Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 11 July 13 >

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 Redirect NAC Reyk YO! 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mollygood

Was a contested prod. Anyways, this is an article on a website that blogs about celebrities. There is plenty of them out there and I do not see how this stands out from the crowd of these celeb-blogs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Fulfills criteria #3 of WP:WEB, namely that it is published through the very notable online publisher, Jossip, which has been covered by the NY Times, NY Post, Wired Mag, etc. etc. etc. Yes, there are plenty of gossip blogs, but this is actually one of the notable ones. Rockstar (T/C) 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then should it redirect to Jossip then? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Works for me. Right now, Jossip redirects to Trent Vanegas. That said, Jossip is well notable enough (with lots of independent coverage) for its own page, and Venegas apparently doesn't even write. So for the time being, why don't we redirect it to Trent Vanegas and I'll get cracking on a separate Jossip page in a little while. Rockstar (T/C) 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What was trying to get at is this: while Jossip is pretty notable, I am not sure if Mollygood, just being published by Jossip, is notable on its own. If you wish to work on the Jossip article, go right ahead and if no one comes by this AFD, I can close it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understood your original point, which is why in the Jossip article I would include a section on Mollygood. I think that satisfies all problems. Mollygood technically does satisfy C#3 of WP:WEB, but I do think a merge would be more appropriate. What I was saying is that because there is no Jossip article currently, we should just redirect Mollygood to the Trent Venegas article for the time being, thereby preserving the history and the information. When the time comes that either I or another editor writes the article on Jossip, I will redirect Mollygood to Jossip. Does that sound okay? You can go ahead and close the AfD, I think. But if you want to leave it open, that's fine too. Rockstar (T/C) 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tag for a

Review me) 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

"Forum Nokia"

"Forum Nokia" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like a press release, no references to establish

WP:WEB notability --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'd say this looks like a hit and run. Changed to Rewrite/Delete. It seems these spammy people put their titles in double quotes a lot. I'll change around some of the headers to the wikistandard. OSbornarf 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect (done boldly by Dhaluza) . — Scientizzle 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Lane Elementary School

AfDs for this article:
Maple Lane_Elementary_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

non notable elementary school

Denny Crane. 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted because AfD header was inexplicably removed from the article page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Iceland in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article essentially contains trivia-like information that are not sourced. Delete per

WP:TRIVIA --JForget 23:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bachmann Thomas & Friends

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

Prod removed - but I agree with the prod, so here goes.

P 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was moved to

wat's sup 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Article consists mainly of unferenced and lenghty trivia info of which some can be merged to Gilgamesh article. Delete per

WP:V --JForget 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • And that list is a bad thing in what way? Are you saying that this list does not & never will illustrate how Gilgamesh is perceived in popular culture? If so, please explain. Or are you saying that this perception is trivial? If this perception is trivial -- & thus non-notable -- then wouldn't the subject itself then be non-notable? Your nomination above is based solely on content, but instead of improving the content you decided to nominate this for deletion. Dislike of content is not a good application of the AfD process. -- llywrch 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jung in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, like plenty of other in popular culture type articles contains a lenghty of unsourced trivia material Delete per

WP:V--JForget 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment- I agree, this needs to be trimmed and it needs good references, while having quite a bit of interesting and worthwhile material worth putting back into the main article. Modernist 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this is my opinion, I don't think Carl Jung is as prominent in film, TV, cultural depictions, and steampunk as many other famous people (like Freud). Bulldog123 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've saved the text in
    my userspace so that substantial entries, when sourced, can be merged back into Carl Jung if this article is to be deleted. — Sam 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment When I see an article with cultural connections drawn to
Frederico Fellini, La Dolce Vita, Aura-Soma, Stanley Kubrick, Laurens van der Post and other stuff it gets my attention, and I really think it might actually be compellingly interesting, that is if the cruft could be eliminated and the really good stuff be elaborated on, edited and expanded. As it should be. Modernist 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is another article that contains a lenghty list of unreferenced trivia data Delete per

WP:V --JForget 23:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oh, just to be clear that's 2 books solely focused on this specific topic, as in their titles are: The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft And Extraterrestial Pop Culture and H.P. Lovecraft in Popular Culture: The Works and Their Adaptations in Film, Television, Comics, Music and Games. Canuckle 12:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although is comes dangerously near to listcruft, as per Cedars, Canuckles, and Guycalledryan, because it has independent cultural significance. Bearian 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) As per my comment in another AfD, this is a marginal and difficult case: (a) it is not obviously listcruft (the "I know it when I see it" test), (b) it has, or could have, more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references. I may be banished from Gaylaxicon for these comments. Bearian 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's clear that WP is going to deal with pop cultural references to Cthulhu somehow--it's an extremely common trope. But sections on popular culture inevitably become listy; it's the nature of the beast, because anyone can add in example that they've seen. The point of having "...in popular culture" articles is to isolate these listy sections and maintain some coherence is the main article. Eliminating this article is just going to reduce the quality of Cthulhu--sure as rain leads to puddles. Nareek 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody cites
    Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and I fail to see how this enhances the Cthulhu article. (→O - RLY?) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Constellations in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article also contains a trivia list which is unreferenced once again. Delete per

WP:V JForget 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Evilclown93 (G6). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 37 (North American television frequency)

Channel 37 (North American television frequency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page doesn't mean anything because there are no stations of this kind. Please delete. Georgia guy 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

AfDs for this article:
Harpsichord in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is another article that contains an enormous amount of trivia data which is referenced in any means. Delete per failure of

WP:OR--JForget 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge relevant info to
    P 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Merge into Harpsichord. No reason to delete this one; I get the idea, it's about songs with a harpsichord piece in them. Of course, if the article had been called "Songs with a harpsichord piece in them" that would be deleted also. Harpsichord is rare enough that there aren't that many notable songs where you hear one, nor a need for a pop culture article. Mandsford 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think merging it would make the other article too big. This is just trivia and WP is not a trivia collection. Corpx 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this probably comes closest of any of today's nominated IPC articles to having some value, but ultimately it's still a trivia dump. A prose article discussing the rise and fall of the harpsichord as a popular instrument, perhaps something that covers some territory prior to 1950, would no doubt be fascinating. This on the other hand is, to be charitable, not. Otto4711 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is not my cup of tea, but take a look at the talk page - at least one reader really liked it. Why cut off such readers' access? Opus33 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article violates the
    directory of loosely associated topics clause as it is a list of items with nothing in common with one another beyond the presence of a harpsichord. In some cases, not even that, as the article notes It should be noted that many instances of harpsichord sound in popular culture are not from actual harpsichords, but rather are generated electronically by synthesizers. The examples below have not in general been assessed for what was the actual sound source employed. Otto4711 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The articles aims, although far from there yet, do fit in line with being "Useful" in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: 1. The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria, and: 2. The list is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced. dissolvetalk 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course importance, i.e. "having relevant and crucial value"[3] is completely relative. For those with an interest in harpsichords and/or pop music it very well may be important. dissolvetalk 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete After reading this article and the entirety of this discussion, I was on the fence on this one. However, as Dissolve mentioned, it is a timeline of musicians using the Harpsichord, but I can't seem to see how this improves the Harpsichord article. Additionally, the article itself is unsourced. (→O - RLY?) 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is merely a list of every occasion a harpsichord is used; grouping them together is OR. Why is it special? Punkmorten 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I doubt it's complete and that every use of a harpsichord is included. What aspect of original research do you consider it?
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
  • It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It
    introduces or uses neologisms
    , without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
The only thing I see that it could possibly be is a synthesis of facts, but it hardly builds a particular [case], it's just a list ordered chronologically. dissolvetalk
On second thoughts. Merge anything useful to Harpsichord. The current title and perhaps a good part of the content is definitely unencyclopaedic. Also it is missing citations. I however think, given the activity and interest of some of the editors, that it should have been prodded and given some time before the AfD. Shyamal 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged. —Kurykh 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Tourist Shuttle

Gold Coast Tourist Shuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Appears

unencyclopaedic. Orderinchaos 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

* Strong delete Per nom. And I thought the article for Beerenberg Farm was pushing the boundaries of

WP:N, but this is beyond a joke. Thewinchester (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete per

author request.-Wafulz 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Guitar in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:NOTABILITY; completely unmanageable - should include, for starters, every Elvis movie, every rock concert film, etc. Doctormatt 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Huntsville bus accident

Non-notable car accident. Wikipedia is

List of road accidents
, and thus for Wikipedia.

It wasn't just a mention, it was widespread and extensive coverage, and it had an ongoing impact within the state. With fear of breaching
WP:WAX, articles such as the 2007 Melbourne CBD shootings demonstrate that that a newsworthy subject can become notable if it is widely reported to a large population, this is what happened with the accident, and in addition it has had influence after its occurrance. Notability is the perception of those to whom it is notable, and if a incident is widely reported to the population to the point of having a profound impact on politics it is notable for inclusion, even if it doesn't have the death toll of other disasters. Guycalledryan 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Melbourne article is irrelevant. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'd love to see it sourced and included in the article before I reconsider my vote. The article, as it currently stands, fails to make any assertion of notability. Resolute 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not saying that because the Melbourne article exists this one should, instead I'm using the Melbourne article to demonstrate that notability doesn't rely on the number of people killed but instead on public perception. The fact that this event was extensively covered on the news establishes its notability above other events which may have claimed more lives, both locally (and this having a continuing impact within the town and state) and nationally. I have sourced my claims, and if I get time I'll add it to the article. Guycalledryan 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scientism. John254 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific fundamentalism

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

Completely POV original research. "Scientific fundamentalism" is only used as a pejorative term by those who wish to erroneously equate science with religious movements. Groupthink 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered stubifying it, but the way I'd have done it would just have left a dicdef as I don't have the knowledge to write much more, and tbh my patience for reading creationist sites is too limited to do the research myself. But if anyone else would like to rewrite it in the next few days then I'll say keep. However, the article has been up for a year - if nobody improves it soon it would be better to delete and let a future editor start from scratch. I'll look at the Nature article from work later - if there's enough in it for a valid stub I might change my mindIain99 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Added The Nature reference (Philip Clayton, Nature 409, 979-980 (22 February 2001) | doi:10.1038/35059152) is a review of "In search of unity" by Mary Midgley. It doesn't contain the phrase "scientific fundamentalism" so it's not a good place to start. Iain99 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not calling for salting here, just deletion... but "recognised" by whom? I'm not denying that the scientific method has been critiqued, but who frames said critiques as "scientific fundamentalism"? I appreciate the cite that Iain99 came up with, but that's one citation of an article by an English professor in an obscure journal. I'd like more, please. Groupthink 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I admit I'd never heard this precise term before, but I have often come across the critique it appears to represent. A quick Google search on this/very similar terms, turns up for example, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (this and other similar sites state that the 'Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism' they quote originate in The Wall Street Journal, 1993), [18] (quotes a piece by Bryan Appleyard in New Scientist, possibly [19]). Espresso Addict 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those first few cites smack of POV phrase-mongering: much as I'd love to use the term "anti-choice" here on WP, in deference to neutrality I employ "pro-life". However, there might be something of substance in those last few refs, but is there really enough to support a whole article, especially given that "scientific fundamentalism" appears to be a
neologism? Can it really be argued that there's a formal scientific fundamentalist movement or belief system? I'd push for a redirect to something like naturalistic fallacy or science wars instead. Groupthink 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm a complete amateur in this area, but on a quick scan neither article seems to encompass the precise scientific fundamentalist critique, though it could perhaps be added to the science wars article. The 1993 date of the The Wall Street Journal reference, if correct, would tend to suggest it isn't a neologism. Espresso Addict 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 85 hits on Google Scholar Not as many as I expected (and I was even more surprised that there were only 619 on Google proper), but Google is not the sole arbiter of notability and there might be enough there for someone to write an article. I'm not going to do it myself, partly because I don't have easy access to most of the journals, partly because reading things with "postmodernism" in the title is bad for my blood pressure and partly because I think the term is pretty silly and wouldn't know where to start writing an article which took it seriously. But that's just my opinion - if someone with access to a university library disagrees and thinks they can manage it I don't think we should stop them trying. Iain99 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there's enough there to write a brief article, but I too have neither the expertise nor the access to an appropriate library. I'll pop a note to the History of Science WikiProject; someone there might perhaps be interested. Espresso Addict 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will withdraw my AfD nom and redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an objection, merely a question. What will happen to the current contents of the page? Shouldn't the content of Scientism be modified before redirection, otherwise it's simply a back door deletion. Rjm at sleepers 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary: Unlike with a deletion, the contents of this page will remain in page history. Plus, I'll post the page contents to Talk:Scientism with a note that scientific fundamentalism has been redirected there. Groupthink 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding a sentence to the introduction of scientism along the lines of "The term scientific fundamentalism has also been used to refer to similar concepts". The "recent examples" could then be incorporated into the scientism article if someone can find sources showing that these things have actually been notably described as scientific fundamentalism. The term seems to be less widely used than I thought, I don't think it's certain that they will have been. Iain99 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with adding the sentence. If we've come to consensus on the deletion + redirect, the discussion on the details should probably be moved to the talk page of scientism. The list of links that have been dug up here should probably be copied there. Espresso Addict 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Saskatchewan in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another cluttered, crufty and trivial popular culture article. One example from the article: Punk band No Fun At All's song "My Extraordinary Mind" contains the lyrics "Sunday afternoon, I was bending every spoon/Stopping all the clocks in Saskatoon." I see no importance in that at all. The province being mentioned in numerous songs and all that isn't notable. As I've stated before (and others have too): put the notable ones in the article and leave it at that. Don't branch it off to a massive list that is out of control. RobJ1981 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this info is trivial but we shouldn't have a separate article to act as fly paper to keep the trivia out of the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if contents of article is a bit Non notable there needs to be an article about Sask in popular culture, it's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article, and I think this article warrants no more than cleanup.JoeyETS 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article," in other words,
    better here than there. If the only reason for having an article is because not having it would clutter the main article, then there shouldn't be an article. The solution to trivial crap in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off into a separate crap articl and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

