Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 9

< October 8	October 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to

Everyones Internet

. The naming of the resulting article can be decided once the merge is complete.

The Planet Internet Services

Web host company fails

WP:CORP, was tagged speedy as advertising, but seems just short of blatant on that score. Carlossuarez46 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge and redirect to
Everyone's Internet. The state of the company is well covered there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Dennisthe2. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Planet Internet Services - Merge the articles, but strongly suggest keeping ThePlanet name. That's the current name as both articles state. BTW, ThePlanet is one of the largest webhosts and is definitely notable in the webhosting industry. Cites to the various webhosting stats pages are certainly in order, but that just needs {{fact}} tags until filled in.--lquilter 19:24, 11 October 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--JForget 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland

Inherently unverifiable article about a state that does not yet exist, that is supposed to come about as a result of a referendum that has not yet even been scheduled to take place. Russ (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clearer violation of
WP:NOT#Crystal ball is impossible to imagine. Sam Blacketer 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom and above. Its generous to say its even crystal-balling. Its pure fantasy. --
Mkativerata 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Also, what is the source that the United Kingdom would change its name just because Scotland became independant? The country didn't change its name when Ireland became independant. TJ Spyke 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it did change from 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' to '...and Northern Ireland' a couple of years after the split, not that the full name is used that much. I'd guess if Scotland left, we'd still have a United Kingdom of something as the remainder, but we just don't know. Anyway delete as unsourced nonesense that someone probably made up. FredOrAlive 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems like speculation right now. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may happen in the future. Lots of things may happen in the future. In the present, this article will be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above...I have to ask...what's up with the flag? Why would it add a color if it loses a country? Smashville 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Vaguest of spectulations. Pig^man 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal? This is a completely different type of
ball. --UsaSatsui 03:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Something will certainly happen in the future, but not this. Jonathan Oldenbuck 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sheer speculation and soapboxery. Man vyi 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation about the likely aftermath of the possible outcome of an event that may happen at some point in the distant future, no part of which has even been the subject of significant rumours to my knowledge (
WP:NOT#Crystal ball). Cosmo0 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per the above. No
Snowing. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:53, 11 October 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. --

desat 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Barthism

Alleged "philosophical concept" but skirts around defining it. Probable hoax. At best non-notable. -- RHaworth 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bordering on
speedy G1. The purported source is not what it is said to be; it's a page about an artistic movement involving artificial intelligence which never mentions 'Barthism'. There are 790 Google hits for 'Barthism' but most of them clearly refer to other people called Barth and not this one, who only has eight hits on his full name. Sam Blacketer 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete perhaps making it a Redirect to Neo-orthodoxy, as it's most often used as a nickname for Karl Barth's theology. I can't find any reference to this in Google. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, the "reference" never even mentions "Barth" or "Barthism" (that I can see). Not a whole lot of real hits on Google. Seems to be a little worthless. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists

Procedural nomination; I've just removed a {{

iridescent (talk to me!) 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

- Comment That prod was me - I was using TW to prod, and it warned the creator, but didn't apply the prod template. Sorry if it was unclear ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that they show up in some reliable sources, such as NPR, so it seems like they are notable enough for inclusion, even if the article needs a bit of work. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
talk — contribs) 23:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- The nom voted keep. Smashville 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and Sxeptomaniac. --
Mkativerata 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Despite me prodding it. Articles like this generally get started as an advert of sorts and then never touched again - if someone is willing to remove the prod and have a go at it, I'm happy to support them! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it gets worked on. It won't last too long if no one does. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies notability. I'll see if I can beef it up a bit. Pig^man 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to mention that
Seigenthaler controversy was honored by the CCJ and apparently is a member. Not that this would influence the debate but just sayin'... Pig^man 02:56, 10 October 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. --

desat 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Eddie Anaclet

)

Fails

WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. The article states that he's played in the FA Cup, but there are many amateur players that play in the FA Cup every year. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, many amateur players play in the FA Cup, but this player played in that competition while playing for a professional, League 2 side. Is this notable enough. GiantSnowman 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 20 minutes appearance as a substitute[1]. --Malcolmxl5 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
talk — contribs) 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The name rings a bell from Football Manager, but fails
Mkativerata 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played in the FA Cup while a professional with a League Two side, which is very different to players playing in the FA Cup while with non-league clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGull (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just like to add that my comment above is based on consistency and the agreed rule on notability of footballers. WikiGull 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the article it says he has played for Oxford 55 times.--Sunderland06 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oxford United play in the
  Conference National, an amateur league. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment - The Conference is not an amateur league, it's a semi-professional league made up of mostly fully professional teams. Also where Oxford play now is not relevant, it's where they were when a player played for them. As a Reading fan, do you have a bias against Oxford by any chance? WikiGull 11:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WikiGull, and he played for Southampton. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He never played for Southampton ChrisTheDude 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:BIO says that the bar of notability is playing in "a fully professional league". Eddie Anaclet has never played in a fully professional league. Sunderland06 states that he has played for Oxford 55 times. That's true but Oxford United play in the Conference, a semi-professional league. Stifle says he played for Southampton. Not so! He was a trainee at Southampton but never played in the first-team. WikiGull contends that playing for 20 minutes in the FA cup makes him notable. The FA cup competition is not a fully professional league and a 20 minutes appearance is no basis for long term historical notability. A very definite delete, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Would this still be the same if this was say, Bury, a current league team, and not Oxford, who at the time he played for them were a league team, but are not any longer? What about when one of the Premiership teams plays their reserve goalkeeper in the FA Cup to give them a game. Do we delete them? WikiGull 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Wikipedia is hugely inclusionary towards athletes, but this is just a bridge too far for me. Can you say that this persons life is "encyclopediac" in the ordinary sense of that word? Delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (
WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Krashen

