Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zsinj^Talk 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Liu}} – (View AfD) Non-notable bassoonist and composer. Could find no reliable sources on the web or in music databases (JSTOR, New Grove). Article has been deleted twice and each time recreated. Request block on recreation of article after AfD or Speedy Delete A7. Myke Cuthbert 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: There is also a deletion request, for the same article, on French Wikipedia (fr:Rex Liu). See fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Rex Liu. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete & salt CSD G4. Note: claim to notability seems to be "He has spoken on music history at various universities, including a lecture given at the University of Alberta" which falls very short of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if "at" meant "at an invited lecture at" and "various" equaled, say, twenty, then we could start to talk about it as a claim of
    unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
• Speedy Delete -
  CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material --Ybbor^Talk 22:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Delete Thank you for the clarification Pan Dan. --Ybbor^Talk 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, let's give it community consensus before salting. Another clear case of accomplishment not amounting to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the equivalent of "salt until X date"? I would support a month or two cooling period more than a permanent block on recreation. The problem is that the article has been created three times in less than a month, and now the principal editor has learned to revert "speedy" tags, so I can easily see going through this process again. (I do wish that when someone creates an article which has already been AfD'd, that the system would show them why the previous article was deleted and ask editors to commit to writing an article which does not have these issues). --Myke Cuthbert 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the burden be on us? Let a future editor take it to DRV if there is new information. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Dhartung. Pete.Hurd 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myke, on your parenthetical comment, we have {{

wp:csd#g4's. Pan Dan 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Like the nominator I could not verify any of this. (But not
  wp:csd#g4 which only applies to things that have already been AFD'd.) Pan Dan 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, a quick search turns up little to spur me on.
  John Vandenberg 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was redirect Non admin close.--

Carrington Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Forest View Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Hillandale Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Easley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Brogden Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Chewning Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Lowe's Grove Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Shepard Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Okay, I'm fine with these deletions, if you give me time to add the information to Durham Public Schools. I might add that all articles in Category:Middle schools in North Carolina seem unimportant (with the exception of Ravenscroft). --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator and creator agreed to deletion. --
  TREYWiki 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Give me ten minutes to move the content to my sandbox and then I'll be okay with it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  TREYWiki 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Okay, I moved the info to User:Mr.crabby/sandbox, I will add information appropriatly to Durham Public Schools --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've redirected all these nominated pages to Durham Public Schools, hopefully that's alright with you. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that's the way to do it. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Popular Articles Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not of any encyclopedic merit, Wikipedia is

I wouldn't say its completeley useless, if its merged with the appropriate article and cut down drastically; it does go into far too much detail. Otherwise, however, it probably has very little use as it is. Monkeymox 10:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per reason of nomination. Eaomatrix 14:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Plus, the title of the article is misleading, as someone may think that it is about the most popular articles on WP, and not just a generic feature on several Web sites. Caknuck 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is encyclopedic for its educational value on the state of the art in monitoring search activity although the lists may not be encyclopedic.
  bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as blatant
  original research and synthesis. There are probably web-designer publications that have written about this (I know some blogs have), but without such sources all of the conclusions are synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DeleteI see no value, no assertion of notability, no sources apart from the articles themselves. JodyB _talk 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems a fairly trivial article with no merit --Fritzpoll 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- wikipedia articles are not instructional manuals. This belongs in Wikibooks if anywhere. --Adhall 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no encyclopedic merit whatsoever. RFerreira 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deborah Gibson IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another unreferenced, speculation-filled article about a supposed upcoming album. I've been unable to find any mention of it online, either at Gibson's official site or using various search strings ("Deborah Gibson" "ninth album"/"9th album"/"9th studio album") in Google. Delete per

• Delete pending sources. Sandstein 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preplan for a future album was first mentioned at Deborah-Gibson.com/News in January 2007, but the note has since been deleted on that server. If someone can verify that the album project has in fact been abandoned (and I have found no evidence either way to date), the preliminary article mentioned herein will be a GO for deletion. --- B.C.Schmerker 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - When (or more importantly, IF) verifiable sources exist about the project then an appropriate article may be created -- but even there it seems only like it'd be worth a brief mention on the main article for the singer until it is released. DreamGuy 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sourcing, crystal ball. Of course, if we can source and move beyond speculation, then it stays as the artist is notable per
  WP:MUSIC. JodyB _talk 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per
  BRAIN FREEZE! 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom. --Ozgod 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Buf7579 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Neal Pogue reference popped back up at Deborah-Gibson.com/News/Index6.shtml; I still haven't information to confirm either a release date estimate or a more accurate track listing. Recommend proceed with Delete. -

B.C.Schmerker 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete,
  WP:OR, unable to find sources currently. Terence 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per Terence. If there is content available for the IX album of the artist, then the information should be merged with the
  main article. --Zamkudi 09:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fails