According to the

WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to avoid, for which the example: "Delete as cruft" is given: "The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted." Also, in Wikipedia:Fancruft it says that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." That makes invalid all of your arguments such as "Delete. It is cruft." and "Delete load of crap." and any argument saying that it is nothing more than trivia.Moisejp 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Retroactive abortion

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

A combination of Original research, soap-boxery, and neologism that is a fairly obvious POV-fork. Throw in bad-writing, tendentious argument, and other vices too many too mention, and this article really doesn't belong. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Casey Jones in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very trivial. A note of mentions isn't that notable. This seems to be another case of "it got to be too big for the regular article, so let's move it here so we can just clutter and list as much as we can". Frankly, I'm starting to think a policy on Wikipedia needs to be in place, so these articles stop popping up all the time. Category:In popular culture shows how bad this has gotten. 13 subcats, 129 pages in the category itself. While I'm sure some are decent and well written (not just a crufty list of trivia), I would imagine the majority is horrible. RobJ1981 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Gavino

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

Extremely minimal notability. Involved with films with minimal distribution, one won an award of minimum profile. No sources that I could find have text about him, except ones that are apparently self-posted. (Also, article is borderline copyvio). The "Golden Bone" award turns out to be an award within a particular small film festival, given out in many categories: it really doesn't carry much weight. Mangojuicetalk 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I did was to look and see if I could find any
    WP:RS reliable sources that discuss him and I couldn't. There were a couple of self-posted profiles out there, including one on IMDB, but nothing clearly independent and reliable. Mangojuicetalk 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I agree that the sources are not independent but there are many articles that use only IMDB as a source and they are not challenged. Self posted (or produced by a sympathetic party), undoubtedly; fabricated, not likely. It is not as easy to attain a level of recognition that clearly says notability if the direction is not a commercial one but it may still be there. --Stormbay 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but based on my search, there are no sources at all that we can use, so we can't have an article. But maybe there's one you can find that I couldn't? Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These same arguments were raised in February and successfully refuted. We must not confuse popularity and money with artistic achievement. The achievement makes the person worthy of inclusion. It may seem foreign to some, but there are some filmmakers out there who are not interested in distribution or web buzz. They create art for art’s sake. They create experimental films, shorts, and multi-media projects that are created for the art of filmmaking or to make some point not to earn money. The highest achievement in art for art’s sake filmmaking is recognition from their peers such as winning a film festival award. The person who accomplishes this is just a worthy for mention as the horror or teen sex comedy filmmaker who achieves distribution, web buzz, and earns significant financial return. Those arguing for exclusion assert that because awards are given out in different categories that this somehow diminishes the accomplishment. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of artistic awards, commercial or non-commercial, are given out in different categories. For example, you would not argue that someone who won best supporting actress is not deserving of inclusion because awards were given out in many categories. The achievement is being recognized as the best in that category. Those arguing for exclusion also bring up the canard of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. This argument is without merit. The article is scrupulously referenced. Every statement is credited to the source. It conforms to the highest level of scholarship. Once again, I point out that the arguments for exclusion were made before and denied. I hope Wikipedia takes this into consideration, and we don’t have to constantly fight this battle between art for art’s sake filmmaking and the monied interest.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]

I must disagree that the argument is vague. It is quite direct and to the point. The highest honor in the art for art's sake is peer recognition (awards). People who achieve a high honor in their field deserve recognition. I believed the award is proved by the webpage of the film festival itself. Whether or not the person has a big web presence or has done commercial projects does not diminish the achievement. The achievment in and of itself deserve recognition. Temporaryriches 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I should have said philosophical. Yes, good for him! I'm sure he deserves the award and I don't doubt that he won it (nor that the web page of the festival is good enough proof). However, my interpretation is that this is a minor film festival, and an award there is not enough to confer notability and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that no one seems to have written anything about him in reliable sources. Put another way, I don't intend to say anything negative about him as an artist, just that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate way to honor him. Mangojuicetalk 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have watched this discussion with interest (and commented above) and done some research. The IMDB entry is often the only source cited in many articles. Most of the articles concerning music and film use nothing but promotional and client friendly sources, and very few in that category. In this case, we can accept that a body of work, spanning a period of time, exists. There appears to be sufficient material to accredit his body of work and allow that recognition in the form of a Wikipedia article. --Stormbay 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Norman

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

I flagged this article as an autobiography 2 weeks ago, and no attempt to counteract the problems of

WP:SPAM, or establish notability/references from third party sources have been made. Eliz81 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Agne27's excellent rewrite. All issues taised have been addressed. Eliz81 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentThanks for taking the time to clean up the article. It looks much better in its current form, and really addresses the autobiographical concerns. Eliz81 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per

WP:SNOW. Richard 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Historical people

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

Random collection. No way to define any meaningful inclusion or exclusion criteria. --Latebird 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How dare you insult the notability of the wild omtay. It is closly related to the badger, only has transparent fur. Heck, it's even on the endangered species list. :-) --omtay38 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

wat's sup 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Maudine Ormsby

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

My prod, which I did in part because I thought this might be a hoax, was deleted because the person says it isn't a hoax. Well, fine. I still think it is not wiki worthy for a stand alone article. The fact that no OSU page links to it, IMHO, is testimony to that. Either incorporate into an appropriate OSU page and then delete or merge out right as nn. Postcard Cathy 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Interesting fact. Reasonably sourced (newspaper article from OSU paper) for a stub. Legitimate bit of notability--at least locally. I can see adding it into an appropriate OSU page but I can't think of an example (Does OSU have a page dedicated to homecomings?). Thus, a stand alone article makes the most sense. CraigMonroe 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OSU probably doesn't have a page dedicated to homecomings (and it shouldn't!) but you can create a subsection on the main page. Another option is to put it somewhere if there is a general page on OSU sports since, in my experience, homecomings are associated with (usually) football games. Postcard Cathy
  • Comment I don't think that is the best option. Having this on the main OSU page is absurd, and would be at best a trivial inclusion. As for the OSU football/athletics pages, the link is tangential at best. It would be different if there was an OSU homecoming page. It seems to me, the subject meets
    WP:V.CraigMonroe 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is something very illogical about your comment. If it is too trivial to put on the main OSU page, then why is not trivial when it comes to having it's own page? You can't be trivial in one aspect and not trivial in another, at least in this respect. Postcard Cathy
Comment No, it would be trivial because it would have to be placed in a trivia section to be placed on a seperate page. If not, where would you place it? There is no section on homecoming. As for being trivial on its own page, it is not. There are sources that deal directly with the topic, in a non-trivial manner. In fact, if you really wanted to do some research, I am sure you can go back and see several articles on the topic at the time it occured--which was well before the news was put on the web. These issues all point to it meeting
WP:V which equates to this AFD nom being improper. I really don't see the issue here. CraigMonroe 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You cow fetishest you! :)
) The cow is irrelevant as it is just a vehicle to the legal issue at hand. Postcard Cathy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Mmm... crufty. No giant press attention (as the article even states!), not anything to the extent of the

Hot Coffee Mod, and could certainly be merged into the main article. Really, all it needs is three lines in the main article. David Fuchs 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

How am I violating
WP:POINT? Someone in the other AfD brought up this article. I am not actively trolling to delete Oblivion articles. David Fuchs 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know, it just seemed like you jumped on that suggestion so quickly. You gave me a mild headache. You might not have been disrupting Wikipedia, but you were certainly disrupting me. Geuiwogbil 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your failure to
assume good faith gave me a nosebleed, so lets keep it relevent to the nomination shall we? DarkSaber2k 10:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Careful with your words, traveler. You say many things that sound like typical deletion arguments, but do not, in fact, hold true to this case. The meaning of words in the general sense is not the meaning which they hold in policy discussions. "Notable", for example, does not mean "Worthy of note". It means having "Significant reliable coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject". Now, I believe that the sources from
    WP:CRUFT" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and a rather contentious one at that. Geuiwogbil 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I stare at this and say delete it. I read it and I say keep it. I didn't think I could admit an article about topless women and excessive violence could be encyclopedic and informative, but I confess it is. The sources are there, the prose is there, I just can't find a reason to delete it. I'm torn, and not in "Teen" kind of way, but I'll stand with a good consciousness as a keep vote.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikipedia isn't paper and "cruft" is not a deletion argument. The article cites its reliable sources, meets our notability guidelines and our inclusion policies, so it's clearly a keeper. You guys don't think anybody would ever want to research video game ratings or hidden-adult-content-unlocking mods? — brighterorange (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple sources, definitely seems to be notable in the gaming industry Guycalledryan 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively long article about a topic that already is covered in the main article. Resolute 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about
    WP:RECENT? The main article covers the topic sufficiently, and there is plenty of room to add a little more, if you like, without unbalancing it, or making it too much larger. This article itself asserts multiple times that the changes hardly garnered notice from the public or gaming journalists Resolute 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy, not a guideline. As a sidenote, the essay states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are", which seemed interesting enough to me. Geuiwogbil 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Just because this is finely written should not be a reason to keep. Delete per
    WP:NOT#NEWS, which says "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". Corpx 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Can any of the keep voters justify how this is not a violation of
    WP:NOT#NEWS ? The article itself says "events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular." The only outcomes of this incident, per the article, was that two publicity seeking individuals used it for their gain (and somebody wrote about it in their blog). Just because an article is well written does not mean it should get a free pass if its in violation of policy. Corpx 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That criterion states that being in the news for a brief period of time doesn't make something notable. It says nothing in the direction of "if something has been in the news for only a brief period of time, it's non-notable." Zenke's article on the issue, in any case, came one full year after the events themselves. We "properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events", whatever that's supposed to mean. If something has "long-term historical notability" despite being covered only briefly, then it should be kept. If you aren't arguing the notability, you aren't arguing anything. Geuiwogbil 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that definition, any news story covered by major press would warrant an article on wikipedia. Zenke's article is the only one published this year specifically about this topic and I would consider that as an update to the story. Rest of the stories published this month only include trivial mentions along with GTA (which set the precedent). A search for other articles printed this year comes up with nothing else. This article belongs at wikinews. Corpx 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What definition? I didn't give any "definition". I'm pointing out that what the policy states can in no way be used to prove non-notability. It just cannot necessarily be used to prove the inverse. In any case, this is still an issue, as your search proved. Not only has it provided even more sources to develop the article originating in the midmonths of 2006, it has shown that the ratings change has influenced PEGI and given cause for reconsideration of the events in this month alone. That certainly seems like a set of long term effects, and this is not an update. It doesn't seem sensible to not cover this subject because it was the subject of media interest once. There is a straight line between Hot Coffee and this, or so it has been noted in various RS; trying to occlude that line, to relegate this to an unwholesome footnote, avoids proper discussion of the consequences of the Hot Coffee mod, at the very least. This event set precedent in terms of user-created content. That's long-term notability right there. Why the urge to delete? Why limit the coverage? I broke this off from Oblivion because I felt it could be covered in detail here, and covered in summary form there. A mere footnote does not befit this content; valuable information about the ESRB review process, about the rationales of the various actors involved, gives context and detail to what would otherwise be caricature. That detail gives a deeper understanding to a variety of encyclopedic topics, such as Hot Coffee, the legality and ethics of game modifications, to the ESRB, to Jack Thompson, to the nature of the media circus; that's notable information, if notability has to mean something beyond what
    WP:N states. I don't know what I'm arguing against. What would it take you, Corpx, to change your vote? What would I have to prove to you? What evidence would I have to show? How should I write this article, Corpx? What do you want? Geuiwogbil 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Zenke certainly thinks it's notable.

The speed with which the ESRB revoked the "T" rating should have publishers of mod-able games thinking hard about their priorities. Which is more important: a thriving mod community, or a rating you can bank on?