The article lacks sufficient sources to argue notability for the person. (Please recall that a high number of published documents and search engine hits do not constitute notability.) After a brief review of a biography posted to Wikipedia, which was removed due to copyright reasons, it does not appear that this person has significantly contributed to this field. However, this is my view of it, others may differ. If there are additional sources, not by the subject himself, that provide evidence of notability, perhaps this article is worthwhile. As it stands, there is not enough information. Additionally, the article has been online for some time without any new (legal) information added to the page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture on the article should be deleted as well, since it has no copyright information. I've listed it for deletion, but I'm not sure why it hasn't been. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per
talk — contribs) 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A7 is for articles that make no attempt to claim importance/significance; "professor emeritus" is certainly such a claim, so this isn't a speedy candidate. Thomjakobsen 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Amazon [2], "The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom" has been cited 96 times in other books; another has been cited 86 times, another 25 times. This is notable. JJL 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per this. His books on the first page alone are cited by over 3000.--Sethacus 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citing policies, page hits, or even the number of references is irrelevant to notability. READ THE GUIDELINE! Please, do not cite a search engine or another policy for your argument. It doesn't help! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest YOU read the guideline, and stop trying to bully others when you're losing an argument. FROM THE GUIDELINE (the REAL one[3], which I doubt you bothered to read): "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" and "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work... if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". The first hit in the link I provided is a book review which states, in fact, that his work is significant in this field. The 3000+ cites back up this claim. This is not a fly-by-night prof looking to get famous. This is a professor emeritus at a notable institution with several books to his credit, one of which has been cited by over 1000. Many of his articles alone are cited by close to 100 apiece. This man's work is significant and thoroughly cited, therefore, he is notable. End of story.--Sethacus 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seemed to meet
Tikiwont 07:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Along with the academic citations, there's plenty of popular press. Skip past the frat newsletter stuff on the first page and find an interview in NPR, a New York Times article calling him prominent, two paragraphs on his research in the Guardian, a letter with his name in the title in the Taipei Times, etc. —David Eppstein 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David and Sethacus. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If all this is true, then this article needs to be vastly improved. As it stands, it shows nothing of his notability. "Professor emeritus" does not equal notability. I know plenty of such professors, and they are not notable. Some of the other discoveries here may lead this article to notability status, but as it is, it just isn't. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Article needs improvement" is not a valid reason for deletion of a stub article. The discussion here is about whether the subject of the article meets notability criteria; the Google Scholar link provided above shows that he easily passes the guidelines at
WP:PROF on number of citations alone. Thomjakobsen 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The comment I provided was not an argument for deleting it. I came across the article and nominated the article for deletion based on its content. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notability clearly established in the AFD discussion, giving future editors sufficient resources to work with to improve the article. --lquilter 19:17, 11 October 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. --

desat 02:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Richard Brush

Fails

WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - plays for a
professional league. GiantSnowman 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The League of Ireland appears to be professional. Even if it was not 'fully' professional, it would be unduly harsh to keep out fully professional players (and I assume Brush is one of these) simply on the basis that their leage, being the top tier in the country, was not fully professional. --
Mkativerata 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. Does play in fully professional league. Basis for AfD is false. Also...11 Google News hits in the last month... Smashville 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is the
  Football League of Ireland definitely fully professional? The article seems a bit ambiguous. If it is, then I'm happy to withdraw the AfD. robwingfield ^«T•C» 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Plays for a notable football club, and used to be contracted to Coventry City. Has also played first team football at Tamworth, and many conference players have articles. Esteffect 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - none of those facts make the player notable. The only way this player fulfils notability criteria is if the
  Football League of Ireland is a fully professional league. robwingfield ^«T•C» 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Delete this on the grounds that the
Football League of Ireland isn't fully professional (and I've no idea if it is or not) and you open up a whole new can of worms re football players playing in either of the Irish leagues. WikiGull 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
From elevenaside.com "Ireland's soccer website": "Six of the eircom League of Ireland’s biggest clubs have convened in a bid to secure the future of the domestic league in the face of directionless planning by the Football Association of Ireland, according to a hard-hitting report on Wednesday morning......In addition, the six clubs are calling for the implementation of a fully-professional Premier Division as opposed to the mix-and-match pro and semi-pro state of affairs which currently prevails" ChrisTheDude 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So appearances at the top level of Irish football are for an amateur league so don't satisfy
WP:BIO? robwingfield ^«T•C» 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

keep he played for a team back in 05 so with that he is notable already no matter where he is playing and passes wp:bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - unfortunately, those appearances were in an amateur league so don't satisfy
  WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment - if only as much effort went into improving articles as goes into such discussions....WikiGull 10:45, 12 October 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. --

desat 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Zomboo

Zomboo gets fewer than 2,000 Google hits, of which under 150 are unique. It looks, from a read around the net, as if "on the air" is actually mainly on the internet. This article, in as much as it rises above the level of a directory entry, almost makes it to the status of a bad advertisement. It has never had any sources. Cruftbane 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me like a local (Reno) television programme that is trying to syndicate itself without representation... so this would possibly qualify as
WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Accounting. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:45, 12 October 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. --

desat 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thomas and friends video - release

