Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 30

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

The result was delete.

International Criminal Court in popular culture

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

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Stub was spun off from the main article per here: Talk:International_Criminal_Court#The_ICC_in_popular_culture. I personally think the content doesn't really have correct home anywhere, but I don't feel all that strongly about that. - Richfife 16:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to the ICC and the fact that they mention the ICC tells us nothing about the ICC, the items from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back with the parent article, International Criminal Court. Bearian 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:33, 5 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.

British Museum in popular culture

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

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a
  directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to the museum and the fact that they mention the museum tells us nothing about the museum, the items from which the reference is drawn, or the real world. Otto4711 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment/Keep/Upmerge to British Museum "Not every institution..." - nor should it, but the BM is significant enough - and nor will it, as this one is hardly going to cause a spate of them. "tells us nothing" - tells us how the Museum is seen in the outside world, ie its public image, as a 'great museum', surely?Neddyseagoon - talk 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that a one-line refernce from a song about foggy London saying the place has lost its charm tells us that this is seen as a "great museum," and the same can be said for any of the other fairly trivial references on the list, most of which don't even bother to explain the museum's presence in the source material. The BM does not gain in notability by having been mentioned or seen in a collection of random pieces of fiction and the individual items on the list do not gain in notability for mentioning the BM. Otto4711 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. It also misses my favorite cross reference: the "date" scene from Maurice (film). Carlossuarez46 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it to add that date scene... no, only kidding, delete. Bearian 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:33, 5 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. Non admin closure. Qst 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redmoon Online

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

Long term unsourced, with two weeks of being tagged for notability. --Eyrian 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, might be tricky to source with vast majority of players in Korea where it is a cult hit of some kind. US and UK introductions did not make much impact. google shows limited results, not many on Google News Archive either. --Dhartung | Talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I remember playing this back on the English lang server; still somewhat popular in Korea. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Neither of these points address the total lack of independent sources. This article has been tagged for a long time and has not been improved. --Eyrian 04:43, 5 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. Anas ^talk? 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Racer V3

Drag Racer V3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references of any sort (

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Andre (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  notability. DarkSaber2k 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Despite my comments on the talk page of the article, I agree with the reasons above. ~Iceshark7 21:27, 2 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. -

Istanbul in popular culture

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

This isn't an article about Istanbul in popular culture. It's just a random list of mentions of the word "Istanbul" and the setting of Istanbul in books, movies, anime, and TV. Completely arbitrary. Bulldog123 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a
  directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to Istanbul and the fact that they mention the city tells us nothing about the city, the items from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom & Otto & per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, random list. Punkmorten 23:24, 1 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 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska

List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely arbitrary list. Films can be made anywhere, there's really nothing special about Omaha. Bulldog123 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom Bulldog123 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:TRIVIA Rackabello 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as part of Category:Lists of films by location. Not seeing any reason for singling out Omaha's list. Otto4711 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider some of the other "List of films made in _____" articles as well. I agree that there could be significance to where a film was set (which is what many of the articles in the category to which Otto4711 document) but grouping films by where they were made is mere trivia. GassyGuy 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an excuse, Category:Films by location indicates that grouping films by shooting location is fairly commonplace. Otto4711 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You misread. Category:Films by location is film settings not "filmed in." No, it's not part of the group. Bulldog123 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look again. Category:Films by location contains subcategories for films shot in Oregon, Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Las Vegas, Maryland, Mauritania, Montana, Montreal, Morocco, New Orleans, Oklahoma, Toronto, Utah and Wisconsin. And Category:Films by shooting location contains subcategories for Brighton, Bulgaria, Chicago, Idaho, Malta, Melbourne, Mexico and Poland. Otto4711 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and because films are made a little here and a little there, so how much of the film needs be made in Omaha to be listed? There's no context to tell us. I do believe "set in" is a valid basis for film listings, but "shot in", "made in", "filmed in" lists don't make sense to me. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a
  directory. There is nothing to indicate any significance about these films having been filmed in Omaha, Nebraska. Was the town prominent in the film's story or the film's production, if at all? Who knows? The information is indiscriminate in definition. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 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. Evilclown93_(talk) 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Balfe

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

)

Non-notable fashion model. Mikeblas 14:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for posting resumes. - Richfife 17:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Anchal Joseph

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

Losing television reality show contestant. Text of article taken almost completely from her website (though not quite copyvio) with no sources cited. No claim to fame after losing on reality show; just another struggling young model in a very crowded field. Mikeblas 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Chris 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Bearian 21:49, 2 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 not notable --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Research and Security Organization

Genetic Research and Security Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sourcing or evidence of notability, only 7 ghits for "Genetic Research and Security Organization" -wikipedia, representing about 3 unique websites, indicates a lack of notability or likely reliable sources. Prod removed without relevant edit summary. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is considered to be a conspiracy theory. As most likely about the New World Order. per nom.--Edtropolis 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theory, it seems to be a very minor element of a fictional universe. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    SPA for AFD votes with nonsensical or inappropriate rationales. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as not notable.--cj | talk 06:50, 30 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, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources with real world context. Jay32183 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails verification and npov.
  VanTucky 07:11, 1 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.

