy that argument. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but I see what you mean. -Seinfreak37 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a school district and not a school. It also happens to be the largest school district in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island. .... Also, something was messed up with the original AFD tag as I edited the link to this discussion and it was placed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable school for some reason .... Plasma east 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I accept Soltak's general comment that school districts, as a governmental division, may have notability even when the schools in the district are not themselves notable. Unfortunately, I don't find adequate references/sources provided by this article, which I think rather messes up this particular case. I'll brood on this and come back to this discussion if I have more coherent thoughts. WMMartin 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate sources are only pertinent to deletion debate when notability is at issue. There seems to be consensus that even if individual schools are not always notable, that information about them should be merged into an article on the school district or community. Therefore the way to address poor sourcing here is to find better sources and improve the article, not to delete it. --Dystopos 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEGENDS OF JAZZ

LEGENDS OF JAZZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This is a new article, and it looks to elegant to belong on Wikipedia. I don't know what that says about Wikipedia, but I can guess what is say about the article: it's a four-letter word, begins with the letter s, and it's okay to say it in front of your mom. YechielMan 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do in order to keep this article up? I own all the content that is put up, it's not pulled from somewhere else or anything. I own the right to use the logo and pictures. Please help?

You're confusing two different things. We sometimes delete articles or images as copyright violations, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the article looks like an advertisement from someone associated with the product. Based on our
WP:NOT#WEBHOST. YechielMan 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but cleanup and move - to "Legends of Jazz" (sans quotes). There is a radio show of the same name (which oddly isn't covered within the article) which is broadcast in the UK on 102.2 Smooth FM as well as the US, so keep as a leading notable international radio show in the field of jazz on its own. Yes, I agree with YechielMan's concerns with the tone of the article, but I think a bit of cleanup to make it neutral could be done without the need for all out deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National program with a Grammy winning host. Clean-up to meet wikipedia standards. -MrFizyx 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Front of India

Popular Front of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination: contested prod. Repeated prods have just said "non-notable" and they have been reverted. The article has got a
WP:COI problem, being created by User: Popularindia , but this recently formed organisation did get front page coverage in The Hindu on Feb 18. Mereda 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too new, so I'm not convinced that COI can be overcome. It's a weak argument, though. YechielMan 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This political party exists, and a cursory look through the mainstream media links show that it's holding rallies and meetings.
RGTraynor 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The organisation exists, has held at least one rally that drew over 30,000 people, is still active and growing, and has received multiple coverage in a prominent newspaper. POV and COI issues do need to be addressed, but this can be solved by tagging the article with {{
inappropriate tone}}. As it stands, the article should be a stub (most of the current content should be removed). -- Black Falcon 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This political paty does appear notable - particularly in regards to the rally they held. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if cleaned up - The "popular front" is closer to
Abdul Nasser Madani than "helping the oppressed".Baka man 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per nom Oo7565 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have deleted the POV, unsourced, and partly copyvio introduction and replaced it with a new one. I have also added a sentence to the end of the renamed "Activities" section. The article still needs cleanup, but I think this is enough to prove that it passes WP:Notability and to tag it for expansion/cleanup. I may work on the article some more in the coming days, but that is largely contingent on my personal time constraints and my ability to find additional sources (or to more fully use the sources already incorporated). -- Black Falcon 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for deletion are not valid - Firstly,
WP:COI is not applicable. It is not advertising. It is a fact that user:popularindia added the initial version but it is being cleaned-up. Secondly, It is not a political party as somebody suggested. It is a conferation of different human rights activists organisation. I strongly support Black Falcon to edit the page with good contents. I strongly suggest to keep. I will also help him soon for editing and reviewing this page Sundaram7 10:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and clean -This is Human rights organization that is working for the cause to improve standards of living for deprived, the down trodden and neglected mass of india such as the Dalits, Tribals and cultural minorities. The Article need more cleanup by deleting POV so that contents reflect actual function of the Org. Hindustan ka Beta 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No other edits outside this deletion debate. contribs —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Nobleeagle (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep and clean - Popular Front of India is the movement for the realization of a society in which freedom, justice and security are equally enjoyed by all individuals and classes. "Naya Caravan Naya Hindustan". As an Indian I am proud of this organization and its vision. Pens withdrawn 14:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting article. Informative. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Interesting and informative are not reasons to keep or delete an article, please cite a policy or guideline.
⁸⁶ 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

keep plese cite the reason why u need to delete it. Its not a matter or interest. This article is something up to the policies of wiki. it is encyclopedic. Lot of other popular fronts have its artlicles in wiki

Popular Front (France)

Popular Front (Senegal)

Popular Front (Spain)

Popular Front (Mauritania)

Belarusian People's Front

Azerbaijan Popular Front Party

Popular Unity (Chile)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman

Popular Front for the Liberation of Bahrain

Pens withdrawn 07:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned Version is Ready The cleaned copy is ready. Please remove the AfD tags. Sundaram7 14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Mackay

John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Mais oui! 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only 40 hits on UK Google [65], the lead one of which is this Wikipedia article and the preponderance of which are mirrors of that article. As it turns out, his claim to be a "man of letters" is that he wrote many letters to the local newspapers.
RGTraynor 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. This might be someone else, but some John D. Mackay appears to have a memorial lecture according to this. --Wafulz 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yes JDM does indeed have a memorial lecture named after him, because in Orkney he is seen as true Orcadian for publicly advocating the return of the islands to Norway after 500 years in pawn to Scotland. This is, of course, the reason that Mais oui! wants him airbrushed out of Wikipedia, because this Orcadian does not suit Mais oui!'s Scottish POV agenda. 81.153.151.63 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above anon IP logged on to Wikipedia for the first time today, and is already targetting users? Looks suspiciously like a stalking horse.
RGTraynor 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The BT anon will most likely be the former
notability guideline. Of course, if after a decent interval there are still no sources in the article, then I'd have to change my mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep, though the letter was widely publicized in Europe as the article stands we have problems with
WP:V and lacking citations, both of which would normally make me tend to delete Alf photoman 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per norm, writing a letter to a newspaper does not make you
talk 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

beg to differ, if the letter gets quoted in papers all over the continent it sure is notable, else nobody would bother Alf photoman 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep memorial lecture and quoted letter is good enough for me ... but the article needs citations.
Abtract 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep we have to make allowances for the difficulty in sourcing mid- 20th c. articles as compared to current ones, and I think this is V sufficiently DGG 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Quasi-relationship

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

I prodded this new article, and the author deprodded it without making a significant change. I'm still not convinced that this article has any truth value whatsoever, so I'm placing it before you. YechielMan 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. "Quasi-relationship" is a dating term, if anything. This is
lunch-table fodder. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as neologism. Google "quasi-relationship", glance at the links, and you can readily see that people mean a great many things when they use that turn of phrase ... so far, however, the author's spin on it has yet to turn up.
RGTraynor 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a good prod, it's a neologism, more or less. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a bare-bones
dictionary definition, even if the term was real. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, but if it's deleted just move it to my namespace, ~~Wrongporch 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete as an unsourced neo and don't userfy... no reason to.--Isotope23 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not needed to create an article just because one have to have something to do. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. KnownTypes 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is completely silly, and not the normal usage of the term "quasi-relationship." --N Shar 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out two comments by the same user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete No content.--Sefringle 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Solomon

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

I gather this is someone's ~~inflated~~ enthusiastic autobiography. 10 ghits for "justin solomon" poker none of which confirm anything about a poker player with this name. De-prodded w/o comment. Unfortunately doesn't seem to satisfy any speedy criterion. Pan Dan 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't have a snowball's chance of being notable. YechielMan 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn ... oh, right, Delete per
RGTraynor 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete A7 and tagged as such. $1500 freeroll? This guy's not even playing for real money. We can recreate this when he final tables the
WSOP, but he'll need to play for real money and stop going all in with K9s first. Dave6 ^talk 05:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was DELETE. –mysid ☎ 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature tanks

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

Non-notable, unencyclopedic. At best merits inclusion in a drinking games page. According to the article, it has already been deleted before. Flyguy649 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The newer version is longer, thus excluding G4, but it's not better. YechielMan 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could we have a source that is not (a) a Wikipedia mirror or (b) a vanity self-promotion?
RGTraynor 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:46Z