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be brought to bear on this article. I have offered to help bring NPOV if someone can bring the sources. JodyB _talk 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per failure of
  WP:BAND. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, fails
  WP:MUSIC. Assertions are not backed up by sources from the internet. --Zamkudi 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per lack of sources. One would also expect an indie band of note to make an impression on google, but these guys don't. Sourcing of the article to prove notability seems unlikely to occur at this stage, so delete-—arf! 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the only available source is their myspace page deletion is the only way to go. Nice music though. :) Pax:Vobiscum 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete principal rationale: no trace of either book in LOC or Harvard Library system. Both are self-published. Gwe, is a novel; Were They Equal? About Tortoise, Hippopotamus, Elephant is a children's book; neither then would establish notability as a researcher. I think in general, WP is too hard on non-traditional academics, hence the "weak" delete, but it's really hard to find information on the subject that is not written by him. Neutral: closer look at Aesthetic Realism puts a stronger claim on notability; however, reliable sources for that page are slim enough that I can't justify a true "Keep" --Myke Cuthbert 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based more on his role in Aesthetic Realism than on academic notability. JamesMLane t c 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As above, because of the notable Aesthetic Realism work. There is nothing at Amazon and only trivial at Google. the getcite.org site is suspect to me. However, AR is notable and he's heavily invested in it. JodyB _talk 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It should have been userfied the first time, to any of the many identities he assumed while editing here; it's a thinly disguised user page even at present. It's self-written by Perey, who also seems to be the sole source. Fails notability. The existence of the Wikipedia article itself is used by Perey as evidence of his importance on his personal website, and vice versa. Zero reliable sources; references are only to websites controlled by Perey. - Outerlimits 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The user is a nice fellow, but he did write this biography himself. His role in Aesthetic Realism does not appear important. We don't have articles on more important individuals in that movement, for example: Ellen Reiss. There don't appear to be any major reviews of his anthropological work. I can't see any solid justification for keeping this and so my opinion is that it should be deleted. -Will Beback ·:· 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google scholar shows 4 citations of his work [1]. That's very very low. Combined with the concerns about the autobiography and the apparent lack of reliable third-party sources on which to build the article, I see no reason to keep the article. Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not even borderline notability. Fails
  WP:PROF. --Zamkudi 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — Notability is not established in the article.
  BRAIN FREEZE! 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Obviously there is no notability as an academic. (I did verify hisPHD, however--it's the one thing I was able to verify about his career. Minor web presence on some lists. As for his role in the movement, I can't judge. DGG 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

No assertion as to notability out-of-universe. I'm a Trekkie and don't even remember an episode taking place here or even an allusion to it. In-universe friendly MA blurb is just a couple of sentences. EEMeltonIV 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Also adding the following for similar reasons: nothing more than places on a map.[reply]

New Berlin (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tycho City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMeltonIV 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of real world context, unlikely to find sources. Jay32183 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three. These would be better addressed at Memory Alpha. None pass
  WP:FICT. --Charlene 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all three. None have enough information to ever go beyond the current treatment. Per
  unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete all. Possibly material for a List of Star Trek fictional locations or some such.--Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Nothing more important than a couple of throwaway lines in a handful of assorted episodes. Send to Memory Alpha if they don;t already have something on these. -- saberwyn 11:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Memory Alpha already has an entry on Lunaport, but the location is so insignificant the official Star Trek site does not have a separate listing. MDonfield 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable fictional place, article with one or two lines and no context.
  Talk to me? 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedy-tagged as CSD A7. It doesn't have sources, but it does assert that Mr. Ng is the head of a Singaporean political party. It is left to AfD to evaluate the veracity and the noteworthiness of that claim. Delete, pending sources. Xoloz 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. This interview might be a helpful source. The article needs to have the photo removed (probably violates
  conflict of interest from the author. That being said, the subject may be notable. Placeholder account 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It doesn't assert that he's the head of a political party. It asserts he's the acting organizing secretary (whatever that is) of a party which has never won a seat in the Singaporean elections, although one member seems to hold a non-contested seat. Added: He simply doesn't pass
  WP:BIO as is. "Edmund Ng" is a common enough name for Ghits to be unreliable. --Charlene 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per no RS. In addition the use of commercial sites as 'refs' does not a happy undertow make! the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Walter A. Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently nn-bio created by subject (the article was created by

• Delete. I have marked the page for speedy deletion and later prodded it (and warned the author, under username Nevhood), but the original author removed the tags arbitrarily without any explanation or edit summary. --Ali 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: An anonymous IP removed the prod template, it is likely that the author neglected to sign on while editing. --Ali 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. IMDB lists him as a production assistant for hitch, which IMHO just scrapes by
  WP:BIO per "The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition". Guinness 23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. A
  WP:BIO for being an extra pair of hands on a movie set or for being one of many involved in a documentary. --Charlene 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above. -Lemonflash^(t)/_(c) 01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I think the spirit of WP:BIO would be violated if every entity involved the production of a movie were to be seen as notable. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, a PA is basically a glorified gofer. Casting director is a behind-the-scenes job and the movies aren't notable. His role in Choose or Lose is, without reliable sources, likely incidental. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's next, we start listing the caterers? So notable he gets 10 Google hits. MDonfield 12:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete sorry, but it's not notable --Isis4563 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the IMDB credits were for 'Miscellaneous Crew'. His work on Hitch was assisting someone with their work. DarkAudit 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Non-notable and probably a
  BRAIN FREEZE! 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - In my eyes, anyone who has their own page on IMDB should be notable enough to get a stub wiki page. Unfortunately, this man seems like a nn-PA so I vouch for a deletion since I cannot find a viable argument against. Sens08 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote --Infrangible 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - creator's request. - Mike Rosoft 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not even try to establish notability, and has been tagged as such for a while with no improvement. Based upon highly neologistic nature of topic and complete obscurity I cannot image any possible argument that would make the article worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Looks like it was added out of vanity. DreamGuy 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because it was requested. Nevertheless, I support its deletion. --Ptcamn 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ptcamn is the article creator and the only actual editor. Others have added tags (including this AFD) but not actually changed any of the article text. Can't this be speedy deleted as G7, since "the page's only substantial content was added by its author" and he requested deletion above? *** Crotalus *** 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to suggest speedy, yeah. DreamGuy 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to have been inspired by the Bible story of the Tower of Babel. Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup. You voting, or you just here to state the obvious? DreamGuy 06:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

)

linkfarm Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has no reliable sources. It is only useful to those looking for this software, and it is spam. Surely shopping can be left to commercial sites, and not an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Someguy1221 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Hut 8.5 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all above-—arf! 15:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is
  WP:NOT a web directory. This article is a spam magnet. (Requestion 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply
  ]

I am striking out my delete opinion for three reasons; external links cleaned up, price column removed, and several editors appear committed to watch the article for spam. (Requestion 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - No worse than
  talk 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also note

talk 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

MrZaius, thank you for cleaning up those external links. The article does look much better now. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that "Availability" column with prices. Something is just

