Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leina Ogihara

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

This is a non-notable person. There is very little info on this person RockerballAustralia 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete' per
  WP:BIO, tagged A7. --Javit 12:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:53, 9 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. Mangojuice^talk 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Association of Lithuanian

Scout Association of Lithuanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

direct, unedited copy from two sections of Lietuvos Skautija; misnamed in English Chris 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment an article does need to be written for
  Lietuviu Skautų Sąjunga, but not just as a cut-and-paste of text we've already written. Chris 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete in addition to all else, being misspelled in English warrants deletion.Rlevse 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment #REDIRECT [[Lietuvos Skautija]] ~ Infrangible 01:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• response - it really doesn't go there, the organization the user instead intends is
  Lietuviu Skautų Sąjunga, an in-exteris organization for which a fresh article yet needs to be written, explained above. Chris 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• In view of the above comments, this article needs to be renamed to
  Scout Association of Lithuania (provided this organization is notable - can't comment on that) and needs a complete rewrite. -- P199 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:38, 14 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. Will mark for cleanup. The only argument that saves this article is that the article wasn't given a chance to improve. If it doesn't improve, that argument won't work next time. Mangojuice^talk 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Oh good lord, plot summary for a soap? Delete per
  WP:A (I don't see a single source on this). --Phirazo 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Gungadin's comment (below) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Gungadin 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the two previous respondents. This is not a vote system. You actually have to provide a reasoned rationale for why you think it should be kept. Look at the aforementioned guidelines and you will see why it should be deleted. Adrian M. H. 15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the article could be improved, but I think it should be rewritten to just include the notable storylines from the decade and the real world impact that each storyline has, as well as changes in the shows format, popularity, criticisms etc - similar to the way Coronation street history has been written. Again this nomination could have been avoided if issues were discussed beforehand. It would have given editors the chance to make the changes first. --Gungadin 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now is your opportunity. Show us this article can be more than a plot summary. --Phirazo 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This clearly violates
  WP:NOT, and I do hope that the closing admin will be able to see past unjustified keep votes to eliminate this page. Indrian 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Gungadin. 84.9.61.204
• Delete per the very clear point made in #7 at
  WP:IINFO -- "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the content had to be forked from elsewhere and stand here without any real-world context to back it (and its immense length), then it's obviously not being presented as an aspect of a larger topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Plots are encyclopaedic, clearly policy is broken in this case.
  Matthew 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - you link to
  WP:NOT#PAPER quite often in AFDs in which you participate. I think I've asked you this before, but don't recall ever getting an answer. Can you point out to me exactly where in that section of the policy it says that it's OK to violate other parts of the policy because Wikipedia isn't printed on paper? Because I'm not seeing it. Otto4711 22:31, 14 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. I will mark the page for cleanup. The delete arguments are solid, but those arguing for a keep say they can address those issues, and haven't been given time. We'll mark the page for cleanup and give them time: if the cleanup doesn't happen, we can always delete it later. Mangojuice^talk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Phil?

Who Shot Phil? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete -

• Delete per nom. Nothing there besides plot details. Clarityfiend 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extremely notable storyline in the UK, which can easily be edited to include real world context. Concerns should have been addressed on article's talk page to see if it was improved before the nomination.--Gungadin 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete If it is to be kept, it needs satisfactory application of reliable third party sources in addition to the single existing reference and should be fully re-written to address plot summary issues. Currently fails to fully demonstrate notability, but I am willing to believe that some improvement might be possible. Adrian M. H. 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Can be expanded to provide more information similar in detail to an article about an individual Simpsons episode.--
  Kylohk 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I see no real-world context or sourced analysis. The only source I see is an award for the storyline from a magazine. Delete this plot summary per
  WP:A. --Phirazo 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Gungadin — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obscure and not note worthy Eastbayway 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Who shot J.R.? precedent. JJL 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Who shot J.R. was a seminal television moment that helped define the modern season-ending cliffhanger. I doubt this event had nearly the cultural impact. Indrian 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It caused the third-largest power surge ever on record, a UEFA Cup football game was postponed for it, 50,000 bets were placed on the outcome countrywide, and the reveal episode was watched by 22 million viewers. Enough cultural impact for you? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, maybe not, but still illustrates how Who Shot JR hardly set a precedent for this because it still was far more historically and culturally significant. Indrian 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide a source that says that the JR storyline was mor historically and culturally significant or is that solely based on your own opinion? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is noting but plot summary and therefore fails
  WP:NOT. If this has actual cultural signifigance, it should be noted in the article. Indrian 09:01, 12 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 per G3. Peacent 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyardium

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

Junkyardium is certainly not a real chemical element, nor even an element in an important fictional work. Plinth molecular gathered 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and salt Articles like this are as strong a case as ever for changing the rules and allowing such obvious crap to be speedied. Also warned the author with {{
  96 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - My suggestion: Do it now. Obvious hoax. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - G3, vandalism, in particular 'Silly vandalism'. Creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages So tagged. Kesac 02:10, 9 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. --

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

)