Kal K. Korff

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

Hopelessly biased toward the subject of the article. I know AFD isn't clean-up, but unlike most articles with POV problems, there's nothing salvageable here. I am tempted to paraphrase
gr 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This just in: the majority of the article (all except the Criticism and Controversy section) is a copyvio from [66], so I'm removing it. But even the Criticism and Controversy section is unrepentantly pro-Korff in its bias. —
gr 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Angr, WHY don't you contact Kal Korff and check things out firsthand. You claim "bias" but cannot know the full story unless you check first.
I'm one of the individuals that was mentioned on this problematic Wiki article, in a defamatory fashion. Mr. Korff is creating his own reality via Wikipedia, and publicly attacking specific individuals who have questioned his credibility. In my case, my comments to Mr. Korff have all occurred in semi-private emails (the other folks being defamed were all CC'd), but he has chosen to attack me in the public arena, and on Wikipedia. His entry here on Wikipedia goes against ALL of the community standards, and is as close to a puff promo piece as one can get - witness that the majority of the entry here is directly copied from his "credibility" page on his personal site. I do not really care about what Korff posts on his own web site, but I will NOT stand by while he takes advantage of the public and open nature of Wikipedia. He claims he is working on a "TV show" that is going after "self-proclaimed UFO experts", which is interesting, given that I've never made any such claims about my background or profession. To go into the details of his negativity towards me, Paul Kimball and Royce Myers III is to lower myself to his level, which I will not do. Freedom of personal speech on personal sites does not give Mr. Korff the right to express his opinions on Wikipedia - he is obviously welcome to do that on his own personal page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia is a factual information reference? It's certainly not a blog or self-promotional vehicle. There are clearly posted editorial policies, few of which have been respected in the creation of this article. When Mr. Korff states that he invented a plutonium-based nuclear weapon as a teenager, is he not obliged to provide some sort of material proof or third-party substantiation of this claim? Or can anyone make any claim on Wikipedia, without any proof or backing data? The articles linked at the end of the article all make the situation painfully clear, it all makes for a funny - but sad - read.
Angr, thanks for your attention & diligence in dealing with this situation.
David Biedny

Delete Appears to fail
WP:BIO. PaddyM 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. POV, schmov... he's just not notable. No multiple reliable third-party coverage per
WP:BIO. Sandstein 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete per
RGTraynor 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Merge to Rachael Price. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:45Z

Lake Street Dive

Lake Street Dive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Do not substantially pass
WP:BAND. Label not shown to be notable. An infobox might help, but I can't tell that this would suffice. John Lennon Contest may be sufficient, but it has no article and is not mentioned in the John Lennon article. No chart success, sales success, etc. Need info or delete. TonyTheTiger 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:MUSIC --Wafulz 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Rachael Price completed. Therefore Redirect to Rachael Price is the only remaining step. Ohconfucius 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Legends Of Rekamisk

Legends Of Rekamisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somebody's homebrew game EvilOverlordX 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:N--Dacium 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom,
RGTraynor 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Google returns nothing notable, and the homepage says the game hasn't even been released yet. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreleased game by a few 16 and 17 year olds is definitely nn, and the references to personal preferences in music are unencyclopedic at best and a blatant sign of COI at worst. Verkhovensky 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to St Ivel. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:45Z

Fiendish Feet

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

Yoghurt of questionable notability from the 1990s. I don't doubt that it existed, but can we do better on the sources than a fansite? YechielMan 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel.Bryant 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If it's verifiable, it's verifiable ... the main source being a fan site shouldn't constitute prima facie disqualification. There are 130 hits on UK Google, which certainly establishes its existence; not too bad for a decade-old discontinued food product.
RGTraynor 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into St Ivel. That article could use some content right now, and this one is rather small as it is. --Wafulz 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Wafulz. FWIW, the reliability of fansites as sources can vary, and the best of them can inspire substantial confidence. The nature of the subject being reported makes a difference. (Yes, I know, there used to be the Proceedings of the Institute for the Study of Cartoon Yoghurt Characters, but it ceased publication in 1986, and as such missed this one.) - Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Smerdis of Tlön. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the reasons above. --
Kathy A. 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge for reasons already cited. Suriel1981 15:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Christopher Clyde-Green

Christopher Clyde-Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor (see
WP:BIO) whose body of work consists of one bit part in a TV mini-series about pirates (he's credited 16th out of the cast on the IMDB). Page created by an anon who (according to an IP look up) lives in a village adjacent to the location of Mr. Clyde-Green's alma mater- possibly he himself or a close associate. No obvious exposure in the wider national media. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nominator. Welcome to try again when notability can be established (e.g. when he has a body of work, media exposure, etc.). Until then- keep flipping burgers in Maccy-d's, chum. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel.Bryant 09:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom as NN. When you have to click on the MORE tab on IMDB to get to his sole screen credit, and the article itself cites Clyde-Green as a "little known English actor," well, it's possible to get more obscure, just not easy.
RGTraynor 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I must concur with the above posters. When the first sentence of the first paragraph refers to the subject as little known, then they are not of notable status (although that may change in time) to have their own entry on Wikipedia. --Ozgod 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:BIO Pea ceNT 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Platt R. Spencer School

Platt R. Spencer School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. That's right, I said elementary school. In addition, article has been tagged with "cleanup" since April 2006. No expansion, cleanup, or other improvements have been made since that time. Soltak | Talk 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as NN. Death to NN public school articles!
RGTraynor 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep due to hometown namesake that invented
Spencerian penmanship. -Seinfreak37
21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, every otherwise nn elementary, middle, and high school named after Martin Luther King, a President, a Senator, or some other notable person would also be notable. Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Soltak | Talk 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, in hindsight, you are right and I'm wrong. Vote changed to Delete -Seinfreak37 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I won you over ;-) Soltak | Talk 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; being named after a notable person just doesn't make you notable yourself.
Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Inadequate references, so the article automatically fails. Also, no evidence of notability is presented. WMMartin 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the way the article refers to "an institute of primary education" is cute, though: at first the wording fooled me into thinking I was looking at an article about a teacher training college. WMMartin 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unverifiable, unnotable and unmaintainable list. Only arguments to keep were based on
WP:ILIKEIT, not on policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Sublime bootlegs

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

This subject matter is not notable; no sources exist discussing it. Wikipedia is not a mirror of whatever database this was stolen from. Salad Days 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: What in the hell? (I presume there was once some band called "Sublime?") An indiscriminate list covering only a couple of years in the mid-nineties for a known band would be barnacle-level cruft, never mind this. Get rid of it.
RGTraynor 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This should be on a fansite, not Wikipedia. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I created this page to unclutter the
Indolences 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Do Not Delete This article was helpful to at least one person and therefore should stay. Although a full list of almost any band's bootlegs is close to impossible, taking into account personal recordings of live shows, this covers many of the major Sublime bootlegs and helped in my search to actually acquire old Sublime bootleg albums.

Is acquring old bootleg albums the point of Wikipedia? Salad Days 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!! This page was very helpful to learn more about Sublime, their history, where they came from, and what music is out there that I don't know about. Please save this page!!

Merge to Sublime article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Cavallari

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

Self-created page about a person that is most probably not sufficiently notable Travelbird 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO --
Nevhood 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the only claim to notability (the documentary) does not appear to exist. ... discospinster _talk 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. The name "Tony Cavallari" is more notable as a member of H. P. Lovecraft (band) in 1968, and user attention/cleanup should go to other articles. ^{-Wikid77 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)}[reply
]

Blanked by the author himself, I see, on February 20: no resistance to deletion.^-Wikid77 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian j wardyga

Brian j wardyga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another most likely self-created page about an unknown teacher Travelbird 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per
Nevhood 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing in this article shows why he's notable. Google search for Brian+Wardyga does not result in anything in the first 5 pages that would meet
WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as per {{
db-bio}}. I had this page watched once I saw it created; I was just waiting for the incessant edits to stop for long enough to tag it as a CSD. --DeLarge 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:BIO Mr Stephen 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete CSD 7. --Descendall 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, speedy merge –
Qxz 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Buna Lawrie

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

Contested prod. Original prod reason: importance or significance, could be merged with/redirect to the band article? (the band article being
Qxz 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Qxz, I apologize for reverting your attempt, I did not know what the correct thing to do was, and did not see your message to me on my talk page until after attempting to fix the article. It is OK with me if the Buna Lawrie article is merged with the Coloured Stone article, with a redirect so people looking for Buna Lawrie will at least get some info. I have very little info on Buna himself, and rather more info on the band, so this does seem appropriate. S. M. Sullivan 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge. This article isn't up for deletion. Close this AfD, put up some merger tags and discuss on the article talk pages. --Wafulz 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with more sections than I care to cite by name of
WP:CSD. Mostly, patent nonsense - last version was the bio of a Major League Baseball player for a fictitious team - and earlier versions in the history suggest hoax or attack page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Barron Harms