Wikipedia is not a directory of listcruft. Corvus cornix 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is factual, verifiable, and notable. The fact that it is of interest to the minority of the population who are interested in a set of stories about anthropomorphised railway engines does not make it cruft, it simply makes it a minority interest list. Wikipedia is enhanced bhy the presence of such material.Weak Delete I had not realised this was weaseling around a deletion threat previously, I thought it was a typo (release/releases). It is also not supported by a key member of
WP:THOMAS. On that basis it may take its chance. Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Redundant info. Each heading leads to an article about that season, episodes are listeed on both pages. Seems like listcruft to me. Ridernyc 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just a list of the videos of the subject. Now lets take the issues one at a time. Factual - I have no reason to believe that it not correct. Verifiable - There is not a single reference or source, so this is demonstrably false. Notable - I do not dispute that the main subject matter (Thomas the Tank Engine) is notable. But I seriously question whether a list of videos is notable! In fact, I would ask as to whether it infringes the
WP:SPAM criteria. At the end of the day, this article is simply a list, and contain zero factual or encyclopedic information!! Perhaps the article should be renamed so that readers do know that it is a list. Canterberry 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt; this list is yet another bad-faith attempt to avoid the redirections of Thomas-merchandise articles. This list was previously at
Thomas Tomy Wind Ups. Masaruemoto 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Do we really need this Thomas the Tank Engine content. Are the indivdual season notable enough to have their own page and every episode have a detailed entry. 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

wow there is really no reason every character should have their own article.Ridernyc 02:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This information was turned into a redirect before, I don't see how an extra hyphen changes anything. Nburden 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, burn and pour salt on the ground per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:46, 12 October 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. W.marsh 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Belford

Fails

WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Ok well true this player has never played a professional league game, although he plays for a league team, and im sure if you go though a few of the fringe players and young players who signed contracts for this season, you will probably find they havn't actually played a professional league game either, so why don't you have a little look though all them as well, seen as you have nothing better to do, oh your a man of steel on wikipedia ain't you, the deleting articles man "Robwingfield", you should get a life me old mucka, oh well at least the Ludovic Quistin article will continue to remain as it should, enjoy your deletions important man. Stew jones 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, Stew jones, and note that all subjects must be notable to warrant an ecycopedic article. For footballers, the criteria is that he must have "played in a fully professional league' per

WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment If the Conference League is not fully professional (and I'm not sure of this), he fails WP:BIO and should be deleted, as that is the highest league in which he has played a game. It'd be funny though if he went on to represent England and this AfD discussion was brought up... --

Mkativerata 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Conference is not fully professional. The article can easily be restored by an admin should he ever play in a league higher than that (or for England!) --Malcolmxl5 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that case. --
Mkativerata 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'd probably go for keep. Okay, he hasn't made a league start but he does have a squad number and could start in the near future. Peanut4 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But having a squad number is not the test for
  Mkativerata 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Comment Okay, I'll concede on that then and be swayed towards delete. Peanut4 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah lets delete ay gents, power surge, send it to the scrap heap, after all its only somebodies hard work making the article, who cares. One thing I have noticed and really must point out is that current Middlesbrough players Graeme Owens and Jonathan Grounds both havn't made a professional league appearance, so does that mean they both have to get the deletion treatment also Stew jones 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Owens won the FA Youth Cup. That may establish general notability even though he would fail
  Mkativerata 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - WP:SPORT is a rejected policy/guideline. Smashville 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
- Reply to Stew Jones Well, yes. Go ahead and nominate Owens and Grounds for deletion for that reason. Wikipedia cannot be a repository of information about every person in the world. A line has to be drawn somewhere and for footballers, it's having played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Malcolmxl5 I don't need to go round deleting other peoples work to make myself feel better, it really doesn't bother me that Graeme Owens and Jonathan Grounds don't meet the standards, I would rather praise the person who made these articles, and give them credit for taking the time to make these articles. I don't get my kicks off deleting other peoples hard work. Stew jones 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stew. Something like 5,000 articles are deleted every day because they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you are you objecting to articles being deleted solely because someone has put hard work into them then you are probably in the wrong project. --Malcolmxl5 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this player has not "yet" made an appearance for Bury, I'm sure it is only a short matter of time before he does. Is there any point in deleting off a page that will be restored in a few weeks... come on guys, surely you've got better things to be doing with your lifes... well I hope so anyway! Jonesy702 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, player in a club in England's fourth-highest league would qualify as notable in my book. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:BIO. This one is a very definite delete. --Malcolmxl5 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, I agree with Stew's comment about the hard work that has gone into this article, some of which is my own. But what some people need to think about here, is this play is a "full time, professional league player", whether or not he has made an appearance "yet" shouldn't decide whether page should stay or go. I believe this players page should remain as he is a full time player - if he is released by the club and ends up with a team lower that League Two, then by all means delete him off, but only if he hasn't made a league appearance. Jonesy702 18:25, 14 October 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. --

desat 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Scar (Music Producer)

