Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 19

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

The result was redirected in parallel AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/++ungood;. --ais523 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

++ungood;

++ungood; (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as nomination. Springnuts 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN geekcruft.
  Doubleplusungood (the Orwell version) is a redirect, but I don't think this one merits even that. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, a
  talk/review) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable joke. Can only ever be a dicdef. WjBscribe 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a dicdef at best. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the C++/Newspeak connection has already been discussed to adequate detail (with sources and all) in C++#The name "C++". I don't think we need to explain all possible variations of it... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, naturally. ManinBlack, I see this delete proposal stems from a comment on your talk page citing ++ungood; and
  unsigned comment was added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and cruft.--WaltCip 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Light Project

1. delete Dark Ermac 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

List of most successful aircraft

List of most successful aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that this is the beginning of a good encyclopedia article, but I think it needs to be expanded beyond a list and moved to title such as Historically successful aircraft. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It could be improved Crested Penguin 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I neglected to mention that the list is very subjective. For example, the Harrier jump jet is listed as successful while the History Channel also includes it in its Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 6 episode decrying its design flaws.[1] A user on the talk page also questions inclusion of the C-130 based on its accident history. Additionally, due to the lack of a definable, concrete definition of successful, almost every aircraft could probably be considered successful in one respect or another or the aircraft would not have reached production. --Dual Freq 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Inherently subjective list. Pjbflynn 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. COMPLETELY subjective list. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsalvageably subjective. --RaiderAspect 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No salvation, inherently POV. /Blaxthos 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mind-bogglingly subjective. Also, if this list is the MOST successful aircraft rather than just VERY successful aircraft, shouldn't it only have one entry? ;) FiggyBee 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective; no attribution for definition of "successful" (do they mean most popular? Safest? Easiest to fly? Cheapest to run? What?) or for inclusion of aircraft. Also extremely biased towards American aircraft. --Charlene 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - incredibly subjective and POV. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsalvageably POV. --Mmx1 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is inherently subjective and not NPOV. --Kyoko 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I believe a major problem with the current article is that instead of using a single measure of "success" and clearly defining it, it uses varying criteria that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen. The list would be better if it used a single criterion, such as "List of aircraft with the longest production runs" or something like that. Of course, lists like that run the risk of going against the idea that

  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that's for another time. --Kyoko 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete, although weakly. Yes, there is a problem with the criteria for "success"; AFAIAC any aircraft that flies is "successful", since man will never fly. Were it moved to a list of aircraft produced in largest numbers I'd be inclined to keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That list
    already exists, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it. FiggyBee 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep and cleanup. How is this "mind-bogglingly subjective"? There are perfectly good criteria for "success" (albeit several different ones), and some are used here: most ordered and produced commercial airliner sounds successful to me. Clearly in need of cleanup, but a reasonable list. I see no problem at all with having several different criteria used; for example, "most manufactured", "longest in use", and "most profit" could all reasonably be thought of as criteria for success. bikeable (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. No objective definition of "successful" is possible. Otto4711 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename because of the above comment suggest that a type of POV may be perceived in the term "most successfull". I suggest the new list be called: "List of sucessfull and poppular aircrafts". Also, remove any information which is not properly sourced. ie.: If "airplane A is very successful/popular" (which means it is in the list) then there should be a quote/reference to who said so. This avoids a violation of
  common denominator to give specific stats. These stats should be utilised if possible in this list. I may be correct to assume that those who vote because they believe the issue is subjectivity that perhaps it was your way of saying "that there is a lack of emperical data or referencing?". --FR Soliloquy 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Objective criteria for inclusion is cited at wikipedia's rules here at

WP:A. Properly sourced information should be suficient enough for inclusion. If Howard Stern says "I cut my pubes last night. My hairs were getting longer than my penis."[2] Or the fact that "The world scares me." said Howard. Then I think, considering the good source I provided, it should be included in the appropriate article. Similarly, if the information is well sourced... ie.: Toy's R Us offers or did offer a helicopter and it is documented (note: this link is not a UH-61 helicopter) then it should be included. --CyclePat 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - The list doesn't need to be all-inclusive to be valid. Claiming it was all-inclusive would be a POV issue, but simply listing proably successful aircraft against various measures seems quite valid. Providing proper references to substantiate claims would make it acceptable. I do agree the title reads as horribly objective, but the claims made can be substantiated. (please note that this comment was unsigned the user who performed the edit can be found by clicking here)
• Delete Definition of "successful" seems subjective; numbers built? Best airmiles to accident ratio? Exceeded expectations? I really can't figure out a way to rehabilitate this even by renaming.
  dialogue 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it seems that the aircraft in this list are either: In service for many years, or produced in great numbers, or both. Perhaps this could be made into List of aircraft in service for 30 years or more and/or List of aircraft produced in largest numbers --rogerd 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I have no problem with 10 different lists of the form
  List of most produced aircraft which would focus on other measures of "success". Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - too subjective. Metamagician3000 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Aftermath Entertainment family

Extended Aftermath Entertainment family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Nominate and Delete --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article appears to be just that (just what is says it is) so as not to be indiscriminate. Recommend contacting the sole author via his her talk page to justify sourcing. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominator said it: indiscriminate collection of information. YechielMan 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand how this is indiscriminate. It very clearly specifies who should be included. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - Where is the proof that this is such an "extended family" worth mentioning more then any multiple labels signed under one parent comapny? --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it appropriate for AFD before attempting sourcing, or tagging as such? Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete to the various labels listed in the article; you could, with equal justification, list every bluelink employed by Time Warner. And it's certainly appropriate to file an AfD on an article where the criteria for deletion have little to do with sourcing.
  RGTraynor 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I mean come on. Where is the relationship there between Lil' Murda and Aftermath Entertainment? Lil' Murda is signed to Young Bucks label, who is signed to 50 Cent's label who is signed to Dr. Dre's label (Aftermath). And this is a so called extended family? Nevermind that Dre will probably never meet Lil' Murda (we are never definite about the future), but this article is nothing but a bunch of loose affiliates. No family is ever applied. Why? Because it doesn't exsit. --Ted87 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is too fancrufty. There is no point in having an article about "extended Aftermath Entertainment family," or whatever. It's convoluted, serves no real purpose, and has the potential to spiral out of control. If an artist is signed directly to Aftermath, then they can be cited on the Aftermath article. If they aren't signed directly to Aftermath, then there's no point in drawing a correlation simply because they're merely associated with someone who is.Enotiva 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No point of having this article, as Ted87 said, I don't see how guys like C-Bo, Lil' Murda, or Awesome Two are related to Dr. Dre's Aftermath Entertainment label. Maybe we should just add a list of artists who are signed to Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit, but nothing else, no "Fyre Dapartment" or whatever, and just add that list to the Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit articles as a section such as "Record labels affiliated with Aftermath". So then only add the artists that are ON Aftermath, such as Eminem, Busta Rhymes, Dr. Dre, etc. Or G-Unit, 50 Cent, Young Buck, Tony Yayo, Lloyd Banks, Olivia, and so on. --- Efil4tselaer 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny diko

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

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with

• Delete. Nothing notable per
  WP:MUSIC. Mwelch 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable and also, he is the CEO of non-notable companies. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)**[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:MUSIC. /Blaxthos 06:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Dylan 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold texterror have been Corrected. Lenny Diko has released an LP that was fully pressed. And the Violative Cause LP's barcode is 7553100167. He has worked with artists such as LuckyIam, Moka Only, Josh Martinez, DJ Moves, etc.... I think that with the notables up there removed his article is now ok (UTC)