WP:NOT right about it. (: If that column was removed and if a couple editors could commit to keeping this article on their watchlist for spam then I would be inclined to change my opinion on this AfD. (Requestion 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

I agree about the prices, and have removed them from those entries that had them. (I wouldn't be opposed to providing approximate prices if they varied by more than an order of magnitude, but the few that there were were fairly similar.) Someone still ought to go over that column and make sure it contains accurate information on the pricing structure of the products (free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / whatever). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prices should be removed. They change often and are too difficult to keep up to date. Plus there is different pricing depending on educational, government, business use, etc.. And sales, rebates, coupons, etc.. General pricing info such as free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / shareware / whatever, is OK. That is common in charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the linkfarm argument. I think it is a linkfarm if there is only a list of programs and links to those programs. But once features are described, then we have a real, in-depth, encyclopedic wikipedia article based on the notable topic of time tracking software. Links back to the home pages of the programs are then just citation/reference links for verification and keeping the features info up-to-date on the chart. Please also see my comments farther down on notability and about what programs to include on the list. --Timeshifter 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification. See this diff. The edit summary for the diff was "rm linkcruft/nonnotable members of the list. See

good-faith. But I think all that was needed was to remove the prices and a few redlinks. Here is the revision before the deletion. The bulk of the chart and the citation/reference links for all the entries did not need to be removed. Not every item on a wikipedia list or chart has to have its own wikipedia page. Only the chart topic needs to be notable, not every entry for that topic. I think it is better form to put the citation/reference links after the item names, and not to make the item names clickable. But that is a matter of taste, and not a reason for deletion of a chart. --Timeshifter 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, now I think I understand your argument. Basically you are saying that

WP:NOT#LINK does not apply to comparison tables because features are described. I know a lot of editors that would disagree with that interpretation. (Requestion 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

Yes. Actually, I was referring to

WP:NOT#LINK also applies, and I see the cause for much confusion. It needs to be clarified. As does Wikipedia:External links. It is a guideline that does not apply to citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, no worse than most other Comparison of... articles; but needs rewrite to avoid becoming just a list with little or no relevant information. See Comparison of text editors for a good example of how it could look. Also a comment to Someguy1221. Although Wikipedia is not a shopping guide/link repository/linkfarm, a comparison page is perfectly valid as it does actually provide the reader with relevant and important information not always covered in other articles, and without having to read through the articles in a complete category to gather the same info. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meaningful, well-presented information. --Infrangible 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In light of recent changes to this page, I have changed my opinion. I felt this was merely a shopping guide due to statements such as "easy to use" and "user-friendly." With these highly subjective statements removed, as well as entries that had no sources (beyond the company website) or wikipedia articles of their own for easy verification, I have changed my vote to keep. Someguy1221 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep after the cleanup. I haven't looked at the past revisions, but as it is now the page seems like a fairly reasonable comparison list with no serious
  NPOV issues. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See
  WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Metadiscussion related to this comment moved to the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

VR Defender Y3K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - It's not that notable of a game. I think the page only serves as an ad for the game.Comatose51 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR and no RS. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Gwernol (nom).
  BRAIN FREEZE! 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Slavlin 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7.

Rock FM 91.9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS - Clearly non-notable radio station, possible

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Radio station that broadcasts to his street. The station appears to have had two programs one of which is no longer active. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This isn't small, this is microscopic. DarkAudit 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its own website claims it is on frequency 104.1, incidentally. Orderinchaos 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

non-notable by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as CSD A7, no notability asserted. It merely describes the company and its products. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 au sel. DS 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been speedied twice and keeps getting recreated as a neologism with a splash of vanity, the only references are blog-like Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no verifiable and reliable sources, neologism, and something made up in school one day. DarkAudit 03:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and salt Per above. Resolute 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. Let's give this the full AFD treatment as it's been administratively deleted twice already. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Carboarding" gets 882 Ghits outside Wikipedia. It seems to be a real new activity. Anthony Appleyard 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Youtune is not normally a reliable source, but it does have multiple videos showing people doing this. There's also a car commercial. It may be an unwise sport, but it is better known and more widely practiced than the typical "something made up in school one day". --Eastmain 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until multiple reliable and verifiable sources can be presented, specifically discussing the activity, instead of just saying/showing it happens. These sources can then by used to write a completely
  WP:attributable article. -- saberwyn 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanicruft. --Infrangible 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or just speedy delete it once more. RFerreira 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep.

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

Non-notable child actor with no significant roles, the most notable being a contestant on

• Delete per no significant contribution to her field. the_undertow ^talk 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting this
  FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman) does qualify as "significant roles", contrary to nom assertion. Many American little kids are familiar with such TV child actors, even if many Wikipedia contributors are not. This bio page is referenced by both series' Wikipedia pages, and I believe the project is better served by keeping this one for the additional info & references it provides. --SaguarosRule 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question - I am open to reason, so I am wondering, is your assertion that the longevity is what makes it a significant role? We need to establish that Zoom is notable, as well as her part. the_undertow ^talk 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her part is not notable, though. She was a contestant for one season of FETCH, according to her TV.com bio, which does not even include her ZOOM role, suggesting that it was even less notable. We do not give articles to actors with a relatively minor role in two somewhat obscure series. If she assumes more notable roles in the future, she can be added, but right now, she definitely fails WP:BIO. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote --Infrangible 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Convinced by SaguarosRule.--Holdenhurst 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alexandria Series of Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article discusses a minor event. Poker tournaments worthy of inclusion in wikipedia have more players and/or larger buy-ins.Fbdave 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete noting that the WP magazine article, however reliable a source it may be, still describes something that's nothing more important than a glorified home game. 40 participants? With the current hold'em craze, there are "tournaments" of that size every day in every city of the US. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP article is certainly reliable so the event happened, but this is like a story about somebody's backyard party. Yes, there is an article, but it is beyond trivial. 2005 07:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is this a relist or did I see this WP article in a Bio article?
  bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete gosh! --Infrangible 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preserve The World Series of Poker had 7 players in its first year in 1970. Every event, regardless of nature, needs time to grow. In addition, the upcoming Alexandria Series of Poker is going to require a $5 registration fee in addition to the $30 tournament entry fee that will be donated to a charitable cause within the DC/NOVA Community. This game is not about the money by any means and should not be perceived as "just another home game". It's simply a fun tournament that brings those of us who grew up together in Alexandria back closer together around Thanksgiving, a time when there is a lot of emphasis on family and friends, and brings in new faces and personalities every year. As far as the media coverage is concerned the WP and Alexandria Gazette CHOSE to cover the event.