"one of the more acclaimed producers in the hip hop music music industry" at the age of 19, doesn't seem likely. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as someone who's already speedied this as an
iridescent (talk to me!) 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Tough to find information about someone whose single name is a common noun but I searched thoroughly and found nothing to add notability. Doesn't meet
WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Asserts notability, but doesn't demonstrate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Iridescent. Pig^man 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was previously deleted by myself as well. Jmlk 1 7 07:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attempted wish-fulfillment and per
WP:BAND and all the above. tomasz. 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio in Merchant of Venice

)

Pure original research - there's certainly potential for a valid,

iridescent (talk to me!) 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]
This is a group project for a college course. We are not even finished with it. There are more in depth things to come. The Act by act section just highlights his action in the play and there are comments in it on his character as well.Shakespearesister 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this could become an article but it massively violates
WP:OR in its current form. Pig^man 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Though I wish the class had taken more time to understand Wikipedia standards, some of this is still salvagable. There are sections where they do cite their sources, so it's not purely OR. Plus, an article on Antonio is certainly worthwhile. There's all kinds of critical commentary available, and we could discuss the different portrayals of the character over time. What the hell... give it time for cleanup. Zagalejo^^^ 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

NFT? Have you ever read the Merchant of Venice? None of the conclusions in the article are original. Zagalejo^^^ 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment We're supposed to be talking about the subject of the article, not the article in its current state. Wikipedia definitely has room for an article on Antonio. We can just move it to
Antonio (Merchant of Venice), and, if necessary, pare it down to a stub, although again, it's really not as bad as people think it is. ("Antonio in Merchant of Venice" seems like a plausible search term, so whatever happens, we can use this as a redirect page.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep That we did not previously have an article is our own fault. There has been quite enough on all major Shakespeare characters for articles. The references cited are standard, and fully support the article. It would be good to have in-line citations, and they should be so advised, but the article is not unreferenced~~. Speedy Keep~~ Snow Close suggested to keep us looking further like fools. We already do sufficiently. DGG (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep (can't withdraw due to the delete votes). The problems are on their way to being addressed, and it's now adequately sourced. —
iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. With 40 billion articles about porn stars, pokemon creatures, and obsessive gamer crap left unmolested, we ought to have a policy anybody who claims that major Shakespearean characters aren't worthy of notice ought to be banned for disruption. Not that this will ever happen. VivianDarkbloom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the article is much improved since it was nominated, at which time it did not have references. Improving article content at WP is in my view an extremely important goal, but AfD is a clumsy instrument for upgrading content. DGG (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to
Antonio (Merchant of Venice). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 13 October 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. --
desat 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Ramsay Watt Boyd

Peter Ramsay Watt Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Beloved radiologist, but still just a radiologist, despite the huge amount of fangushing in the article. Corvus cornix 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (bio). I concur, there's a whole lot of fanguishing in the article, but really, what makes him a notable radiologist? Did he pioneer some new technique? Did he demonstrate how to x-ray a human from 40 feet using standard equipment? Without concrete information, I can't justify a keep, and I'm going speedy because this just says he's prominent and butters him up - it doesn't demonstrate or assert notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by User:Jrwboyd, probably a relative. Corvus cornix 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Head of a hospital's X-ray department doesn't seem to be enough to confer notability. Google searching fails to find other achievements. Willing to change my mind if other material uncovered, eg in what fashion he 'served the Trinidad Government from 1960 to 1983'. Espresso Addict 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 10 October 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 - Obvious
soapboxing/personal essay - previously deleted and this AFD was previously closed. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Where is Nigeria Going?

Where is Nigeria Going? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I thought I'd nominate this rather than add a speedy tag because it does offer some interesting information but I don't believe it's worthy of an article by itself and should perhaps be merged with
^talk/_contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, OR essay. Corvus cornix 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. PMDrive1061 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
original research. This was also an AfD item yesterday -- I'm not sure why it's been relisted here today. Am I missing something? Accounting4Taste 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I would say...to delete as original research... Smashville 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay.
m 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. T'is a personal essay. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is all POV rhetoric. I don't see anything which could be turned into a citeable statement. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:19, 10 October 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 A1, A7, G11, and probably some others. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia maiden

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

Self-promotional article about a non-notable comic. Article states that the comic will be self-published in the future--Dark Matter Comics (since speedied) is also the author's own creation. Prod was removed by author with no explanation other than "updated info". --Finngall ^talk 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notable, and seems to advertising for a self-made comic. Thanks,
Sign here 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - blatant advertising, as evidenced by not only the obvious self-promo/COI writer (User:Darkmattercomics writing a piece about a work published by Dark Matter Comics), as well as the inclusion of a copyright notice from the work. Moreover, if the company article was nn, so is a work published by them. MSJapan 15:47, 10 October 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
Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo) to School District 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith and all others to School District 22 Vernon. John254 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo)

Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable school. The article doesn't even really contain any encyclopedic information. Rjd0060 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (NN & little context):

6 Mile Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Crossroads Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Charles Bloom Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Open Door Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

W L Seaton Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

- Rjd0060 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as non-notable. Thanks,
Sign here 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
*Delete all. I live in British Columbia, home to all these schools, and have never heard of any of them. I checked to see that the alternative schools were not in the vicinity of a recent local scandal about polygamy; not AFAIK. Perfectly ordinary non-notable schools. ~~Accounting4Taste 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete all as nn per Accounting4Taste. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to School District 22 Vernon. No valid reason has been provided for deletion in lieu of redirect. Alansohn 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per
Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo) is not in that school district and would redirect to School District 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Accounting4Taste 05:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

'Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:15, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