Non-yet-notable baseball player. Technically not eligible for speedy deletion because it claims he's a major-leaguer, but his current status is that of a college player who was only selected in the MLB draft yesterday (June 7), and he's not likely to hit the big leagues for at least a couple of years. --Finngall ^talk 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just barely escapes being speedied--he was a national collegiate baseball player of the week. Come back when you've made it to the majors.--
  96 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. He's not yet a major leaguer — draftees, even one as high as #55, don't usually go straight to the majors. He will probably go the minors first. If and when (likely when) he moves up to "The Show," submit this to a deletion review and it should go through pretty easily. It's just too soon right now. Good luck to the kid, though. The game needs good lefties. Realkyhick 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about 10 relevant results on Google -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once you eliminate the obvious false statements about him being a MLB pitcher for the Red Sox, you are left iwth "Nicholas Hagadone is a baseball player." Recreate if he does something significant at the college or minor league level, or makes it to the majors. Resolute 05:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not an "obvious false statement" that he's a Red Sox pitcher. Misleading, maybe; jumping the gun a little, maybe; but there's plenty of reliable sites to back up the claim that he's been picked. You know what else is a little misleading? Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё's statement that there's only "10 relevant results on Google." That's right, only 10 on the first page, the first of 14 pages. These include results from FOX Sports and the Red Sox websites. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I was sorely tempted to delete myself, but refrained. After all, we keep collegiate football articles for less than that. "National collegiate baseball player of the week" probably means he has some level of notability at college level too.Circeus 22:23, 12 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.

Surface computing

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

Delete article "Surface Computing'

Reasons:

• "Surface Computing is a new technology successor of touchscreen systems, developed by Microsoft"

Surface computing was not invented or developed by Microsoft, and has been in development by different asian developers and american colleges since 2002.

• The article sounds more like an ad then an informative article
• " This is by making the surface appear as the board with a 3D ball and your hand-movements can be sensed and ball positions are suitably altered."

The technology behind Microsoft Surface is not fully revealed, but it does not use "3D balls", rather motion sensitive cameras and some multi-touch sensing. Alegoo92 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as poorly sourced advertorial, without prejudice to future recreation in a different form. Lots of hits for surface computing that would be enough to make an article, but this advertorial is not it. The ref to MS probably comes from http://www.microsoft.com/surface/ Adrian M. H. 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adrian M. H. Pavel Vozenilek 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically a news story. JJL 23:45, 11 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, with no prejudice toward recreation, provided it passes the problems cited below.

VíaVienté

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

Spam for pyramid scheme.

I do not see relevence to this point. Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Advertising. Supported exclusively by self-published claims. Not many reliable sources exist for this product, which suggests it non-notability. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are media clips done by the WB network affilliate in Dallas as well as specific date mentions to Dallas Morning News, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News. Some don't have the actual links, but the dates of the articles and segments have been published. I don't understand what more you really want.Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. Web hits are primarily first party or otherwise promotion-orientated. Clearly intended as advertorial. Adrian M. H. 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Flunks
  WP:SPAM. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete reads like spam. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing usable on google news, is advertisement --h2g2bob (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPThe article is written in NPOV. Some negative press is given to the company, including a removal by Dr. Leaf's endorsement of the village the company is partnered with as well as a rescinding of the IASC certification. User TedFrank obviously does not know what a pyramid scheme is and is using someone's biased opinion to define it. There is no endorsement of the product or the company. Some references need to be cited and are in the process of being done, but the content is completely valid. Any link not given to the actual source is given by a date and venue of where it happened (e.g. Terry Bradshaw's promotion on MSNBC January 3, 2005). If you're going to have entries on Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc then I don't understand why one won't have an entry here. People are welcome to put up criticisms of the company if they want. It should be cleaned up, NOT deleted. Arnabdas 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate any suggestions on how to re-write the article by any of the people here who do call it spam. Please message me if you have specific suggestions on how it should be reworded, or feel free to reword it yourself. Arnabdas 17:00, 11 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.

Italian profanity

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

• Keep: 1) the fact it is currently unsourced does not mean it cannot be sourced; 2) I am Italian and everything in there is the truth, so it's fully verifiable. 3) Italian language is not "original research". 4) It is as encyclopedic as a relevant part of a popular spoken language. If you don't like because it's full of obscenities, you should also request deletion for pussy, cunt, dick and so on. --Angelo 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Find the sources, then. 2) No man, that's not the way it works. Wikipedia doesn't work on a take-my-word-for-it basis. 3) Who said anything about the Italian language? THIS article doesn't cite any references, so it is possibly original research. 4) Relevant? How relevant? Again, you don't cite any sources. Please read

WP:WINAD; "Wikipedia is not a ... slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia." —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There are books and publications (all in Italian of course) regarding the "Italian profanities" issue. This is not just a idiom guide, the article is full of examples but there is also very encyclopedic content in it, such as linguistical and historical origins of these words, regional distribution (Italian is a heterogeneous language, maybe you don't know this) and a fine paragraph about "Profanity as blasphemy". It needs to be cleaned up and sourced, not to be deleted. --Angelo 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L'italiano e' una lingua eterogenea. Lo so e lo capisco. Maybe this article is not _just_ an idiom guide, but it IS an idiom guide, and it blatantly violates

WP:WINAD. In addition, blasphemy doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and sure it ain't "fine." —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please calm down. If the only actual reason you'd like to see that article deleted, is because you're offended by the "blasphemy", then remember that