• Comment. Is the release on a major record label, as is required per
  WP:MUSIC? Just getting a record deal with any ol' body isn't sufficient. As for the "worked with" claim, leaving aside the issue of the perhaps dubious notability of at least some of those names themselves, the fact of that matter is that plenty of currently non-notable artists can truthfully claim that they've "worked with" big names. I don't care if he "worked with" Snoop Dogg, Diddy, and Jay-Z all last week. The fact remains that right now he's got nothing released that's notable, and no media coverage that's notable, so right now . . . he is not notable. But I do sincerely wish him the best of luck in changing that situation in the future. Mwelch 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. No problem. That wish is sincere. However, as far as there being "a lot of artists on here", see
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mwelch 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Lex (rapper)

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

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with

• Delete. Clearly not notable per
  WP:MUSIC. If the article has to tell you to "be on the look out" for someone, that's probably a clue right there. Mwelch 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable. The "be on the look out" comment should be rephrased if it is kept. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  Crystal spam, and non-notability of the subject. ◄Zahakiel► 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotion. Non-notable. Come back when you've sold some records. Wavy G 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Non-notable, and written a bit like a press release. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, blatant spam about an as of yet non-notable subject. RFerreira 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Phosphor (game)

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

This game is still in beta and I don't believe it has any reliable sources in order to meet

• Delete. That screen shot is really cool! The text...not quite. :) YechielMan 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator,
  WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as NN, fails
  RGTraynor 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Looks pretty cool, but lacking in sources at this time. Wickethewok 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture

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}}.

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates

I am also nominating :AH-64 Apache in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons. Ironically there is some hidden text in the article quoting the "indiscriminate collection" policy, just before the list proceeds to be just that.

If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR;

• Original research, unsourced and mostly unverifiable
• Indiscriminate information, just because a film happens to include a type of helicopter is not a significant enough feature to justify listing otherwise unrelated films together.
• Non-notable, "films featuring UH-60 Black Hawks" is not a notable enough topic in itself to warrant keeping an article about it.

Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Unsourced, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. YechielMan 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per YechielMan. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These articles are a part of a larger effort of the Rotorcraft Task Force to split off trivia sections from the helicopter articles. As for "unsourced", how is that possible? The film itself is the reference. (I've also noted this nom on the Task Force talk page) Akradecki 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, referencing a film violates
  WP:NOR policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - That's absurd! Please quote the line that you're referring to. You might want to re-read the very first paragraph in
  WP:A, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Movies are published, and certainly are reliable insofar as what appears in them! So how in the world is stating what's in a movie is OR? Does that mean that plot synopses is OR? Not at all. A movie appearance is completely verifiable. I think you need to re-read the policy, and actually apply it properly. Akradecki 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Additional comment - Oh, and you might want to re-check your policies -
  WP:A, so you really shouldn't be citing it as "policy" anymore.Akradecki 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. The page called
  WP:A. I find your tone increasingly patronizing and aggressive, and I will not be drawn into an argument with you about clearly defined Wikipedia policy. Saikokira 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NOR is not applicable here as there is no "new" interpretation involved. Films are "primary sources", but their use to provide descriptive information does not constitute OR. OR would only be applicable if there was unique and/or personal interpretation of the film, rather than mere description. As for a "patronising tone", your comments at
  User talk:Otto4711 about those who disagree with your position are not too friendly either. -- Black Falcon 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I use
  published source. Saikokira 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment How is a film "not a published source"? Is it because it's a fictional film? Are you saying that any film is not considered a published source? If it were a documentary film, is it still not a published source? You're applying standards that simply aren't in the guidelines. Akradecki 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does this imply that no discussion of what occurs in a film can be had unless a major source has a complete synopsis of everything that happened? I think it'd be hard to justify applying this to Star Wars had nobody mentioned anything about lightsabers outside the film, etc. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Both articles mentioned were created because the pop culture sections were getting too long in the main articles. As long as Wiki policy prevents repetitive deleting of cruft (WP:3RR]], allows concensus by to determine what stays in an article (when crufters outnumber serious aircraft editors), and admins interfere with efforts to remove the cruft by 3RRing those who take it out, then Wiki in effect approves of cruft. SO if cruft is allowed to exist, then why not in its own article? Makes just as much sense as anything else Wiki does. And while you're on the OR bandwagon, swing on over to every article on every movie or TV show ever made. About 98% of them are totally unsourced. So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here. I'm all for banning unsourced cruft totally (assuming the admins would actually enforce it), but until that happens, this stuff is going to be somewhere. It has just as much right here as in a serious article on an aircraft. - -
  BillCJ 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment See
  WP:NOR rule are frequently deleted, as anyone here at AfD will tell you. And it's not an "argument", it's a policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - But this doesn't violate NOR. When you refer to something in a movie, or in a book, the movie itself is a reference, and the fact that there's a wikiarticle on the movie shows that it's recognized as a notable reference as well. I also think it's rather ironic that you referred Bill to
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the second paragraph in that essay says, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Akradecki 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• CommentYes, it does violate
  WP:NOR
  . Films are a primary source and cannot be referenced on Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Regarding

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I couldn't be bothered to go into detail about why someone's argument is redundant, when that section (titled What about article x?) deals with the issue so specifically. No irony at all. Saikokira 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reply Again, you mis-quote policy (and the outdated one at that). Regarding primary sources, they can be referenced on Wikipedia, the policy
  unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Comment. This is getting ridiculous. Of course this list requires specialist knowledge. It requires a knowledge of what a UH-60 Black Hawk looks like for a start. It also requires somebody to have a copy over EVERY SINGLE film and video game on the list. And don't place your replies in the middle of my comments in this AfD. If you want to reply, add your comment below this previous one, I have just had to fix your previous reply. Saikokira 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another grab bag of "Hey, guess what I saw in a movie/comic book/episode of The Simpsons!" list. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from [[WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the

In the game Command and Conquer Generals, the F-22 can be buyed at the USA Airbase, it weponary is, Four homing Air to Air Misiles or 4 Air to Ground Misiles, In Zero Hour it can carry Countermeasures in case of SAM misiles and can be upgraded with America Laser Misiles and Antibunker Misiles, also if you play as General Ganger, You wil gain the King Raptor, Which had six misiles instead of four,also it has an laser defence divise on its tail which permited misiles exploted on midair and don't reach the target, but it still vulnerable to Quad Canons and Gatlling Cannons.

• Earlier today, I removed this from the
  RAH-66 Comanche
  article:

In Command And Conquer Generals, RAH-66 Comanche can be buyed at the American Airbase, it weponery is: one machine gun, four Homing Missiles and can be upgraded with rocket pods to get the ability of lunching a barrage of rockets. In Zero Hour, General Ganger can buy the ability to make all of his Comanches become stealth.

• The first example was posted at lest 6 hours after I removed the second example. Please notice that there are no paragraphs like this in the UH-60 pop-culture article, because we have removed them (probably while still part of the main article). We do keep the article fairly trim, otherwise there would be many paragraphs detailing all sorts of stuff about the games, movies, etc.