USS Thagard NCC-652

USS Thagard NCC-652 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially prodded article was restored on request, but notability concerns are obvious (a science fiction fanclub), and the article is lacking sources to establish that this is more than a run-of-the-mill club. Sent here to let the community investigate and decide. trialsanderrors 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fanclub. SolidPlaid 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-notable fanclub. Thanks,
Sign here 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:ORG. Generally local chapters are non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as totally non-notable. --Orange Mike 14:43, 11 October 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. --
desat 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ryan West

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

Extremely borderline notability. Nominating per a thread on ANI. Yes, he has a grammy nomination, but that was an engineer... do we have articles for every sound engineer on every Grammy nominated album(s)? I recuse from this one, as I simply don't know enough about what is notable for back-end music technicians like this.
NOTE:
Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, Grammy nominee. Corvus cornix 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question, though... does being a sound engineer on a Grammy nominated album count? We'd have a dozen new articles on engineers each year in that case. •
Lawrence Cohen 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this would fall under "Notability is not inherited" - the artist and the album might be notable, but everyone who worked on it is not necessarily notable. Mr.Z-man 17:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worse, there is no Grammy awarded to specifically to engineers. If there was some other evidence offered of notability, he could stay. But the brief mention of his work as a mixer on Usher's album isn't enough. SolidPlaid 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is borderline at best and author/subject indicates he would like to have this removed. Mr.Z-man 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only was it only a Grammy nomination rather than a win, it wasn't him that was nominated. Other than that there are no citations or sources to verify the claims in the article. As it stands the guy does not meet the requirements of
WP:N. It also seems obvious that the guy himself doesn't want the article there. Seems a good enough set of circumstances to assign it to the bitbucket. ---- WebHamster 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I brought this up at ANI because there is persistant vandalism on the page, and I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed. The subject (and creator, it seems) of the article has also expressed a wish to see it deleted. Deleting would solve the issue. --UsaSatsui 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of notability, and the subject's request. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I marked this for deletion a few days ago, it is constantly vandalised and there wasn't much there to start with Doyley Talk 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constant vandalism isn't a delete reason (case in point). --UsaSatsui 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, everything else has been voiced above and I didn't want to repeat Doyley Talk 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to add my two cents here, but here goes. I am a mixing engineer and record producer with plenty credible references on the web. Whether Wikipedia decides that because I'm not famous outside of the music business I don't deserve a blurb or two, I'm non-plussed. What space does it take up? 300kb? I could list a whole bunch of stuff that in some people's eyes, would be enough for an article. I've been interviewed by Scratch, Remix and Mix magazine. I was on VH1's White Rapper Show. I am currently producing my cousin, Lady Miss Kier of Deeelite. I have two Grammy nominations....yes nominations, not wins, however I was nominated and attended. I have hundreds of products on the market with my name and creative input on them. You may not give engineer/mixers much credit, but I think that's a mistake. Besides, who in the heck said you must be famous to be listed here? I mean, I've seen listings for CEOs of middle of the road corporations. Where's the priority here? Like I said, either way, I'm non-plussed, but let's be clear here. My listing has been plagued by jerk-faced pranksters. I'm not sure how I became the target of that crap, but I can assure you it's made me weary of this whole thing. Sorry for the dissertation, but how's a guy supposed to feel? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.97.172 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 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. Consensus is that the article is an inappropriate
content fork. -- Jreferee t/c 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Origin of religion

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

Blatant POV fork of
Development of religion. Vassyana 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No POV, just based on reliable sources from scholars in the field.
Development of religion in part by adding the notable and sourcable material present in Muntuwandi's synthesis.PelleSmith 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an editor behavior problem that should be handled with those procedures, I think. --lquilter 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this editor's behavior should probably be dealt with through other procedures, but I believe his behavior is acccentuating the problems with the entry. That's what I was trying to say ... so I edited my original statement.PelleSmith 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If modern humans originated in Africa, which is the mainstream consensus, then what is wrong with the hypothesis that religion appeared with modern humans at at the same time.Muntuwandi 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its your own original hypothesis and it isn't notable in the least.PelleSmith 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a scholar or expert on religion, I wouldn't be able to synthesize such a hypothesis, this based on archaelogists, not me. Muntuwandi 23:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with PelleSmith, a synthesis of original research and doesn't have any reputable arm's-length third-party citations, just sources. Accounting4Taste 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an arms length third-party citation. I haven't seen that anywhere in wikipedia guidelines. But I have seen reliability and verifiability as wikipedia requirements, which the article currently meets these standards. Muntuwandi 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is
m 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment While some may dispute the content of the article, the topic "origin of religion" is a valid topic. Muntuwandi 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is it can be recreated in a balanced, NPOV manner citing notable theories of religion's origin.PelleSmith 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the poor grammar as well and have to admit that it initially biased me against the article. Luckily, I fought against my bias and read the entire thing, including examining some of the sources. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Contains
synthesis of other material, neither of which is allowed. John Carter 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment has anybody even bothered to read the sources. Muntuwandi 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe this is being a bit too picky, but the 2nd sentence isn't a sentence and the 1st reads like the intro to someone's thesis. If it were to stay, it'd need serious work. If the POV is evident from the first sentence, it's hard to take the rest too seriously. Interesting topic? Sure. But, that alone doesn't cut it.--Jonashart 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. If the grammar is incorrect, that shouldn't be a problem, one can always correct it. Muntuwandi 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any
Development of religion. --Shirahadasha 05:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment The article