Wikipedia is not censored, there's conservapedia for that. PS. You might benefit from studying folklore.--BMF81 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Too bad your argument is biased, witness your blasphemous userpage. This is not myspace; objectionable content may exist only if useful,

it cannot exist for the sake of itself. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy keep. I'm Italian too, and totally agree with the above comments by Angelo.romano.--BMF81 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F. Evilclown93 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where are these reliable sources? —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The published book is a reliable source, and so is the BBC article. Evilclown93 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They only cover a couple sentences, while the article is 11,000+ bytes long. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it proves it's not a hoax, and like other Keep-sayers pointed out, it is notable enough. Also, if every article was judged like that, we'd have 10000-strong backlogs at AfD every day. Evilclown93 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very interesting, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically "...a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Mannaggia. (I hope I'm using that right.) Clarityfiend 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we have many article on words, as Truthiness, Nigger (offensive yet highly notable) and Thou, which is a featured article.--BMF81 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in all truthiness, the words thou hath mentioned are placed in context at some length, whereas this just gives definitions. Clarityfiend 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep Fails
  WP:WINAD and is insufficiently sourced to alleviate OR concerns, but could be improved on both counts if reliable independent sources (preferably editorial, rather than an Italian dictionary, for example) can be applied and the article is extensively rewritten in line with the other cited articles. I would urge those who wish to keep it to make these improvements. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep there is a
  Latin profanity and Spanish profanity. The Spanish one fail deletion in 2005. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, articles about other languange's profanity aren't only interesting, they're also educational. --Candy-Panda 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I'm reasonably sure there is an Italy which has its own language and thus its own profanity. Frankly, if they didn't have it, I'd support an article on that merit. The various idioms and profanities of a given language/culture are certainly encyclopedic, as they are frequently the subject of scholarly study and even commentary in the news. Concerns about references are valid, but not for deletion, but rather cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per most of the above; Italian profanity is no less encyclopedic than Spanish profanity. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 11 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.

Amateur Straight Guys

Amateur Straight Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

self-evident

• Delete ASG = Absolute Speedy Getridofit. YechielMan 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete, speedily. Chris 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:CORP. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete --♫Twinkler4♫ 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is just an advertisement.
  Aleta 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. —
  talk – desk) 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per nom, textbook spamming of the wiki. RFerreira 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is one of the more obvious violations of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Like Aleta said, "its just an ad"--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 12 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 (closing this a tad early).

List of Zip Codes in Ohio

List of Zip Codes in Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inherently unencyclopaedic listcruft. (Article had speedy tags repeatedly removed.) Chrisd87 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I thought we already nuked these? Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same reason above, too bad they don't have 44902:-)Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as valueless unencyclopædic listcruft. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I thought we also deleted all of these as well. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sheesh. JJL 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before someone goes postal. RFerreira 06:07, 12 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.

Ghost metal

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

• Delete yes, uncited, apparent foo metal neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As how is something supposed to grow if it is stamped on constantly and same could be said for any sub-genre. P16 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Twiin 16:12, 10 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. --

Brazilian F.C.

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

Soccer team at 11th level of English system; not notable. NawlinWiki 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absent a showing of significant coverage in third-party sources. It is possible that the organization they belong to merits an article, but not every single team merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, somebody might want to take a look at Middlesex County Football League just to see if it's notable, and see if the rest of the teams might be worth deleting. FrozenPurpleCube 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the team - general consensus seems to be that teams only warrant an entry if they're level 10 or above on the pyramid unless they've done something unusual, and this one's on level 11. Keep the league, though - there aren't that many leagues in the pyramid, and I do think it's useful (eek! a Forbidden Word!) having articles on the leagues to illustrate the structure — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can accept that the league itself is reasonable to include (though I would prefer more sources, and I'm not at all committed to keeping it), but I'm concerned about the half a dozen or so individual teams with articles and the rest that are red-linked. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW on the teams, the only one I'd keep of the current batch would be Stonewall F.C. who do get the odd bit of press coverage as the only all-gay team at a respectable level in the pyramid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per accepted precident. As far as the side issue goes: I would argue that the league itself is notable. Resolute 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. If Stonewall FC are to be kept becaused they are an all gay team then this club is similar in that it is also from one specific group, Brazilians in England. If it were by some chance kept because of the club being specifically from the Brazilian community in England, it reads like a press release for the club and as if it were copied and pasted from their website. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm only (weakly) arguing to keep Stonewall because they get the odd bit of press coverage, rather than that they're unusual in and of themselves. Brazilian FC may get coverage themselves in the Portuguese language press, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons I can't check - and I'm guessing it might be a bit tricky to find them by googling "Brazilian football" —
    iridescent (talk to me!) 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Yes sorry I wasn't suggesting that Brazilian FC should be kept as my vote is to delete. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:51, 11 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. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the result was actually "no consensus to delete". To be a keep result it would have needed 2/3 of the votes to be keep, which it did not get. I left a message on your talk page about it, and you did take action, so I am making the statement here. If you'd like to update the line later you can remove this message.DreamGuy 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amending. Yes, let's call this no consensus, because there was at least one uncountered deletion argument, namely, Adrian M. H.'s. However, in response to the above comment, AfD is not a vote, and the count doesn't determine things. In particular, although DreamGuy struck out User:67.39.194.114's comment, anons are allowed to participate, and that argument was relevant. Mangojuice^talk 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse Than Failure

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

)