• Regarding the "indiscriminate listings" comment, we remove the RAH-66's "Incredible Hulk" appearence about once a month, and there is a lengthy discussion on that talk page regarding why the appearance is non-notable. While I have not personally vetted the list on the UH-60, I have vetted other lists, and it looks as if this list has been vetted too. THe Blackhawk is a popular icon, as has made many appearences. COuld a few onf the ones in that list be removed? Probably, but I've not seen all the movies on that list, so I don't know how significant their apperances are. -
  BillCJ 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong delete - wikipedia isn't the place for a list of this nature (unencyclopaedic). /Blaxthos 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both per multiple precedents including but not limited to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture (second nomination), and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars and many more. A collection of every random sighting of a particular helicopter in any movie, TV show, video game or whatever with no regard as to the importance (or lack of same) of the sighting. Otto4711 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's obvious you guys have a vendetta against pop-culture lists, but you don't care a wit if the same items are listed in the main aircraft articles, even though, according to you, the items themselves are OR and indiscriminate. It bothers you more that there's a list of the items on a separate page than the fact the items exists at all. For whatever reasons, you just don't want pop-culture in list articles. That's fine, but at least admit that's your real issue. Stop PRETENDING the real reason is OR, because it's obvious us to those of us who deal with the issues everday that it's not! If it did bother you, then we'd see you in the edit histories of aircraft pages, fighting the good fight against OR! Meanwhile, serious aircraft editors fight against it every day without your help. A fight that will become even harder if you succeed in taking away the only real compromise we have with the crufters - the only semblance of peace in this never-ending war against cruft. But that doesn't matter to you guys, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. -
  BillCJ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just because people will persist in trying to include extraneous information is not a reason to sanction it. These lists are inherently OR because they require looking at primary sources, in the abscence of anyone REPORTING or STUDYING these things. Another issue is the fact these lists can NEVER be complete, a list of every game, movie, show and book that includes a given aircraft is not only interminable, but utterly useless. The other problem is determining what is, or is not, a reference, a problem I've addressed other places, but one I feel is a serious issue. A quick look through these various lists will turn up the idignation of many editors; either 'that's not a reference!' or 'they missed ...' Nothing will ever convince me these lists are proper encyclopedic material unless they begin to take

WP:V seriously. Strong delete Wintermut3 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. If anything on these pages was actually significant (and sourced), then I'd say keep, but it isn't. Then again, anything that was actually significant would be in the main
  UH-60 article rather than being split off. FiggyBee 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete - this kind of crufty, indiscriminate list is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't need. These things could theoretically go on forever, with no guidelines for what should be included and what shouldn't. In addition, who actually would ever find this useful. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all instances of appearances where the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the helicopter in question back into the main article(s). Delete the article and the rest of the references... I believe a mention and a wikilink in its own article is sufficient. -- saberwyn 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wintermut et al. Aside from the numerous other considerations cited, I'm militantly disinterested in the assertion by BillCJ and others that it's necessary to create these crufty, unencyclopedic, unsourced, POV lists because otherwise main articles would be cluttered with the "information." Who says? If you think a series of articles you monitor are being deluged with crap, revert the edits. It's no different from any other WikiProject subject to trivial bombardment of one fashion or another. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to accept every single unsourced hunk of crap triviality. This is the moral equivalent of we over in
  RGTraynor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete as per several of the arguments above. Strongly concur with
  Arkyan 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• AGAIN - I have NO problem deleting genuine cruft from main articles - I do it EVERY day. THe problem is that repeatedly deleitng the same information that a user keeps putting back in leads to revert wars. I don't want ANY pop culture items in ANY aircraft articles at all, on purist grounds, but that does not mean that genuinely notable appearences are not encyclopedic, and should not be mentioned somewhere. But if I keep removing any pop culture items from aircraft articles, eventually some stupid admin with his head up is rear is going to think I'm revert warring, and you morons won't be around to back me up. Yes, the list here is too long; someone dropped the ball in watching it. However, the PROPER soulution is to trim it back as far as possible, and add cite tags. THat is the PROPER way to deal with unsourced material, if thet were GENUINELY what you guys were interested in. But again, you just DO NOT LIKE pop culture list articles, no matter how well-kept they are!
  BillCJ 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm going to step in at this point, BillCJ, and suggest you read

WP:CONSENSUS. Challenging the masculinity of other editors, and general incivility is inappropriate behavior that doesn't advance your cause. I also point out that the PROPER solution (to quote you) is the consensus reached by AfD discussion. /Blaxthos 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By "men" I meant "adults", as that was my intention. I wansn't challenging there maasculinity, but challenging them to act like adults. SHEESH! -

BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Am I to assume then we are all supposed to kowtow to the editors who revert changes intended to restore an article to meet policy and guidelines? A small subset of editors who persist in adding content that does not belong does not constitute consensus. If you remove material from an article and they put it back, then take it out again. If you're worried about

Arkyan 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We do ALL of that! THese pages are the aftermath of removing material that should not be here already. While the UH-60 page does look like it has not been vetted in awhile, no chance to vett or cite sources has been given. None of you are "assuming good faith" on the creation of these pages. They were not made by the crufters, but by serious aviation editors. But

BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? I'm confused - first you admit that this is the aftermath of removing material that should not be here yet argue for including it in its own article? Then you accuse us of violating "assume good faith" and then call in to question our motivations? Regardless, none of what you are doing here is helping to make your point. The article either belongs or does not, denigrating the rest of us doesn't change that.

Arkyan 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Uh, no, the aftermath is the good material, we delete the bad. please, give us some credit! this uh-60 page has not been edited in a while, that is apprarent. i didnt even know it was heare till an article i work on got AfDed too, and i saw this was listed also. -
  BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Darn, you beat me to it, Arkyan. That being said, I'm bemused at the notion that standing up against material we feel violates policy and otherwise does not belong here, as opposed to meekly surrendering to a single rogue user who insists on unencyclopedic edits, is the behavior being characterized as unmasculine. And that being said, BillCJ, do you really think it's constructive to scream at us because you think we don't like pop culture articles, when you admit yourself you don't want pop culture references in the articles about which you yourself care? Never mind

RGTraynor 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• i'm EMPHASISING, not SCREAMING :) i won't use caps anymore just to be sure i'm not misunderstood again. my point is, if you think it's unsourced, tag it! that's the usual way of handling OR issues on Wiki. but again, that's not the issue here, as you have agenda against pop-culture list articles. i don't mind cited, notable pop-culture references in aircraft articles; i can point you to many such pages. but many of these pages are very long, and when you deal with a popular aircraft, such as the uh-1 or uh-60, those lists begin to overwhlm the rest of the article. we split off other sections that become too long. why should pop-culture lists be handled any differently? should we keep a long pop-culture list in the article just because some people don't like the lists on their own page? that doesn't make sense either.

all i ask if that you give us the "courtesy" of having a chance to address the issues first. you have the right to AfD an article, but i'm just asking that you "assume good faith" and talk to the editors first, to give us the chance to address the issues. i'm not accusing you all of deceit, but of singlemindedness. you want to get rid of unsourced pop culture cruft. that's great! i do too! but the question is where do we put a long list of notable pop culture references? it seems you want to get rid of those pages too! if you keep challenging thess pages, we'll soon have to have separate articles for the specs, the history, the users, the variants, and all that will be on the main aircraft page will be the intro and the pop-culture list. that doesnt make sense either. again, i'm not ever talking about keeping the bad cruft, but notable items. had a noticed bewen placed on the page, i might have spent yesterday and today addressing those problems, rather than trying to defend the page's existence. -

BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is simply not content worthy of an encyclopedia article... any notable information can be inculded in other places -- we don't need a crufty article like this (as this AfD is illustrating) --

WP:OR are just the finer points (no need debating them when the whole topic is cruft!). /Blaxthos 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  ^Talk 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per WP:A.

Article is automatically sourced by mentionning the films (primary source). (Though this could be improved by adding a reference section and following

WP:CITE

and using easybiblio maker.

The information is a good collection of information pertaining to the UH-60.

Films using UH-60 is a notable enough subject to have an article. What is interesting is I could probably add a .ogg video conference of a discussion we've had with the one of the producers which answers some of the questions regarding the Cost of renting? How the filming was done? How to rent? You will also notice that the article mentions popular culture. So that includes radio, games, toys (toy manufacturers), shops, etc... --CyclePat 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are presuming, absent any ... well, err, attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do.