List of Mexican bus lines

List of Mexican bus lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This can probably fall under

• Delete
  Wikipedia is not Travelocity™ Rackabello 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Serves as a central page for the Mexican bus transport system, as well as a way to illustrate transportation infrastructure. This information is certainly as notable as articles on individual railway stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What information? This is a list of redlinks or no links at all, and unsourced to boot. Only a single bus line has a valid link, and all the rest of the blue links are merely the names of municipalities. Then toss in the article's assertion that only "notable" bus lines (based upon what criteria?) have links, and you have a complete mishmash. It might be, as DS1952 asserts, a "useful tool for organizing articles on the bus systems in Mexico," if such articles exist, which they apparently do not. This might be forgivable in an article a week old, but in fact the article is ten months old now, and its creator hasn't been seen in half a year. Odds that this article is improvable is debatable, but odds that it will be improved are slim.
   RGTraynor  20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a
  directory Useight 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the list as a useful tool for organizing articles on the bus systems in Mexico. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I agree with Rackabello , no use to wikipedia at all! Thenthornthing 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:35, 5 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 as patent nonsense. The Rambling Man 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ's Human Teleportation

MJ's Human Teleportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An essay, pure

• Speedy Delete Salt I don't think we need to waste our time on this Rackabello 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently this article has been speeded previously, and the contributor has been warned several times. Rackabello 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio. The Rambling Man 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand identity guru

Brand identity guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's an essay so is pure

• Comment - was subsequently tagged as copyvio for speedy deletion. The Rambling Man 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frenay

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

With respect to the "under construction" tag, this article hasn't been edited in nearly three weeks, doesn't assert the notability of the subject, and almost entirely consists of an absurdly long quote that is most likely a copyright violation. PC78 13:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a copyvio.
  Guitarst 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep but if this AfD is closed as a "keep", I am going to cut the article to about 2 sentences. His 2006 book was published by a major publisher and had some reasonable reviews. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I began this article after attempting to do research on some of the issues mentioned in Frenay's book, blogs and articles and discovered that he didn't even have an entry on wikipedia. As a lecturer in current circulation and author of very ambitious nonfiction book about technology and the environment, I believe Frenay is notable enough to be worthy of an article here. I hope you will review the article before deleting it: I have added his birth year, removed the long quotes, added reference to the short quotes I kept, added additional notable information, etc. I also removed the under construction tag.--Markisgreen 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article will need to be cleanup up significantly to meet standards of
  peacock terms- right off the bat he's described as profound, influential, and a noted lecturer. It's got an incredibly promotional tone through and through.-Wafulz 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Delete there does not seem to be enough for notability. One possibly notable book, if DS1953 will add what he found, there might be more of a basis for judging. DGG 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:NOT, and as as noted above, non-notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment What is the standard that makes glamour model Mel Lisboa a woman who makes her living posing for photographs notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but Robert Frenay the author of a published book challenging people to think about the environment and sustainability not notable enough? I'm just curious. There is no conflict of interest in my creation of this article. I am not Robert Frenay nor am I related to him nor have I ever met him, though I have read his book. I do not stand to profit in any financial way from sales of his book, his lectures or spreading his message. I just find his writing thoughtful and important and his career interesting and he seems quite notable to me. He seems like an important author and thinker that researchers should be able to look up on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markisgreen (talk • contribs)

• The standard is generally
  reliable sources. There's no sense in making the comparison between an author and a model/actress- if there is information present about the model, then she gets an article regardless of how she compares to a more "noble" profession.Wafulz 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unlike Mel Lisboa, Robert Frenay did not pose for Playboy Brazil, a significant publication. She also has name recognition, a major criteria for notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, there are enough google news archive results to verify the basic details of this bio, and the book appears to be notable,[10][11] and is held by a lot of libraries
  John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral - Article as it stands contains zero third party, independent sources aside from the very week "Midwest Review" source that seems to be more book summary ala Amazon than real commentary or review. That said, the Google News hits in the search above imply that a decent case for NOTE could be made, if someone were to try. Neutral for now, but if it's not fixed shortly, downgrading to delete.
  talk 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not satisfy the criteria of
  WP:BIO, a simple web-based book review and a personal website are not enough to demonstrate notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - The content of this article has changed considerably since the AfD began, so credit to Markisgreen for putting in the effort. It looks a lot better now, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt regarding notability, but a decent chunck of the article is still lacking any citations. PC78 02:23, 7 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.