Non-notable blog Oscarthecat 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable; Speedyable? Chrisd87 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable; 4-year old publication contributed (and continues to contribute) several new, important concepts to field of s/w development; User:John.adleson 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)— John.adleson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Got
    reliable sources that prove those claims? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The site is frequently cited as a source for humorous lessons of how not to do things by notable people, including
      Raymond Chen, Jeremy Zawodny, etc. Three of those named are judges for their contest.75.59.191.233 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Please consult Wikipedia:Notability (web), e.g. "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Right now, the article does not make its notability clear at all. --Oscarthecat 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article does not even claim that publication contributes to new important concepts, looks like just a free ad for a blog. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteKeep Article as it stands doesn't even assert notability, all external refs are only to blog itself. Okay, all of my issues were addressed nicely. Article now explains why the blog is notable, includes sources, and doesn't read like an advert. Yay. Capmango 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete insufficiently notable blog. Doczilla 06:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep After some research, definitely notable. Spent time searching for thedailywtf.com and worsethanfailure.com and added external sources. Site is pretty big.Smauers 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Smauers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete There is nothing worse than failure, and this fails
  WP:WEB. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Most of those sources don't treat the subject in a non-trivial manner. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is quite educative in providing 'how-not-to-do-it' examples in an entertaining way. Regardless of WP notability it is quite useful for developers. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep because of the popularity (IMHO) among SW developers (at least temporarily). Printed publications had practically disappeared from their world so asking published sources won't get far regardless of its actual notability
  IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:WEB and expanding on Pavel Vozenilek's point, WTF and its content has been the subject (non-trivially) of quite a few notable online publications (from InfoWorld to Schneier on Security). While references to these publications don't add to the article, they do attest to its notability. 67.39.194.114 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)— 67.39.194.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

Anon IP *and* no edit history, no ability to vote here. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:WEB. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I believe this does meet
  WP:WEB as it's a reasonably well-known site that has external references. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 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. -

Gassim Abdelkader

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

Self advertizement of an unknown artist Arielle72 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable enough. A few search results in Norwegian (linked in the article) don't appear to establish sufficient notability. Not much from Google either (by Google's standards): mostly MySpace-style stuff like [1]. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --Aldux 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've been long uncertain on this one, as nobody knows better than me that google hits are an extremely way to judge an African topic, and especially a Chadian, as it is extremely common that Chadian individuals have extremely few google hits, even when they have or have had a formidable impact on their country. But in these case, none of the links that a search connects to him shows he is known in his country, let alone internationally, and as for Norway, I have to conclude with Adrian that he's simply not renown enough.--Aldux 17:56, 12 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. As for including the material at

MoparScape

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

Deprodded without comment by an anonymous user. This is an article on an illegal copyright violation of

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:N. A lot more than 450 hits, but nothing that qualifies as independent editorial sources. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry, I meant "kGhits" as shorthand for "thousand Ghits". CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  runescape client which allows people to access private servers, Should be noted on the runescape article but does not need an article of its own. Skullblade 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  Runescape! I agree that the article should be merged with the main Runescape main page.Wii Kid2 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Changed vote to Merge.--Edtropolis 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like an ad. Drop the page and if we can figure out that this is really notable add something under "Cheating" in RuneScape. Also has no sources. I think we've had a number of AfDs for RuneScape cheats. OSborn 03:42, 15 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.

Jason Algayer

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

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. Similar set of contributors to fellow AfD candidate Stewart Thomas‎. --Finngall ^talk 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Notability as a high school teacher could conceivably come from research or writing, though it's very rare in the US (but see Frank McCourt). It could more likely come from prominence in professional affairs at a public level; I think we probably do not have many examples here, and we really ought to. Butt here's no real show of it here--at least not yet. DGG 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is weak. I am from the same area as Mr. Algayer and I have heard of him, but he doesn't seem that notable. He is not a region-wide notable person such as another article on this site, Stewart Thomas. Algayer has done some research and study of math, but not that much.MrMustard92 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) R. Morgan[reply]
• Delete No claim to notability, instead we have vacuitities such as "He is noted for the expertise he shows in solving equations using logarithms." C'mon. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong KeepJason Algayer is awesome. I have read so much about him. Guys c'mon he is the best mathematician ever.Sthomas101 18:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)— Sthomas101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. This is so clear a fail of
  WP:PROF that I'd rather talk about a different problem with the article: the references. They consist of two school-level books, one on trigonometry and one on the history of mathematics, that neither are used to justify any claim in the article nor are mentioned in the article itself. Normally my reaction to bad references would be to judge the article on what the references could be made to look like if only someone put some effort into it, but such egregiously bad referencing deserves special note, I think. —David Eppstein 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep; RS via google are non-existant. However without access to the two books listed as references, its hard to conclude that RS are a problem. Only one of the books is in Worldcat.
  John Vandenberg 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What do you think could be in those books that would save the article? They do not appear to have been written by Algayer, and are on subjects that, if Algayer were a major contributor to, would be much better documented. At best I expect a trivial mention of the form that Algayer suggested some formulation. I think it's fair to judge by sources we can dig up ourselves, not just the ones already in the article, but am much less comfortable speculating about the contents of not-easily-viewed sources. —David Eppstein 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No mention of any significant academic works published, nor can be easily found. Two textbook references are unlikely to have any significant content about him. Hence not notable.--
  Kylohk 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nonnotable high school teacher. Item 2 under "References" is, in part, available at Google Books, and Algayer is not entered in the index. I have a feeling that the two "references" are books A. uses in his classes, not books to which he contributed. Deor 15:51, 10 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ylenia Aurucci

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

Losing contestant on a reality television show. This completely unreferenced article claims that she's done a bit of work, but noting at all notable compared to notable, professional models. Now just another struggling young model in a very crowded and competitive field who has done nothing to discern herself from others. Mikeblas 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has appeared in movie Fantastic Four. [2]
  • Comment. Did she have any lines? IIRC, she didn't. Even if she did, her part was very minor -- nearly that of an extra. -- Mikeblas 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article sounds promotional, yet it lacks reliable sources. The IMDB reference noted above is not yet in the article, but it shows only minor roles. Not enough to keep. EdJohnston 20:41, 7 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, Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonnotable per above. YechielMan 21:21, 8 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.