RGTraynor 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - just a collection of random facts of no encyclopedic importance, fails
  WP:NOT#IINFO]. Merge whatever is of encyclopedic importance into the main article, but delete this content fork. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete
  RGTraynor, et al. (and what a lot of discussion over a pointless cruft list!). Croxley 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Moderate Keep This article keeps trivia away from the main helicopter article (just like
  Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simple listcruft. Any inclusions of the helicopter in popular culture that are notable can be included in the parent article, any non-notable entries are, well, nonnotable and blatent listcruft. -
  M^ask 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It is listcruft, yes, but its role is to move this kind of content out of the main text. On current Wikipedia there are two options: (1) either to have this cruft in the main article or (2) to have it in a leaf article like this. The second solution keeps WP better, not perfect but better. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that kindof circular logic? If it's listcruft then by definition it has no place on wikipedia. /Blaxthos 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Option (3) - edit it out of the article. I still await a reason for keeping this article better than "It's too much trouble."

RGTraynor 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, here's a reason: Despite what some call "cruft", the fact that a type of helicopter has an impact on popular culture is significant. The Blackhawk isn't quite the icon that they Huey is, but it's getting there. Face it, how military objects impact society and culture can't be ignored (hey, there's whole sciences, ie "sociology" and "cultural anthropology" about this stuff). Akradecki 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if this helecopter actually " has an impact on popular culture" there would surely be documentation in sociological journals. The fact of the matter is that this is just a list of pop culture references -- not a demonstration that it has any sort of impact on popular culture (which it does not). /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with you, as do, I believe, some other editors. I think the real point is that this should be debated on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Before bringing this to AfD, things should have been discussed there, first. Akradecki 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic--Mmx1 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - So many excellent reasons to delete, but none to keep. Masaruemoto 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coooooool discusion, delete wins the day tho --Zedco 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CP, besides your misunderstanding about

notability), this is simply unencyclopaedic content. If it were truely notable (and actually impacts popular culture) there would be true reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed sociological journals, in this case) talking about all the impacts of thus-and-so helicopter on popular culture. Obviously there are no such articles because it has no relevance in popular culture -- this is, as most have pointed out, list cruft and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Hope this helps clear this up. /Blaxthos 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Those links are, frankly, a waste of our time. All along the keep-proponents have been pushing the notion that this article is necessary because it lists (in theory, accurately) the movies in which this particular model of helicopter appears. Now your purported attribution is a simple linksearch on IMDB for "helicopter?" This is just painful.

RGTraynor 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates

Also, a pointless duplication of a topic fairly well covered in List of notable science fiction films. Saikokira 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the list criteria are arbitrary and a better list exists. YechielMan 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A better list exists so this one should be deleted. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The chrnonological list is too large, cluttered to the point of not being very readable, includes a lot of not-very-noteworthy films. It's not a substitute for this list. Avt tor 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only does a similar page exist, but for an alphabetical list, you're better served with a category. Also, you're better served without the POV/OR. Award winning films, yes. "Notable" ones, no. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; notability in this case is arbitrary. --Mhking 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not to mention
  List of science fiction films, which contains 1953's "Cat- Women of the Moon". Wikipedia has covered the field pretty well. Noroton 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (corrected that title Noroton 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply
  ]
• Delete POV, original research, and fan taste.
  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There's that "notable" POV qualfier again. In fact List of notable science fiction films should be renamed. Anyway, the article under discussion here duplicates this information, so it can go. 23skidoo 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete as per comments above, and all my previous comments on AfDs of this type. These lists are inherently OR and subjective. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be, and most likely already is, a category. -- saberwyn 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a category is not necessarily a substitute for a list (the latter can have redlinks for expansion and can have references or provide some color, like year of release or receipts in the case of films). Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this or similar contextual or "expansion" data was present, I would be more inclined to support the article in some way. It isn't, and unless someone with an interest in maintaining the article comes along and adds such data, I don't see how this list is superior to a category. -- saberwyn 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability and inclusion is subjective. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no use for an article like this. Acalamari 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Criteria are specified in the article. This article is a necessary introduction to the subject of science fiction on films. There is a category, which is unqualified, therefore much too large to be useful as an introduction. This article is an essential component of the article on science fiction, separated only to keep the parent article shorter. An article of this kind is needed. If someone has suggestions for more authoritative criteria, those can be discussed. There's no POV, OR, or "taste" here. This isn't a subjective list, just a compilation of cited research. Avt tor 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in popular culture, to borrow a familiar line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean Monsters in popular culture

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

Indiscriminate information. It's not immediately clear what this article is specifically about. It seems to be 4 seperate articles about 4 unrelated species, from 4 different and unrelated films: The Descent, The Cave, an unspecifified film featuring "The Grue" (the Riddick films), and the Mimic films. Article needs to sent back to Subterranea. Saikokira 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the articles for their appropriate movies, split into separate articles, or delete if they don't fit in the main articles and aren't notable enough on their own. Right now, they're four completely unrelated topics. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as unencyclopaedic fictional topic. /Blaxthos 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pious7 hits the nail on the head. These are four completely unrelated topics, and should be treated as such. No matter the result, this title needs to go awat... far away. -- saberwyn 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and bury under a pile of monster corpses, fails
  RGTraynor 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge any verifiable non-OR information to the appropriate film and delete per Pious. Arbitrary mishmash of species at least one of which doesn't even qualify as truly subterranean. Otto4711 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There do seem to be a lot of "$x in popular culture" articles in AFD. Subjective by nature, just kind of silly. Not notable. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I created the article following advice from Geoff B and I would like to point out its original title was List of Fictional subterranean creatures. Perhaps a renaming e.g. Subterranean monsters in fiction--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Salsa shark

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

I prodded this, but quickly discovered it had already been prodded. Anyway, I think it's unencyclopedic and has little potential for improvement. It is also an orphan, with no pages at all linking to it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like it's basically an extension of a quote from Clerks. --Wafulz 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's notable and if it is, it needs links and more info. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
• Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - i was going to say
  WP:NFT... but per Wafulz it appears to be a reference to the movie clerks. I haven't seen the movie, and i think most people who haven't would also agree that the article does little to establish notability of the topic. THE KING 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Throwaway line from a movie. I think it pretty much proves Wikipedia has already covered everything when people resort to writing about things like this. Wavy G 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it was a "resort" so much as a casual user simply thinking the line was funny and that, therefore, it should be written about. But whatever. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Clerks (movie) - Richard Cavell 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non notable, I don't see the point of making sure that anyone that searches salsa shark gets clerks either. Lotusduck 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and do not redirect to Clerks or anywhere else. RFerreira 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely This really has no place whatsoever on an encyclopaedia. Suriel1981 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this for heavenssake, honestly now.
  Burntsauce 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media and Development Communication

Media and Development Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attacking me does not increase any value of the article entry. Anything written on any media related subject doesn't increase its value either. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs of substance - no evidence of notability NBeale 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs more info, but it notable enough and it salvageable. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, NN, fails
  RGTraynor 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Even reputable academic institutions make up vogue department or major names, and only few of them become standard. This is not yet one of them.DGG 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yeah ... I bet it looks a lot cooler on the letterhead to be a "Professor of Media and Development Communication Sciences" than a mere journalism professor.
  RGTraynor 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ha ha ha ha! That was a good one. Aditya Kabir 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Three references (from UK, US, and Bangladesh); fair number google hits. Not a super important article, but it meets the criteria for inclusion. A fine stub. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would you try searching for my name with Google? "Aditya Kabir" (quote included) returns 1,010 finds, as opposed to 109 finds for "Media and Development Communication". And, I am cited on Websites from US, UK, Australia, India and Bangladesh (not including the hits returned from Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia or mirror sites), and that excludes the sites in vernacular scripts (i.e. Bengali and Hindi scripts). So, what would you suggest? May be I am notable enough have my own Wikipedia stub. Or, may be you shall rethink that an academic discipline worth an encyclopedic entry would have more presence in this world. The subject is question is hardly a discipline, but a rather fancy name for a journalism or media course. Not worth the entry. Aditya Kabir 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Astranimu