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

There are a few subtle details in this article, when read closely, that indicate that it may be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious hoax. --Wafulz 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources can be found. Original version of the article says a lot –
Qxz 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeshua De Horta

Jeshua De Horta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable, contested prod. Google search for "Jeshua De Horta" in quotes yields 11 results, non of which are "non trivial works", as per
autobiography as well. Natalie 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, not enough
attribution. --Wafulz 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

To whom it may concern: My name is Jeshua De Horta, and as this may seem as self-advertising, I am indeed trying to link my role in expanding the article "Alfred the Great", a note worthy figure, and my contribution in producing a film on his life. This film did several TV runs as well across the US all of which can be verified by imdb.com which I find to be a reliable website. I am not to familiar with how else to verify this but I think in 100 years if someone is searching for information on Alfred the Great and would like to see a film based on his life, they will be able to find information on the film and the person who created it. Jeshuadehora 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshua De Horta[reply]
The issue isn't proving that the film exists - I have no doubt that you are an actual person and you did actually make a movie. However, Wikipedia articles must be about notable subjects, which is covered in the
specific policy on biographies. Natalie 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom,
RGTraynor 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Imdb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not the case that "anyone can edit" IMDb in the same way they can edit Wikipedia. IMDb should be considered a reasonably reliable source because submissions of the main content of the database (cast and crew lists, etc.) are reviewed by the editorial staff of IMDb before going live on the web site; the database is not 100% accurate, but then neither are newspapers and magazines which we would consider reliable sources. (Of course, the message boards and user comments on IMDb are not subject to editorial control and thus are not included in the content I would consider a reliable source.) --Metropolitan90 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about IMDB, my mistake. My recommendation still stands. The author of the page should take a look at
WP:COI and if they really want to save the article they will have to provide evidence of notability not just existence. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Obviously articles often use IMDB as a source for cast lists and the like, but its trivia or biography sections are not
notability. When making notability arguments, IMDB is pretty universally discarded.--Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Located under "Other evidence of Notabilitly" it discusses: "The film represents a unique accomplishment, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" " end of quote... The story of Alfred the Great has only been told one other time, inacurately if I may add, almost a half-century ago, and this film can no longer be found in any country in any form. Thus that film no longer exisits as a reliable resource for people today. I would consider this a "milestone" for film as it represents the only viewable, attainable and present-day made tale of 'Alfred the Great'. You will not find a his tale in celluloid anywhere else, for it has not been done. I think the people who know who Alfred the Great is, and his contribution to the world will be shocked that his story has not been cinematized. 'Alfred the Great' is the equvilant of George Washington in England. And if not a single film exisited that depicted the tale of George Washington, and finally one came along, despite it's success, I think it would be important to say that it existed. I'm not trying to sell anything, I am merely trying to inform the world that this film does exist. But I appreciate everyones points thus far, it shows that you take this site seriously Jeshuadehora 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)JeshuaDehorta[reply]

"Comment". My name is Shelly I just wanted to throw my two cents I am doing an article for school on influential figures and I was picked to do my paper on "alfred the great". I actually found this article very resoursefull cause now I have a visual aid to show the class, I just need to figure out how to download a trailer from the internet but I still found it resourcefulShellyJohnson 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)ShellyJ[reply]
The above is user's sole contribution to Wikipedia. One wonders how she came upon the de Horta article, considering that there are nearly 400,000 Google hits for "Alfred the Great" and the first five of them referencing an IMDB film aren't this one, the first several dozen Wikipedia entries returned from a search don't mention it, and de Horta only edited the main Alfred the Great article to include his magnum opus yesterday. I'm really not liking the looks of this.
RGTraynor 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think I quite understand what RGTraynor is saying, I do agree however with Daniel J. Leivick's comment on
WP:COI this indeed would be covered under conflict of interest since I did write this article myself, so that is certainly undeniable and a good point to be brought up.Jeshuadehora
Jeshuaddehorta Okay I think I just understood what RGTraynor is saying, and I think that is a pointless accusation that has no support, wikipedia is a major site, it is no more surprising than someone looking up a movie on imdb.com, And we're not talking about the Earl of Manchester in 1911 AD we're talking about Alfred the Great whos a pretty popular guy in the educated world (he is the first king of england, father of the navy...etc)I. When I did research for this project wiki was the first place I went. I think it's ironic that we are having a discussion about posting things that have a significant amount of proof and your accusing me of something that cannot be proved. Jeshuadehora 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta[reply]

Comment You may not be too familiary with Wikipedia, Jeshua, but it is unusual that a brand new user would first stumble across an articles for deletion discussion. Not unheard of, but unusual. But it is really beside the point, since AfD is not a vote. The article still fails to meet policy, no matter how many school kids find it useful as a visual aid. As it stands now, this person and this movie do not meet the primary notability criterion: being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. That is the Holy Grail of notability for Wikipedia, and this article simply does not make it. Natalie 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The Wikipedia guideline on films, which is cited above, is only a policy proposal. It is not currently policy, as it says in the box at the top of the page. Natalie 04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie I appreciate your opinion and if you've taken the time to read my posts you will see that I have actually agreed with everyones arguement regarding the deletion of this post. I understand that "AfD is not a vote" as you said, but I did think it was a safe place to bring up arguements and discuss them. I have only merely brought up my side of it, and listened respectfully to everyone elses. Wikipedia is a marvelous website, and I would not want my opinion of the site be warped by the condensending nature of a few of it's commentators. I never defended my point using ShellyJ comment. The nature of my points, whether right or wrong, was not supported in any way by her comments. I would've expected however someone in the clean-up task force like you would have not wasted her time saying things that are "besides the point" as you mentioned, and stuck to things that are the point. I have taken the time to read the policies that everyone has suggested I read and I have agreed with them. I appreciate everyone who brought up valid points, in a respectful way, and I feel more enlightened now on what goes in wikipedia and what doesen't. And that I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what these discussion are all about. Not to put someone down who add their name, but to enlighten them in the reasons why in respectful manner. But if you think my opinion of what a discussion board should be after reading this is still warped than I will take pleasure in the deletion of my name from this site. Jeshuadehora 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta Additionally I have to say, that apart from making films and trying to post them on encyclepedia websites to promote my own personal gain :) I also volunteer much with the INTERFAITH counsel, which is a group of people who gather together from different religions and different races and discuss their differences in a peaceful dialogue. I must say that in my experiance with INTERFAITH that it is very easy for two people to disagree to "put down" the other person. And I think that is the biggest error in our world. I know this has nothing to do with the deletion of my profile, but figured it was worth bringing up while we were bringing up things that are "besides the point"...I do hope however that though you disagree with me on this article's relavence that you can at least disagree with me agreeably. Jeshuadehora 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta[reply]

Comment Thanks for understanding. Almost all of the editors who participate regularly in AfDs do so with the intention of improving the integrity of Wikipedia. Please do not take offense when someone points out a single purpose account like
sock puppet accounts to back up their case when it looks like deletion is imenent. That is generally why single purpose accounts are treated with this sort of suspicion, so please do not take it personally. Good luck and I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, getting back to the discussion. I am of the opinion that this article should be Deleted if adequate independent references to its subject cannot be found by the end of this debate. We need reliable independent sources for our articles, and the current references - a corporate website and IMdB - do not seem adequate to me, particularly because they largely reference the film, not the person who is the subject of this article. No objection to re-creation if better references arise later, of course. WMMartin 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Daniel J. for your comment, and in response to WMMartin, I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion that unless my article has more information to support than it should be deleted. My question however, looking to the future is if all my support needs to be found online, or if I can submit different resources... I have a non-local radio interview that I did, I have 2 magazine articles, I have a letter of intent from a distribution company stating where the film played and how many times. And I have several United Kingdom resources (reviews, festival playings, ...etc) that I just can't find online but have or could get in hard copy. Is this a wasted effort? Is there a way I can submit this to wikipedia for further review? I trust and respect the opinion of everyone and I am not here to fight this but merely learn the this process. (This is my first time doing this, so please bare with me) Thank you again Daniel and thank you WMMartin I agree with your points208.64.90.150 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshua Additionally, would it be better to make an article describing the contents of the film, since all my resources are retaining to the film, rather than having my name? 208.64.90.150 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta[reply]

This is getting a little off topic I will respond on your talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we may be getting a little off-topic, but I'm making the following comment here as it has some bearing on this debate:

Jeshua, one of the things you need to understand about Wikipedia is that it is not here to act as a publicity vehicle for you or your various endeavours. In my earlier comment I wasn't explicit enough about this, largely to avoid hurting your feelings, but I feel that I need to make this clear. I am very uncomfortable with the potential "conflict of interest" that you are creating. By this I mean that I think that people should almost never be involved in the creation or editing of articles about themselves or their works. Our job as an encyclopedia is to provide reliable and unbiased information. You may well be able to provide us with reliable information about yourself and your projects, but it is very difficult for me ( and I suspect, for others ) to take the information as unbiased, largely because of the source. Suppose there were an article about me or my work ( which heaven forbid ! ): if I made contributions to the article I'd naturally want to pick the nice references that reflect well on me, but I wouldn't mention the things that made me look bad. This would be great for my ego, but wouldn't make for a good ( unbiased ) encyclopedia article. The same is always going to be true when you make contributions to Wikipedia about yourself and your projects.