Heyimdro 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)heyimdro[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant entries with their own articles have already been added to

Cultural references to Nephilim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another article in the "X in popular culture" series. I imagine it was spun off the main Nephilim article to avoid dealing with a bloating non-encyclopedic section but as has been argued many times before, the correct move is to simply delete it. There is no interest in such haphazard collections of trivia. Pascal.Tesson 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if this were called "List of trivia related to the word Nephilim" there would be no question about deleting it. However, because these articles hide behind the vague pretension to being an article about cultural references to X - despite simply being lists - we are forced to undertake these arguments, over and over again. Look at it - a list by any other name would smell as sweet. An unsourced list of trivia by any other name would be deleted in the same fashion. When I encounter trivia like this in another article, I typically request sources, add it to my watchlist, then delete it after a suitable length of time has passed. This entire article is nothing but an unsourced list of trivia. --Haemo 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the caveat that somebody check this list for entries that belong on Nephilim (disambiguation). There's at least some that I would say do merit an entry on that page, since they have articles of their own. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge with Nephilim (disambiguation). It is not "unsourced": e.g. to track source for the Xenosaga paragraph, click on the word "Xenosaga" in that paragraph, then scroll to the bottom of page Xenosaga, and there are the external source links. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument doesn't even apply for most of these - it barely even applies for that one. If we replied on this method of sourcing, this article would be a stub. --Haemo 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The people deleting these "in fiction" and "in popular culture" articles are doing far more harm to the project than keeping the pages. Certainly a lot of the cruft there could be removed, but that's not to say it doesn't have enough to be an article on its own, and that stuff sure as heck doesn't belong on the main article. These articles are spun off for a reason, deleting them just starts the whole process up again and wastes everyone's time. DreamGuy 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  that is original research. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Are "in popular dumping culture" articles dumping grounds for trivia and and unsourced nonsense? Sure, but without those pages the main articles become that as well. In fact all of Wikipedia could be said to be a dumping ground. Just like you can clean up any other article you can clean up in popular culture articles. Claiming it should be deleted because it attracts cruft not only would be an argument to delete all of Wikipedia but it presumes that making the main article the dumping ground is better than making a quarantine article. No matter which way you slice it, removing these articles is a truly bad idea. DreamGuy 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup, possibly merge the salvageable parts back to Nephilim, which already has an "in fiction" section. Some of this definitely needs to go, but in general I don't find the "unsourced" argument convincing, since a great deal of this seems rather trivially easy to verify. Nor do the references seem uniformly trivial. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have reversed an undiscussed merger into
  WP:GAFD. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep don't see the problem here, but in sore need of context. --Infrangible 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I don't see how this article is a problem, as practically everything in it can be verified at the linked articles and sites. It just needs some general cleanup and it will be fine. --Zenoseiya 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect, the former being done by Anthony. Daniel 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• It was speedy-delete tagged db-nonsense, but "Fingerprint clock" gets 678 Ghits outside Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to time clock. the_undertow ^talk 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to time clock - as above, it seems the only way forward that would keep the information and provide decent context. Duke of Whitstable 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Infrangible 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to time clock
  Talk - Chalk 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Redirect -
    Talk - Chalk 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • At 10:54 on 12 May 2007 I copied the contents of
      Fingerprint clock into Time clock. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Xoloz 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. There are similar devices in at least two other sci-fi stories, e.g. a Star Trek cartoon, and the bubble around the boys' spacecraft in Explorers (film). I have put in a link from Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Anthony Appleyard 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete changed to Redirect per notability issues. This is a specific device, and the fact that there are similar devices doesn't help with this particular article. However, instead of its own entry, a merge to the space suit link seems appropriate. the_undertow ^talk 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That link was a good find, by the way. Research is always appreciated! the_undertow ^talk 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, OK, Redirect to Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Anthony Appleyard 06:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — To the section specified by anthony appleyard.
  BRAIN FREEZE! 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No vote --Infrangible 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Greatest Metal Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These types of lists are unencyclopedic. And not all of them are that great anyway. bobanny 05:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The VH1 list seems arbitrary. the_undertow ^talk 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to lack of references, for people who did not see the programme or do not know the information already it could just be being use as a
  The Sunshine Man 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per reasons listed above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, yet another subjective and non-encyclopedic list.
  Burntsauce 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete If you have an article of 40 greatest, then would there be 50, 60, etc? Tonytypoon 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Impressive college record, but notability not established yet. Reads like a résumé/CV for jobhunting. Clicketyclack 06:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PROF and is only "an aspirating actress". No objections against speedy deletion per A7, because the article does not assert any real encyclopedic notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Asserts local notability, but that does not satisfy the guidelines of
  WP:BIO. No significant professional credits. DarkAudit 13:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:BIO as notability not sufficiently established at this time Duke of Whitstable 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It reads somewhat like a CV because private information are omitted, date and place of birth for example. It should be noted that I do not intend this to be a CV/resume as she doesn't need one. I created this entry so people have an easier time searching her info as some host site for her pass work/achievement have already closed down or removed the page. WannabeAmatureHistorian
  • That sounds like a textbook case of
    WP:USEFUL, which is not a valid reason for inclusion. If she needs this info posted for potential employers to find, take it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not Google. DarkAudit 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• As far as contend verification, just about everything I wrote can be verified, no exaggeration was employed. Her work on women in Nepal is not in the public domain and I can't locate it, it is either hold by herself or Harvard.
  • Then there are no verifiable and reliable sources for that information. An inaccessible source is no source at all. DarkAudit 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out Wikibios and no offense, but most of the entries there read like joke, a Wiki MySpace. Assuming there is no gap between Wikipedia and Wikibios, people whose achievement is above most Wikibios’ people should be in Wikipedia. WannabeAmatureHistorian