development of religion focuses on psychological elements that could have lead to the development of religion. The article makes no mention of middle or upper paleolithic peoples with regards to religion. Neither does it make any mention of primate or animal self-awareness. Consequently it is not a POV fork because the materials are totally different and independent.Muntuwandi 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or Merge to
Development of religion, without prejudice to recreation, should that article grow too large to accommodate it. – ornis ⚙ 08:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both articles and start from scratch First of all, we need to distinguish carefully between institutionalized religions' own accounts of how they developed - which I believe belongs not in a general article on the origins of religion but in the article son those specific religions - and accounts by scientists. Now, it may be possible to merge both articles to turn it into such an article. However, both articles suffer from two very serious flaws: first, they ignore the considerable debate over what religion is/how to define it; there is no scholarly consensus. Second, se will never, ever have adequate evidence for a scientific theory of how the first religions formed. All we have are speculative models and any article needs to emphasize this. It seems to me that explanations for how religion starts/started all actually are byproducts of specific theories of what religion "is" and i think it would be misleading to frame it any other way. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with these assertions but I think the development entry could be significantly re-written to do what you suggest, and in fact it could be renamed as well.PelleSmith 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe completely separating scientific and religious perspectives presents significant

WP:POVFORK issues. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep This article is talking about the earliest origins of religion as well as how it relates to our primate cousins. It does need more sources (especially the Lower Paleolithic bit), but that can be remedied by either finding the sources or removing the unsourced bits. The article it supposedly is a POV fork from is talking about the more modern development of religion. A merge is a possible compromise with this article covering the earlier times and the other article the later. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PelleSmith. Moreover, the majority of this article is material that was added by Muntuwandi to Religion months ago and rejected by discussion here. This is synthesis of throwaway comments from books and papers on other topics which have very little, if anything, to do with the topic of religion or Muntuwandi's assertions about it. There is no encyclopedic value to the sources as far as religion goes, so there's nothing worth merging. MSJapan 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete - it is clearly a fork of
Development of religion; merge anything worth keeping (of which there is more than people here are giving credit for) and then delete the renmants. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment I have included some of the sourced information on the talk page Talk:Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge+Redirect. I figure most of this is
development of religion. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources cited

The sources cited include:

"King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at
The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book
.

"

New York Times

. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.

The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
(1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.

Correct me If I am wrong but I believe these are reliable scholars and hence reliable sources. This is not original research because it is their work. Muntuwandi 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken individually they are reliable sources, but... organizing them as the article does creates a novel synthesis, which is considered Original Research under

WP:NOR. Blueboar 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

but aren't all articles a synthesis of several sources. In fact a good article requires citations from several sources. A synthesis that is original research provides a conclusion, that the individual sources did not arrive at. There is no conclusion in this article.Muntuwandi 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

development of religon

My understanding is those are different disciplines altogether, for example

development of religion

states

The development of religion is concerned with a variety of perspectives on the ways in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly speaking, three types of models provide different perspectives on the subject:

Models which see religions as social constructions;
Models which see religions as progressing toward higher, objective truth;
Models which see a particular religion as absolutely true;

There is no mention of what archaeologists have found regarding religion. This is a

origin of religion is actually covering different material. So to say that the origin of religion is a POV fork is incorrect, because they are not covering the same material. POV forks cover the same material as the article that they are forking from and put non-neutral slant on it. Muntuwandi 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per PelleSmith. -- Jeff3000 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (and rewrite to avoid synthesis) Blueboar 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too speculative. ^ross ^nixon 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Even evolution is speculative. The speciation of large organism has actually never been observed. Muntuwandi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment A suggestion, instead of one liners on an editors opinion, I would be greatful if someone could actually pinpoint which section, paragraphs of the article are not neutral, original research or a synthesis. A one-liner without an explanation could be simply an opinion of an editor that is not backed by wikipedia guidelines. Muntuwandi 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment development of religion offers no timeline on religion. Muntuwandi 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain. --Flamebait 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, indefensible nomination. "development of religion" is talking about completely unrelated topics in its separate h2 sections and needs to be split anyway.
dab (𒁳) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Dab. "Development of Religion" is concerned with the development of particular religions, not the development of religion in general. Raul654 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? What "particular religions" does it deal with? I don't think that is accurate at all. It doesn't have any good information or theoretical content on "origins," but that doesn't mean that the origins of religion, or proto-religion, doesn't belong in the entry. The creator of this origins entry simply refuses to work with the development entry, and has done so for some time now. How is this material not relevant to the development of religion?PelleSmith 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the references don't seem to mention where Religion comes from, which does seem to support the idea that this article (Or at least most of it) consists of original synthesis. Homestarmy 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the article

Development of religion

. the development of religion article only has 6 references.