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

Seems to be OR and NEO, only ghits are article creators forum posts, no references killing sparrows 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even on the content itself, it's not good, and without ghits for notability, it's very bad. YechielMan 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete under a fallen star. Fails
  WP:NOR, dicdef. There are no Google hits that aren't from a bulletin board or Wiki mirrors, and there are only 39 of those. Ravenswing 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not only is this gibberish, but it appears to be total OR. --Haemo 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without redirect per Starblind. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Model United Nations

Singapore Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable

• Redirect to Model United Nations. Merge content if it's useful. YechielMan 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Model United Nations, individual model-UN student groups aren't notable. While I don't object to a redirect, I also don't see the point, as the main article won't have any info on this particular one, and it's only one of many. So redirect as distant second choice only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable Model United Nations.
  Wooyi 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as per Andrew Lenahan, I don't really think a redirect is appropriate. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not think notability is an issue with SIMUN. Notability is different from the number of actual participants. The host (French School of Singapore) tries to keep the SIMUN professional by giving out strict criteria in choosing the delegates and the chairpersons are all hand-picked plus voted. That's why it only has around 350 delegates. Please note that there are not many inter-school MUNs in Singapore, and almost all private, independent and international schools on this island-state are participating in the Singapore Model United Nations. For high school students of Singapore it is an honor to join SIMUN and the notability is across all schools and many notable media, as stated in the article. Also, many Model United Nations conferences that do not have an article does not mean that this article shouldn't exist. --Jingshen 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect to Model United Nations. This is a Model United Nations that happens to be held in Singapore; the general article about MUN is sufficient to cover this topic. --Metropolitan90 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Model UNs, model legislatures, model city councils, they all proliferate like weeds and none have any real notability. We don't have articles for other minor LARPs, although there are many LARPs with many more players and which meet far more often.
  RGTraynor 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KeepIagree that models of organisations do not have impact on the world but they are notable and should be respected. There are reliable secondary sources as said in article. With all the respect and my inexperience with Wikipedia egnlish, I do not really know what LARPS are, but I believe meeting often does not automatically qualify for notability. Singapore Model United Nations should exist by itself because of its uniqueness in location/venue, the participants, organisation, and the audience. It is significant as I have said many times in SIMUN publications that Singapore is an inward looking nation. It is important, especially for teenagers who are the future of our world, to understand what is going on outside. Singaporeans esp the young have only theoritical knowledge about UN and all educators want them to have practical knowledge and that's why schools recommend SIMUN and that's why SIMUN is so notable and highly regarded. SIMUN, being the only inter-school conference coordinated by Singapore gives the valuable chance for schools to work together. singapore has many difference educational systems such as GCSE and IB, etc. Students of SIMUN learn interactively with these people from different systems. The SIMUN discusses wider issues and more issues in depth than many more of them with thousands of participants. And more current issues are well. The issues for THIMUN and other big MUNs are usually set a year ago. SIMUN is more up-to-date with problems to debate such as Iran and the day-to-day management of the real UN such as the 2007 resolution of the UN charter. SIMUN is definitely unique and has its own value. The general MUN article certainly cannot cover that. Therefore I should urge Wikipedia to keep this article. There are not many articles about Singapore and none about MUNs in Singapore. Wikipedia, as an International encyclopedia, should include general issues as well as those that fit both international and locally, such as SIMUN. This article will do all good and no harm. If I were to make a big encyclopedia I would definitely include it. Strongly Keep. excuse my spelling mistakes svp I am not English native speaker. Dr. Cornu --Francois Cornu 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You've made an eloquent case for why this program is important to Singapore high school students. You have yet to make an argument for how this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policy for the inclusion of articles. We do not dispute -- nor is it our place to do so -- whether there is a need for Singapore's youth to understand the greater world around them. What we dispute is that this program meets Wikipedia's standards for an article listing.
  RGTraynor 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I think Dr Cornu had made very much of a point here. He answered why this program is notable; why SIMUN is unique and the article should exist by itself - why Model United Nations cannot cover the topic; and why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Please list any other guidelines and policies that this article does NOT comply with and we will see. --Jingshen 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Take a look at

RGTraynor 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hellio as the coordinator of Singapore Model United Nations, I say this is an organzation, nor a company, product, etc. It is notable annual event with significant meanings as it combines the locality of Singapore with International schools and international concepts (i.e. the UN) to achieve alternative learning through experience and nationwide communication of international matters.--Francois Cornu 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Strickland

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

Subject is not notable per

• Delete. Subject seems to have two primary claims to notability. Firstly, he ran for Congress as a Republican nominee in 1972. However, he did so in a distict in which it didn't even matter who the Republican nominee was, because the district was drawn so strongly in favor of the Democrat. The Democrat won with almost 70%. Not only did Strickland not win, but he didn't even come in second. So seems to fall short of the politician guidelines in
  WP:BIO, if coverage in a single secondary source is not "substantial", then multiple secondary sources are required. Does the coverage in this article meet the standard of "substantial"? (Note: Strickland is quoted extensively in the Wikipedia entry, but judging by the listed sources, those quotes may simply be from personal e-mail exchanges between Strickland and the creator of the article.) Mwelch 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, the subject has only a marginal claim to notability and fails
  conflict of interest. The editor has created numerous articles on persons of local notability and some have been deleted, others taken to AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BIO /Blaxthos 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, needs more than running a business and failing to get into Congress to meet
  WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Wikipedia is one of the premier places where a lot of people go for elections data and to learn about political figures. Even if this guy didn't win, this was still an important step when talking about how the Republican Party performed in Louisiana and specifically in this seat which would go for the Republican candidate a few years later. Also, the larger page for Gillis Long doesn't include all of the information about his challengers, something which would appear to be very useful to anybody who wanted to know about his actions during campaigning, given that he was a major politial figure in Louisiana's history. [[User:Tommyduva|Tommyduva]

• Comment. Even if the article is kept, wouldn't most of the info it provides about his actions during campaigning need to be removed as
  original research? There is no published source for his quotes, just the article creator saying "He said this to me in e-mail." Mwelch 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. This may sometimes been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes). That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1,000 most prominent politicians in the country. I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics. DGG 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If that line of reasoning (
  WP:BIO talk page for a possible change there. Mwelch 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. In researching the archives of the
  WP:BIO talk page I found three different occasions on which the issue of whether a losing candidate should automatically qualify for notability was discussed. Two of those three times, it being specifically identified as the losing candidate in a congressional election. All three times, the sentiment expressed was that the losing candidate should not automatically be considered notable. So I'd challenge your assertion that it's "generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N". That statement does not appear to be true at all. If anything, it appears to be "generally accepted" that if the only claim to notability is being the losing candidate in a congressional election, then they are not N. See also the current deletion nominations of Doug Roulstone and Richard Wright. Mwelch 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As you say, to be discussed. and there is better, for we don't need this particular criterion here. DGG 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just asked for input on a possible guideline change there. Mwelch 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and Tommyduva Kzq9599 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The problem with this article is that the sourcing could be better, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If such sources are found and cited, then fine. But no one has done so (besides the BusinessWeek article, which isn't even about his congressional election) to this point, and I'm not sure I believe there is "no doubt" that multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources (something about Roy C. Strickland, not just something that shows there was a name of "Roy C. Strickland" on the congressional ballot in 1972) and retrievable for someone who came in third in a virtually uncontested 1972 congressional election. And according to
  WP:N only if we accept the proposition, per DGG, that losing congressional candidates are inherently notable, even in the absence of the availability of those such sources about them. Mwelch 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Wikipedia story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Wikipedia judge more strictly than stubs?

Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As far as her notability, you're correct. If there isn't any more to her than what that article says now, and no other
  WP:ATT standards. Since a stub doesn't say much, there's not much that might be challenged. A couple of pointers to official election results would provide adequate verification of almost everyting that's in the Hearn stub right now. In Strickland's article, however, there is a great deal of info who's only verification we have is either primary source and/or original research. That's why, even if we decide Strickland's notability as a Republican congressional nominee is sufficent for a keep, I still think the retained article would then need to be significantly gutted unless other independent, secondary sources about Strickland can be found. Mwelch 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Delete. Above the special notes about politicians at
  History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Realignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican, that would suffice to support retention of the article, I think. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Hitball

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

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose first 3 edits here have consisted of removing prod tags I put up... Content is utterly unverifiable. Non-notable game invented in 1998 and played solely in the hometown of inventor. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I know I'm not supposed to say that, but I really have nothing to add. YechielMan 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another article about a made-up sport by a small group of three or four users with few or no prior edits. Why does this sort of thing seem to happen so much? Wavy G 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be speedied,
  SPA's removal notwithstanding. /Blaxthos 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  RGTraynor 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a perfect example of
  WP:NFT. FiggyBee 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete To date, 135 people have played ... "invented in 1998" Well, that about sums it up for me. Also, how do you get 13 years of champions when 2007-1998=9? Referencing a geocities page as the source of all this is not acceptable either. WP:(almost everything) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RGTraynor --phenz^Talk 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformed Church of Newtown

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

)

Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot notable, only google result was the wikipedia article. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An American Church that was 225 years old in 1956 is surely notable (if the claimns made are correct). However some of the content about its ministry today seems non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic & like above observation only Google search result was the wikipedia article. Chronos567 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to say keep - a US church founded in 1731 is very notable - but there's no support online for that claim at all. For English Wikipedia the fact that they've disabled the Enlish version of their website makes it difficult. No !vote yet - I hope someone comes up with something. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hope somebody comes up with something, then - but even if they do, it still remains that the article is rather spammy. --Dennisthe2 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the chinese section of the website is sufficiently expansive (and has some enlgish material) to demonstrate that this denomination is at least real. based on the fact that the website is not functioning in a language i can read, it's difficult to determine whether this has anything notable to it or not. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteVote changed, see below. --
  WP:N definitely applies. I don't see anything that makes this church notable. --Dennisthe2 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Changing to Keep, based on the references added. Thanks for changing my mind. =^_^= The article is still spammy and needs a cleanup, so if somebody can get that, great. This does add one fact, though - the articles are subscription only. Is it possible to get a bugmenot on those? If so, so much the better. Also consider
    WP:LOCAL when cleaning up, by the way. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Found several sources, haven't had time to add to the article, but Added four article about the church from the New York Times which show it has been the subject of substantial coverage. in numerous reliable independent sources in the past 275 years or so.They substantiate the age of the church, its special historic note of having abruptly changed to a primarily Chinese congregation, and the landmark status of the building. One of the nation's oldest congregations. Editing is a more appropriate response to arguments about phraseology than deletion of an article about a congregation/building which satisfies
  WP:CONG which is tagged as rejected. Edison 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: While I'm not !voting one way or another, there are several hundred religious congregations over 200 years old in New England, and I would very much hesitate to call them de facto notable on that ground alone.
  RGTraynor 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Historic church of particular historical note to the immigrant communities, as is now beginning to be shown with the references. Yes, it's possible that the article itself reads like spam, and this needs to be remedied, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to improve the article. Robotforaday 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep historical churches of note, so long as they can be properly referenced. RFerreira 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising and studentpapercruft. Students from this school may begin to like Wikipedia... . Say what? Does that mean I'll start 'liking' the
  New York Times if they'll publish my articles? Sheesh! Eddie.willers 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That means you will start liking Wikipedia because it does not arbitrarily delete things which you think are worth mentioning in the biggest encyclopedia in the world and which don´t harm absolutely no one. You will start liking Wikipedia because you are free to make articles about topics which so far could not be part of a encyclopedia because they were made of paper and their writers didn´t have the time to write about it. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. We'll just have to get by somehow without the editing skills of the students of University of Wyoming. Saikokira 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? That those students could not help Wikipedia? That you don´t wish them to become users? A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Advertisement for their student newspaper. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "advertisement"? The reasons anyone had to creating this article don´t matter at all. It can very well have been created as advertisement, but it is just some useful information about a topic people may or may not be interested in. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment with regard to A.Z's comments above. Firstly, I do not see the rationale behind A.Z. picking holes in the above arguments without stating his/her own position. Indeed, I would call such a stance vexatious - in that it adds nothing to the debate. Secondly, looking at A.Z's contribution history it would appear that he/she has a strong interest in LBGT matters and comments on the Reference Desk, but has largely stayed away from AFD discussions. Thirdly, the above comments all reference this article wrt to Wiki policies and/or standards yet A.Z. appears to take the position that all contributors to this AFD discussion are, thus far, in error. So, what gives, A.Z? Are you for or against this nomination and on what grounds? Let's see your colours. Eddie.willers 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It adds to the debate the fact that the arguments had holes. Users debating may find it interesting. I do. My contribution history has nothing to do with this discussion, so talking about it is really just chatting about another subject. Let´s chat: you got it right that I have strong interest in LGBT matters and that I stayed away from AFD discussions. That doesn´t really say anything about the deletion of the article on the Branding Iron. I am against the deletion because of the students of the University of Wyoming who may be offended by this deletion and really should be. A.Z. 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete
  WP:N /Blaxthos 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Due to lack of notablity. --RaiderAspect 06:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the students. A.Z. 07:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A.Z. I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has no intention to become the source of all knowledge. --RaiderAspect 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see that. But letting this one article exist doesn´t imply the contrary. It´s just that one person bothered to create it and a few people may bother to edit it in the future and to make it better. And it is good that new users are allowed to start editing Wikipedia by creating and editing an article which pleases them and does not harm anyone whatsoever. A.Z. 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable group; article not properly attributed. Fails
  WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is for things that have already been noticed by multiple reliable sources; it's not for getting notice in the first place. --Charlene 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as NN, fails
  WP:ATT. Like many other student newspapers, this one is worthy at best of a sentence or two in the main article. As per AZ's assertions, I somehow find Wikipedia a worthwhile place to visit despite its callous rejection of my own college newspaper, one from a university with much larger enrollment than UWYO and for which I was an editor back in the day. Wikipedia's policies do not, in so far as I have been able to find, make any reference to "U Wyoming students might be offended" as grounds to keep an article. Ravenswing 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((University of Wyoming)) this information is worthy of a short paragraph in the university of Wyoming article but not an article of its own Irate velociraptor 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentary films about the Korean War

List of documentary films about the Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list that doesn't actually link to any articles. Even if it did contain links, still not a notable enough topic (documentary films about the Korean War, not the Korean War itself) to deserve a list.

Also nominating :

• Keep - it may be short now, but has the potential to grow and be a valuable resource. Akradecki 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this ever came to actually have possible content (doubtful), it should be categorized, not an article with a list. I believe one can speedy empty / orphaned articles like this. /Blaxthos 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If these could be expanded with information adding to the context (information about the films), then a weak case for keeping could be made. If this is not the case by the end of the discussion, delete, with secondary option towards categorisation. -- saberwyn 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded per Saberwyn. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm this article's creator, and I do intend to expand this article (certainly there were more than three documentaries made about the Korean War). I don't feel that each of these films will deserve their own article (hence categorization would not work) and I think adding such a list to the Korean War article would cause clutter. If these concerns not reasonable for some reason, then I'll support deletion.--Daveswagon 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable and can use sandbox to create a full fledged articleRaveenS 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Argument of Daveswagon is convincing.Biophys 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep list of docs about Japanese American internment. I have added more films, and will add more in near future, with links. It is an often-researched topic and would be good to provide resources for viewing. (sorry if I'm leaving this on the wrong discussion list but couldn't find separate page regarding JA internment discussion) TienTao 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Holds potential to become an encyclopedic list, and I too find the argument presented by Daveswagon to be convincing. RFerreira 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now unless expanding isn't possible. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Solomon

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

This is a reposted page, originally at

• Delete Not notable, seems to be an ad. All google results appear to be ads.Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Articles are subject to general

notability guidelines. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.