• There is a monumental gap between Wikibios and Wikipedia. There is no connection between the two whatsoever except the use of the term 'Wiki'. It doesn't appear that the people at Wikibios are even using wiki software.
  WP:BIO is the guideline we use. She does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Sorry, but accomplishment does not equal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, delete the entry if it suits you. I don't know whether it is Wiki's lack of server space or some questionable policy, but Wikipedian seem to spend too much time policing new entries instead of maintaining existing entries. I have come across a number of historical entries that severely lack objective reference. This also raise the issue of double (or multiple) standards as old entries are not subject to the same scrutiny as new entries, a result of the longevity sensitive selection policy. The longer an article exists, the more it is assumed to be correct.WannabeAmatureHistorian

Yes, we know all too well that

guide to deletion. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Does not pass
  WP:BIO. If kept, please change "aspirating" to "aspiring" - "aspirating" means "sucking". --Charlene 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  no please don't! that's my favorite part! Pete.Hurd 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly I am a bad speller. I should double check next time when Word corrects the spelling for me. :)

• Delete the article and see what we can do about making the original person go away as well. In an edit comment trying to justify the article, uploader (presumably the same person) says "There are some less important people with entry on Wiki, old movie star from the early 20th centur..." which is a sentence that cannot end with anything other than sheer rage against the ego and ignorance of the writer. Facts are any old movie star from any time is far more significant than this airhead with no professional credits to her name. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you know why I didn't repost that comment and instead post the one above? Because it is not nice or polite to talk that way about people even if they are dead. And why don’t you finish that sentence because as I recall, it ends on the note that their movies are difficult to locate and rarely showed. And you don’t you get it, I am not Pepi, if I am, do you think I would have made that spelling mistake or unable to locate her work? I have to say you are a bit snobbish going around advocating the removal of new account just because they disagree with you. WannabeAmatureHistorian

• Comment When this one goes, kill off Image:Eda-Hair-temperately-black-for-a-theater-production.jpg (and a duplicate Image:Eda Hair Temperately Black For A Theater Production.jpg) as well... it's falsely tagged public domain under the argument that it never had a copyright (huh?) and the license says use for whatever you want but the upload note say not for anything commercial... Mistagged and useless once the article is gone. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, please remove the two duplicated pictures once the article is deleted. The second images is a further compressed version of the first one at 1/3 its size. I have meant to replace the first one but can’t find the choice to delete it. It is in public domain because I released it but I don’t want it to be use for other purpose other than this article. If you are going to explain things nicely, please do so, but go around picking on people even if you are an accomplished Wikipedian. WannabeAmatureHistorian
• Delete Sorry kiddo, come back in a few years. --Infrangible 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Software promotion page. Should be an external link on a panorama utilities page. John Spikowski 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm pretty sure there is no way to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" about this plugin. Pax:Vobiscum 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but this editor's dozen or so edits all revolve around the products of this one company. This is advertising. --Infrangible 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not adequately referenced and, to be honest, not adequately important either. A1octopus 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Delete per One Night In Hackney 303, the subject fails
  Burntsauce 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

13 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, my opinion of most of CZW notwithstanding the fact he is a three time former heavyweight champion and two time Tournament of Death winner is strong grounds for notability among death match wrestling. He is at the very least a notable deathmatch wrestler and furthermore a notable indy wrestler. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps you can provide multiple independent non trivial reliable sources then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Independent sources to show he held those titles? That seems like an odd request considering we use primary sources for title reigns. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, independent non trivial reliable sources for him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote fake sport --Infrangible 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I dislike CZW and personally consider Wifebeater a no-talent hack but as Lid has pointed out he has achieved something as an indie wrestler, has something of a cult following and achieved a degree of infamy for his antics with an industrial strimmer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you provide reliable sources demonstrating his notability then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep As per the others who have suggested keeping this article, I too am not fond of the guy or even that super extreme style of wrestling, but he is notable in that genre of wrestling, has a following, and has made major accomplishments in that style of "wrestling" as well. Oh, and One Night in Hackney, don't be an egg and ask me the same question you've asked everyone else. If you'd spend some of the time you spend working on Afd's on helping this project out by fixing articles like this one wikipedia would be a much better place. Remember that
  WP:IAR is also a policy, you should follow it as well. Theophilus75 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment So your application of
  WP:IAR is something like I say this personal is notable but I'm not prepared to provide reliable sources to prove it, so the article should just be kept? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Hey Hack, you recommend SO MANY wrestling articles for Afd that it would take 3-5 people working full time just to properly source the wrestling articles you Afd that I know could pass
  WP:V without question. That doesn't count the ones that I'm not sure about or think might pass if one worked on them and just forgetting about the ones that do need deleted. What I'm saying is go work on your IRA stuff and let prowrestling project work on it...oh, and while I'm thinking about it...I was wondering if you could explain what you meant when you said you would have to take "more drastic measures" against the prowrestling Project? Theophilus75 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Please see
  WP:OWN, I'll edit what articles I see fit. If the pro wrestling project do not wish to nominate the hundreds of articles which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines, I'll be happy to do so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Thanks for pointing that article out! Now that I've read it (and I assume you did before referring it to me), I now understand that I need to be looking for your comments and discussion on the talk pages of articles when you have an issue with them and that you WILL BE discussing things with the wrestling project before recommending them for deletion. I really appreciate your willingness to work with us. I'll be looking forward to your discussion, participation and help on those talk pages!!!! Theophilus75 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete As it stands, this article is essentially a list with an introduction. The introduction recapitulates information available at