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

)

Non-notable front office official of arena football team. Reads like a resume. Leeannedy 13:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• unreliable. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable and no references.
  Guitarst 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:57, 5 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. NawlinWiki 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian football transfers 2007-08

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

)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dave101→talk  12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of Articles Deleted in 2007-2008 Rackabello 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Angelo 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP Should not be deleted. Does not fall under indiscriminate as explained on that article. English transfer articles have gotten free passes for the years they have them. The Italian transfer page from last season was never put up for deletion. Ridiculous nomination. Bigdottawa 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be coherent, in my opinion we can also delete the English ones. As I've noted in the WPF discussion, that list would be pretty unmanageable (which transfer moves to include? all the ones, including youth players or only the major ones, and who decides which one is major?). By the way the page is already 33 Kb long and there are still two months of summer transfer market... --Angelo 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also nominated

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of transfers of La Liga - 2005/2006 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

List of transfers of La Liga - 2006/2007 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

They should tread the same. Matthew_hk tc 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The team that one plays for is notable; and changing teams is just as notable. Having them all listed in coherent and non-indiscriminate fashion like this (separated by league, year, etc) is beneficial to wikipedia's goals. Neier 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Neier. Also I think is encyclopediadic and many people around the world will be interested of transfers made in such leagues of great level. --KRBN 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThey are defintley not of "doubtful notability". Transfers between major clubs are notable. Englishrose 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important list for roster changes in Italy's biggest soccer tournament.-RomeW

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Copyvio and Spam Non Admin Closure Rackabello 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict neutral

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

At least half of the article is taken from the Kimberley Process website and therefore a possible copyvio, the style is unencyclopedical and it lacks indepent sources establishing the notability of the term. Article has been tagged for cleanup since March. Don Cuan 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD G12 for Copyvio possibly G11 for Spam Rackabello 14:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. To this effect. The page will become a redirect, but the history will be preserved. —Kurykh 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QWERTY effect

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

)

Reason for nomination: Non-notable. 230 ghits for "qwerty effect" -wikipedia Antonrojo 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Switching barriers which has a paragraph on the QWERTY effect in a more informative context --Aim Here 00:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Aim Here. Bigdaddy1981 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as noted. Bearian 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Aim Here. Bfp _(talk) 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect I had previously added the merge tag but there wasn't much discussion (Talk:Switching barriers). Tocharianne 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 05:00, 5 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. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Discovery Science

National Institute for Discovery Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation outside of crank ufo circles. Propose for deletion under

• Keep I've just spent some time adding a few references found via Google including 1 from a local television station, 1 from a local newspaper and one from space.com. I think these should establish notability via
  WP:RS standards. FWIW, I'm not into the whole UFO thing but saw this listed and thought I'd check it out. JodyB _talk 13:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Of these, only the space.com seems notable, and that's not really about the organisation. Personally I think it takes more than a single article like that to establish the actual organisation's notability, but it is on the right track to establish notability. Jefffire 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The space.com article is almost entirely about the orgnization's research, which conclusions are outside the usual "crank-UFO" reports. Deseret News is a major newspaper located in Salt Lake City and Channel 8 is a local broadcast news organization. Each of these are secondary sources with editorial oversight and each reported within contexts with which they have expertise, thus bring these three into full compliance with

WP:V. Perhaps take another look. Anyway, I'll not belabor the point further. Thanks. JodyB _talk 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, plenty of Google Scholar and Books results.

• Keep I have to agree with JodyB. Lorangriel 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 05:09, 5 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 to delete so article is kept JodyB _talk 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Оccupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany

I have created this article to separate the Nazi occupation from the Soviet one, both of which presently covered in

• Speedy keep as stated above. This topic has nothing in common with "soviet occupation" and no need to represent them both in one article.--Dojarca 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Community consensus is against splitting the page, see
  DLX 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think there is already enough content for a separate article.--Dojarca 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced: surely this can be covered elsewhere without what looks like a POV fork? Moreschi ^Talk 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article now is a copy of section from