The best advice I can give you is really this: remember
Too Much Johnson he didn't bother about his encyclopedia entry, he just started work on Citizen Kane. One of the marks of great artists is that they let their works stand on their merits. People recognise quality, and react well to it. Focus on doing the best you can in your work, and the success and fame, and the Wikipedia entries, will come along when you've forgotten all about this debate. WMMartin 11:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Dismissed; use CFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:47Z

Category:Monrose songs

Category:Monrose songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD)

delete that Category not relevant(only two songs)!!! --Dave it 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Categories should be nominated at
WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (webcomic)

Avalon (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) No reason given by User:71.13.152.248, who should have been the nominator. --Kjoonlee 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact 71.13.152.248, so any arguments that no reason was given by the original poster are invalid. Go find another strawman argument in order to excuse your dismissals. True.mcdohl 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a straw man. You didn't provide a rationale when you nominated this, so it's perfectly legitimate for people to say the nomination was out of process. It was. Next time, please follow the instructions. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While 'I know the original author and he wants this article gone' isn't all that valid a reason; Mr. Phillips could get on Wikipedia himself and make his own case if he were so determined (and assuming this is taken responsibly, like it should, he just might eventually). So instead, consider this: this article contributes nothing toward Wikipedia in terms of actual encyclopedic material. I am of the mind that this article will NEVER be edited or expanded to the extent that it WOULD deserve recognition as a worthwhile article for Wiki. Given the topic of the article outright, deletion should be obvious - it's an eight-year-old internet comic with no notable history in the past five years, and the article does less to describe the comic than to describe what Josh Phillips hasn't done with it, which can just as easily go on a personal page for him (assuming THAT would even be relevant to Wikipedia). Larger and more notable webcomics, ones that have actually been popular in the here and now, aren't even being allowed to remain on Wiki, and an argument that Avalon has won WCCA awards in the past should be groundless, given that the WCAA article itself is up for deletion. At the very least, I am requesting that some consistency be shown across the board for webcomic deletion, especially given that this article deserves it more; this should not remain as a testament to nostalgia. I understand that this sort of thing isn't smiled upon here. True.mcdohl 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason given by original poster. --Kjoonlee 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If True.mcdohl is 71.13.152.248, then I'd urge him to improve the article himself, instead of trolling.[67] --Kjoonlee 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on... it's a webcomic... that's reason enough! No? (<-Joking) I didn't "get" what you said earlier. That's a nice bit of trolling there. -- Ben 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Firstly, the comic has won Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards twice. That alone is enough for me. Secondly, the reason that the original author wants it deleted is not valid given that multiple editors have contributed to the article over time. -- Black Falcon 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:WEB criteria number 2 (outside award). -- Ben 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This has been listed on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. -- Ben 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) -- Ben 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep: no rationale given for deletion. Multiple award winning comic. Nomination was most likely due to the comic's author recently posting in his LiveJournal that he considered it embarassing.[68] — Gwalla | Talk 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Nice find. -- Ben 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: No reason for deletion stated, has been published in print form. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nowhere is there evidence of Avalon in print~~ (indeed, a publishing attempt was made, but no ISBN was acquired and the resulting products were not of retail quality). Staedtler 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this it? -- Ben 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; that was a premature book announcement made by Keenspot. It was created before any publication contract was ever signed (and none was); that book has never been published. The original publication in question was handled by a startup company called Maverick Camel. Staedtler 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Thanks for the clarification. -- Ben 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I've seen the print version. I don't unfortunately own it, so I can't back this up at the moment. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D00d. I think Staedtler might have some info you might not have on this one... :) -- Ben 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the books: If anyone still has the book they purchased, I'd be surprised if it was still in one piece -- the binding was terrible, never mind the print quality. I have to admit the real evidence of this publication attempt is the stack of two dozen books on my shelf that I couldn't successfully repair. The initial sales run was cut short when the publishing quality was revealed, and I recall there was a significant number of customers who tried and failed to obtain refunds (it also says a lot that I, the book's author, could not get reliable info on sales and distribution). No ISBN was ever registered for the book, and it was only sold directly from the publisher, Maverick Camel, so I doubt any official record of the publication could ever be found -- hence my original comment that no evidence of the publication existed. Staedtler 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Follow the precedent of Starslip Crisis. It too has won Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, and has been published in print, and yet is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Any arguments to keep Avalon's entry based on those two criteria are invalid. Staedtler 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the AFD that was hijacked by a bunch of sockpuppets? Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can't speak for the reason for consensus to delete despite established sockpuppetry. Staedtler 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Starslip Crisis' deletion was reopened and the deletion passed the second time around. Staedtler 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Looks to me like most votes were to keep, and the result was a merge with Blank Label Comics, which is not at all the same thing. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been redirected to Blank Label, not merged (and without any explanation by the closing admin, grr). At best, then, Avalon (webcomic) should redirect to Keenspot, I take it? (Also, AfDs are discussions, not votes — quantity is irrelevant) Staedtler 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the merits of the nomination, I see nothing in the article to suggest this has any non-trivial, independent third party sources, let alone any suggesting importance. --Dragonfiend 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The comic is notable as one of several that contributed to the rise and popularization of the webcomic. It won awards, and was incredibly popular in its day. And considering how many porn stars, b-grade films, X-men characters, trivial "historical" events and personages, and slang-terms are included here and never considered for deletion, I think its ridiculous that THIS article of all the others would be singled out. -- Awakeandalive1 19:16, 21 February, 2007
Comment: You're going to need to find verifiable evidence to those claims of importance to back up your Keep. Staedtler 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Ben 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

"It doesn't deserve to be deleted" isn't a valid rationale for speedy keep. See
WP:SK. I do think the nomination was out of process, however. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WCCA awards qualify the comic for notability per
WP:POINT. Balancer 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
comment: Agreed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:49Z

Rabbit norris

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

Non notable and nonsense Regan123 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May have some very local appeal, but doesn't have the non-trivial published accounts to warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. PCock 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No accounts of notability provided. SparrowsWing _(talk) 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How can I edit this article to suit wikipedia yet keep it on the website?

You can edit the page by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top. Making it suitable for Wikipedia would involve sourcing it, at the very least. If this topic does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources, we can't have an article on it. Friday (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can i do to keep this page on wikipedia, because I would like to keep it as a sence of fulfillment, but i can understand if you do want it deleted

Get your own website, and you can excercise complete editorial control there. On Wikipedia, no one editor has control- this is a collaborative project. Friday (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent got a website Can we please resolve this matter and can i keep this page on wikipedia?