Faces in the Clouds, Stewart Elliot Guthrie, Oxford University Press (1995).
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/boyer_religious_concepts.htm, Functional Origins of Religious concepts, Pascal Boyer
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)
Robert William Fogel; The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism; 2000, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-25662-6
William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning, New York: Broadway Books, 1997.
Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, 1997, Banner of Truth, ISBN 0-85151-712-9. This is a reprint of the original work published in 1842.

only one subsection

Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology

out of the whole article has any footnotes. The rest of the article has no footnotes whatsoever.

the article

origin of religion,thus cannot be a POV fork of a poorly referenced article. Muntuwandi 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Synthesis

WP:SYN

says Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

There is no section in the article where sources are combined to form a conclusion that the authors of the article did not make. If there is one, please highlight the exact paragraph. Any accusations of original research or synthesis require evidence. Muntuwandi 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are now a number of published works (not all of which were cited above) precisely on this topic. I also note that "origin" is conceptually quite distinct from "development". I think these two articles should both play out a bit and then be revisited to see if they would benefit from coordinated development or merger. --lquilter 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE and COMMENT--to address the concern of Muntawandi's that no one has challanged any of the actual content or given him examples of how the entry is a synthesis I have provided an in depth point by point analysis of
Origin of religion available to view and to comment on at Talk:Origin of religion.PelleSmith 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The editor who nominated this article for deletion did it on the basis that this article was a Blatant POV fork of Development of religion article. Muntuwandi 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

the article in its present form is quite horrible, but there can be little doubt the topic is valid. Issues of
dab (𒁳) 07:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - looking through it, the article is so weak that it should be merged into the equally weak
dab (𒁳) 08:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Move + Redirect + possible Merge/Redirect:
Development of religion
provides a framework for exploring a number of different competing theories. Therefore:
Development of religion
should be treated as a main article for any theory of the origins or development of religion

The article
Development of religion
. This will allow readers to assess the importance of this particular theory in the context of all available theories of the origin of religion.

The name
Development of religion
.

No delete: In
Development of religion
, a brief description of the theory should be included along with some cited material indicating its relative importance among the theories. If no such cited material is available, I would like us to take a wait and see approach - sometimes it takes time for even an expert to get to the library and find the sources.
Although the idea of God gene may seem bizarre to some, somatized theories of religon are not new. They were particularly mainstream in the 19th century and much of the 20th. There was a very popular book in the mid 1980's that attempted to explain religion in terms of right/left brain communication. Before that it was common to explain religious experience as a form of epilepsy, schitzophrenia or some other neurological disorder.

The various criticisms on the talk page pertain to the quality of the theory itself - even notable and well documented theories have holes big enough to drive trucks through. For years Freud's theory that "religion is a mass neurosis" was quoted by many as near gospel, even though Freud himself acknowledges that religious people have fewer neuroses in the normal medical sense of the word (see "Future of an Illusion, trans. James Strachey, New York: WW Norton, 1961, p. 44).

A merge should be considered unless it would make the
development of religion

Egfrank 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I think development of religion should focus on how religion progressed from basic ancestral worship to religion as an institution. This article should focus on biological and evolutionary factors. Muntuwandi 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands does not address biological and evolutionary factors except in the opening paragraph where it refers to a second article on the God gene. Furthermore, the article is titled "Origin of religon", not The role of biology and evolution in the development of religion. Additionally, an article that had that name would have to present several different biological and evolutionary theories and ideally give the reader a framework for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of those theories relative to one another and relative to non-evolutionary/biological theories. The article doesn't do that either. Best, Egfrank 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the criticism is focussed on this article, but I think the
Development of religion has no useful information on religion in general. I don't believe the articles should be merged because the "origin of religion" is a valid topic on its own. The materia for the "origin of religion" is going to be significantly less because scientists are still trying to piece together human evolutionary history. Development of religion will have more material because most of the studies deal with present day religions. However, as you mentioned, there are several ways to approach the origin of religion. In this case we should focus on the most objective, that is the human fossil record. Muntuwandi 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The wikipedia way (and the academic way) is to include all theories and let the reader decide for themselves which is the most objective/best formulated/etc. Hence the need to address multiple theories. Best, Egfrank 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synthesis originating on WP as it is now. Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with poster... this is a POV fork. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Editors are entitled to their own opinions, however no one has provided any evidence that this article is a POV fork of any other article. Muntuwandi 03:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK
states:
POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.

There was never any dispute on the
development of religion before. Muntuwandi 04:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. As other people have already noted, some parts could be merged into
Development of religion to cover this area, which I think falls within its subject matter. The merged material should obviously make sure to avoid synthesis. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, could people please try to keep indentation levels tidy? I've taken the liberty of doing some minor neatening so that I can read the page; if I messed up please fix my efforts! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I disagree with merging the articles because development of religion has plenty of its own problems. If someone is willing to clean up the development of religion article, then a discussion on merging may be warranted. One of the key differences between the two articles is that
origin of religion, such as the books cited above, actually make no mention of any specific religion. This is an important distinction between these two articles at the moment. Muntuwandi 16:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
We could also merge Origin in before cleaning up, which would be beneficial since the merged-in content would serve as a scaffold for expanding this particular subtopic of Development during cleanup. The two articles may be distinct in their contents at present, but if you read this page you'll note a few people would prefer them not to be; and since this is a wiki, we can effect that change, starting with a content merge. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improper content fork based on synthesized original research.
Burntsauce 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment. Which information is a synthesis and which is OR.Muntuwandi 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all of it. You are quite obviously unable to write an article on any topic whatsoever without turning it into an essay about "out of Africa". Most of your material is perfectly valid, but belongs on completely different articles.
dab (𒁳) 07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You are right that I am interested in 'out of africa'. But this is one of the most important hypothesis of the 20th century and it has implications beyond the theory. I dispute merging the articles for a number of reasons:
The main sources cited use the term "origin of religion" and not "development of religion" eg Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion" and The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. this article uses the term "origin of faith"[4].

the article
Development of religion
is not well defined and has several problems with it. As I have mentioned earlier it only has 3 footnotes in the whole article. Origin of religion has 28 footnotes. Why is development of religion being treated as like it is good article, when it is possible that it has plenty of OR.