• How could you possibly have a problem with demanding accuracy in an online encylopedia? NW036 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not accuracy justifies deleting articles. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

• Comment - Many of which should be deleted as well. Plus, yes, I am arguing that the article uses weasel words and boosterism, a form of inaccuracy. Regardless, this page is not the place for a back-and-forth. Please make your statement/argument and allow others to do so without cluttering up the page. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Wikipedia is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)

It has to be

verifiable information. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I'm not certain if this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but the Toronto Star featured an article about Solomon in 2002. (Caroline Mulroney, "A former victim speaks out about bullying", 30 September 2002, E06.) I've found three other passing references in the "respectable press". CJCurrie 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, do you have this paper? Cause the Star's online search feature only has the last seven days worth of publications. I couldn't find it via Google either (Keyword "Toronto Star" "Jay Solomon"). Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives - it's there. I don't think this is sufficient to qualify for an article though. Mindmatrix 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The subject is of some notable significance. GreenJoe 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard for
  WP:BIO is multiple independent non-trivial articles. Lexis-nexis produces six articles for "Jay Solomon" and "bullying". This need to be added to the several already in the notes, which would have been enough for the keep. Bucketsofg 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Filling in some of the holes would be a start. There are just too many statements claiming notability without sources ("lectured to thousands", "more well known anti-bullying experts", "respected freelancer", etc). It needs to be re-written for tone, and it needs to lose the resume attitude. But it passes
  WP:N thats all thats needed. Keep - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This entry follows both
  WP:N and should therefor be kept. --207.245.44.227 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)K8De[reply
  ]
• Keep This article matches the rules and regulations set forth by Wikipedia for BIOs. If you want to clean it up, that's fine, but there is no justifiable reason to delete it whatsoever.--Labelboy 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hard to say right now. The article feels a bit spammy. Yeah, he's doing a good thing here, but...well, I like to think I do good things, but I don't have an article about me, now, do I? The references need some cleanup. For now, I'm going to Abstain, but I'm kinda waffling to a delete in its current state. Those who say keep, please, put some polish on it. --Dennisthe2 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with Keep per User:Labelboy's rewrites. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's notable enough, in my opinion, for his article to be included. If it seems like the article is spammy, then rewrite it. - Richard Cavell 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ive tried to do a bit of editing to make it less spammy. if anyone has other suggestions, please do the same. there are tons of mentions of him on google, so more sources could also be added. --Labelboy 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the rewrite, I'll consider that good enough. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he has been the subject of newspaper stories, notability is not an issue it appears. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to me there is a clear consensus... this article is very worthy of keeping here on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per Bucketsofg, a rather open-and-shut case if you ask me. RFerreira 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete this article. it's well sourced and relevant. kind of a no-brainer in my opinion.--Rubbish82 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 me. This article's author has a conflict of interest. There are insurmountable notability concerns. Also, the author states that he created this page to allow developers to work on the project. - Richard Cavell 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickimmigrant

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

Non notable software. No sign of any third-party reliable coverage. The creator of the page is the creator of the software and claims on the article's talk page "My goal is to make this CRM system open-source. This page is a step forward toward that goal. If this page be deleted it will be very difficult to make this great CRM system open-source." To put it mildly I find that claim to have little credibility. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Two lines explaining the software, and that's it. If you want
  Sourceforge, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deport per nom. YechielMan 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy delete, blatant
  WP:COI case to say the least. And attempting to coerce us into keeping the article in order to make the software open-source... that's a new low. What if poential "Quickimmigrant" users/clients see that? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Mike 7. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaner

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

Dictionary definition at best. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eew, racist in its existence. Going Speedy Delete as an attack page. --Dennisthe2 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I was going more in the G1/A7 direction, but it amounts to the same thing. What's up with that non sequitir image? YechielMan 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Edward Kearns

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

No notability can be deduced from the article, no references are given (nor did I manage to find anything on the subject). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reads like a resume, feels a bit like COI. --Dennisthe2 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot of little exploits, but nothing big enough to justify inclusion. YechielMan 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Orderinchaos78 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the above. Kntrabssi 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I deleted a paragraph per WP:LIBEL. No references are given, and it said that the subject attended a "School For Children With Dyslexia". The whole article was created by one user [4] and may well be an attack page. It should in my opinion be speedied. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything in here that would indicate an attack page. Reading closely, there's possible

  WP:COI), but no libel - and attending a school for dyslexic kids...well, ain't nothing wrong with that, especially if it's true. --Dennisthe2 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's a lot wrong with including it without providing any sources, per

  WP:BLP. My attack page suspicion comes from the desperate attempts of an IP to delete the content/article [5]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ah, OK, noted there. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rodney Fertel

Rodney Fertel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Fertel}}]])

Other than running for mayor of a large city, he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements per

• Delete for being a thoroughly non-notable gorilla-lover. Eddie.willers 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & rewrite The mayorial campaigns, along with his wife's legacy makes this notable (if only B-class) and I'm sure we can get more proper sourcing. He was covered in the press over spans of decades. /Blaxthos 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing
  RGTraynor 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Major party candidates for the mayor of New Orleans would be notable--an outsider with 0.2% of the vote is not. DGG 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

List of video games involving China

List of video games involving China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list: any video game "involving" China. First on the list is Civilization II, which has the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and according to Civilization_II#Civilizations China is just one of 21 different civilizations in the game, which shows how indiscriminate this list is. Saikokira 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it seems totally indiscriminate. The list will be huge, too. - Richard Cavell 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wholly pointless and indiscriminate list. --Haemo 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the type of article which would be better served as a category. Pablothegreat85 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You'd have to put almost every single fighting game in this list. JuJube 06:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rediculous cruft. /Blaxthos 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This list is going to become unmanageably long unless some kind of strict inclusion criteria is put in place, and users with an continual interest in the subject put some effort in to maintain that criteria. Unless this is done before the end of the discussion, delete. As a secondary, do not categorise, as the relationship between most of the current entries and China is minimal, and could very easily be substituted for another country. -- saberwyn 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - hopelessly indiscriminate.
  Arkyan 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hopelessly indiscriminate. We've deleted lists like these in the past, and more so with categories. --Scottie_theNerd 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mallee Football League 2007 Season

Mallee Football League 2007 Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the league as a whole may be notable, the individual seasons are not. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are subsets of the above article and as such non notable:

Mallee Football League 2007 "A" Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mallee Football League 2007 "B" Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallee Football League 2007 Colts Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mallee Football League 2007 Mini Colts Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mattinbgn Garrie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - This is a small regional league. No evidence of notability is presented. I am happy to change my vote if proper sourcing on notability is provided.
  TerriersFan 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all per comments above. /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete all per snow. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four votes in four hours is not enough to claim it has a snowballs chance. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main season page, but probably not the individual grade articles. Mallee Football League (South Australia) has a reasonable article, so there's not reason to believe the season won't too. Do we have an accepted AFD guideline for sports leagues? The US get excited about school football, which in rural Australia is a lot less important than the regional league. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the article on the league is notable and of reasonable quality and I would also agree that the clubs are possibly notable too, but the season is likely to be of passing interest only. A list of premiers and/or grand final results in the main article would be more appropriate. The likely quality of the article has no bearing on the the subjects notability and is not relevant. I suspect that this is an attempt to host an unofficial webpage on the league in breach of
    WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. There is a policy on English soccer leagues which I understand maintains the first ten levels. The Mallee Football League would of similar notability to one of the lower leagues in that standard. However, the reserves and colts are not notable enough to warrant an article and should be deleted. There may be a case for the main article with brief summaries of the lower grades. In summary, weak keep main grades, delete lower grades. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - a rural football league in an area which covers less than 100k people. The league is notable as a social institution, but the level of sport is such that it is not notable as a sporting achievement. Grumpygrumpy 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Smart Choice

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

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails

• Delete the way it is written sounds like it may be a hoax as per this line and not being able to find it on Google "It was released on her bestfriends label Big Hunna." Big Hunna is the name of the band, and the best friend's label? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nom says it all /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The author of this article has had his and his friends' material deleted before. This should qualify as recreation of deleted content (CSD G4). See [7] and [8] for examples of old Dolla Billz/Big Hunna-related AfDs. And the two authors, Big Hunna Entertainments and Jordan Star Records are sockpuppets of the already indef'd Jack tha Ripper. He's been adding vanity articles for some time now, and if I'm not mistaken, there should be more out there. Just search "Big Hunna" and you'll come up with a lot of vanity articles and even more vandalism. I've been after this guy for a while. Rockstar915 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BBB (album)

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

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails

• Delete - Richard Cavell 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Umm, Speedy? Is it any coincidence that "B (album)" was recently nominated and speedied? Wavy G 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were different albums by the same spamming sock puppet master... -- Scientizzle 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedy. /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Let's squash this vandal/sock. Rockstar915 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails

• Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No article. Does this person even exist? Zero Google hits and no entry at allmusic.com (There is a Nick Lachey but that appears to be an entirely different person). Herostratus 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B (album)

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

)

• Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Ray-Ray (album)

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

An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails

• Comment, Ray-Ray redirects to
  Characters in Drawn Together. 202.67.87.132 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete speedy ? /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Rockstar915 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an album would not deserve an article if the artist does not have one.
  Wooyi 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no context or assertion of notability. --

Artprocess

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

Reprod. Rationale was "non-notable site - forum has less than 50 posts on each topic". Procedural, abstain. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable
  Manik Raina
• Speedy delete; so tagged. No assertion of notability in the article, and the web site hasn't changed my mind. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete /Blaxthos 06:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion by me. The article is unsourced, unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Its subject is not notable and the parts mentioned by Dennisthe2 indicate that it might well be original research and borders on things-made-up-in-school-one-day. Best just to rub it out. - Richard Cavell 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntological Determinism

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and might be a hoax. John254 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No google hits.
  Manik Raina

• Speedy Delete According to the article, it "gets its name from a twenty-second century machinima series called Huntology". Yep, could well be a hoax, or alternatively nonsense :)
  ^Talk 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, though I can't justify speedy. (Sorry, EliminatorJR.) Note, too, that the series the article references specifically states that the series itself doesn't even mention the name. Leads me to remind us that we aren't for
  things made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete term from a "twenty-second century machinima series". It's cruft... of the FUTURE! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, no proof that such an incident occurred, no Google hits outside of Wikipedia, likely

• Delete as a hoax. I concur, two google hits - and not a one of them outside of Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needs better references than "I heard about this accident whislt in Baku, Azerbaijan." [9] -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article does not cite its references and sources. You can help by not citing 'I heard about this accident whilst in Baku, Azerbaijan' as a source." =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:ATT. No such person as "Mochome Lucheberg".[10][11] Don't see route with flight number 3026 for Baku-Tbilisi either.[12]. cab 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as an unverified hoax. No records of accident in September 2006 for this airline with any of the normal monitoring services. Eddie.willers 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong Delete I agree. It's a hoax. Pablothegreat85 04:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another
  hoax. Grandmaster 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and someone should check the users other edits, it looks like he has messed with a bunch of other pages related to airlines, crashes, etc., under possibly 2 other usernames. --killing sparrows 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find nothing to support this incident, and air accidents are big news no matter where they are. Ben W Bell talk 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - suspect it's a hoax. No reliable sources are given, and the article doesn't even specify the aircraft type. A check of the airline's web site reveals that they don't have flight numbers in the 3000 range. If I'm reading it right, they're only in the 2000s. I wasn't reading their timetable right - their
  IATA abbreviation is J2, so their flight numbers are all less than 1000. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Gotta ask, how were you able to extrapolate that from the IATA code? --Dennisthe2 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But wait - Wikipedia says it's NOT a hoax! Be right back... Werthog 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, fixed! Werthog 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. I never noticed that before. It's obviously not a hoax, because somebody said it's not in a Wikipedia article. Guess that
      GIGO doesn't apply anymore, does it? =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete as hoax but do not treat the Google test as gospel.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Interestingly, creator's userpage states that "I'm currently working in Helsinki, Sweden." Newyorkbrad 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It violates attribution policy.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is utterly incomprehensible these days that a large airline crash in of the magnitude this article claims, won't generate widespread media interest, no matter where in the world the crash took place. No entry in the aviation-safety database either [13]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically, show the media coverage or bust. I'm a lazy researcher, but it's never too hard to provide at least one external link that says this stuff actually happened. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Also no luck searching Factiva and LexisNexis. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - does
  WP:SNOW apply here yet? --Dennisthe2 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think I herd about during late October in a small article the British Metro newspaper. It was a medium sized Tupolev aircraft. A Georgian man, 2 Armenian kids and several Tartars also survived the crash. It was not a total wipe out as claimed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.253.109 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2007.

• See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Khoikhoi 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Ballarat Rebels

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should probably include other teams in the same league. But I will wait on results for this AfD before going to that step.Garrie 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Several notable players have played for the club. Should evidence of notability from third party sources be provided I would be happy to keep.-- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to
  TAC Cup (and the same goes for the other teams in the league). FiggyBee 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this is a team in the league that many Victorian AFL footballer come from. Do we have a sports team/league/season guideline for AFD? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  RGTraynor 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment this team would be - at a stretch - on par with US college level football (however, college footballers recieve scholarships and other benefits). The TAC Cup (in which this team competes) is a feeder competition for the national Australian Football League (professional), and for the state's Victorian Football League (semi-professional). No indication is provided that the TAC Cup is a fully professional league. Garrie 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The TAC Cup is a notable league with its grand final played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground see [14]. This grand final is also broadcast live across Australia. Further, there is a significant potential for its players to be drafted by the AFL. Adam Goodes, a former player with the Rebels has twice won a Brownlow Medal for best and fairest player in the AFL. They are certainly equivalent to one of the top 10 leagues in English soccer. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no-one's saying the TAC Cup isn't notable. The question is whether that notability extends to the individual teams and players to the extent they should have their own articles. FiggyBee 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of us appear to think it extends to the teams. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several = 2.(Scott Davis + Capitalistroadster) Garrie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, team in an amateur sports league. The fact that they've produced some famous players is not really relevant, for the same reason that we don't have a page on the club that Wally Lewis played for in the Under 3s division. Lankiveil 09:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • He played for the
    Wynnum-Manly Seagulls - is that any more significant than the Ballarat Rebels? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, it is; the Seagulls were in a league that was for many decades the major sporting competition in Queensland, so they're much more comparable to, say, a
      VFL team than an under-18s amateur club. FiggyBee 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • And when he did play for the Seagulls, he was being paid to. Do we have any articles for teams he was not paid to be in? Garrie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, and reasonably well known, club. Rebecca 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]