You can keep the page, but not in the "article space". What you want to do for now is add the page to your userspace. If you can find some references for this, then if you put it in as an article, it won't be as readily deleted. To learn about your userspace, look at
WP:USER. Note, things can still be deleted from your userspace, if you abuse it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was cleaning up other spam and did not notice the sources on this article. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Inglis

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

Puffed-up biography, sounds moderately impressive but no verification is given; notable verification was not found by my searches. Part of a series of spam articles that included Everest Rescue Trust, The Sagarmatha Limb Centre, The Sagarmatha Sherpa Shed, and Alpine Wasp. This one sort-of asserts notability so I didn't go for speedy delete. Other editors are of course welcome to tag it with {{db-a7}} if they feel that's warranted. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Notable per provided BBC article on his scaling Mt. Everest as a double-amputee. -Seinfreak37 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I'm sorry, you're quite right. I overlooked that, and there are several reliable sources given. I'm closing this discussion. My apologies. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -
Daniel.Bryant 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Hillary

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

Puffed-up biography, sounds moderately impressive but no verification is given; notable verification was not found by my searches. Part of a series of spam articles that included Everest Rescue Trust, The Sagarmatha Limb Centre, The Sagarmatha Sherpa Shed, and Alpine Wasp. This one sort-of asserts notability so I didn't go for speedy delete. Other editors are of course welcome to tag it with {{db-a7}} if they feel that's warranted. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You're joking, right? Maybe not quite as notable as his father, but still probably one of the world's top ten mountaineers. I wonder about your searches for notable verification; the first page of ghits for "Peter Hillary"+mountaineer" turns up National Geographic. if you'd prefer "Peter Hillary"+Antarctic, you get ABC news, and "Peter Hillary"+Everest gets you NPR. Take your pick. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Grutness. Could do with some sources, tidying up, and perhaps a little toning down in places, but there's no way it should be deleted. -- Avenue 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Grutness. --Limegreen 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoolProp Method

Not remotely notable outside the sims. Absolutely no reason for this to exist. There are plenty of fansites which cover this information, you won't find any independent reliable articles dedicated to this subject.
Crossmr 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. Perhaps merge into an article on The Sims. PCock 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is
not a video game guide. -- Satori Son 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

May be deleted if a short description/explanation (and maybe a reference link to a tutorial(?)) is added to The Sims 2 article. To 'boolprop' (as in 'to cheat by using the boolprop method', like used on the main Sims 2 article) is a common term in Sim fandom and its meaning might not be apparant to outsiders. Sgeureka 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - un-refed trivia NBeale 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:50Z

Het Smut

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

This article appears to be a legitimate article copy-pasted-then-modified to become a nonsense entry; searching for the phrase "Het Smut" turns up, understandably, more sex-related hits than motorcycle hits. I was unsure if it qualified for a speedy deletion, so I brought it up here. —TangentCube /c /t 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedy as patent nonsense. And fictional in this case seems to be in the creator's mind. Flyguy649 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the discussion page, Het Smut is a character who was recently featured in an issue of The New Fake and Dumb News. It seems as if a fan has taken it upon his/herself to create this article for said character. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted, if someone types in "Het Smut" they are probably looking for stuff about Het Smut. --Gorak 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable for a fictional character. --Bejnar 08:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Prodego ^talk 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Destruction of The Ultimate Warrior

WWE DVD's are not-notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a website what lists DVD's; it is an information source that is meant to given people information. This article does give people info; but it is pure-fancruft. Films are all sorts of different things, WWE DVD's (of this type) go through the same format of reviewing somebody's career.
I'm also nominating:

20 Years Too Soon: The Superstar Billy Graham Story

Andre The Giant (DVD)

Bloodbath: Wrestling's Most Incredible Steel Cage Matches

Bloodsport - ECW's Most Violent Matches

Born To Controversy: The Roddy Piper Story

Bret "Hit Man" Hart: The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be

Brian Pillman: Loose Cannon

Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology

Mick Foley's Greatest Hits And Misses

Rey Mysterio: 619

The Rise and Fall of ECW

Shawn Michaels: Boyhood Dream

The History of the WWE Championship

The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection

The Undertaker: This Is My Yard

Tombstone: The History of The Undertaker

Viva Las Divas of the WWE

WWE Divas Do New York

I might not of completed this delete request, can you check for me if I haven't. Davnel03 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Self-Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior, Relist all others. There are at least three reviews of the Ultimate Warrior DVD in the wild[69][70][71], thereby passing
WP:N, and notability (or non-notability) is not an automatic given with any of these titles. hateless 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep All of these are more then notable. Kris Classic 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep They are useful reference points. Darrenhusted 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All are notable, except maybe the Divas one. TJ Spyke 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is demonstrated here. — MichaelLinnear 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless notable reviews (or mentions) of them can be found, they should probably be deleted. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a DVD guide, just because people like it. I know there's a guideline about like it, I can't think of the name right now though. RobJ1981 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various I'm not sure if a mass nomination is the right thing here. I don't think most of these need their own pages, violating WP:NOT (directory, indiscriminate info). It's very hard for me to give a clear vote, but I would Weak Keep the Warrior DVD due to its nature and various lawsuits/etc., Merge/Redirect most of the biographical ones, which basically are just a match listing and borderline spam. The biographical ones are just rehashes of amazon.com listings. Delete the Diva DVDs, WWE Championship, ECW (Violent matches) and Steel Cage. Merge "Rise and Fall of ECW", since their history is well documented on the main pages. That should cover them all, but I think portions of this should be relisted. I think the Diva ones should go for sure, I don't think there's a big listing of all the Playboy DVDs anywhere. Booshakla 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Fake TV wrestling cruft~~ lacks sources to prove notability. Edison 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user above obviously already dislikes wrestling, so I feel his comment should not considered. Kris Classic 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like TV wrestling. It was better in the old days when it was lower budget. The article still lacks good sources. Notability is not determined by whether I like it. Edison 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep most of these are biographical in nature dealing with the careers/history of the subjects who all meet the notability requirement, they are produced by the number one wrestling company in the world sold through some of the biggest US & International DVD retail chains so they're not "insignificant" either, I agree that some of them could be expanded but that's a different matter MPJ-DK 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are fine for wiki also some of them have been played on Sky Sports in the UK. Also I watched Bret Hart one on TWC about a month ago now. Govvy 09:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In response to MPJ-DK: Playboy and other entertainment is also sold in major retail: there isn't mass articles of Playboy DVDs listed here. Same goes for all the sports DVDs (for major events, bloopers and so on). Being sold in major retailers isn't enough to support keeping them. RobJ1981 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do the playboy DVDs have bios on the people in them? are there documentaries? The fact that they're produced by the biggest wrestling company in the world, mainly about people who qualify as "Notable" and sold world wide in major retail stores certain adds to the "notabilty" of the product, considering that the decission to delete a lot of RoH DVDs was "well they're a fringe wrestling product". Add to the fact that some have been shown in the UK and elsewhere and I'd say that most of these DVDs do in fact warrant an entry - one big collective list or individual pages, whichever. And in closing, what there is or isn't for Playboy isn't really relevant in this conversation at all that's like saying "Well they don't close the schools because of snow in the Bahamas" MPJ-DK 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Playboy: like WWE, is a well known company with lots of DVDs out. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a DVD guide. Also to expand about Playboy a little: yes they do have some bio DVDs, as well as normal ones. WWE has bio DVDs and regular DVDs and so on. That's how it's relevant. Some airing on UK: fine, keep those. But ones that haven't: probably should be deleted. As for "elsewhere", some of the DVDs have aired on PPV: that doesn't add much, considering Playboy has PPV specials, as does many things. Not everything on PPV should have an article here. RobJ1981 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd be in favour of more information on the DVD pages than just simple matchlistings. Whether they stay or go, at present most of them are not very useful. Suriel1981 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Agree with MPJ-DK. Normy132 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to let you all know, Sky Sports have got the UK rights to play all biographical wrestler DVDs. So all those that are biographical in nature could be played on Sky sports. btw the one's already played in the UK are Andre the Giant, Bret Hart and The Undertaker: This Is My Yard. The other Undertaker one is going to be aired and Roddy Piper's is going to be aired also. The only one I can exclude from that list for sure is Bloodbath. Govvy 09:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. --
talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge any notable detail from the biographical DVDs into the appropriate wrestler articles and make note of anything interesting on the DVD in the wrestlers' "trivia" sections. Merge comments from The Rise and Fall of ECW into the ECW article where they are not already discussed and the same with History of the WWE Championship. Delete Bloodbath, Bloodsports, and the Divas DVDs, since they are simple collections of matches and fluff respectively. --Dave. 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. These articles are really only notable as part of some sort of DVD buyer's guide, which Wikipedia is not. I have trouble imagining that these articles will pass this tenet of
WP:N: "a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources." The only unbiased and unaffiliated sources for these DVDs are likely to be product information at sites like Amazon.com, and maybe one or two reviews in reliable publications. Croctotheface 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this is completely un-refed trivia. Are we to have an article on every DVD ever. This is not
IMDB or Amazon. NBeale 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic fractionalization

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

Essay article that bears little resemblence to the generally accepted definition of the term "ethnic fractionalization" (see here) Cordless Larry 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a
reliable sources (it doesn't even appear in the references of the article). The term exists, but its meaning is entirely different. Also delete Ethnic Fractionalization (redirect). -- Black Falcon 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per BlackFalcon. Not either neutral. The author seems to want to make a point out of the article.Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Too many problems.--Sefringle 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and BF. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs used in The Sopranos end credits