  Occupation of Baltic states, I did not change it. If it to be deleted from here, it should also be deleted from that article.--Dojarca 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh, I see: there it's referenced, here it isn't. So why do we have this fork at all? Moreschi ^Talk 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  References added. The reason is that the topics have nothing in common and confuse a reader. Such different topics worth separate articles.--Dojarca 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  DLX. this is an unwanted fork.--Alexia Death 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A redirect would be appropriate...--Alexia Death 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Did anyone notice that the "O" in Occupation is actually a zero? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not even that - it's unicode code point 041E "CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER O". Odd. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per DLX. Pavel Vozenilek 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment I would like to point out that there already exit articles about this period for two out of three Baltic states separately.--Alexia Death 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why it is needed to keep this information in

  Occupation of Baltic States? There are also already exist articles on Soviet history of the Baltics, so this article seems also unnecessary.--Dojarca 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to
  Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. M.K. 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong and speedy keep - Subject is verifiable and is certainly notable. In fact, we have tens or possibly hundreds of articles on different aspects of the Nazi occupation of the Baltic republics. The subject is also clearly demarcated from related topics; it is defined by the time frame and the presence of German troops. (The last point is something that cannot be said about most other "occupation" related articles.) The motivation for this AfD seems to be an extreme form of nationalistic POV-pushing. Those attacking this article want to present the Nazi occupation and the associated
  neutral point of view, our coverage of Baltic history will not meet our standards. -- Petri Krohn 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please stop personal attacks and accusations. We've had quite enough of these from you already, we do not need or want more.

DLX 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• What, is the subject not notable? Who disputes the fact of the occupation? Certainly keep in hopes of speedy improvement. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn
  disambiguation page where the occupation is specified by time and event. --Yury Petrachenko 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete but first Merge any information that does not appear in
  Occupation of Baltic Republics link to them. The reason for this article to be deleted is because it is superfluous and unnecessary. Lorangriel 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Totally different matter. Clear distinction. Most other encyclopedia differentiate Nazi occupation of Baltic states.Vlad fedorov 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most other encyclopedias use other measures of avoiding systematic unreliability -- measures that are not available to Wikipedia. For example, an encyclopedia built by a small team of respect-earned experts will not need something like the
  WP:POVFORK policy. Digwuren 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. As
  WP:POVFORK. Digwuren 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is not a POV fork, it is simply splittiong of the article to avoid messing up Soviet and German occupation in one article.--Dojarca 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find it strange that the article hasn't been expanded during this AfD, I am sure that most Delete votes would become Keep then - I know that I then definitely would like to keep the article when it has meaningful and properly sourced content. At the moment there is still no reason for this split (or POVfork). Also, not Baltic republics, Baltic states should be correct, as has been discussed previously - see
  Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Requested move or just Baltic states. Sander Säde 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  In fact the article expanded greatly during the AFD [12].--Dojarca 09:24, 7 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.

Super Sleuth

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

Non notable game emulator Sploooshman 09:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, it doesn't seem to be notable, 1k ghits and no apparent

WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete doesn't seem notable.
  Guitarst 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 05:13, 5 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. Moreschi ^Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Donald Dye

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

Page appears to be pure vandelism. Salavat 09:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as vandalism, hoax, not verifiable, nonsense, etcetera.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The Sunshine Man 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadendamme

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

Non notable town, very small population, no historical significance, no past or present achievements Sploooshman 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Real town. Period. Nominator has been asked to stop this ridiculous AFD spree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. Just because you disagree with an article's nomination does not make it ridiculous Sploooshman 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current consensus is that villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It's a real place, so it's notable. Wikipedia consensus holds all towns and villages notable and this one won't be any different. It's incredibly arrogant to think that a town where people live can be held unworthy of an entry here. Nick mallory 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blundellsands & Crosby railway station

Blundellsands & Crosby railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable railway station Sploooshman 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is one in a spree of nominations, many of them ridiculous in nature. Railway stations are important nodes in the transportation network as has been established countless times in the past. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While larger stations and nodes are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller stations such as this with no historical, cultural, social or other significance with respect to transportation are not. As this station has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. And please refrain from making personal attacks, I have raised this on your talk page. Sploooshman 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sunshine Man 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that railway stations are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaspa-Młyniec

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

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Another in a spree of strange AFD nominations by Splooshman. Real towns and major sections of cities is something I would expect a comprehensive encylopedia to cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion and the discussion of its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably if this debate goes against you then you'll accept the consensus about the notability of towns and villages in future? 124.183.234.246 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. That's much larger than the village of 603 inhabitants you nominated for deletion, and even that I said should be kept because villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It's a real place, it's notable, these are silly nominations. Nick mallory 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom has made several bad faith AfD's per above and below; also, nobody voted delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Punk Rock