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

Where do I start? Original research? Not refererenced. Satan-cruft. What is this? -

• Weak Delete but definitely Rename - this seems impossible to source correctly, or even to discern what this article is about. It claims to be about "Allegations of Satanism in popular culture" - so I would presume it to be about that topic. But it's not - instead, it looks like it's a list of things in popular culture, which have been accused of being Satanic. Putting aside the poorly named article, there doesn't appear to be any discernible criteria for what makes an "allegation" encyclopedic. Apparently, according to this article, any random email chain letter can be a credible "allegation". How about any random preacher? Does that make an allegation? This article needs a total overhaul - it needs to decide what its about, and then it needs to get some serious sourcing, since this stuff is borderline libelous. --Haemo 07:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Moral panic Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. Roger Danger Field 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge - it is one of my goals in life to be able to create a good article on this topic. There are literally thousands of "Allegations of Satanism" that have been made against someone or other, just over the past 50 years, and I would love to collect that all into one huge article under this banner. (You'll have to wait though - I'm not going to take on a job like that until I retire!) For the time being, though, this isn't much of an article. I also would like to suggest, though, that "allegations of Satanism" is well-differentiable from "moral panics" in general, as there is a religious and authoritarian element to Satan-fear-mongering that you won't find in other moral panics like
  Penis-melting Zionist robot combs. However, this particular article seems quite anorexic now, so if somebody would rather just copy and paste the content into an "Allegations of Satanism" subheading in Moral panic, I could see the merit in doing that instead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I discounted the merge to Moral panic as the subjects dont appear to be sufficiently related Gnangarra 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate unsourced list. Otto4711 20:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an uncited and utterly unmaintainable list. I also allege that this AfD listing is, itself, satanic. There. Another item to add to the article. Hmm, I seemed to have spawned a recursive.......[Write error: Wikipedia full.] -- MarcoTolo 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't laugh. Church of Satan people around here have AfDed articles dealing with Satanism before. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in any case. It sounds like it's saying that there are allegations that popular culture itself is Satanic in general (and this belief does exist modernly, and may very well be notable). And it's horribly
  biased towards modern American allegations of Satanism, when the fear that certain things might be associated with Satan or a Satanic cult has existed for almost 2,000 years and in dozens if not hundreds of countries. "Popular culture" also does not mean "20th-21st century American culture". The phrase means "the culture of the common people", not "what's popular or known in the US these days". --Charlene 04:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete what's next Allegation of Christianity in popular culture? Carlossuarez46 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment There normally isn't a moral panic around Christians - unless, maybe, in ancient Rome. Perhaps this is properly mergeable into moral panic, but specific in that Satanism was the global conspiracy/mental degeneracy that people were accused of taking part in. Anyway, it's not much of an article right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question moral panic is defined as a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception... yet this article doesnt address any group reaction, all it does is list some popular cultural entertainment, without any context. What I'm seeing is a

original research. Can you explain here how and why these two articles are sufficiently related to warrant merging, how will this improve the moral panic article? Gnangarra 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, to the extent that it repeats allegations made by demagogues, it's not worthy of merging. However, there have been some "allegations of satanism" that became moral panics - like the 1980's Satanic panic (see Michelle Remembers and Bob Larson and the various "Satanic Nursery School" articles). I dunno, I'm on the fence about this, but this particular article if not sourced and not substantial probably can just go in the bin. However, Wikipedia should make sure that it doesn't retain a prejudice against the article so that it may be re-created in the future, when someone starts doing a proper article on the topic. My main point is, a proper article can be done. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Del...erg...Keep...no, Delete!... Silence mortal! I am Zorlog, high demon of the fifth dimension, possessing this weak coporeal being and I say Keep this information that glorifies our dark lord... what the? I feel... so... cold... --Infrangible 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful list for a non-minor element of popular culture. Mikael GRizzly 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Allegations??? It almost sounds like a way around
  WP:BIO to me. Knock this one out as any other page about allegations should be. Slavlin 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fictional brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Comment WP:LIST doesn't give any rationale on whether or not this list should be deleted. However, this type of list could never be completed, especially when you realize that notable fictional material is being created on a constant basis where script authors can create a new brand on the fly. It's also appears to be missing content from an entire media of fiction (e.g. video and computer games, such as from Deus Ex.) --Sigma 7 10:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, I think

  Powderfinger! 10:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per
  WP:LC. --Sigma 7 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  listcruft and I can't see how it could be useful to anyone. Hut 8.5 11:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I took a look at the article, and thought that it had definite use as a guide to popular culture, satire, and even sociology. Needs expansion and elaboration, though. Rhinoracer 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate list and a directory of loosely-assoicated topics, in violation of
  WP:NOT. Tries to gather every reference to any fictional brand with no regard to whether there is any actual importance to its existence or not. See similar AFDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional beverages for two similar indiscriminate, unmaintainable lists that were deleted. Otto4711 06:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No vote --Infrangible 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is un-maintainable and I cannot see how it would ever be useful as an encylopedia article. Slavlin 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. I tagged the image with {{

I really hate this image! Either get rid of it, or bring back the image of the bill! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be at
  Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Could someone with the know-how fix this? -- saberwyn 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Close. This is the wrong venue for this. I'd move it over to
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy to delete on. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