List of songs used in The Sopranos end credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

per
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, this has no useful information Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete per
WP:OR I think. Danski14 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I was intending to complete the list shortly, and perhaps write a paragraph or two about the important use of popular music on The Sopranos and how each episode is noted for featuring a unique piece of music at the end. I realize that referencing this is difficult, and that me watching all the episodes and figuring out what the song is isn't sufficient. Still, part of the reason I created the list was that I had never seen any comprehensive list of all the end credits themes. Anyway, I'm not really familiar enough with the deletion process to know whether the list should stay or not; I just thought I'd comment to try addressing some of Danski14's remarks. Thebogusman 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is basically finished now, and I added some references that show the importance of music on the show, as well as one to the official HBO website that lists some of the music on the show. Thebogusman 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the choice of music for the The Sopranos is notable, as mentioned by several notable and respected newspapers/websites. The references for that are provided in the article in question. Good job, Thebogusman. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after it was created. Thebogusman has continued to improve the article (including adding numerous sources). Keep and expand. -- Black Falcon 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article is completed according to the creator, the length of time between creation and nomination is no longer relevant. Otto4711 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that there was nothing to add to the article, merely that all the episodes had been accounted for. I'm sure further citation as to the relevance of the topic can be provided. When the AfD was made, I had only formatted the table and inserted those songs that I knew from memory. Thebogusman 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it is true that the music of the Sopranos has been written about, none of the articles' sources mention the end credits musical selection. Two of the sources pick the "top ten musical moments," none of which are from the end credits, and the third is a gripe about the song selection on the soundtrack album with, again, no mention of the end credits. Thus no sources are offered for which the end credits music is the subject. The article does not explain why the music of the end credits specifically has any significance either within the fiction or in the real world. Otto4711 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're correct that none of the articles focus specifically on the ending music, at least half of the songs cited in both the Star-Ledger and MSNBC were played over the end credits. Also, the Salon article mentions several ending songs. Really, the majority of pop music on the show that's of thematic significance is played at the end credits, though there are plenty of clear exceptions. I do need to find a citation that notes this. I guess the reason I made the article was that the ending music is something of a constant on the show; the viewer comes to expect a song as the screen fades to black. Attempting to catalog every song that's played on the show seems much less feasible, and also less useful, I think. Thebogusman 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: the MSNBC article contains the quote, "The producers of this show have, among many other achievements of course, turned the playing of killer tunes over end credits into an art form." Thebogusman 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of which constitute trivial mentions of the subject. Notability reauires that the subject be the primary topic of multiple independent third-party sources. Otto4711 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source (Washington post, mind you), which in its last paragraph, though again indirectly, addresses the notability of end credits music. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:NOTE: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Passing mentions of a topic do not establish notability. Indirect mentions do not establish notability. Otto4711 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I have read
WP:NOTE a lot of times, thank you very much. Now I don't think you're ever going to agree with me, but maybe you can at least see my reasoning. I think we've established that music in the Sopranos on the whole is notable - it is indeed been the subject of works in several independent reliable sources. Would we want a list with all songs that are played during the show? No, I don't think so. (correct me if I am wrong here). Hence, let's take the most notable part of it. What is it? Well, the same sources assert that it is probably the music played over the ending credits of each episode. Henceforth, I do believe that the subject for the article is notable enough such that it merits existence. Hope you can see my line of reasoning. I'd love to get more third party input into this discussion though, that would make things more clear. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that this EW article constitutes more than a trivial mention. Though the article is actually a review of a Sopranos Soundtrack album, it devotes its first of six paragraphs to highlighting the effectiveness of the show's closing music, and spends much of the rest of it referring to songs that end the show. I don't know if that's sufficient or not. Thebogusman 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps just a Music used in The Sopranos would be the best solution. Copy the end credit info, and add more info about the rest of the music. This would be more in line with what the sources are commenting on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I had considered it, but was unsure how to include stuff about other songs while keeping NPOV. Actually I noticed there's already an article titled List of songs played at the Bada Bing club that probably has less justification for existence than this one, since it provides minimal citation and justification. Perhaps these could all be merged into one article, where distinctions are drawn between what gets played at the Bada Bing, what Tony listens to in the car, what the kids listen to in their rooms, etc. as well as the significant thematic importance of other, non-incidental music, particularly those songs used in the closing credits. The only problem would be finding outside citations that support all this. Thebogusman 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a rewording of the title, something suggesting only significant or important music is in the article. Sorry I marked it for AfD so early, I saw the 8 minute time lapse and thought it was one of many abandoned personal projects I have seen. I guess I get a little disillusioned sometimes during Newpage patrol. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions for a title? I'm not great at coming up with those kinds of things. I think that Music used on The Sopranos or something like that sounds pretty suitable. Thebogusman 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable television series, new article, plenty of potential and remember
WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

You know, with all due respect,
WP:NOT#PAPER is not the blanket justification you seem to think it is. And frankly, your popping in to various AFDs to "remind" people of it, as if we don't know, comes off as vaguely insulting. Otto4711 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - well references article that meets WP:LIST, specifically informative and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand per the above
WikiProject Television) 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and rename to List of songs used in The Sopranos. --Maitch 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic and informative list. --Aude (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Tigard-Tualatin School District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:52Z

Fowler Middle School (second nomination)

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

non notable middle school; I see no claim of notability here, and searching online, I see nothing special about it. Why did it survive a previous AFD? Who knows? I promise if this gets deleted, I won't start attacking community college articles (see previous AFD discussion). Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable things, and what little of merit here should be merged into the district article. Brianyoumans 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to
Katr67 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated, and references are inadequate. WMMartin 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement since last AfD and fails WP:SCHOOLS. No reliable independent sources, no claim of notability. Merge would be acceptable, but there's no basis for an article here. Shimeru 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers High School (Minnesota)

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

Non-notable school, importance or significance of its subject not asserted. Seinfreak37 21:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references/sources. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated ( unless you count that their team has "won some games against tough opposition" ). WMMartin 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated before forming this view, because the article has only just been created, and a case could be made for waiting for the article to develop. What swayed me was the observation that the article's creator is busily engaged in adding a whole slew of new school articles, and once he's created them he doesn't spend time establishing notability - he just moves on to the next article. I feel this isn't appropriate: by all means add an article about a school, and take a week or two to build it up to our usual high quality, but the wholesale creation of articles that don't meet our basic criteria for notability ( which, remember, is not subjective ) looks to me like an abuse of the system: if someone creates an article they should at least try to show why the subject is worthy of attention. WMMartin 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow the editor to develop this further, as I note that this was nominated for deletion less than 15 minutes after it was created. What we currently have is decent, sourced, and provides a solid foundation for expansion. RFerreira 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RFerreira. --Myles Long 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lynn Love

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

No assertion of notability. Almost speedied, but brought here because of length. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. Appears to have been created by a "user:rllove" and self-publicity is not allowed. NBeale 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hempshill Hall Primary School

Hempshill Hall Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject Seinfreak37 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated, and references are inadequate. ( Note, for non-English readers, that the previous head teacher's OBE is not particularly notable: hundreds , and sometimes thousands, of such honours are awarded each year. Where the honour reaches the level of KBE/DBE we should sit up and take notice - see, for example, Sharon Hollows - but OBEs and MBEs are largely for time-servers and minor achievements. ) WMMartin 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All schools are notable. AntiVan 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an exceptional school. In the latest Ofsted inspection an 'Outstanding' assessment was made of three curriculum areas, an unusual occurrence. Despite what is said above, OBEs are seldomly awarded to primary school heads and are given only for significant achievements; when an OBE is given to a long standing head then notability is inevitably shared with the school since the head achieves good results through the team they lead. Further, the School was the subject of a significant published report.
TerriersFan 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as multiple, independent and non-trivial sources are provided for this article, thus meeting our core policies and guidelines. RFerreira 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. --Myles Long 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:53Z

Charlie Appleby

Charlie Appleby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Charlie appleby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

File:Charlie56478.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

non-notable person, zero google hits, questionable if she actually exists Travelbird 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no relevant Ghits under any combination of search terms, and the Swiss Lesbian Organisation (LOS, not SLO) website

[72] returns nothing either. I am somewhat suspicious that it could be a subtle attack page.
EliminatorJR 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably qualifies as a speedy delete, either as a non-notable biography or a hoax. Or an attack page. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also, the author of the page blanked it earlier today. Flyguy649 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per page creator's admission below. Flyguy649 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this - I made it and it is a hoax - sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chem1234 (talk • contribs) 21:53, February 21, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Hawk Mountain Camp. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:59Z