Brisbane Punk Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Most of article is anti-government propaganda, would need a complete rewrite, music scene could be non notable given most bands not recognised Sploooshman 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and review of the spree of nominations by the user Sploooshman Recurring dreams 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please judge each article on its own merits, I suspect you have not even considered why it was nominated Sploooshman 09:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article actually uses other Wikipedia articles as references. Ugh. Need to remove those.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's just not valid to say that there is problems with an article and that because of these problems we must delete the article. Notability concerns are valid, but here the problem is not with the bands themselves, as this article is about Brisbane Punk Rock. It's entirely appropriate to have minor bands in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now -- The article needs a serious NPOV rewrite and references, but it appears that there is enough there where an article can be written, and it seems notable enough. BTW, a music scene can be notable even though few if any bands from that scene are notable -- in the same way, a high school or college can be notable without any notable graduates. -- ArglebargleIV 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rognac

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

Non notable town/commune Sploooshman 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, towns are notable. 96T 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuga, Gifu

Kasuga, Gifu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town that no longer exists Sploooshman 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had not historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuga, Hyōgo

Kasuga, Hyōgo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Town that no longer exists, wasn't notable before it got merged Sploooshman 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had no historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhi, Aichi

Haruhi, Aichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Real places are notable, this is a complete waste of time.Nick mallory 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Although some of the !votes appear questionable, there is unanimity and sufficient input from established editors to safely close this out. — Caknuck 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarf (band)

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

Non notable band, only releases have been with non notable independent labels Sploooshman 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sunshine Man 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep due to the John Foxx connection. Corvus cornix 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep have completed national tour with John Foxx - article is in dire need of sources; however. Bigdaddy1981 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep They've released a significant number of physical releases, which is more than many bands in the "download age" manage to do. They've also toured internationally, and with names like John Foxx and All About Eve / Julianne Regan. The fanbase is vocal and strong, albeit within its small community. As to "non notable independent labels", then this isn't an article about their label, it's an article about the band. Besides which, Wasp Factory are very notable within the genre.

I'd also keep the Myspace link. It's the band's own space and although MS is a dire abomination in general and not credible as a 3rd party reference, they're more relevant when they belong to a musicians using them for hosting / streaming of their own output. To quote the

external links policy

, "Such [linked] pages could contain [..] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as [...]" I would argue that MySpace's support for streaming hosting of the band's own material, a feature not available through Wikipedia itself, justifies this.

The article could certainly be better, but that's a case for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but ... wikify, verify, source! 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign this before. Bearian 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Merely because they are not a Top 40 band and are on a small independent label is not grounds imho for deleting this entry. They are a band with a solid and loyal fanbase within the Gothic and Electronic/Dance genres, and small independent labels have traditionally been a source of tremendous music within the UK - Oasis, arguably the largest band in the UK over the past ten or fifteen years, started out on the (then) tiny Creation label: A band's (and a Label's) value is not measured simply in the number of sales or downloads. Quality counts just as much as quantity.

Additionally, the link to the MySpace page should stay. Although MySpace is a hideous site with an abyssmal interface, the material there has been put up by Liz and Andrew themselves and is as accurate as that on the band's own website. Captain Lucy 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Captain Lucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy to the letter.86.135.85.238 (Julianne Regan)

• Keep Swarf have been the subject of non-trivial published works featured in The Scotsman, Metal Hammer and The BBC, which is the first criterion for Notability (music).The_Axel 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for knowledge, therefore i can't see why every time a band appears in here that is not on a major label it gets flagged for deletion. why does it matter whether they have appeared on television or not? their musicians, they are supposed to be out there playing and recording music.

Keep this article, and allow other hard working musicians to be able to have their lives documented in here. Nevla

• Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy and the others completely. I've simply no idea what grounds there are for deleting an article on a real band, who've been active on the live and recording fronts for some time now. They are a fact, like them or not; as much so as any more mainstream act and certainly more real than many in the charts! Is Wiki a depository for only "convenient facts"? BleepyF 11:54, 3 July 2007 (GMT)

• Strong Keep Put me down as another one agreeing with Captain Lucy RichardHMorris 11:26, 3 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 Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Forest High School (Delaware)

Lake Forest High School (Delaware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable school Sploooshman 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge, Minnesota

Cambridge, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town with only 5520 people, no notable history Sploooshman 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real town. Towns and villages are precisely the kind of things which encyclopedias cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep Consensus is that all communities are notable, no exception. --Charlene 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despard, West Virginia

Despard, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town, article only lists geographics and demographics Sploooshman 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real community, geography is important for an encyclopedia to cover comprehensively. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]