"Game 3.0" concepts, talked about extensively at Sony's GDC event earlier this year, rely heavily on community input and outside content to make them "sticky," in a social sense. Sony's Phil Harrison spoke calmly about the ability for Home users to mute offensive speech and ignore users with pornography-filled personal spaces. In that light, the ESRB's "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" seems like a gross understatement, the possibility for abuse too tempting for those with lots of time and little perspective to ignore. LittleBigPlanet is even more fraught with problems, as it is more traditionally a game. Will Sony provide personnel to review every fan-made level for offensive content? Will the ESRB? If Barbie-doll breasts can get a game re-rated, consider the dangers of introducing hardcore pornography into a LittleBigPlanet level.

While Hot Coffee will not soon be forgotten, the ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder. A game had to pass through the re-ratings ghetto because of the work of one free-minded individualist. Under assault from thousands of griefers anxious to share the goatse picture with everyone that passes by, how can collaborative games hope to hold up?

  • It is not your place, Corpx, to decide what's notable and what isn't. Titanic changes in the world can take place without anyone ever noticing a thing. When notable people do notice such things, reflected in a single event, and then proceed to make note of them in reliable sources, that should be noted. Notable people have decided that this is a notable event. That's worth more than your laconic "It should've, but it didn't." Geuiwogbil 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm not saying this is not notable! I'm just saying that this incident does not have "long-term historical notability of persons and event". The hot coffee mod does, because it created the precedent of recalling stuff. Corpx 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sections exist for a reason and half the info can be taken out - there are way too many quotes, including, ""No rest for the weary here!" said game producer Gavin Carter", and a lot of the other stuff is trivial.--
    folsom 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Haha, actually I was voting for this and looking at the wrong article, but hey, a lotta the same applies - thanks though--
    folsom 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No policy that qualifies an article for deletion applies here.
  • WP:PAPER
    . There is no technical reason this article cannot be kept.
  • Deleting this will create a horrible precedent for future deletions. "Crufty" is not a reason for deletion on its own. What we classify as cruft is extensively covered in
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    reasons. Deleting articles just because an ad hoc majority does not like it is a Bad Thing.
  • Almost no people will read this whole article. I'd willing to bet some money for that. That is not a reason for deletion though.
--User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything resembling indiscriminate information here, nor an article about Sonic the Hedgehog's favourite breakfast cereal, nor do I see

WP:N so well. 'Not News' wraps "long term notability", BLP and neutrality under the same heading, which to me says it's first and foremost a stopguard against potentially harmful articles and articles created from extremely biased sources. Long term notability is asking for filler-news articles to be shown the door or is asking contributors to predict the future. Either the subject intertwines with other subjects or has potential to cause other notable circumstances in the future, or it does not. This subject does intertwine with other issues surrounding game censorship, modding, maturing game audiences etc. etc., there are citations saying so. To pick the bones any further is as meaningful as spinning a bottle. QuagmireDog 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G1) —Xezbeth 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polypop

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

Hoax/Neologism Latebird 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 05:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Vidyamandir classes

AfDs for this article:
Vidyamandir classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced,

notability beyond a claim to high performance of students. Second AfD nomination, disputed prod, declined CSD due to previous AfD (no result). Cquan (after the beep...) 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

no prejudice to writing a sourced article with appropriate contentDGG (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Nuccio

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

This article is probably a hoax; it was full of contradictory information, and info that was simply and obviously untrue. Srnec and I have discussed its various problems on the talk page and removed the most problematic text, but the whole thing is rather ridiculous. All the incoming links were added by the same anonymous IPs who created this article, and they have since been reverted as well. Adam Bishop 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Brandon Toropov

AfDs for this article:
Brandon Toropov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person per

WP:BIO. Article neither asserts notability to nor provides any evidence of it. Karl Meier 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It is. -- Karl Meier 05:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voted delete.--SefringleTalk 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not familiar with the article's history.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Fâtimâh bint Fulâni is most probably another sock of Kirbyftime. I'm filing a checkuser. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't figure you'd want this hanging around…at least I certainly wouldn't want an article here about me in the current wiki environment. If people are out to get you, they don't delete your bio, they rewrite it.Proabivouac 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

wat's sup 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

HoverRace

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

Article gives no indication of

reliable sources. Whispering 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IGN and GameSpot just show directory entries; no articles, news or reviews. The Ogaming review; can we confirm that AhmedF is/was a staff member and not a user-contributed review? MarašmusïneTalk 07:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With some googling [21] I guess we can be pretty sure he was the one who owned ogaming.com at the time that review was up there. --Allefant 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is ogaming.com good enough though? But at least over archive.org the link can be used as reference, other than the deep-link I had found, and if we assume there really is the offline GamePro article, then I think there's no more reason to delete it, so I changed my vote above - better to err on the keep side. --Allefant 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Project Husker

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

Promotion of YouTube material; not encyclopedic. – Swid (talk | edits) 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of goregrind bands

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

Per the AFD on

WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of grindcore bands

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

Per the AFD on

WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Copper Tree Mall (New Jersey)

Copper Tree Mall (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small,

WP:CORP. Michael Greiner 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The history part may be false, but the building exists. (Based on NJ Transit schedule) Also, the article says it was a Military Academy, which was probably just a boarding school. Michael Greiner 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strip mall and academy seem not to be related except that they occupy the same plot of land. Also, the military academy article mixes info with the old one in New Jersey and a new one in
Oakland, CA. --Michael Greiner 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I meant that if the campus has become a strip mall mentioning it in the article seems sufficient. As for California, you're right, it fooled me. --Dhartung | Talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I got some information from a book. I will post that there now.

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of deathgrind bands

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

Per the AFD on

WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Narayanananda

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

I think this fails

WP:BIO. There are claims of notability but no sources cited that establish that notability. There is no indication in this article that this swami has been the subject of multiple articles in independant publications. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. The swami has not done much to advertise his books or movement, so that is why there seems not to be many 'independent sources' commenting or reviewing the books. Is it justified to delete the whole article on such a slim basis? His work has had great significance for thousands of people, though this has not been mentioned much in the English press or periodicals. Should a subject not be included in Wikipedia just because it is not well-known in the press or university circles etc.? As JulesH (above) mentions, there are a lot of sources found using a Google search.
    Toktok 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie hábleme 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobaila

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

NN. Fails

WP:CORP. low PR [22] Misterdiscreet 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) NawlinWiki 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Devotional Ministry of Trance

Devotional Ministry of Trance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible non notable group, sorted under Wikiproject notability. Article claims significant news coverage, but I was unable to find any mention on Google News and only trivial mention through a standard google search. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another comment Ohh, i know that. What I meant to imply was that the only other quick and dirty representation of the existence of this group was the very article itself :-) --omtay38 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Lichman

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

Non-noteable

Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He's a minor contestant in Big Brother and is predicted to leave the programme soon, jepordising chances of expansion. Dalejenkins 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

For example the mention in the newspaper in 2005, see the sources, well before Big Brother, and no mention of Northern Line in that. John Hayestalk 09:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He may have been mentioned in A 2005 newspaper-dating Suzanne Shaw does not equal noteability. Dalejenkins
Comment I quite agree, but when someone is known for two seperate things, and mentioned in newspapers independently of that, I would argue it does get them a little bit further towards achieving notability. If you don't feel that the various sources as a whole make him notable enough for an article, then by all means the article should be deleted. John Hayestalk 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - I believe he is notable, there are enough sources, but the article needs to be filled out. I would agree in it's current state, it doesn't add much to Wikipedia. John Hayestalk 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) John Hayes is the creator of this article.[reply]
Comment err, Rackabello said delete. Guinness 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is information in this article which is not appropriate for the Northern Line article. As a member of Northern Line, and as a BB contestant, he is notable enough to have an article. Guinness 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

H. S. Paul School

H. S. Paul School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I realize that schools are typically notable, but this contains almost no content whatsoever other than contact information and a website. Rackabello 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it has very little content at this point, but could you please hold off for a day or two? I'm working on adding more. Nikkimaria 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Except in some cut and dry speedy delete cases (which this is not one) AfD's don't happen overnight, you've got about five days before an admin makes a final decision. If your article is looking promising by then, it'll likely be kept, schools are generally notable. Didn't mean to discourage you, I only listed this for deletion because when I saw it it had no content. Rackabello 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one's kind of tricky, as schools aren't inherently notable -- but on the other hand, individual school articles seem to almost always survive AfDs (
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know...). Article at least features sufficient context now, so the reasons for deletion are no longer valid. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Dungeon Hero

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

No sources, predicted release date years away, wonderful example of

WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

While this article is very short and does not have much information, it is entirely backed up by references. This is a game that has just recently been announced and details are not yet bountiful. However, the article should grow with time.User:Bean23

  • Delete per
    WP:CRYSTAL. It has just been announced and there's no more details to it. Recreate when the game is released/has more sources Corpx 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and recreate much later per Corpx --omtay38 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was looking for more information on the game after seeing the trailer and when I did not find it here (the article is very much just a stub presently) I googled. One of the first hits was an IGN first look preview and I was surprised by the amount of information already found in it. Besides the basic premise of the game the preview goes on to list the quadrants of the goblin city, name some of the factions in the game, details the nature of innovation in the combat system and gives a description and example of the developers' approach to "artificial" CRPG conventions. I think the article could be nicely expanded by information from this preview, and of course from the website of the game once it is launched (which I think should not be far away, because the developer's website links to it on its front page). Also the developer's website lists two notable printed magazines (EDGE (Issue 173) and Game Informer (Issue 167)) that have information about the game. --Cyhawk 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My company was at E3 2007 and saw the game up close. We watched a well thought out intro cinematic and saw some other cinematic presentations as well as some animation tests.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bullshit. John254 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshit

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

This disambig. is written like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. Besides, how often is it used when it refers to nonsense? I have NEVER heard this word being used when not refering to shits from horses.

TheBlazikenMaster 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

wat's sup 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jaranda reversed his own closure to delete at the DRV. Xoloz 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring a theremin

List of songs featuring a theremin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is a

directory of loosely associated topics. The songs are not related to each other in any way beyond the use of a particular instrument. That the songs include theremin tells us nothing about the song, the theremin, the artists who recorded the song, how any of these things relate to each other or music in general. Otto4711 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Why do you expect a list of songs to tell you how the artists relate to anything? --Romanski 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a link farm. There are thousands of recordings that feature the theremin and such an open-ended topic invites everyone that makes a theremin noise on a track to post a link here.

Kkissinger 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see how the theremin's being unusual affects whether or not the list is loosely associated - can you explain? In any case, while the theremin is arguably unusual, it is not rare anymore. See the list of bands who have used them in the "popular music" section of theremin: it is quite a long list, and yet it contains only bands whose WP articles mention theremin use. If this article was properly done, it would include hundreds of songs/recordings. How do we address that, would the list then be useful, and how does this all relate to the existence/non-existence of a "List of songs featuring a guitar"? Doctormatt 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thus my proposition to merge. There are seven songs on the list, nine if you include the other two. The article theremin would not be so overwhelmed if we add in these few songs, right? --omtay38 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find no evidence that the first item in the list (Star Trek theme), featured a theremin in the versions used on the show (the link in the article's footnote is to some guy's performance of it on a theremin). The soundtrack of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is not a song by any definition, is already mentioned in Theremin, as are the Pixies and Good Vibrations. The Lothars thing seems to be a cover recorded by a nonnotable group, and Mysterons explicitly does not feature a theremin. That leaves the Third Eye Blind, Tripping Daisy, and All-American Rejects recordings. What exactly do you think would be the use of adding these to the series of representative examples already included in Theremin? Deor 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess i would merge them more on principal. Some editor took the time to find this information. Some of it may be useful to a reader in the future (and I do know that this point is arguable). I'm just always for salvaging whatever possible from an article while still striving to keep the masses of information manageable. Plus, (and i know this is just a personal thing) if I had started the article, I would be much happier to see my information merged than deleted. What's 30 or so more words to an article? --omtay38 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The theremin is no longer a rare instrument, and it is no longer rare for a song to be recorded using one. Take a look at the (extremely, and happily, incomplete) list of bands who use them on the theremin page: it is already quite long. Doctormatt 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was not to include songs by bands who specialize in using a theremin. Such recordings are still rare (and seems like they're actually becoming rarer with time). --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "the idea". Where is this idea stated? How are editors to know that this is "the idea"? How does one know if a band "specializes" in using a theremin, or simply uses one? Lots of artitst listed at theremin as having used theremins seem like artists who just happen to have used a theremin on some of their songs. Certainly The Pixies, Phish, The Flaming Lips, Jean Michel Jarre and The Damned (for instance) do not "specialize" in using a theremin, do they? Can you elaborate on this notion of "the idea"? Thanks. Doctormatt 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beckley

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

Not in "fully professional league" per

WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

How about providing some sources that confirm this cards great value. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless information is provided asserting this particular players relevance I think the article should go. As far as I can tell we cannot properly source a biography on this person. The Library of Congress may have a copy of this baseball card as part of a notable collection, but that doesn't make every player automatically notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Corpx got it.

wat's sup 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

James Barthmaier

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

Not in "fully professional league" per

WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. The article is reasonably well-sourced now, and it has been pointed out that his notability stems from more than just his candidacy in the Big Brother TV show.