Hawk mountain camp

Hawk mountain camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

New and Improved article exists at Hawk Mountain Camp Jmpenzone 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Redirect the article with the lower case m should be merged into the other, with a redirect left. A delete is not the way to go here.Rlevse 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Rlevse --evrik ^(talk) 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect. As clearly information has been taken from
GDFL, as all author history should be preserved. Duplicate and derived articles are therefore always merged (and redirected), never deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Can we speedy this? --evrik ^(talk) 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Rewrite. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Manoukian

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

This appears to me to be a classic hoax. I would have speedied it, but techinically there is an assertion of notability. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Rewrite from scratch. Google seems to suggest that this guy is real. JuJube 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Rewrite from scratch or add some refs. It might well be possible to write a keepworthy article on this person, but this certainly isn't one. NBeale 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic)

No Rest for the Wicked (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks any reliable third-party sources, so fails
WP:WEB. Sandstein 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A useful analogy might be an excellent but obscure fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm, such as
Der Gevatter Tod, although that too is an excellent and engrossing tale. Willow 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, the Grimms are very notable, but the author of this comic is rather less so. The artistic merits of the comic are irrelevant for the purposes of its inclusion in Wikipedia. You mention reliable external sources citing it; what are they? Sandstein 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have missed my point, so I'll clarify. I did not claim that Andrea Peterson is more notable than the Grimm brothers, nor did I claim that her story was "art". Rather, I argued that her story was better known and, hence, more notable than many analogous stories that would reasonably be considered notable, such as
Der Gevatter Tod. Two external sites that reference her work are here and here. She has been interviewed several times, which were published externally, such as here, and here. The story has been favorably reviewed by several external sites as well, such as here and here. These external sites are independent and therefore cannot be considered as "advertising". Hoping that this clarifies your question, Willow 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for providing the sources. It's not unusual for a webcomic to be well covered online, but the sources you cite do not appear to be
reliable - i.e., sources with a reputation for fact-checking and serious research. Although Sequential Tart, which looks to be fairly professional, might qualify, the others appear to be blogs, forums and other enthusiast-run projects. Sandstein 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm. From what I've learned in the recent flurry of AfDs, Comixpedia is an online magazine. The site readily agrees, and has such things as monthly articles, issue archives and cover art, with the more modern blog, forum and wiki elements on top of that base. (Sure, it looks rather ugly, but so do I and the site at least works.) Apparently it actually pays writers, and while the amounts are symbolic that sets it well apart from the usual enthusiast work. I think it should count. --Kizor 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but at any rate its coverage is trivial, which does not count under
WP:WEB - the webcomic is mentioned once, in passing. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The comic has actually won the 2007 WCCA in the fantasy genre, which was awarded this weekend. Epameinondas 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be true. It's not mentioned on the results page. According to that page, the fantasy webcomic winner is Sorcery 101. Sandstein 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading it wrong, sorry. :-) Click on the link, and you'll see that the "ceremony" is hosted by Sorcery 101, where it awards No Rest For The Wicked. --Kizor 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one børked award. On the results page, it says "Scroll down for the winner!", but I don't see who the winner is. The space below is empty, at least in my browser. Sandstein 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, works fine on my Firefox. There was some kind of problem a moment ago, you could try again. In any case, there's this. --Kizor 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that I actually read what my mind, assuming it to be an advertising banner at the bottom of an empty page, was filtering out... yes, I see. Lousy layout, this. Anyway, while I'd not have nominated this article under these circumstances, I'm not withdrawing the nomination, because I'm not convinced of all this underground-flavoured notability. Marginal coverage by subculture publications and receiving a marginally notable subculture award (itself still up for AfD) is less than impressive in my view – and I am a regular reader of webcomics! – but I'm aware that many other editors may feel differently. Sandstein 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a spoiler warning and the spatial equivalent of opening the envelope. Still looks unwieldy, though. --Kizor 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Truth be told, I asked you to consider it in large part because of weariness. I'm here to make contributions, this recent flurry of webcomic deletions that had just been abating has been increasingly grinding. Oh well. Too late for that. Also, the WCCA vote ended with keep consensus. -Kizor 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Sequential Tart and Comixpedia being independent sources, and the just won WCCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs)

This has been listed on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. 217.91.57.33 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply
]

Delete,
WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."-- Dragonfiend 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies
WP:WEB with outside award (WCCA). -- Ben 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WEB uses as a guideline "has won a well-known and independent award." This is in no way a well-known award. In seven years it has barely managed to attract the notice of third-party reputable sources. These exceedingly minor awards were given away again this past weekend, with no sign that any news organization noticed. --Dragonfiend 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. As I have pointed out, it is undeniably a well-known and independent award. As I have also pointed out,
WP:V is trivially satisfied for content about a webcomic itself. Balancer 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Well reviewed and awarded comic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating every page below for deletion.

List of number-one singles in 1966 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1980 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1981 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1982 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1983 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1984 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1985 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1986 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1987 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1988 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1989 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1990 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1991 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1992 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1993 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1994 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1995 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1996 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1997 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1998 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 1999 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2000 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2001 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2002 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2003 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2004 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2005 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2006 (NZ)

List of number-one singles in 2007 (NZ)

List of number-one albums in 2005 (NZ)

List of number-one albums in 2006 (NZ)

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 1996

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2001

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2002

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2004

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2006
(redirect)

New Zealand Top 20 Singles of 2006

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2000

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2001

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2002

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2003

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2004

New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2005

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a music almanac, and we shouldn't be in the business of keeping track of every top-n-songs list ever published. All the articles I've nominated are nothing but the list, no commentary, no explanation of the importance of the particular list, and as far as I can tell, none of these lists are linked from anywhere else. There's a copyvio issue here too: although the articles may not be cut & paste from the published list, the assembly of the list constitutes a creative act, and republishing the list in full is violating the copyright of the lists themselves. With no commentary or other use of the lists at all, there is no reason to think it's fair to use those lists in this way. Also, there is a direct precedent: see
WP:PRODs. Delete all. Mango juice^talk 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Kill em all per nom.
Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep An absolutely essential addition to wikipedia that I have used as a reference time and time again.
Triangle e 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The fact that you've used it as a reference
Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The reasons I gave for its keep hardly falls under the guidelines that you presented under
Triangle e 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, fair enough. Maybe ILIKEIT was a bad idea. But I still don't consider the fact that someone, somewhere has got some information from it as a valid reason.
Veinor
[[Userhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamp_talk:Veinor|^{(talk to me)}]] 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A better rebuttal is
WP:USEFUL. Just because information is useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. In fact, Wikisource is full of that kind of information. Mango juice^talk 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Then a better tag would have been to request that the articles be MOVED to wikisource. If these pages are deleted, we've lost a very good resource.
Triangle e 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's what you prefer, say so. Personally, I prefer deletion because of the copyright issue. Also, I'm not actually sure this kind of thing really belongs on Wikisource -- are there similar entries over there? Mango juice^talk 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say so at the time - I'd never heard of wikisource! Having looked over there, I still can't work out what the hell it's supposed to be anyway. It looks like a collection of notebook scraps. There are a few websites dedicated to these sorts of lists for UK / US statistics and copyright does not appear to be an issue for these (for example see polyhex.com and everyhit.com) so it's unlikely that there would be copyright issues for the NZ ones.
Triangle e 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do not suggest moving things to a sister project until you have read thier inclusion policy. This would not be acceptable on Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete All as per nom. - WeniWidiWiki 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I'd hardly call a list of #1 records to be "indiscriminate". Teemu08 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The Argument seems to be that US Top 10 or top 100 is ok, and other countries are "indiscriminate". Who is the copyright holder? Top in sales is a non-copyrightable fact, whereas
List of number-one hits (United States). This is an example of bias towards the USA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as verifiable and relatively discriminate things. A collection of the highest-selling songs in a given country in a given year is hardly indiscriminate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as verifiable and discriminate list, per BigHaz only if Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is correct that there is no copyvio. If it does violate copyright, then of course, delete. -- Black Falcon 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discriminate and useful, unless there is a proven copyvio. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - will add comment in a few but I stand by my keeping the lists especially since the Australian and a lot of the US charts are kept on the wikipedia.
RIANZ 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Wikipedia is an almanac. Lists comply with
WP:LISTV
. Selection consistent (discriminate) with definition of scope. If there is copyright problem, please send it to the appropriate forum. -- User:Docu

Keep While the New Zealand music industry is small compared to the US, UK and World Charts to delete this would be to discriminate against a country on the basis of its size, and that should not be exercised. To delete this but keep the US chart logs would set a presidence: it is acceptable to delete
Russian Federation... -- Greaser 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per reasons stated earlier. --IvanKnight69 12:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all number-ones lists. Same lists as other music markets (US, UK, AUS). Not sure about the Top 50 ones. Crumbsucker 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep useful and interesting page. If deleting this, why not delete all the other music/chart pages?