Weakened slavery

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

It is an

• merge along with
  african slave trade. cornis 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both. I don't see content worth merging, and I agree that these are essays. Someguy1221 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#OR. Evilclown93 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete OR essays, with nothing of value to merge. Adrian M. H. 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete aslo teh essay The eurpoean penetration. Pavel Vozenilek 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR essay. JJL 23:41, 11 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.

Sangi

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

Made-up language, this article is exactly

• That's not an article, it's a textbook. Delete as per the creator's comment on the talk page saying that it's never been exposed outside the creators' minds. Thus, no
  reliable sources are possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Actually, even if this language had its own website, it would still fail the
  notability requirements, which require independent sources. Tolossan is at least the official language of a country, even if it's a teeny tiny one. Someguy1221 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This language should have a nice website, but not a wikipedia entry, at least not yet. Capmango 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing
  attributable. To the author, there are wikis out there that are less stringent about the requirement for reliable sources. I believe that langmaker.com and wikia are two. - Aagtbdfoua 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per article author's comment of 21:29, 8 June 2007, above. Deor 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ...created for private use by a small number of individuals in North Yorkshire... == NN ~ Infrangible 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:43, 9 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 deleted by TexasAndroid. YechielMan 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papathanasiou Marek

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

Lack of notability Sverre 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7—no assertion of notability. So tagged. Deor 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - completely fails
  WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy A7, as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 8 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. Moreschi ^Talk 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gesine Confectionary and Gourmet Market

It's a cake/coffeeshop owned by Sandra Bullock's sister -em.. that's it. NN - might require a line in Sandra's article but that's about it. Fredrick day 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mmm...spam pastry. Clarityfiend 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This sounds like the modern-day equivalent of, "George Washington slept here." (Or maybe John Stamos' brother when he appeared in an episode of South Park.) I don't see any notability for the shop, or any notability in the career of Sandra Bullock and her family, so delete this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As creator, keep This is a store which is known nationwide. Come on: here's an excerpt from one article about it. "I first went into the shop out of curiosity, as many people did. The P.R. for the store's opening day was national — Gesine's sister, Sandra Bullock was giving out free macaroons..." (located here As the article says, the
  MSNBC.com [5], and International Herald Tribune [6]. I know, media coverage isn't necessarily notability, but this is not spam (no, not even tasty spam), this is a big thing in Montpelier, indeed, all of Vermont. We have a defined lack of famous people, and this is about as close as we get (barring Martin St. Louis). It's not spam, and I don't believe it's not notable. Bmrbarre 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

the first article is a dressed up blog post so doesn't count and most of the other coverage is about how Sandra Bullock worked in the shop on it's opening day - so in actual fact, the coverage is trival because the store is secondary to the fact that Sandra Bullock worked there for a shift to promote it. --Fredrick day 22:47, 5 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, W.marsh 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:CORP, as news coverage is merely incidental and does not establish notability. Note that the first two references in the notes are to somewhat different rewrites of the same AP report. Deor 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom & pastry spam. --Evb-wiki 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Spam or not, this is not really notable enough, with fairly trivial coverage and an attempt at inherited notability. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. Harmless. Culinary and style articles still written. Tourists from miles around visit.DrM 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)_{there is no user Drake M - this is IP address 69.235.10.190 who's only edit is to this AFD. --Fredrick day 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment Note that the signatures of User:Adrian M. H. and this Drake M. are the exact same, and that they both have an M. in there. Some newbie probably came along and copied Adrian's sig and name. Just a theory, though.

• Keep - not mind blowingly notable but enough there, with sources.
  TerriersFan 04:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree with the assertion that its notability is trivial. The place's opening was a publicity stunt, the coverage is minute, and the shop itself is not notable enough to warrant an article. Information about the shop and Bullock's sister can be merged, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps this should become a section in an article on Gesine Bullock-Prado. She not only owns this shop, but she (with her sis) is the owner of Fortis Films, which is responsible for
  The George Lopez Show, Hope Floats, and the Miss Congeniality duo IMDb. I think that I could get enough information together to make an article on Bullock-Prado featuring this. I am userfying the current version of Gesine just to make sure I have a backup copy. Would any of those who voted in favor of delete be satisfied with this proposal? Ben
• Comment I didn't vote either way, but I'd support Ben's proposal, since her non-bakery related work will have coverage, in the same way that the article on
  iridescent (talk to me!) 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No notability asserted. Indrian 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:21, 14 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.

Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio

Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Search for "Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio"=1 hit, Wikipedia.

• Delete - I'm sure it's an important association for the assistants of Lucas County, but it's not encyclopedic outside of that very small group. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.
  WP:LOCAL applies. YechielMan 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the commissioners themselves aren't notable enough, so why would the assistants be? DarkAudit 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. If I'm reading this article correctly, the association was founded a few months ago and has had a total of 6 different members (not necessarily all at the same time). Wikipedia is not an organizational minute book. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 10 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.