J.R. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Actor that won a regional award (the Golden Apple) for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical. All the article is unsourced. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source link for the theatre indicates that this supporting actor "award" is nothing more than a local, amateur, community theatre group honoring it's own performers every year. It is not an accomplishment in professional theatre, as the article purports. And the other "awards" are for high school competition. Nothing here meets Wikipedia standards of notability.--208.127.115.247 11:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as failing
  WP:LIVING), and I asked the original author to provide references, providing him a list of Wikipedia policies that the he should try to meet, letting him know that the article was in danger of AfD as it stood back then. He has been editing the article over the past day, and thinks he's fixed it (as he took down all my warning boxes), but I guess he simply can't find enough sources to back the article up to the level Wikipedia requires. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment - if you look in the history you'll note I originally {{
  prod}} because the original writer had come back and started working on the article. I wanted to give him a chance to clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Listen, I commend you for your patience with the author. You're clearly dealing in good faith and making every effort to allow the author to meet Wikipedia standards. But I think it's equally clear that you two are working at cross purposes. While your goal is to have the article conform to standards, the author's rather obvious goal is to post an (auto)biography. Headings like "Early Life" and "Family" prove as much. And at the end of the day, I suspect, the result will be the same. Simply because nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. So no amount of editing/rewriting can address what simply isn't there. I've discussed this in detail on your talk page, so there's no sense in beating the dead horse more here. But ultimately I'll leave it as your call. Although I must say that I can't even name another editor who would be this generous. And as you know, it's probably only a matter of time before someone else does end it. But again, kudos to you.--208.127.115.247 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just giving background info above. As you see up there, I also voted delete, as I do think the article fails notability as it stands. I just didn't want to be the person to actually instigate the AfD on this article. But I agree with everything you've said. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote --Infrangible 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --208.127.115.247 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for utter failure to establish notability wrt wiki standards. Eddie.willers 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
  Forty-Six & 2
• merge
  Die Eier Von Satan following work done on article to Undertow (Tool album) and Ænima
  respectively
• redirect all others to respective albums.

(Note that this solution keeps the edit histories of all affected articles intact.) Orderinchaos 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall into the same category:

Die Eier von Satan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

) (not even a song)

Disgustipated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

) (also contains possible copyvio)

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

)

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

)

Hooker with a Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jambi (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) closed keep as meets WP:MUSIC.

Lateralus (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) closed keep per clear consensus.

The Grudge (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Third Eye (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Orderinchaos 10:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

General comment: for some of the songs, where OR or unverifiability is suggested, try a google search (add the parameter "site:toolshed.down.net" at first).

Proposal: Merge all articles that do not stand out but are verifiable and interesting in regards to describing the bands characters. Which would mean:

Strong merge with Ænema, Undertow:

Forty-Six & 2

: as per Daveh4h

Third Eye (song): references Bill Hicks, to whom the entire album was dedicated.. noteworthy! [4]

Disgustipated: The thing actually stems from a "historic" acoustic live set with Alice in Chains, RATM, or at least the idea.. that night they smashed a lot of instruments.... In the studio, sledgehammers were used to reenact. [5] The last part, the speech about the carrots is by Bill Hicks, the voice is instantly recognizable imho, but the only source I have until now confirms only that it's recited by "Bill". [6]

Weak delete: Hooker with a Penis: although there is a source saying the song is about selling out ([7]) I don't really know if that is really interesting enough..

delete

Die Eier Von Satan

.. sources documenting this song are aplenty, but weak notability..

delete The Grudge as per Daveh4h

Delete H.... as per Daveh4h

I would be willing to do some of the proposed changes myself, but am currently working on the Tool article itself, to complete the drive towards GA. But, with a little help, it could work I guess =) Johnnyw talk 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to sources documenting this song are aplenty, but weak notability..: This is the definition of

notability. –Pomte 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was trying to say that the sources that exist only mention the song, but don't go into detail or deliver any substance to the article. Sources I have gathered now state the obvious: [8], [9] this tool newsletter states that the song has been used without consent in a movie trailer for a Jenna Jameson porn.. but that's it.Johnnyw talk 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• here we go:

1. Delete
   Die Eier Von Satan
   . As noted, it's not even a song. Not notable.
2. Delete
   Disgustipated
   . More of a song than the previous, but not notable. Removing the lyrics would leave the article bare, and I think the lyrics in the article is a copyvio. Besides the lyrics, it is original research.
3. Keep
   Forty-Six & 2
   . Single received a lot of airplay and this article actually has references.
4. Delete H. - Not notable, original research.
5. Delete Hooker with a Penis. Only interesting part of it is the meaning part, and that appears to be original research.
6. Delete The Grudge. Not notable enough for its own article, original research.
7. Merge anything verifiable/usable in
   Third Eye (song) to Ænima
   . I think that some of the info in this may be verifiable, but am concerned with it as a standalone article.

Much of the info in the articles nominated is redundant from the album articles. We would be better off focusing on anything verifiable from these articles to potentially expand and refine their respective album articles. I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. daveh4h 11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my statements will probably be redundant, but:

1. Delete or Merge
   Die Eier Von Satan
   . Not even a song, but I don't think this should disappear altogether, maybe put in the parent article. It's a classic example of Tool's disinformation, which I think is an important aspect of the band.
2. Delete
   Disgustipated
   . Just not important enough
3. Weak keep
   Forty-Six & 2
   . Shows the evolutionary themes to the band, got a ton of airplay. It's neat info, but if it has to go, oh well.
4. Delete H.. Not notable.
5. Delete
   OR
   .
6. Delete The Grudge. Not notable.
7. Delete or Merge
   Third Eye (song)
   . Not enough information in there. Maybe someone can source it, but this could be an OR cesspool.

Wikidan829 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  ^Talk 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Delete
   Die Eier Von Satan
   . It is simply nn.
2. Strong Delete
   Disgustipated
   . A quote straight from the article: "It is 15:47 long, most of it being only a drumbeat, or a low beeping sound towards the end."
3. Weak Keep
   Forty-Six & 2
   . Its played at every show (and is backed up by a source).
4. Delete H.. The title is unreal, but the song is another nn track.
5. Delete Hooker with a Penis for failing
   OR
   .
6. Weak Delete The Grudge (song). Interesting time signature, perhaps one of the most, but Tool as a band is notorious for this, making this song seem ordinary.
7. Delete
   Third Eye (song)
   . The dedication is interesting, but that's it.