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Days of our Lives actors

List of Days of our Lives actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Useless list thrown together by a
Talk Contrib 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as redundant to
Days of our Lives#Cast. However, note that this article used to be in better shape (see this). -- Black Falcon 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete yet another redundant page. Wryspy 09:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsumoto

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

The result was delete as
original research. KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Aku Soku Zan

I don't get the point of this article. It talks about the concept but provides no sources (other than the cultural references trivia) and no literature that discusses this. It seems to be
Wikipedia:Original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not original research, but I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. Joe routt (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the content is questionable, and it's too minour to warrant a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'K this is a pretty darned obvious merge per the guidelines of
suimmary style split from the character that was never warrented. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It is a very bad
WP:PLOT completely even though it doesn't work). --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fairly unnecessary & described more succinctly on the character's own page. Merge the relevant bits and a-go. Papacha (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not worth merging, it is after all, a phrase. Hiding T 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rae-Kelly

Anna Rae-Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity page about non-notable minister; reads like spam. Prod tag removed by author. JuJube 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like spam, looks like spam .. Quack. No trace of notability given.
EliminatorJR 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per above Oo7565 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE BY AUTHOR:>>>

Wikipedia is full of articles of people who make significant contributions to society. This article is similar in content and grammatically superior to many of these. There is no attempt at vanity here; this is purely informative and demonstrative of the background faith journey and commitment of a highly popular Catholic Lay Theologian and speaker whose work reaches out to thousands of faithful across three continents. The proposed reasons for deletion here appear based on notability and vanity, neither apply as the subject's website clearly shows (has the proposer read this??). Is it because this is a religious topic? Religious person? Please advise. As for the spam claim, this may be a stylistic issue based on the content. If the deletion is based on style, please advise. This is a first time posting and can be improved if advice rather than criticisim is offered. - John Rae-Kelly (article author)

Comment Please don't try to claim that articles are accepted or rejected because of people's tastes on religion or anything else. The reason the article has been proposed for deletion is because it doesn't meet the standards that Wikipedia articles require. Here they are for you.
Verifiability - Read
WP:BIO
- no verifiable sources about the subject are quoted, bar her own website, which can't count.

Notability - Read
WP:N
- why is the subject notable enough? And again, independent sources are required.

Spam - Read
WP:SPAM
- the plug for ARK Ministries, obviously the subjects own, violates this.

"This article is similar in content...." No, it isn't because pages that remain must assert verifiability and notability. Please also read
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

"...and gramatically superior" Really.

Finally, try also
WP:ILIKEIT

And of course, if most or all of these guidelines can be met, then the article stands a good chance of remaining.

EliminatorJR 12:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

There's also
WP:COI to bear in mind. Ohconfucius 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

RESPONSE 2 BY AUTHOR:>>>

Thank you for the excellent advice and even the occasional terse editorial comment (ergo "really"). It is extremely beneficial to a first time wiki user to learn from more practiced users such as yourself. I assure you that the grammatical standard of the sample sites I have visited has been varied indeed. In terms fo your main points, I will revise the article accordingly and hopefully meet your editorial standard.

~~Speedy~~ delete as copyvio I was going through the article trying to clean it up and see where the various links pointed and if they were relevant as sources to indicate notability when I found Anna Rae-Kelly's webpage. About half-way down the page is her bio. Most of the article is a word for word copy of that bio. There is a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage. Notability is moot at this point - the article is a copyvio and should go. ~ problem solving 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:03Z

Nick Jonas

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Brothers

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Jonas

—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Nick Jonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Nickjonas0.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

reliable sources to cite material. No sources of notability. Prod tag was removed. Incidentally, the article has been a magnet for trivial trivia (favorite color, favorite movie, favorite ice cream flavor) and vandalism. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As one who has cleaned up the article and talk page in the past, and the one who put the prod tag on, I am (still) in full support of deletion. A similar article about another member of this band was already deleted (speedy) and protected from recreation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joe Jonas is now up for AfD as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in sources, and as playground for vandals. Ohconfucius 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jonas Brothers is now up for AfD as well. Ohconfucius 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - There's no consensus and I don't think that relisting it is going to inspire people to give strong opinions either way. Let's err on the side of keeping it. - Richardcavell 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Vulcans

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

Team played one season as a member of the American Football Association (American Football), which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and I can find no indication that the team or league were remotely notable. -Elmer Clark 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSeems to have been a minor league. This page has logos for both the league and the team. Here's a website for a group calling itself the American Football Association, but I don't think it's the same entity - it exists to promote minor league football, but is not itself a league. A google search on the name of the team yields more results than one for the league, but a lot of those hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors. Many of the rest are on the website cited as being the source (under "External link"). This link is some college listing all alums who became pro football players, including several who played for this team. The team seems to get some chatter in blogs and forums, but those aren't
problem solving 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Where are you finding all this buzz? Google turns up only 30 unique hits -Elmer Clark 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and several of those 30 unique hits are mentions in forums and blogs. Not reliable sources, and usually just mentions in passing, but interesting nonetheless. This, for example, is a forum thread discussion the possible demise of NFL Europe. Someone's suggesting that if NFL Europe folds they should bring the teams to the U.S. and suggests cities that could house the teams, including Birmingham. Someone responds with, "Man, that is all Birmingham needs, another pro-football team to fail," and mentions the Vulcans in that context. This is about a different minor league, the WFL folding, and the reaction to Birmingham loosing a pro football team. Again, in passing, it mentions the Vulcans, saying, "The Alabama Vulcans came about in the late '70's as a member of the American Football Association, but this league was not on the scale or caliber of the USFL, WFL, etc. This incarnation of the Vulcans lasted only the 1979 season." Like I said, notability is weak, but I think a case could be made for it. If someone could dig up these books (mentioned on This website, which has some statistics) they might be good sources for expanding the article:

Minor League Football, 1960-1985: Standings, Statistics, and Rosters by Bob Gill, Steven M. Brainerd and Tod Maher, McFarland & Company, ISBN 0-7864136-7-0

The Encyclopedia of Minor League Football by John Guy, Bumble Bee Press

But, yes, it is a weak argument. ~ problem solving 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Despite that the team apparently existed, I just can't imagine this ever being anything other than an unsourced stub. The sources ONUnicorn came up with are problematic because we (1) don't know what's in them, and (2) chances are good it's nothing but some ordinary statistics, which wouldn't make for encyclopedic material. Mango juice^talk 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Darren Daley

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

Radio presenter, notability not asserted. Not a speedy A7, but the notability is dubious
talk 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't enough sources for him to have notability asserted. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Parker007 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; it specifcally lists TV guides; I mean seriously who will want to figure out for their research what was playing on saturday morning? Parker007 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule discussion on this subject. The fact is, Wikipedia has a lot of chronological information on it, from membership in Congress to dates of various sporting events. This is yet another such presentation. Certainly daily schedules or individual channels would be a bit much, but the nationwide broadcasts are another matter. TV Guide, newspapers, other magazines have articles on what the major networks will be showing each year. This may not interest you, but that's not grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a novel navigation guide. Very clever. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. American culture is very TV-centric, and in the days before cable was so ubiquitous, extremely network-TV-centric. I'd be inclined to think that the basic network schedules for any season, at least through the 80s (and probably up until now), are necessary references to provide any kind of encyclopedic view of U.S. cultural history for those years. And the influence of Saturday morning TV on kids of the 60s-80s is probably even greater than the average influence of TV on people... just look at any of the popular shows now that are written by people who were kids then, like Family Guy and Robot Chicken -- knowing about the shows on this schedule is almost a requirement to fully enjoy those shows, and this page gathers them together in a logical manner. Pinball22 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is Original Research - No Reliable Reference - Infact No References at all. --Parker007 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research, there is no theory here, no cause advanced, merely facts that could easily be sourced. That they aren't now doesn't mean they can't be. So, that's not grounds for deletion in this case. If you want to add {{unreferenced}} to the whole category of television schedules, feel free, but don't argue for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the individual TV show articles are themselves references, or at least lead to reference extlinks such as IMdB or tv.com. Dl2000 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provides context for scheduling and competition of notable television series, also an effective index for these series by year/time/network. Dl2000 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_20&oldid=1081099287"