Review me) 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonathan Durden

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

Non-noteable, failed

Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia about Oompa-Loompas and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He was only in Big Brother for 2 weeks and the article is unlikely to expand. I don't think being rich means you're noteable.Dalejenkins 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Conditional Keep - As said above, if the article is filled out. John Hayestalk 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think failed is a bit harsh, he left to attend a funeral. He had done stuff before entering the house and this stuff is not relevant for the BB article, leave it until the end of the series at least, and if he has been heard from then delete it. Darrenhusted 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair we can't keep it just because something might happen, but I feel there is enough in the article already (with a bit of filling out needed). John Hayestalk 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would disagree, as most of the information is not relevant to an article on Big Brother. John Hayestalk 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So you're telling me that infomation about a Housemate's life can not be included in their biography section on the Big Brother series article in which they were in??? Dalejenkins 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's like arguing we should merge all the information on
╦ 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes Dale that is exactly what I am saying, a lot of it has no relevance to an article on Big Brother, the Big Brother wikiproject is quite clear on what should and shouldn't be in an the housemates section. John Hayestalk 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published writer, appeared on multiple television programs, business owner. While just being on a gameshow does not necessarily make someone notable, it also does not mean someone notable for other works suddenly becomes non-notable; that would be silly.
    ╦ 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Legacy character

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

Delete unsourced subjective article that at least verges on OR. Either it's OR in which case it doesn't belong or it's a dictionary entry in which case it doesn't belong here. I removed the list of examples because it was unsourced opinion. Wryspy 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a blog is "by definition" disqualified from being reliable, you're using a strange definition. Certainly one that isn't supported by
    WP:V. The first is written by an undisputed expert on the subject matter, so qualifies under the self publishing exemption in that policy. The second is not self-published, so is not automatically ruled out, and I would say being published by a world-renowned university gives it some credibility. The third may not be about the "term" legacy character, but it is clearly about the same concept (even to the point of discussing the same characters, the Flash and Green Lantern, that are primarily used as examples in the article), and as wikipedia is not a dictionary we shouldn't be looking for articles about the term anyway. JulesH 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:BASEBALL states that "minor league players are generally not notable." Since he has not yet made an appearance in MLB, he is not notable. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Kelyn Acosta

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

Not in "fully professional league" per

WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense (former versions), a1 empty (current version). Not listed as a cast member of

The Wire (TV series) either in that article or on IMDB. No sources whatsoever. NawlinWiki 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Justin Doescher

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

Tagged as {{db-nn}} but the sole editor removed it. The notability is not asserted; there's nothing about him on IMDB; and no sources were provided.

ROGER TALK 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has anyone read this article closely? It's complete and total bullshit. Before Sumnjim edited it, it included him being an actor, winning a tennis tournament twice and defeating Doug Flutie in a game of basketball. COME ON!--Ispy1981 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability was asserted, as it states is an actor in the HBO tv series The Wire (which, in my eyes asserts notability -- you may disagree with me). However, I did some searches on google and couldn't find anything on this guy. On the article
    WP:POV. Insulting his younger brother (removed), and listing un notalble personal accomplishments as eating 10 hotdogs, winning money while gambling, and winning a pick-up basketball game (all removed). I don't think there is going to be any substance to this article, and the person just isn't notable --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment As I stated previously, I don't even believe this is real. I think the whole thing is a hoax, even The Wire stuff.--Ispy1981 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah as I was about to put in my comment, I had an edit conflict with you, and didn't feel like re-writing it, so left it the same. Since I can't confirm or deny anything, I'll leave it in until proven otherwise. If I took it out the whole article would say "Justin Doescher (b. December 19, 1980)". Would be kind of funny to see an article like that, but oh well. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Tarmac (student newspaper)

Tarmac (student newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a high school newspaper that fails [[WP:]] and

WP:N. Though it claims multiple awards, a Google search here shows up just one independently verified award here which is one given by a local church newspaper. None of the 'alumni' have their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, there are no sources on the page. Undoubtedly a worthy paper but I don't see the multiple reliable sources required to keep. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

13 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thorsby, Alabama grade crossing accident

List of rail accidents
(which covers road crossing collisions).

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

The result was Delete, non-notable bike club --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Bulls

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

NN motorcycle club. First hit is the official club page (which redirects to a Yahoo Group), second is this article. The rest are blogs and personal pages, and of course the WP mirrors. Clearly fails

WP:N in all possible areas. MSJapan 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Very weak keep What would pass for a non-notable motorcycle club in the Western world may just be the most notable one in India. Refs look good. Caknuck 07:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gash (slang)

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

Dicdef, pure and simple. HArdly notable. `'Mїkka 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

wat's sup 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion

2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A previous AfD debate (at a different title) was speedy-closed by a non-admin. DRV overturned this closure as inappropriate, and suggested relisting. Per the original listing, Weak delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Please look at the article now; I think it show obvious sign of notability Lipsticked Pig 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't think notability of an incursion or near-miss is assured unless the NTSB (or other organization, for near-misses outside the US) prepares a full report. Independent non-trivial third parties tend to take notice of full reports and discuss them, which is why incidents that have received a full report are generally considered notable. But right now it's a bit crystal-balling to say whether the NTSB will make a full report on this. --Charlene 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that WP Aviation accident/incident articles must wait for a full accident report. This may or may not be true, depending on the available information. TWA 800 was notable immediately, even though the report came years later. The article can grow over time as information is released once the notability threshold is reached. Dhaluza 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a vote, and that isn't a reason for deletion Lipsticked Pig 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted by Wolfkeeper above, AMASS might have almost caused an accident. So far its been established that, alerted by a warning from AMASS, the controller yelled at the SkyWest to stop, and it stopped right in the path of the Republic jet. Lipsticked Pig 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I just don't see why there should be such a massive article devoted to one aspect of one game. Looking over the

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, I see little that isn't in there that is particularly needed. While well-referenced, the level of detail to me seems to approach ridiculous levels. David Fuchs 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Looks like #4. Certainly is a large piece for one video game and its development. I have yet to see a video game article at FA that has that long a dev section. David Fuchs 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that makes me the first! Geuiwogbil 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 07:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Stansfeld O&BC F.C.

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Non notable club playing below Step 7 (and does not appear to have played above that level). Number 57 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of mailing lists

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

This list is unencyclopedic and has no hope of ever being complete. There are entire web directories dedicated to keeping track of mailing lists, and even those only cover a portion of what is available. Individual, highly notable lists deserve their own articles, other listings should be left to the web directories - as

Wikipedia is not a directory. Versageek 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Bilsborough

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

Article makes no claims for notability other than participation in a group show and the fact the artist earned a grant. About 1,000 ghits, 100 of which are from Wikipedia. Antonrojo 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Leroux

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

The subject matter of this article lacks

Siva1979Talk to me 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum He also has a town in New Mexico named for him: Antoine Leroux, New Mexico.--Ispy1981 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SecretWisdom

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

Fails

WP:V; article is nearly incomprehensible. -- Merope 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete, a1 empty in current form, previously g11 spam. NawlinWiki 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Ideas or Business Concepts to Market

Bringing Ideas or Business Concepts to Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically an essay full of unsourced original research. Created by newly registered user

MartinDK 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No sources, not written as an encyclopaedia article, quite agree this is a (poorly disguised) advert.
(Talk to me) 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete. Blatant spam. LittleOldMe 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stith

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

Non-notable church executive that has answered a few questions from the press. She has done nothing notable herself. Justanother 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: For anyone that thinks that her title of "president" means that she is notable; here are five "presidents of Scientology" just in Massachusetts - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - there are likely hundreds of "presidents of Scientology" worldwide. She is just someone that answered a few questions about the Church, she has no notability herself. --Justanother 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to the standard notability definition of "multiple nontrivial sources", she passes without a hitch, thanks to the research of
    User:Smee. Note that the question of her notability has been discussed on the article talk page. Shalom Hello 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Notability is pretty obvious from the many sources in the article, she is (or was) a senior PR person for scientology, and was introduced in the radio as the "President of Scientology". See also previous discussion here [30]. (Btw, I respectfully disagree that Steve is a "neutral" party). --Tilman 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that I was a neutral party. (I am defending Scientology in order to get the attention of Tom Cruise because I have a movie script to sell him.) Sorry I didn't jump on Justanother's comment sooner. Steve Dufour 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per

WP:SNOW. This is a major TV show on a major TV network, and deleting it is simply out of the question. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 13:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Around the Horn

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

This article fails to have any notability whatsoever. It's just a regular nondescript TV show that airs in the middle of the day, not some notable night-time show (like Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy). NBAonNBC 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom FoxSportsRadio 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sports fans that can actually play sports and this is a very good show that a lot of people like. There is even a Yahoo! group for this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.184.156 (talk • contribs)

Definite Keep - Look, don't delete the ENTIRE article. Believe it or not, despite not being on primetime television, Around the Horn DOES have a strong fan base [31]. Yes, despite the fact that the show has tons of esoteric material (in terms of what actually happened in each episode), it has been on the air long enough to earn at least earn a stub on Wikipedia. If anything, leave the article as it is, because it provides enough information to those who don't know about ATH. FYI, I know it seems crazy, but the show has aired over 1,000 episodes. Not even the longest running TV show of all-time has aired close to 1,000 episodes. Hope this changes your mind. Morea37 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepStrong Keep - This a very notable sports show on the most notable sports network. And I don't really know who considers 5:00 the middle of the day? Jeopardy comes on at 7:00, so you're calling 2 hours a big difference? I agree that it should be cleaned up (a lot of unreferenced stuff), but it should by no means be deleted. Heck, they just aired their 1,000th show on Tuesday, that sounds like notable to me. Bjewiki 01:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement - There's some unsourced information in this article, particularly in the "Points" and "Misc" sections. Some of this will likely not be able to be sourced, because they are just viewer recounting of events, so these will probably have to be deleted. Bjewiki 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nondescript? This is a sports talk game show. There are set rounds, a scoring system, winners, and established characters. I'd like to also note that in Chicago, Jeopardy airs a half-hour before ATH. I'd also say that having a consistant slot in the lineup of the very notable ESPN network for the last several years counts as being notable. This is a bad faith nomination. BTW, I hope you nominate

JRIB and PTI as well, just to be consistant. Because saying those shows are notable, while this one isn't, is quite lame.Mshake3 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

200% Keep - ATH is one of ESPN's signature shows, and deserves its own article. Moreover, what may not be notable for you, may be very notable for some other user. If there is no other reason to delete this article other than the "notability" factor, then this seems to be a waste of an AFD. Dknights411 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As the previous person noted, this is a complete waste of an AfD. As Bjewiki pointed out, ATH just ran its 1000th episode, almost 5 years of broadcast time...if it wasn't "notable" or an important facet of ESPN's sports commentary programming, I seriously doubt that it would have that kind of longevity. The sports columnists that are featured on the show are regular contributors to the newspapers that they are employed by (or were, in the case of

Jim Rome is Burning, or any other of the sports banter shows that ESPN regularly features, as Mshake3 noted. The article needs cleanup and sources, but deleting it is massive overkill. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • VERY Strong Keep: It's as notable as any of those other radio talk shows. AtH discusses many popular sports and pop culture topics in much the same manner as any radio talk show. I would actually consider this much more notable than Wheel or Jeopardy because AtH discusses very popular sports and pop culture topics, as I stated earlier, and as Willbyr stated, is a popular-enough show to air 1,000 episodes for more than 5 years. And based on your reason for nominating this article, should all talk shows be deleted? This has more notability than a lot of those talk shows out there. It's one of the few shows that ESPN has aired daily in recent years. There's never once been a re-run; every single day, a new show is aired discussing brand new topics. Many people view the program daily just to see what's new in the Sports World, which is evidence of its 1,000 episodes. ––Ksy92003(talk) 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 07:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Biaora level crossing accident

Non-notable rail-to-vehicle collision. As the article mention, this is pretty typical from India, and

List of road accidents givens a number of deadlier accident for the country, making this one thoroughly non-notable. Circeus 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Weak Delete In principle we're talking about a non-notable article with no functional references (I believe the link in that page is dead), but there's one thing which caught my attention and might, in my opinion, warrant its stay: the fact the cart's driver was carrying jewels with him when the acident happened. According to the article, the man claims the police stole them. Did this cause any sort of controversy in India? Perhaps this was important back there.
    It was not possible for me to tell with the state of the article, I'm assuming that any extra verifiable notability will surface during the debate. Circeus 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete I'd forgotten this was on my watchlist, I put there a year ago along with comments on the talk page to the effect of the nominators point. Accidents of this magnitude are far from uncommon in India and media coverage was virtually zero. Simply non-notable.--Jackyd101 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete : Nothing significant to warrant an article. Accidents like this are quite common in a country with world's largest rail network. --
    Ragib 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Delete, no verifiable sourcing. Hornplease 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even the article says This incident is typical of dozens of tragic accidents which mar India's railway system every year.
    WP:RS on which an article can be based. --Kinu t/c 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Д===

List of nu metal musical groups
===


List of nu metal musical groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Subjective,

WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category -- Shatterzer0 23:12, 11 July 2002 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy keep, no reason given for deletion. NawlinWiki 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Puckett

Ralph_Puckett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Keep - The nominator User:Dpressen not given a reason, so I cannot address his or her concerns, however I cannot see valid reason for proposing deletion. The only possible rationale would be for notability, however the article asserts notability in that COL Puckett is the current honorary Colonel of the Ranger Regiment. No other living man can make that claim. I almost suspect that it's a revenge AFD for my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Haas Was Right, as it seems kind of suspect that less than 2 hours after I make my comment a Wikipedian that's shown no interest in military articles targets one of the articles on my user page for AFD. EvilCouch 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy Tom

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

This article has remained a one-line stub since creation and there doesn't appear to be much room for expansion on the topic. Longhair\talk 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Whiskas article doesn't have any reliable secondary sources at all. -- Longhair\talk 09:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a couple of semi-reliable sources, but to be frank I don't think this article passes muster on notability grounds. Recurring dreams 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Evian Child (Passions)

The Evian Child (Passions) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced original research. Even the title is a fan invention without even reference to where on earth it came from. Fixits so far appear to be IPs removing the cleanup tags. Can anything in the article be substantiated encyclopedically, up to and including the title itself? - David Gerard 11:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:CORP. Kudos to those involved. Thewinchester (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Beerenberg Farm

Procedural nomination, article was previously CSD'd as G11 twice (but only one is showing in the logs for some reason??). Does not meet

WP:RS to support any of the claims to notability made in the article. The article reads as self-promotion, and there are also paragraphs in the article which seem to be copyvio's straight from the companies website. Despite sufficient time being given after the request, the requestor has made no edits to the article since July 2 and there does not seem to be any sign that further improvments will be made. Thewinchester (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment And if you can find some
    WP:RS to back up any of the content or claims, one has to ask the question exactly how long should we wait for this information to be forthcoming. The only reason this article is at AfD is because it's been speedied on multiple occasions and an attempt at a prod was contested in excess of 40 days ago (with no action to correct the issues). If the creating editor feels it so important for this article to remain, I would have hoped that references would have been added well before now. Thewinchester (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've done a basic search and I can't find anything good enough, and if I had access to Factiva I would have gone even deeper. I don't so I can't. The fact remains that all three incarnations of this article haven't met the required standard, so the question must be asked how long can should we put up with it. It's been demonstrated ample time has been allowed to fix it each time, and nothings been done. All I've seen so far are comments along the line of I know it's notable or
    WP:ILIKEIT, but these alone are not good enough for keeping it. It needs references to back up notability, and i've not seen any forthcoming. Thewinchester (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Current version is a copy and paste of promotional material, making the article blatant advertising. W.marsh 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkroyal

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

Appears to be non-notable, essentially an advertisement and copyvio (see http://www.parkroyalhotels.com/about.html). Hux 10:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.FisherQueen (Talk) 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peru National Football Team Results

Peru National Football Team Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a compendium of football results. Some results can be included in the team's article, but an exhaustive list of all results is going too far. Hut 8.5 09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Accu-Tek BL9

Accu-Tek BL9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, article states that it exists and what size it is, but nothing else. Google search also confirms that it exists, but nothing else. Proposing deletion due to notability. spazure 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (no, I don't think losing a game 32-1 is an assertion of notability). NawlinWiki 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Head F.C.

Kings Head F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This club lies in level 12 of the

Siva1979Talk to me 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Grint

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

Article doesn't show notability of it's subject or his team. No sources given and some statements seem POV. DraxusD 08:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of clichéd classical pieces

List of clichéd classical pieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely fails

Folantin 08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with Folantin. 143.210.182.197 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Santa Clara County Supervisors

AfDs for this article:
Santa Clara County Supervisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It has not been demonstrated that this local elected position is notable enough for justifying this list. Expert review

Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. The article has been cleaned up since it's previous AFD, but that has simply left it a list of non-notable names. Sorry, but not everyone who holds any elected office anywhere is notable. County Supervisors aren't exactly high profile positions. I'm sure I'm not alone when i say I can name just about every teacher I've ever had, but not a single public official at County level in my county. In addition, the people on the list who have articles are serious deletion candidates as well, with the exception of those who later went on to some higher office. -R. fiend 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Per
    ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete' per wikipedia is not a directory (of elected officials) Corpx 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I almost suggested merge, because most articles about cities and other sub-state level organizations have lists of executives (mayors). But supervisors in California counties are more legislative than executive in nature and so akin to city council members, aldermen, or such which one generally wouldn't expect to see listed in an encyclopedia article. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    John Vandenberg 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Mall (Kolkata)

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

No claim to notability given. Nehwyn 07:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is because you searched separately for the terms "forum", "mall", and "kolkata", thus retrieving entries that do not relate to the Forum Mall, but to separate uses of the words forum and mall. (Practical example: if we were googling for a Mr John Ross Geller, see for yoursef how results would differ if you were to you just type john ross geller in Google rather than "john ross geller".) Therefore, an appropriate Google search for the subject of this AfD can instead be found here, and as you can see shows about 500 results , many of them being just listings of shopping facilities in the region. --Nehwyn 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:RS is a bit weak (plenty of short discussions, but no articles devoted entirely to it) (see Google News search [33]). However, The Times of India credits it with changing the whole character of the neighbourhood from a residential area to a "high street shopping destination", which makes me think this content is worth mentioning there (though not necessarily the stuff about the mall's paging system, parking spaces, and tenants). cab 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would support a consensus in favour of merging. --Nehwyn 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A note to commenters: you cannot delete and redirect an article, as it violates the GFDL. —Kurykh 23:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Andrews (Heroes)

Charlie Andrews (Heroes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

It's an article about a Heroe's character appeared in 2-3 episodes (shortly the first and little more in the last) and and didn't have an important role. At the end of her last episode, she dies. The article is more a plot description of her part in the episodes -including quotes like "You're sweet"- and nothing more. Two days ago I asked the opinion of the participants to the

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes but there was not much feedback.One suggestion was to merge a part of the article with Hiro Nakamura --Magioladitis 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The thing is that there is much information that has to be deleted. If all the stuff is just moved to the big list the result will be the same. -- Magioladitis 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Flow (singer)

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

Non-notable singer. No reliable sources could be found on the internet through a search engine. (ie with the search "+Flow +singer"

Kylohk 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I also tried googling "+Flow +songtitle" where "songtitle" is the title of each of her songs, and I could find absolutely nothing to suggest notability. It seems all info on her is either on her official site, on self-published sources, or in internet forums. This article should be deleted. Spazure 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons.--Fabrictramp 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Definately fails
WP:N. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pan-Iranism, which appears to be a similar topic. Merge stuff from history if required. Sandstein 07:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranianism

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

This article does not accord with the

WP:NEO MoS guideline. Perhaps this should be taken to Wiktionary (I'm not familiar with their criteria), but in any case it sure isn't appropriate here. The Behnam 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete agreed for the reasons listed above. spazure 07:36, 12 July 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 List of Wikipedias. WaltonOne 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Wikipedia

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

There is nothing in this article to indicate the notability of this

unverifiable as well. For a similar Afd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quechua Wikipedia. Deranged bulbasaur 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spotsylvania County Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside Elementary School

Brock Road Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Harrison Road Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Riverview Elementary School, Spotsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Smith Station Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Wilderness Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Battlefield Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Parkside Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary schools with no claim to notability - Nominated based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. E. Lee Elementary School, which is another school in the same district Corpx 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlock (band)

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

Originally tagged for a speedy deletion, I decided that this page has enough information to be an AFD discussion. They seem to barely qualify for

WP:BAND, by having two albums. But does 'Kounterfeit Records' count as a major label? Also, this page needs some more independent links. KJS77 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks KJS77. I added many more external links to the page but only on the SonicBids link can you see outside source reviews written about the band. The external links with live photos are noted as well. The other bands that gave the motivation to add Wedlock can be seen at Dangerous Muse and The Rosebuds. The latter of the two has had slight success but the first one, Wedlock has surpassed. With these entries live on Wiki, I couldn't see why Wedlock wouldnt fit on Wikipedia.StacieVan 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) As well, understanding that Kounterfeit Records is extremely small, they have signed another artist for a 2008 release. I have still removed the links to make the Wedlock page REDLINK free. I did add an EXTERNAL LINK to the Kounterfeit Records website.StacieVan 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlock has clearly been listed as a TOP 10 seller (right on the front page) with NetSpin. Does this not qualify #2 on the Notability requirements on the Guildlines?? It states that if the band meets ANY of these, not all or some but any, it is considered notable. Paul Allgood has a published novel which contains information regarding the music and the band ISBN978-0978789497 An Inextricable Tale. Would this not satisfy item 1 of the Notability guildlines as well?StacieVan 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No, I don't think NetSpin has the notability and credibility to qualify as a
    reliable source. As Grey Vireo Press is an e-book publisher, I don't think the book qualifies either. Self-published material is not the same as material which has met the selectivity and standards of a print publisher. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Iranian sentiment

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Much like similar "anti-X" articles [34][35][36][37][38], this article is fundamentally

original research. To take a number of individual cases where someone said something was "anti-Iranian" does not justify presenting these together as a unified phenomenon. Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative, and in doing so we commit OR. The Behnam 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