Gamma Epsilon

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

Non-notable chapter of a college fraternity. This was prod(ed) over a year ago but no one caught on to the fact that someone removed it. As per previous AfD debates regarding fraternity chapters, Wikipedia is not (

• Delete There is no association of individual notability in this article, but instead, it's a chapter of a national organization. I wouldn't even support a directory of members of that organization on Wikipedia, let alone this whole article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete other frats probably have GE chapters too. JJL 23:43, 11 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 killed. Daniel 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WowZolo

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

Non notable World of Warcraft bot. No real content other than external links and saying what the bot does. Google search reveals no results for "WoWZolo" outside Wikipedia.

• Delete. This doesn't even assert notability - if A7 applied to computer programs I'd tag it in a heartbeat.
  Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as lacking evidence of importance, sources, or any other redeeming features. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The frightening thing about this is that, in a short span of time, this kind of thing might actually become notable ~ Infrangible 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How might it become notable?
  talk to me! 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete A7 per logic. The current wording of the criteria may not explicitly include computer programs, but that should not change the reality that this article does not assert any kind of notability, whatsoever. Resolute 05:50, 9 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. The keep arguments here are thoroughly refuted, and the article has had plenty of time to improve. Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (3rd nomination)

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

This article, while well written, does not assert the

• Guides on how to use DKP, written by WoW players
• Definitions of DKP from lists of gaming terminology
• Trivial mentions of DKP in articles about WoW
• A single "fun" whitepaper on DKP which links this Wikipedia article in a footnote

Those don't strike me as

I dislike the conundrum that this article presents. As demonstrated by the previous nominations, there is little community consensus to delete this information, and I don't percieve that as changing. On the other hand there is the undeniable fact that this article suffers from a number of problems with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, also well demonstrated by the previous nominations. It feels like an unecessary stalemate where we are saying "Yeah, this article is a mess and no one knows how to fix it, but we can't delete it either, so it's a no-consensus conclusion." I find the continual lack of consensus dissatisfying. I cannot quite endorse the article as it stands but also cannot deny that deletion would be in contravention to consensus. There must be a solution. To that end I am forced to suggest stripping this down to a barebones definition (sans the detailed analysis) and merging the resultant definition into

Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• comment the problem with such merges is that they usually lead to loss of content, & the good material is more extensive than the single paragraph that would fit there. And that article is quite long already. I think that we need to find a better way or organizing its, though it's not really my area of expertise. (I note that we can probably expect academic studies etc etc. in future years--they would eventually justify good articles.)DGG 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to "fix" the article. Anyone else who thinks they can do more to make it more encyclopedic is welcome to do so. By now I've reached a point where it's hard for me to get worked up further about this issue, and if consensus is that the most recent revisions are acceptable then I'll support an outright keep.

Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep For articles like this, it is a challenge to find outside sources that are fully "independent" of the subject, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Shouldn't be merged because it stands well on its own. Capmango 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if it's inherently difficult to find independent sources, then Wikipedia is the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak Keep I know nothing about the subject matter, but comparing the current version to previous versions it seems to me this one is marginally better. If past decisions in AfD were keep, then I don't see why this one should be any different. That said, I think notability is a legit concern. --Kangaru99 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I have played WoW and heard of it often, I rarely heard external sources citing it, let alone the WoW website (forums aside). Notability within a small community does not necessarily translate into notability in the whole world.--
  Kylohk 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't believe that a global level of notability is our threshold. I haven't seen any guideline on how big a community needs to be before it's big enough to imbue notability. Capmango 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly these games are ubiquitous enough to be within our scope by any standard--we certainly have an extensive collection of articles about this and other similar games--and the article is more general than just the specific game where the terminology originated. By common estimation, this is the heartland of WP.DGG 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The games are certainly notable, but why does that notability extend to related fan-made systems? DKP does not have multiple reliable sources, and nobody knows how widespread DKP is. Simply saying "DKP is used in WoW and Everquest, so it must be notable" is not a good argument for notability.
    Phony Saint 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom, this isn't notable -
  Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm torn on this one. I prefer we find a way to incorporate into a MMORPG-related article. The idea of splitting items in MMORPG didn't start yesterday; rather, it has been around a while. I guess I'm neutral leaning keep/merge - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:24, 14 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 per

Asshole (song)

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

Wholly unreferenced and w/o any evidence of notability. {{

• Merge to No Cure for Cancer. (No AfD listing needed, actually.) --B. Wolterding 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a song that hits #2 on a national is notable, at least under the proposed
  WP:MUSIC guidelines for songs. Until guidelines are settled, I say err on the side of following the proposal. Article needs references, but that's no reason to delete. Capmango 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:MUSIC. Specifically "is a released single by a notable artist, band or group" and "has been ranked on a national or significant music chart." Song passes both. DarkAudit 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Capmango and DarkAudit. Note that the image needs a rationale written or we're going to lose it. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DarkAudit above. The article doesn't currently mention it, but this also used to be the theme song for the UK government's anti-drink-drive campaign, so I assume there will be plenty of media coverage should anyone want to look (my dedication to the project does not extend to wading through the ocean of crap a Google search on "Asshole" will bring up...) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a top 10 (top 5, really) hit in a large country, as well as being voted onto the Hottest 100, which is a pretty big thing here. I'll add this source to the article forthwith which backs up the second claim. Additionally, given that the Hottest 100 it topped was the first time that votes could only be cast for songs of that year (Joy Division always used to win, I'm told), that's another notable fact. That it's a single by Dennis Leary, a notable artist, clinches the deal. I'm also finding Idriscenti's Freudian slip rather amusing. Points to Idriscenti for the line on the Google search, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Give me some credit - that was carefully phrased, not a Freudian slip! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I wasn't quite sure which way it should've been taken this morning, so I flipped a coin. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per BigHaz. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This was a massive hit in Australia, in no small part thanks to Triple J's high rotation playing of this novelty song. --Canley 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DarkAudit and Canley.
  John Vandenberg 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, easily the most well known single of a highly notable artist. Resolute 05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- highly notable song. The article requires references, not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 11:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Very notable and popular song. --Candy-Panda 01:42, 10 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.