Tool is an interesting band, and is very mainstream. For these tracks to be considered notable, they must contain something of value. Through looking at these,

1. Journal article by a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide
2. Academic interview with Keenan by an instructor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology
3. The Canadian radio show The Ongoing History of New Music has published 10 pages worth of Tool facts

Other student papers are not as reliable, but they can be used for non-controversial facts. The Tool FAQ provides the background info for hunting independent sources, as well as the hundreds of news articles transcribed.

I've been meaning to go through the articles extensively at some point, but so far I've only rewritten Hooker with a Penis and added citations here and there to the various song articles, including the singles not listed here. I'm probably not going to perfect these within 5 days, so for any that get consensus to be deleted, can they be userfied to be worked on over time (with the exception of

Disgustipated for copyvio/lack of content reasons)? –Pomte 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: That

Disgustipated is lacking content is a misconception, although I am really not that sure about that Bill Hicks part anymore.. still, please see my post above. Johnnyw talk 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment You did a nice job. I thought this particular entry was un-savable. However, I am still concerned with it as a standalone article. Right now I am thinking Merge to Undertow, but I still want to look at the album articles as they stand now and if we can improve them with these (potentially deleted) articles. daveh4h 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I knew there was some info on that song, just never came around to work on any song articles.. Well, after looking at the album articles, I'd suggest to keep the best, merge the rest, aka the articles that would get deleted otherwise, with the albums and go on a drive to get the Tool album articles up to par with the band article. The album articles really are in a quite miserable state.. but before that, we should finish with the band article to get it to GA =) --Johnnyw talk 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  Disgustipated, with their respective albums. Song notable beyond being on the album. (The formatting of this deletion debate confused me, so I listed it in the regular way.) User:Krator (t c) 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

This person though of interest to his family is not at all notable. May be he did have great achievements but they are certainly not mentioned here and I can not find them listed elsewhere. The only reference seems to have been written by a family member almost 90 years ago, they too were obviously unaware of anything making their kinsman notable. I think this particular Arbuthnot has to be deleted.

• Delete: WP not Genealogy is one of our older principles, and the only thing the article gives us is that this is a soldier. Well, there are quite a few of them, and many even have descendants who play with Wikipedia. Family does not bronze a life. Geogre 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Dr Gangrene 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability and Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. Hut 8.5 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- If more information is provided on why he has a stained glass window dedicated to him (designed by a notable designer), then this could give editors more indication of notability. Thunderwing 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply his relations had the money to pay for it. At that time (and I suspect now) anyone can pay for a memorial window in a church so long as the design and designer are approved by the board of Church Architects - who have a list of approved (usually proven and notable)designers and craftemen.

Giano 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that answer- I just wanted a double check incase there was something not apparent from the article. Given the lack of evidence I would say Delete as it fails

WP:BIO Thunderwing 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - being an Arbuthnot is not a free pass to notability, and this one appears not to pass Wikipedia:Notability. No assertion of encyclopedic relevance. Per Giano. Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Or we would open a door to entries for any soldier who reached the rank of Major or above in the British Army. I suppose a list of Soldiers who took part in the Battle of Omdurman could work, but do we really want any more lists? Duke of Whitstable 15:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:BIO.Montco 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge anything verifiable to
  Doc^g 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A privately printed family genealogy fails
  WP:A. Lacks evidence of encyclopedic 'arbuthnotabiliity'. Edison 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Let's not confuse verifiability with notability. Actually, most of the information is verified by the commonwealth war graves citation given in the article. So

Doc^g 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Because Doc, that would require effort and work on some one's part. This has been suggested to the primary author on countless occasions, he does not agree.

Giano 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, unremarkable KIA. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh, for heavens sake. It is interesting that he was at the Battle of Omdurman, but he was apparently a captain at the time - one of many, no doubt, in a force of 8,000 British regulars. Just being an army officer, or being the father of someone who was created a baronet, is not notable. And he died a major at Ypres. Again, one of many. Did he actually do anything of note? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote If this were a vote I mean, because it's not, even though it kind of is... --Infrangible 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the article on his son
  User:Doc glasgow. Not notable enough on his own. EdJohnston 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Slavlin 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Not notable and what limited information is there is doubtful

• Delete- no evidence that this person meets
  WP:BIO Thunderwing 11:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - notable, maybe not that notable but notable all the same. --Counter-revolutionary 11:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn individual. Montco 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's see, he was a merchant, a mayor, and he owned a ship. We don't typically include people with no more claim to notability than that, even leaving aside any dubiousness in the reliability of the sources. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the ship is notable though, if that's relevant. --Counter-revolutionary 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant, unless it is documented that he had a god deal to do with its notability. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the claim is Kittybrewster's website (the wrong page; this one mentions Thomas, but not the ship). He may well be right; but this is not reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to
  Doc^g 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge/redirect per Doc. Edison 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify to Kittybrewster's userspace; there would be nothing wrong with an article on the family. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, shockingly unnotable. Provosts of a town that has a modern population of 18,000 simply don't pass
  WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No vote Although if it was spelled meathill that would be kind of funny because it would make you think of a hill of meat, and who would pile a bunch of meat in a hill. That's silly! --Infrangible 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note: See related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Arbuthnot of Invernettie. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is already in the
  List of Provosts of Peterhead, so there is nothing to merge, and there is no source to show he is connected to the famous ship. Mrs Arbuthnot's "Memories" says nothing about the ship, and even the kittybrewster.com genealogy doesn't connect him to a specific ship. EdJohnston 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There have been thousands like him and there will be thousands more. — MichaelLinnear 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]