1. The Iranian community in the United States and the maintenance of Persian identity - by Y Modaressi: "For instance, the anti-Iranian feelings during the hostage crisis in America practically and psychologi- cally placed the Iranian immigrants in a very dicult situation"
2. Neo-Tribalism in Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Tribal Policies - by A Baram: "The Iraqi regime made every effort to exploit this Arab identity and encourage anti- Iranian feelings"
3. Timeliness and Appropriateness in Personal Experience Narrating - by RA Georges: "Anti-Iranian sentiment, which had been widespread earlier when Americans were held captive in Tehran, resurfaced during the TWA hijacking episode"
4. The War on Terror, Feminist Orientalism and Orientalist Feminism - by R Bahramitash: "True accounts, such as the book and movie Not without My Daughter, helped to incite racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian feelings across Europe and North America"
5. Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States - by M Mobasher: "On the other hand, the anti-Iranian atti- tudes of most Americans and the anti-Iranian media propaganda that began during the hostage crisis"
6. Identity Politics and Iranian Exiles - by H Naficy: "the fact of their own exile, and the periodic waves of anti-Iranian sentiments facing them in West"
7. Iran and the Middle East: Foreign Policy and Domestic Change - by F Halliday: "considerable sympathy in the Peninsula for the Taliban and for Osama bin Laden, all of which feeds into not only anti- American but also anti-Iranian feeling"
There are hundreds of such sources, both prints and manuscripts. - AlexanderPar 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This same sort of thing showed up during the similar "anti-X" deletion debates and doesn't justify the existence of such articles. Yes, we know that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist since some people do not like Iranians. But it is the presentation of a unified phenomenon that is original research as this narrative is not made by RS scholarly sources. The cases you present here are simply an example of how disparate uses of the term can be presented in faulty defense of the original narrative created by Wikipedians. The Behnam 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're acknowledging that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exists, that makes this a notable topic.AlexanderPar 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, no not at all. lol, it is OR to take a bunch of disparate uses of "anti-Iranian" to present a unified topic. As the nominator from one of the similar nominations said, "Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing the existence of "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" as a consistent, unified pattern" - Now replace "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" with "Anti-Iranian sentiment." And like those other articles, this topic doesn't have sources discussing such a unified pattern. The Behnam 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think we discussed enough about this article before. Please read the former AfDs again.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's quite irrelevant to the reason for the nomination. A previous "keep" AFD really isn't a reason for keeping now, but if it means anything the previous closed "no consensus" with the process muddled by ethnic-sensitive canvassing. The Behnam 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: The page seems to be just a collection of OR and POV, aimed at fueling battles along ethnic and national lines. Just the first line, quoting Kaveh Farrokh, a prominent Turkophobe, clarifies the objective. Atabek 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about
Anti-Turkism, an article which you were involved in heavily?Hajji Piruz 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Check the history of it [40], clearly I wasn't involved heavily in it, so
WP:AGF, please. Thanks. Atabek 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, keep it, let the topic name defame itself by expected OR and POV. Atabek 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that keeping it crappy to "defame" it is the best thing for the encyclopedia. The Behnam 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, The Behnam. I actually did read the argument. That's why I used your own words.--Zereshk 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not! The phrase "are not notable" is not found on this page as any argument of mine! How interesting - this is the second time you have misquoted me (the prior is here [41]), so I am not sure that is very smart of me to assume that this is just an accident. "Calm down" - Haha, are you saying this to insinuate that I was not calm, even though nothing about my response was not calm? Also quaint. Anyway, even if we assume that I in some way said a statement to that effect, must I now assume that you are
Iranian women and nonconstructive thread on my talk page). The Behnam 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You did in fact object using "notability" of sources as the main base of your argument. e.g.1 [42] followed by [43]. Im sorry, but you cant use notability as your reason. It doesnt matter if NIAC is not as big as ADL. Your argument is still flawed because
WP:JNN doesnt allow it.--Zereshk 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to misunderstand again. That side conversation is not a critical part of the nomination and was not presented as such. It derived from a "maybe" about Iranians creating their own ADL. Lol, the NIAC isn't even used as a source anyway. I'm not sure what sort of work they've done with this concept, but that doesn't really matter here. Quite a misunderstanding on your part, Zereshk. I hope that you acknowledge this instead of clinging to the strawman... The Behnam 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You specifically state "Without substantial RS scholarly works" at the top of this page, i.e. NIAC is not as "scholarly" to you as ADL, for example. I dont buy your argument. Sorry.--Zereshk 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have decided to misconstrue my statement again with
quote mining as the rest of the sentence is quite critical to the argument: "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon." To be honest I don't consider ADL or NIAC "scholarly" because they are simply not scholarly organizations (such as universities). They are advocacy groups. This all is aside from the point. The point is much like my full sentence - this isn't treated as a unified phenomenon by a substantial amount of academic work. Even if there were some small number of people who treated it as such it would still be WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, antisemitism is a huge deal. There are classes about antisemitism alone, many scholarly and non-scholarly books about antisemitism, ... It is probably the most famous form of discrimination. But "Anti-Iranian sentiment" is only a unified phenomenon on Wikipedia, not with the world of reliable sources. The Behnam 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP doesnt care whether or not you consider ADL or NIAC as scholarly or not. It's not your call. And your definition of "a unified phenomenon" is not a criteria on WP for deletion. In fact
WP:IDONTKNOWIT states the opposite: "arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia."--Zereshk 07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read the post I already made below, also in reply to you, where I say "I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant." I have no idea why you repeated your irrelevant "point." And are you still going on about that ADL & NIAC stuff? They don't really matter to this nomination; again I have no idea why you continue to bring them up. Should I suppose you have nothing real in response to the actual nomination reason so perhaps you prefer distractions...? The Behnam 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poisoning the well?--SefringleTalk 06:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence the fact that I didn't cite those as THE reason for deletion (such as "per x,y, and z deletion debates"). No, I linked them simply because it was pretty much the same situation with the same argument. So calling me on that is invalid. Also I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant. Calling me on that is also invalid. As for your repeat of the 'he nominated these others articles recently so he can't be trusted' comment, I must repeat that this is an attempt at poisoning the well and can thus be considered an attack. That's not cool, Zereshk. The Behnam 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, The Behnam. Your stated reason of "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative" is a very weak argument to me. Genetic fallacy just doesnt fly here. My wikipedia motto is always build and improve articles , not delete them.--Zereshk 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a good thing that I'm not committing the genetic fallacy here, isn't it Zereshk? The Behnam 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think people are using AFD as a substitution for cleanup. The topic of this article is clearly notable, I am pretty sure if some of you who are arguing about it (both sides) get off the computer and go to a good library and do a search, you will find not only
WP:NPOV forcefully. On a personal note about AFD’s, I patrol the AFD’s sometime and when I clearly see something that deserves to be kept and improved, I vote to keep (mostly). Most AFD that end up being deleted deserve to be deleted. But the series of AFD’s on Iranian subject matters clearly are not trivial articles that needed to be deleted. As an advice anyone interested in collaboratively improving Wikipedia will never get their point across (even when it is correct) by mass AFDing articles that are not trivial subject matters. One word CLEANUP. Thanks Taprobanus 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This article already had its "keep and improve" phase after the last AFD. It really didn't resolve the basic OR problems, and of course did not resolve the fundamental OR problem. The Behnam 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not be bold and do the right thing ? Taprobanus 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what this nomination is about. The Behnam 06:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to vote for deletion as there is a need for this information (even if it is merged with other articles), but am mindful that previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion - that the article's principle problem is OR and POV - and little is done about it. Those working on this article do not appear to have understood the conclusions reached on previous AfDs.
I have some suggestions for the editors of this article. It may be useful to restructure the article to cover themes (political, social, cultural, religious manifestations of anti-Iranian prejudice/discrimination/persecution) rather than by listing sentiment by origin. For instance, religious causes of anti-Iranian sentiments may be related to Zoroastrianism (conquest of Persia), the Shia theocracy, and general Islamophobia (eg anti-Muslim attitudes in the US). A section on anti-Iranian sentiments related to culture could be related to prejudice against Persians. Political manifestations could be related to Iran's relations with other countries, eg the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. It is also important to state the difference between the expression of a prejudice and persecution. There may be some anti-Iranian prejudice among some Americans, but Iranians are not persecuted in the US. These changes could overcome the problem the article has with synthesising a range of disparate manifestations into a single concept of "anti-Iranianism".--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course racism and discrimination exists by the US Government's own admission: U.S. Sues Merrill Lynch Over Treatment of Iranian SSZ 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice is not the same as persecution.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comments here. We are talking about "anti-Iranian sentiment". The case I refer to above is about ACTIVE discrimination and termination of contract by Merrill Lynch of an Iranian Muslim employee based, solely on the fact that he was of Iranian origin. SSZ 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my entire comment. I said that it is important to distinguish between varying degrees and types of anti-Iranian sentiment in order to make the article clearer.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article should distinguish between 1. Persecution by the US Government, if any, 2. Persecution by other organization (religious, corporate, special interests groups, etc.), 3. Propaganda and diffamation in the media, 4. Active discrimination (as practiced by Merrill Lynch above), 5. Passive discrimination, (ie, housing, lending, etc) 6. Prejudice, 7. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion at the work place, 8. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion in public places (bus, restaurant, shopping centers, cinema, etc). SSZ 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these are adequate categories, but ultimately this would be a matter for the article's talk page if it is not deleted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The proposal is based on OR which is non-sense. User:The Behnam wrote: "this really isn't similar to antisemitism because, unlike antisemitism, there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon.". This is simply wrong. Dear User: The Behnam, Why do you assume scholarly works are only done in English language and by Americans like you? A simple google search for Antisemitism in Persian will end in nearly 200 hints! For Anti-Iranian sentiment, a simple search will lead to half a milion hints, more than 100 times more than Antisemitism. Obviously Anti-semitism is a notable article in Persian wikipedia and its deletion is not justified. The same is true for Anti-Iranianism in English wikipedia. Sangak Talk 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: User:The Behnam's double standard in taging Iranian articles for deletion has made me concerned recently. The user selectively and frequently tagged Iranian and only Iranian articles for deletion while he/she contributes to similar articles of other countries. The examples are the article on women in Iran. And in his new effort, he came to conclusion that among Category:Anti-national sentiment, the Iranian article is OR!! That's a bit strange. Sangak Talk 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first. If it makes you feel any better, I have also been looking at
anti-Hinduism to see if it follows the same OR pattern of tying a bunch of isolated incidents into a phenomenon. The Behnam 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you realize that the burden is on the you, the person who wants to keep the article, to prove that this article is NOT an original narrative created by stringing together disparate uses of "anti-Iranian sentiment" and presenting them as a unified phenomenon? After all of these days of deletion debate I still haven't encountered an actual response to my central reason for nomination. Most responses just insist that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist, which I never contested anyway. However, the mere existence of dislike for Iranians does not mean that there is a single phenomenon of "anti-Iranianism" that can be presented as one narrative, yet Wikipedia creates this unique narrative. This synthesis violates WP:NOR. The Behnam 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have not answered my original point. In responce to your reply to my "PS": your comment is contradictory. On one hand you claim that "I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first." On the other hand, you claim that the burden is on people like me!!! Sorry, I don't buy such arguments. Obviously you have the right to spend your time and to put effort in deleting Iran-related articles. That is not against any wiki-policy. Sangak Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Behnam has every right to put articles up for deletion and you should assume good faith. Even if the article is not deleted, his comments should be taken seriously by the editors of this article in order to improve it and make it look more like an encyclopaedic entry.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice! I know very well many of those who voted for deletion of this article in the past and in this current debate. We will meet you again in future deletion proposal too. I suggest you to put
Anti-Arabism for deletion if you care about wikipedia quality. Sangak Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
For your information, I have not yet cast a vote on this article. I did not vote in the previous AfD, but voted to delete the version of this article when it was entitled "anti-Persianism by Arabs", because it was an obvious POV fork and was filled with original research. I later withdrew my vote for deletion following a move towards compromise in the article's content, including a change in the article's title. So, I don't understand why you are ordering me to put
Anti-Arabism up for deletion in order to remain consistent or that you are suggesting it should be deleted in retaliation. Many editors are tired of the ethnic-based tit-for-tat attitude that affects all Middle East articles. Judge this article on its merits and demerits, not on ethnic associations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
tit-for-tat attitude?! I have never put any arab-related article for deletion (nor any other Iranian wikipedians). My point is quite relevant. My question is that if some users are tired of Anti X-ism articles why they do not take any action in deleting them all together??!! This is the third time Anti-Iranism article is proposed for deletion while neither Anti-Arabism nor Anti-Turkism, anti-Americanism have been suggested for deletion even once. This is double standard. Sangak Talk 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Grandmaster 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently the "norm" only applies to this article and not
Anti-Turkism. Sangak Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that parts of this article could be merged with existing articles and that in its present state it is poorly written. I just wonder whether the article can be rescued. Previous AfDs that have called for NPOV and a serious clean-up have not led to significant progress, which suggests the article can only ever be disparate collection of events brought together under the umbrella of "sentiments". The problem is that there is a sense of "ownership" of this article, which makes it difficult if not impossible to edit and improve in any meaningful way. Those defending the article need to come up with better arguments to The Behnam's comments instead of casting aspersions. This AfD should not be about winning votes but winning arguments.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article must be expanded to include not only hostilities toward Iranians and Iranian culture, but also any hostility toward Iranian regime. Please see the following: "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture or people of the United States." In countless number of Iranian government documents, US has been accused of Anti-Iranism. Sangak Talk 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes hostility to the Iranian regime? Would you classify criticism of the Iranian regime as anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comments again and you will get your answer. Sangak Talk 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them again and it is not clear to me. I'll ask you again, does criticism of the Iranian regime constitute "anti-Iranianism"? And what is the delineation between hostility and legitimate criticism? You are suggesting the article be broadened to include opposition to Iran's government, but you have failed to state clearly what you mean. Is Akbar Ganji anti-Iranian, is Shirin Ebadi anti-Iranian, is Ayatollah Borujerdi anti-Iranian, is Reza Pahlavi anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is simple. 1. As per anti-americanism article. (as I mentioned above) 2. The distinction between criticism and hostility is not a problem specific to the government. It is relevant to all other issues mentioned in Anti X-ism articles. 3. This is again another double standard in wikipedia. I can remember how many Americans were against including US hostility toward Iranian government in this article. Very same wikipedians simply ignore the very first statement in Anti-Americanism article. 4. Your examples (Ebadi, Ganji etc) are not a major challenge to my argument. This is trivial for any nation. 5. I personally do not consider most of US attitudes toward Iranian regime as anti-Iranianism. But that is what Iranian regime claims. Iranian regime's viewpoint is notable and need to be covered in wikipedia in a balanced way. Sangak Talk 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The title of the article is POV. The correct term is Anti-Iranism which is the accurate translation of the word in Persian. The term is also used in English media. This is in-line with other Anti-X isms: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, Anti-Americanism. Sangak Talk 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find only 80 hits on Google for "anti-Iranism"[46], while "anti-Iranianism" scores over 1,000 hits[47].--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Jinian. NawlinWiki 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumosity.com

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

several users have tried to mark this page for deletion various ways for various reasons, including filing an incomplete AfD listing. I'm just completing this nom to put the matter to rest. DMacks 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Piece of the Action (Star Trek). WaltonOne 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Fizzbin

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

Make-believe game used as a plot device in a single episode of Star Trek, mentioned in passing a couple of times later. But, no real-world notability. Additionally, it has been tagged for cleanup and lack of reliable sources since April (and has lacked sources long before then). Redirected to

the episode in which it appears, but redirect was reverted by another editor; bringing it to AfD to reach consensus. --EEMeltonIV 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • After reading User:Chimene's post below, I tried this Google search on "conditional modifier"+game. It looks like the concept and wording are applied in some cases on game-chat sites and blogs, but I don't know if there are
    Fizzbin should be merged into it, but not every rule heard in the script. If that merge is made, I think the Fizzbin title should still redirect to the Trek-episode article rather than to the conditional-modifier article. Barno 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. Google books
  2. Los Angeles Times (August 21, 2006) They're playing Fizzbin with the solar system - The plutocracy deliberates. Section: California Metro' Page 10.
  3. Kroll, John J. (June 16, 1997)
    Cleveland Plain Dealer
    Nerves of steel needed to play. Section: Personal Finance; Page 1D
  4. Gettelman, Parry. (May 22, 1998) Orlando Sentinel Time's right for Fizzbin. Section: Calendar; Page 8
  5. Anderson, Jamie J. (May 28, 1999) Orlando Sentinel Fizzbin. Section:Calendar; page 12.
  6. Google news
-- Jreferee (Talk) 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mayonnaise Rubbing

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

No support for this being any sort of wide-spread activity (one edit summary from only contributor says he's only aware of it at one college). The included cites support certain ideas, but not the topic of the page itself...RS for the idea have been promised for several days now meanwhile others have failed to find any. I call HOAX/NFT DMacks 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NOW episodes

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

Wikipedia is not a directory Corvus cornix 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, but TV series have episode lists that fit into their infoboxes. Tim Long 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I still need to work on this article, but I'll hold off until the deletion tag is removed, if it is. Tim Long 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is not an electronic program guide, it's an episode list. Tim Long 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge. I'd suggest keeping it and merging it with the series' mainpage, although some effort to make it not a direct copy of a pre-existing work should be included (as well as some wikification, both for readability and usefulness)spazure 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a persistantly non-notable individual, and a persistant abuse of process to keep the article about oneself. The only individual here calling for retention is the author and very likely Mr. Babenek himself. This also falls under

db-repost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

John C. Bambenek

John C. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination; I have no opinion. There have been revert wars with speedy tagging, and it seems this article has suffered from

WP:COI issues in the past. User:DGG declined a speedy request yesterday, but someone has tried again today, so the only sensible action is to submit the article for community review. Shalom Hello 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

=== Notability, Books, Articles, and some such === Header Disabled Corpx 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Because it was requested, here is a brief synopsis of where he's written, what he's published and what media outlets deal with him. He's been on the Daily Show (as indicated by the image) as well as ABCNEWS. He's also been on several talk radio shows as an interviewed guest, though I don't know where online I can point people to for verification.