Lucidlan

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

Non-notable web site / organization. The first versions of the article were pure advertisement, even copyvio from their website (cf. Google Cache, site seems to be down at the moment). PROD and Speedy were contested. Tone rewriting has occurred, but still there's no hint to notability. Google gives hardly any hits. No major changes to content since initial creation. I think this is a hopeless case in view of

• delete there are no sources of any sort to support notability.DGG 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this clearly fails
  L200inLA 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete per nom. - Nabla 12:50, 10 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.

John C. Clemens

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

This person from history fails

• Delete: Just a guy who started a modestly successful business. Folks like him are in the hundreds of thousands. Fails
   RGTraynor  19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete tagged since last September with no changes; plenty of time to establish notability, but no one has bothered to. Capmango 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pretty clear cut. Adrian M. H. 16:27, 9 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, socks blocked.

Stewart Thomas

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references indicating notability, and doesn't appear to meet
  bio guidelines; don't see anything on Google Scholar with regards to that name, nor much other chatter. Unless there's some notable publications or media coverage, this isn't encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• KeepThis article needs not to be deleted. Although he may not be notable where you live, he is well known in Pennsylvania for his work, especially in the northeastern part of the state. Dr. Thomas is a highly respected member of the academic community here.71.161.245.103 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)C. McDonough — 71.161.245.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• CommentI live in northeastern Pennsylvania and I know all about Stewart Thomas. Everyone does. He's is one of the most well known members of the community next to polliticians. He is the single most respected member of the North Pocono faculty and everyone in school respects him as a scientist who conducts independent research and as a great and innovative teacher.MrMustard92 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)MrMustard92 (R.Morgan) — MrMustard92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Contributor list is similar to that of Jason Algayer, a similar article that I have also nominated for AfD. --Finngall ^talk 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This is a much stronger article and a more important career than for J.A., mentioned above. I don't think it's really sufficient--but such material as the NEA and PSEA presentation might make for notability, especially if they've been published, and details should be added. If sufficiently noticed, that's the sort of professional activities that would make a teacher notable for WP purposes. DGG 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is fairly strong, but I guess that's coming from someone who lives in the same area as Dr. Thomas and knows about his career. I will try to find more research and help to contribute to this article. 71.161.245.103 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)C. McDonough — 71.161.245.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. You get to express a "keep" opinion only once, 71.161.245.103. I suggest you strike out either the preceding one or the one farther above. Deor 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have actually met Stewart Thomas and may be able to obtain more records through him. He may have kept publications about himself. Also, I will check the Sctanton Times newspaper for more information and articles.MrMustard92 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)R. Morgan — MrMustard92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Aside from the peacock language in the lead and elsewhere, there's no real assertion of notability, and the listed references aren't much help. Several of the sections ("Humble Beginnings," God help us, and "Continued Education") are unnecessary and unencyclopedic or ("Future") are blatant
  WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No decent claim to notability: "a pioneer in using multimedia in his lessons" is insufficient. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KeepI have had Dr. Thomas as a teacher, he was simply the best. Also, I believe if you look carefully there are things he's published in magazines and I would not be surprised if there was an entire book.Chestermobile1 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Chester Shultz — Chestermobile1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KeepDr. Thomas is a respected member of the academic community all around Pennsylvania. He has been honored and published several times. He's met both the president and governor. — Mountainman81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete not notable, despite the sock-puppetry clearly exhibited above. --Oscarthecat 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And below! Deor 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article itself admits that his contributions to research are not notable, and is otherwise filled with fluff. —David Eppstein 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see what is wrong with the article. Stewart Thomas seems to be a pretty notable guy by the stuff in the article and by other users so I say keep it :) Sk8rchick69 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Sk8rchick69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep If he really met the president thats awesome and probably means hes notable. His work seems impressive and I guess if hes published thats even better so save that article.Rocknrob144 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Rocknrob144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep biology teachers deserve notewrothyness on wikipedia. someone should give them credit for all their hard work. this guy sounds like he stands out from the pack Bugboy148 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Bugboy148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep thomas sure seems to have a lot under his belt. he is notewothy especially if there are self-written sources Typershark 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — Typershark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - there isn't anything written in the article that would elevate him well above the level of a really good teacher. -- Whpq 17:08, 12 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. Moreschi ^Talk 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops

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

This article was previously deleted due to the obvious consensus that the article lacked any secondary sources (see here. The article was rewritten and moved back into the article space; however, it still only uses primary sources (archived versions of the game's website). Googling for sources only brings up the usual Fileplanet and other directory listings, which are not independent reliable sources. Delete for lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, mod was retail released on the UT2004 Editor's Choise Edition. Contest entries in Epic's contest are also clear. Mentionnings from Developers and Publishers can be found across the internet.

• Delete: as failing
   RGTraynor  18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per RGTraynor's comment. It's way of WP:V and is not notable. Adrian M. H. 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  ╦ 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep If you had actually read the current article, you'd see that more than primary sources were used. Your state that it needs independent reliable sources, and that is why there's an entire section titled News articles (by date). It is also generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Wickethewok this is the second time you've put this article up for deletion, and yours reasons this time seem more specious than the last. --Basique 10:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are those links reliable independent sources?