I've just checked Lexis-Nexis and there are over 300 articles written by him readily available and searchable from various syndiacted wire services.

Quick Web Links:

  • The NYTimes article [57] (this was a front page article he was in)
  • Washington Post [58]
  • eWeek [59]
  • PCWorld [60]
  • InfoWorld [61]
  • SearchSecurity [62]
  • Consumer Affairs [63]
  • C-Net [64]
  • State of Oregon [65]
  • his own college [66]
  • Seatlle Times [67]
  • LA Times [68]

ISBNs to edited collections he's contributed to:

Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat, Series: Advances in Information Security , Vol. 51, Lee, Wenke; Wang, Cliff; Dagon, David (Eds.) ISBN: 978-0-387-68766-7 Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04) Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292 -- Archibald16 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point to which of these links he is the primary focus of the article. Corvus cornix 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you change your vote if I could anyway? This article is exclusively about him [69]. The other articles are mainly citing him as an expert, which is valid for notability. And again, Lexis has about 300 articles by him. -- Archibald16 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing him as an expert does not grant notability. See
    WP:NOTE. That other article is about "State scrutinizes employees' test times". I dont think the article is about him. Corpx 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Corpx, read the article... he's the employee they're talking about, he's the one in the video attached to the article. -- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing the defintions again... you wanted an article with him as the subject, this is such an article... and it's not that he didn't sign the form, it's that he also filed a lawsuit, but again, this isn't the only thing we're talking about here... the sum total of all of this is notability. -- Archibald16 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE
Criteria: Significant, reliable, independent sources. I mentioned ABC News... here are four sites off the top of my head, all very popular, that are not only independent but adverserial, and they have coverage of bambenek. It meets all four notability requirements in
WP:NOTE
.

Independent sources covering John Bambenek:

ScienceBlogs [70]
Feministing [71]
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [72]
Archpundit [73]

-- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give us links to
reliable sources, not search engine results. And what is your connection to Bambenek? Corvus cornix 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I gave you google lists so you can see the number of times those sites link to him. The DCCC is hardly a blog. And for political commentary, you'd imagine most of the hits would come from blogs. My connection is that I read his stuff and I'm a fan. -- CCCC
Those are all blogs - Blogs dont count as
reliable sources Corpx 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Re-read
WP:RS... blogs aren't immediately discounted, especially when they are very prominent and respected blogs. -- Archibald16 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Blogs. Also, the Democratic Campaign Committee blurb seems to just be an elaborate way of linking his blog. Deranged bulbasaur 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DCCC was criticizing something he wrote, it only makes sense they'd link to it. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional notability: : More Notability criteria, specifically:
1) The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. (In this case, many media outlets treat him that way, and he's published as such, including giving presentations to DHS on computer security).

Other criteria could nominally apply also. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Let's just cut to the chase... I'm finding arguments to prove notability, people are finding excuses to call it not-notable. Is there a point to us wasting our time debating? I mean, you've all voted, is this a foregone conclusions that this article needs to die and no debate will matter? If so, just let me know so I can stop wasting time? -- Archibald16 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A Hundred Monkeys

A Hundred Monkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

conflict of interrest (article created, edited and de-prodded by SPA). Sources are provided, but coverage is incidental or trivial (and the articles do not have the corporation itself as the topic). — Coren (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Catholic Comedians

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

Ample precedent, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic American entertainers. I don't think there's such a thing as Vatican comedy but there might be. Bulldog123 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no evidence that being Catholic had anything to do with the act of any of the comedians. Not that I haven't seen routines where references are made to papal infallibility, fish on Friday, St. Christopher's medals, etc., but as with Bob Hope, this is about people who happened to be comedians and Catholic. With Jewish American comedians, Who ARE these people? I'd say the same there too, unless the comedian made his Judaism part of the comedy routine. Mandsford 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Connect Yorkshire

Connect Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
User:Connectyorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - userpage of the author, with identical content.

WP:SPAM across the article and user namespaces. The organization has existed for just five years locally, and the external links do nothing to assert true notability. Shalom Hello 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write Open Story

Write Open Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't understand what the title has to do with the article, but I do know that "Flying Bibleman" only gets 11 Google hits. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Corvus cornix 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. When I first did the Google search, I got 11 hits. When I click on that link, I get 52 now. Corvus cornix 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now I get 8.  :) Corvus cornix 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a mildly interesting story, but not encyclopedia-worthy; perhaps a footnote to a broader article on the history of efforts to carry Christianity or other religions to natives. --JohnRDaily 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the Flying Bibleman Web site, the only substantive sources I've found (and the only ones linked in the article) are on the site of the Bible Society, with which the FB is affiliated. I'm not seeing any
reliable, third-party published sources. Deor 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Sovereign

Chelsea Sovereign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
User:Chelsea Sovereign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - the author's userpage, with identical content.

I'm not sure why this article should be deleted, but I'd like a "reality check". There appears to be a

WP:COI given the equality between the article writer and his/her username or userpage. At least one editor in the page history has questioned the veracity of this article, in spite of the varied references. I also find it very suspicious that this article was born in a single edit, but I could not find anything in the deletion log. Shalom Hello 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy Delete per above. Fails CSD G3. Bart133 (t) (c) 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete too. Failure of CSD G3! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps I don't fully understand the speedy delete criteria, but I don't see how this should be deleted. Yes, there may be a COI, although
    WP:COI itself states that occasionally an exception can be made. The article is fairly well-written, does not seem to have any issues with blatant POV, and it's referenced well enough to assert notability. Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe that the original author merely didn't understand redirects, and the other page Lady Sovereign was an attempt to have the article accessible under both names. I say keep this, delete Lady Sovereign, then add a redirect for Lady Sovereign to point to this article. Also, perhaps we should suggest that in the future, Chelsea should leave the editing to individuals other than herself. spazure 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Speedy Delete Nevermind. Lady Sovereign has been around longer, and has been edited by many users other than Chelsea. For this reason, I agree to the speedy delete. All we really need is a redirect, not a full copy of the article. spazure 08:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books critical of Islam

List of books critical of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inherently POV list, unreferenced. I started cleaning this list by checking the articles, but soon noticed that people put here everything what is controversial, rather than "criticism". Not to say that this list is redundant, because there is a category with exactly the same name. Mukadderat 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats OR about this list? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of withdrawn nomination and majority vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levine (journalist)

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

This article is on a non-notable personality. – Zntrip 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levine is an active journalist. He hosts a daily news interview program on a network beamed to televisions worldwide, and streamed through the internet. If you watch the show, you will see that he interviews highly credentialed guests. He also hosts a national radio show on XM satellite radio, in addition to his myriad of other journalistic work. You can watch his television show through the news channel's website. It's on a couple of times a day.
Further, I am saddened that Zntrip, with whom I had a disagreement with in another matter, followed my edit history and is now targetting my other articles in retaliation. As a matter of policy, Zntrip should not be rewarded for this behavior. We need to encourage cordial relations on Wikipedia, not petty Wikistalking.--Vitalmove 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated above, the position appears to give notability. I would like to see this bio expanded to reflect audiences reached, topics covered and some good sources. --Stormbay 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found more information on him and posted it in the article. --Vitalmove 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the new information that has been added to the page, which I was previously unaware of, I withdraw this nomination. I would like to apologize to Vitalmove, as I assumed from your edits on

PRESS TV and Portal talk:Current events, as well as the recent creation of your account, that you came to Wikipedia with alternate motives. I now realize that your creation of this page was indeed legitimate and the personality described in it is notable. You must understand however, that I assumed (with your past edits at Portal talk:Current events in mind) that you wrote an article about the host of your favorite television show. I made the conclusion, rather hastily, that the article was invalid. I do want you to understand that this nomination was not a personal attack or a form of revenge and that it was in the interest of improving this encyclopedia. – Zntrip 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Trade Gazette

Travel Trade Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN newspaper with a circulation of 26K -- Y not? 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Needs to be worked on, but it's definitely salvagable. Reading the article leads me to believe this paper might have at least some relevance. Furthermore, the original author seems willing to discuss and substanciate his claims. Let us give him a chance. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Viscount of Adrilankha. I'm also merging the other two books of the series. Sandstein 09:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paths of the Dead

The Paths of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This book (as described in the article) fails to meet any of the notability criteria at

WP:BK
. The article places the book in context of the author's other works and offers a plot summary, nothing else.

Having said that, I'm not confident that WP:BK is followed with any consistency. JohnRDaily 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I agree with Eusebeus, take a look at my opinion above. I did a further check and there are over 1100 fantasy novels with their own articles. A quick check on the fantasy author Robert Jordan alone, gives you an array of articles written on most of his books. I have no particular objection to heading in a new direction at this point, but it is a new direction. --Stormbay 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. Robert Jordan is probably the most popular fantasy author of the last few years. His books are amazingly successful, and he writes inordinate numbers of them. Of course we have a lot of articles about them. JulesH 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make concerned the fantasy genre in general. Steven Brust is notable as well; certainly not as notable as Robert Jordan, who I chose deliberately. Where will the line be drawn in terms of notable enough so that his/her books may have a separate article? It seems arbitrary as there are many articles in this genre that would not be equal to this one either in quality of writing or notability of the author. --Stormbay 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm no expert in wikipolicy, but I'm a little confused as to why an article about a fictional location is more notable than a book that stands a decent chance of sitting on the shelves of your local Barnes & Noble. Further, I'm confused as to why an article should be deleted if it only contains a plot summary. Doesn't that just mean that it's a stub? Are we to delete all stub articles? A quick google search reveals a number of reviews for the book. Tor is a major publisher. The book is stocked in major book stores. While it's certainly not a major work, I think the book is notable enough. -Captain Crawdad 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This debate seems extraordinary. There are plenty more fantasy novels well established here that have sold far less well and have not the critical reaction that these novels have. This one is no different (see [79] for instance). There is a need to improve the article but constantly deleting peoples work is no way to see articles improve, just potential contributors vanish in frustration. By the way I have no axe to grind for this novel or this author. However I can see this novel is "at least" has note worthy of inclusion, from the web based reaction at least. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a novel in a well-established universe, from a well-known writer; it is certainly more deserving of its own article than many of the self-published and obscure novels, polemics, etc. which do have their own unchallenged articles here. I find myself wondering if there is a certain bias against imaginative literature in play; but will admit that I am a fan thereof and my POV may be not untainted. --Orange Mike 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it. The book is released by a major, New York-based publisher. If this were a self-published book, or a vanity-press book, or a book desk-top-published by the author's drinking buddy on a kitchen table in Brooklyn, or an unpublished/unpublishable mish-mash about somebody's obscure grandfather who was an extra in a few movies and whose wife dabbled in Satanism, I would say axe it right now. Those are the kinds of "books" we've quite rightly chased off Wikipedia in the past, but this book is none of those things. Not just anybody can land a legitimate New York publishing contract. Only about one writer out of every 500 lands one of those. Established Wikipedia policies accept major releases like this one as notable. Qworty 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Orientacion (Prison Break episode)

Orientacion (Prison Break episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

The article concerns a future episode which has not been aired yet. Currently, the article contains a brief summary, which cites a fan site as a source. No official information has been released yet so the name and summary of the episode are uncertain at the present and mostly, unverifiable speculation. Also, there are no additional information (on production etc.) other than the summary. The subject is currently non-notable. -- Ladida 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The String Quartet Tribute to Gwen Stefani

The String Quartet Tribute to Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

And Gwen Stefani: A Piano Tribute. They're not by notable artists. They don't appear to be notable at all since there's not significant coverage (only track listings and release information) available. 17Drew 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Fashion Go

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

Although article has been reworked since (contested) prod, still basically an advert with no claim of notability. (Alexa ranking of 183,000+ is not an impressive reference). Fabrictramp 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide rankings of websites that actually sells goods as a manufacturer or wholesaler in the apparel industry to a retailer. In the apparel industry, goods are ordered as COD, so minimal web traffic will be shown. Goods are typically ordered over the phone. Please visit the website to see the format.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanfly012 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete.

13 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of differences between Columbia's and Filmation's Ghostbusters

AfDs for this article:
List of differences between Columbia's and Filmation's Ghostbusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pointless trivial list, see

wat's sup 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan translation

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

If all

WP:V violations were removed, you'd have a stub that couldn't ever be expanded Misterdiscreet 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

that that half hasn't been deleted doesn't mean that this shouldn't be. see
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Misterdiscreet 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
rpgamer.com does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. Misterdiscreet 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, a website that has been around for almost ten years, has relevant ties to game developers and publishers, and which has interviewed lots of individuals in the gaming industry... isn't a valid source? You seem to treat the organizations in your reply in high regard, when they rarely if ever have coverage related to video games at all. RPGamer isn't a blog that some fifteen-year old runs from his basement; this is a very valid source for information. I don't understand why you keep saying it isn't. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting the link from your argument 'Reliable sources' "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC are not "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I read video game news and I have never used these sources for game news since they are not "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As a qualifier as a reliable source for "video game news" I propose anyone who has been invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit to be reliable publications. RPGamer was invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit. Again I quote your link "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." From the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit website "The E3 Media & Business Summit is an exclusive, invitation-only, three-day event which will offer the opportunity for both ESA members and non-members to stage major press events" "Who will be attending? Members of the media, retail, development and financial communities will attend, along with other key industry contacts." It is reasonable to assume that media invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit to be "Reliable publications" otherwise they would not be invited.StarBeamAlpha 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
try creating an article on RPGamer. watch how fast it gets deleted. if its not notable enough for an article, why is it notable enough for a citation? Misterdiscreet 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not very fast apparently, RPGamer been on wikipedia since 22 July 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPGamer&limit=500&action=history I guess from logic of your previous sentence you just proved to yourself that RPGamer is "notable enough for a citation" I am also working on writing some more stuff for the article including another source from EGM which also has its own article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM EGM's circulation in 2005 was 608,133 with source: http://www.magweasel.com/wiki/Electronic_Gaming_Monthly Lets work together Misterdiscreet and make this a better article. :) Do you like playing fan translations as I do?StarBeamAlpha 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i concede this round to you. nice job Misterdiscreet 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support vandalism, although after looking at all the badges on your user page I have to question your motives of caring about the subject at hand, do you even play video games? I don't support sock puppets either so feel free to report any suspected sock puppets at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppetsStarBeamAlpha 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the vandalism is childish and doesn't help anyone. However, Misterdiscreet, after your last outburst I think you have sock puppet paranoia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Cup

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

Summer friendly competition to be held first this year. I think these competitions are not notable at all, there's no sense in keeping articles about an unofficial two-day "cup" with no history at all to be mentioned. Angelo 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And so? Are we gonna make an article for each single UEFA Champions League group because of the fact they involve "elite clubs"? This tournament has no history at all, and additionally it's not an official tournament, so it's much less notable than any single UEFA Champions League group. --Angelo 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly not on the same level as the Amsterdam Tournament as (a) it is not an annual event and (b) It carries a sponsors name and is therefore is at least partially an advertising opportunity rather than a "notable" tournament. Number 57 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is front rank football. It is irrelevant that it hasn't started yet, as it is certain to go ahead. This is more notable than say the Olympic sailing. Hawkestone 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already voted, but if understand WP:Non-notability correctly, the most important baseline seems to be media coverage. The tournament is still over a week away, but already has 75 unique GoogleNews hits. Besides that, as noted, the event has sold out a 60,000+ seat stadium. I think some people are confusing unimportant with non-notable. Very clearly, many, many people are interested in this. Mreleganza 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbag Records

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

non notable company [81]. 963O 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete; fails

deletion review. MastCell Talk 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Elanti Systems

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

non notable company 963O 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEALBAY

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

non notable company. 963O 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Street Fighter Skills and techniques

List of Street Fighter Skills and techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rather obnoxiously incomplete, it's basically a list of technique names and descriptions without any context or sourcing. It's completely unnecessary, to boot, as only the hardcore fan would be interested in this kind of thing. I came out of Wikivacation just to AfD this thing. ^_^ JuJube 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Performance Research

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

Spam, plain and simple out-right spam ShoesssS Talk 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Bilsborough

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

Article makes no claims for notability other than participation in a group show and the fact the artist earned a grant. About 1,000 ghits, 100 of which are from Wikipedia. Antonrojo 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of Tintin

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

A front for a whole spew of OR and heavily breaking NPOV - at most, it warrants a section in the parent article. Will (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7; the author, User:Kurdking, edited the article and removed the assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Adam E

King Adam E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like self promotion to me. The page was entirely created by one

chi?
16:06, 12 July 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 no consensus on

wat's sup 06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Parran Hall

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

Contested prod, with the following message left on the talk page "The 'article delete' templates were quite inconsistently applied to various University of Pittsburgh buildings, for the reason, "unnotable structure". Some less notable buildings and articles did not have them, so I have removed all those I saw, until such a time as they can be applied judiciously. In addition, is "unnotable structure" a reason to remove a page? ".

The building is a university building, built in 1958 and of no note.

Also nominating

Nuttah68 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, I believe one can make an good argument that WP does act as a tour guide in many situations. It is my understanding that the actual wikipedia policy is not to be a travel guide (including things such as addresses to restaurants and hotels and travel reviews or deals). WP does act as a historical tour guide in many instances, and one only has to look for examples of pages linked by succession boxes. In the panopoly of succession linked articles on heads of businesses, government offices, sports teams, and even colleges; let alone sports fields and structures and even transportation stations (eg.
South Hills Village (PAT station) are hardly notable on their own), the inclusion of these is often more important for its encyclopedic nature than their notability. Therefore, WP can serve as a tour guide, either historically or physically, because of its encyclopedic nature. Linking both Parren Hall and Craig Hall by succession box according to University of Pittsburgh construction or acquisition dates may be a suitable way to address where they fit in to the WP organization. In any case, neither article has been given much time to acquire additional information. As a regular contributor to Pitt material, I for one do not live near their location and have no ability to research off-line sources of information...but being easily found on the web, especially for building created before the web was so prolific, can not be a sole determinant of notability.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Parren but rename to the name of the School. First, the building where an academic department or a school is located is not necessary notable from that very fact. Nor are all the buildings on a campus notable. Particular iconic or historic buildings are, if there are separate published works devoted to the building as such, which has not been demonstrated here. If the school is notable, the building can be mentioned--even with a redirect. In an article on the college, the more important buildings are normally mentioned. In a article on an architect, the more important building are mentioned. If the artwork is worth mentioning, it can be included in the article for the artist.
I see zero references on the building as a building. Nor is most of the article about the building--it's about everything connected: the firm who built it, the man it was named after, the graduate School it houses, the sculpture that is affixed to it. What probably is notable is the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, but there is no article on it. The individual Graduate Schools of a major university are probably notable. Sometimes, they will be in notable buildings. There are hundreds of buildings on the Pittsburgh campus, and some of them may well be notable, but it has to be shown by sources. Otherwise it will just duplicate all the entries: whatever parts of the university are separately notable will each need two articles, one for the college or school or whatever, and one for the building. DGG (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps not every building on a university is notable for its history or architecture, but that in itself does not necessarily make it non-notable. The definition of notability can come from many other factors including location, function, construction, architect, ownership, and even local prominence/visibility. This building, in its Oakland location, is clearly notable based on its location and facade to which is affixed the previously mentioned work of art. The sculpture is completely associated with the building, more than it is associated to anything else including its artist, and generally considered part of the building's facade. To give you an example, someone not knowing where the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or where to turn for the Petersen Events Center would easily be directed there by the looking for the building along 5th Avenue with the "funny abstract person hanging on the front", and locally it is typically used as such a landmark because Parren Hall's unique facade (and this can not be disassociated from the sculpture and vice versa) defines both the beginning of the medical campus and the western edge of the undergrad campus. In any case, an encyclopedic grouping of university buildings is clearly what originators of the University of Pittsburgh article were striving for, and this has many precedents in other WP categories as I noted above.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what you specify is the function of the university web site, its maps, and its listing of directions to the various buildings. WP is not a campus guide. DGG (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the article, delete the copyvio list.

Review me) 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copyright violation. A stub about the book is borderline notable, but repeating its contents is a copyvio. The JPStalk to me 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete despite lots of lists (top number N of thing Y) being flagged as copyvio, the wikimedia folks have never given a definitive call whether they are. Ultimately, it's not encyclopedic so it ought to go. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Listing the films categorized by decade is definitely a WP:COPY violation, so I have reverted to the last revision that just barely meets fair use guidelines. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove film list. Notable book, but it's not necessary to list out all of the films that the book reviews. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I thought about whether the book was notable, the author's redlink notwithstanding, and did a quick check of Amazon to see where it ranked in sales there: 7,283rd. I don't think we have a magical cut-off; but being 7283rd - even out of a few million books ever written - does not establish notability. Is there more? Carlossuarez46 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the list must go as a copyright violation. Corvus cornix 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I agree with Groupthink, in some circumstances, I don't think that the book is very notable but also we do not list the content of books on wikipedia, when you look at an article on a book it doesn't list all the content or the index of the book. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the list. Based on a Google news search, it seems like the book was reviewed by a number of newspapers/magazines/etc. A 7,283rd ranking on Amazon isn't too shabby -- that's a lot better than any version of Germinal, for example -- and Wikipedia is not paper. Zagalejo 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links to some of these reviews in the article might sway it. The JPStalk to me 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Amazon sales rankings are only useful in measuring the sales of recent books, where it is but one data point - kind of a sanity check. But without
      WP:RSes citing this as a notable book, the article sans the list really doesn't demonstrate notability. Perhaps a mention of who the "film critics" were (Shalitt, Ropers & Ebert, Spielberg, Lucas, Polanski, someone we've heard of?) who leant their names and advice to the book would assist, as anyone can be a film critic. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Here are four multi-paragraph book reviews I've found after a quick Factiva search. Each comes from a different continent. If I have to, I can list many more reviews.
I'd also like to point out that, according to the 10 April 2004 issue of
Richard Pena, David Stratton, and Margaret Pomeranz, all of whom seem fairly significant. Zagalejo 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you please provide a link to that issue of the Daily Telegraph? This book is one in a series of 1001...'s produced by a company called Quarto and its imprint (label) Quintet. As with the "for Dummies" and the "Complete idiot" books, by far greater sellers and better known, a single article of all the various titles is probably the right way to go; like
List of ...for Dummies books was deleted as a result of this discussion. So delete is still in order here. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't provide a link to that specific article, since I accessed it with Factiva through my university library. I can give you this sample of an article, which, I believe, shows that the book was ranked #7 overall in Australia (fiction and non-fiction). As far as I know, we don't have an article on the "1,001..." series (all I've found are individual articles, like 1,000 Places to See Before You Die.) I'd support a merge to an article on the Quarto series if we had one, but we don't, so I'm still !voting to keep for right now. Zagalejo 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article need not be deleted, but the list is a copyright infringement. There is non-infringing content in the page history possibly worth saving. The infringing material needs to be removed from accessible history. --SmokeyJoe 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial pop culture book of transitory appeal. Without the complete list the article is of no value to anyone. With the list it is a copyright violation. Hawkestone 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ditto. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I put up the page originally. I realise Wikipedia is a universal resource, but the book is extra-notable in Australia, featuring input from many of the nation's top critics such as David Stratton, our version of Roger Ebert, and released with a lot of publicity by our public broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Zagalejo put it better than I did. Whether you believe it to be trivial or not is meaningless, and assuming it doesn't contravene any copyright policies there is absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. I honestly don't know why it was even taken to the AfD page; the editor who picked up on the copyright violation should have just edited the page themselves and that would've been the end of it. Cheers, Rothery 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • It's been about a week now and the article does not reflect the claims to notability that this page asserts. Where are the secondary sources? Where is the proof that it received attention, etc.? As it is, this is a useless stub. So what if Ebert contributed? The JPStalk to me 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no one said that Ebert contributed. I'll add a couple of references to the article, though. Zagalejo 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn - changed to a disambiguation page. Shalom Hello 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Raiders

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

redundant and useless, nothing worth merging with Middle Tennessee State University Xorkl000 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, this is not the only school in America to have this mascot, what about
Lindsey Wilson College? --Xorkl000 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough, we should probably change this to a disambig page then. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good idea, you want to take a shot at it first? I'll withdraw the nom --Xorkl000 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
never mind i've done it - now how do you withdraw this nomination? --Xorkl000 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_12&oldid=1116877868"