  ╦ 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I don't see any myself. There isn't a single source from either mainstream media (not expected in any event) or from well-known gaming industry publications which would at least have a modest rep for fact-checking. I'm also not enthusiastic about the presumption that just because we're not swallowing these sources as reliable, we must not have read the article.

 RGTraynor  12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Independent news sources were asked for and provided along wiith dates, Beyond Unreal is one of the three big Unreal sites, Boomtown isn't small, and are you saying that

UGO isn't notable? Or that Epic's own Unreal Tournament website listing Frag Ops is not? In fact quite a lot of data has been provided. No one asked you to swallow anything Traynor but when you vote to delete something, make sure you at least understand the topic you are sitting in judgement of. Because someone who did would have immediately recognized Beyond Unreal, that is of course why it's the topmost link. Going back quite a ways in the contribution histories of most of the Delete voters, I do not see any gaming articles contributed to or edited, I just see deletions and admin work. The question is if you only posses a superficial understanding of a topic, how can you effectively determine its notability? --Basique 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

One more thing a link to the Frag.Ops page was posted on their forums on June 8th at 12:46 PM, and then at 18:04 PM on June 8th Wickethewok added (afdx) to an article that has been up since March 21st, in fact it is the very first action he takes that day. So if he just rediscovered the article on June 8th, where exactly did he rediscover it? --Basique 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we're judging its verifiability. Reliable sources must be independent. Unreal's own websites don't qualify.

 RGTraynor  18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Not sure what Basique is accusing me of, but the thing that prompted me to nominate it was that someone edited it on June 8 popping it to the top of my watchlist. I still had this watchlisted still from when it was deleted a few months ago and hadn't realized until then that it was back in the article space. I saw that the reasons it was deleted last time had not been addressed, as the "news articles" aren't reliable or independent (also, at least one is a press release). Wickethewok 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was watchlisted since the last time it would have also popped up on March 21st. Those news articles are from reliable independent sources. In fact all of you have edited articles a lot more dubious than this and have not nominated them for deletion, I know this because I've gone through all your contributions. This is a solid article I built it that way, and I put in the references to back that up. So what I think now is that I need to bring this issue to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Basique 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you find other articles that are impossible to source/are junk/etc, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but that doesn't really have to do with this AFD. This AFD is already listed at
  WP:CVG#Deletion, so I assume that Wikiproject CVG already knows. FYI, since the article was in your userspace until March 30, my watchlist wouldn't have shown any of the edits made before you moved it to the deleted article's location. Wickethewok 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Basique. IP198 14:40, 15 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.

Mike Carter (music producer)

Mike Carter (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete.Non-notable. Vanity page. No references except those created by subject on myspace. Smerus 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. The lead hits being the Wiki article and his Myspace page, the notability Kiss of Death.
   RGTraynor  18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Number 9 in the melodic MP3 trance charts!? What the...??? YechielMan 07:05, 10 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 but move. Whatever this is, it isn't a bio article on the Judge. I am persuaded by the keepers that there are enough secondary sources for a notable article. However, there is sufficient precedent that such articles should be based on the event not the person.

Article about a judge that made a controversial decision. The judge himself is non-notable and both provided sources concern the controversial case rather then judge. One could argue for an article about the case (although I would not) but an article about the judge cannot be justified. In addition, this article has been listed at the BLP noticeboard here. CIreland 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article in current form per nom. Possibly write about the case (if you can find a few more reliable sources), but not the judge deciding it. Very few exceptions (John Sirica comes immediately to mind.)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: The case itself only returns 8 unique hits [8], although charmingly, one from morons.org. The judge, however, returns many more hits, a number from reliable news sources. It isn't a strong one, but it certainly passes
   RGTraynor  18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not notable and is there an agenda for having this article? Thanks! --Tom 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep national news interest in the case. In this particular article, the importance is primarily the conduct of the judge, and the article is appropriate in his name. The material presented is factual.That readers may draw negative conclusions about the person is not a fault of the article or of WP. BLP prohibits only unsourced negative information. DGG 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article lists three independent sources. Over 600 ghits for "John Lee Parrott"+lesbian. I don't see the problem here. ~ Infrangible 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
   RGTraynor , BUT . . . from what I recall of this case, the article is not really written in an NPOV manner. As I recall, there was a little more to his ruling than "I don't want you to have the kid cuz your a lesbian". I forget the details just now but I recall that 1) he was applying a strict interpretation of the state law against same sex marriages that, in his view, somehow also extended to adoptions and 2) he argued that the adoption petition had come to the court fraudulently since the woman applied as being "single" even though she had been in a live-in committed relationship with her partner for several years. Personally, I do not sympathize with these arguments. In fact, one could even argue that the two arguments are mutually contradictory. If the same sex marriage ban is that holy, then she was just being mindful of that law in stating herself to be "single". But still, the point is the article needs to be much more comprehensive about all of that in order to reach NPOV status. I don't have time to work on it right now, but I may get to over the weekend if no one beats me to it. Mwelch 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete So Wikipedia is devolving to a point where people who disagree with any judge's ruling will simply post a hit piece on them here. This case has not gone to any higher judicial body, and did not set any type of precedent that will affect future rulings. I had a traffic ticket a few months ago, maybe I need to create an article for the police officer and the city solicitor. This is a BLP, and the rules clearly state that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a single event does not give a person notoriety. Dougdeal 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]