None of sources cited in Development of religion are cited in origin of religion and vice-versa meaning these topics as they stand are mutually exclusive.

merging is an attempt to water down some of the information that is in this article. As I mentioned earlier, the sources cited make no mention of any particular religion. Development of religion does make mention a number of religions such as judaism, christianity, bahai etc. To mix these up is OR and a
WP:SYN
because the sources cited have not mixed them up.

My suggestion therefore is to let these two articles run for some time. They can be revisited in the future. Development of religion has had very little activity recently. If editors truly believe that the articles should be merged then someone should clean up development of religion to give an accurate representation of how the topic is studied academically. Muntuwandi 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been clearly indicated to you on this article's talk page what is wrong with the article, addressing specific issues. What is wrong with your sourcing and approach has been explained to you in relation to no original research, synthesis and reliability on multiple occasions. Please do not put on airs to the contrary. Vassyana 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any credible explanation. I think editors are confusing certain issues. It seems that editors are disagreeing with the authors of these studies not with the article. You are entitled to disagree with the author's assertions at a personal level. However one's personal beliefs should not interfere with wikipedia articles. At this stage, nobody has shown any proof that the article contains information that is not found in the sources. We should recall the Wikipedia is not censored (
WP:NOTCENSORED).Muntuwandi 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MERGE
states: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

This article is not short and likelihood of expansion is high. Especially when scientists begin to find more genes related to religion. Muntuwandi 22:31, 16 October 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. --
desat 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Airlines in films

Airlines in films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is in violation of
WP:NOT#INFO whose only criteria for inclusion is the appearance of an airline, for even a single second (such as Aeroflot in Bourne Supremacy), in film, music video, etc. Russavia 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as unmanagably huge. A list of movies wherein the main setting is an airline or airplane would be okay. SolidPlaid 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft. Too long to maintain.
m 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete;
WP:NOT#IINFO, unsourced (are we supposed to rent every film just to verify this information?), and essentially an online plane-spotters blog, every time someone sees an airline in a movie they are watching add it to Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Someone went to a lot of trouble on this, but Russavia says it best... it's a list of an airplane from a particular airline being seen in a film. One might as well make a list of the different types of cereals that are glimpsed on film, such as a box of Cheerios on the table in Words and Music. Mandsford 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be careful with any 'one might as well make a list of....' arguments, as it can often backfire with funny results, which I present you with the one might as well write an article about Cheeses in popular culture arguments. --Russavia 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'd forgotten about the debate on Helicopters in popular culture, the one where Benevolent Administrator Wafulz proved the adage that "AfD is not a vote". This is somewhat different. I can recognize a box of Cheerios or a United Air Lines plane without someone telling me what it is. Mandsford 11:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, they even included the "plane on a stick" in Wayne's World as an airline in a film. That's pretty solid evidence of a completely indiscrimite list. --UsaSatsui 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Liked your Flying High comment. Kinda makes me also think why
Ekipazh isn't mentioned under Aeroflot. And another movie, Nochnoy Dozor could be listed under Aeroflot, however, this would go against the prose which sort of insinuates that airlines pay to appear in movies, when Aeroflot threatened to sue those behind the movie claiming infringement of their copyright. Totally irrelevant to this Afd, but does show the 'what about Airline ***, better add it to the list' way these lists operate. --Russavia 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Nicely put together and organized with the table and so provides a convenient reference for anyone researching the topic. I'll also do a quick search to see if there are references as well. Best, --
Tally-ho! 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:LC points 1 through 4. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Listcruff. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:48, 12 October 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. --
desat 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom Cumberworth

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

Non-notable footballer. Not at a professional club and with no professional appearances. (Contested Prod) ArtVandelay13 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely not notable and may never even play football if he's a free agent at 19. Peanut4 21:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Peanut4. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:33, 10 October 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. -- Longhair\^talk 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Sustainability Commission

Australian Sustainability Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not an organisation of any kind, it may exist at some point in the future, but looks unlikely. I'm putting it to AfD as I'm really not sure enough to speedy/prod it, and think the community may have more information than I do. Orderinchaos 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
WP:CRYSTAL. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - the article appears accurate and is surprisingly detailed, but an organisation that neither exists nor has major party support for its creation is not notable enough for inclusion. Notability is not speculative (per
WP:CRYSTAL as stated above). Merely being a recommendation in a 2005 Senate report is not sufficient either - thousands of Senate report recommendations are made each year and the majority are not enacted or are enacted in a different form to that recommended. Euryalus 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. If the Australian Government establishes such a Commission, it is worth an article. If it doesn't, it isn't and time is running out before the 2007 election to establish it. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - intriguing that such a well written and laid out article should be found on something that does not exist
Suro 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing something on nothing. Simply brilliant. Twenty Years 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Twenty Years. Keb25 00:47, 12 October 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. Further discussions and comments sould be posted on the article's talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep discount broker

Deep discount broker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Not really sure if this belongs on Wikipedia, seems like a dictionary definition. Leaning more towards delete, but a transwiki to Wiktionary is also a possibility Rackabello 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should delete this, it lacks sufficient context to establish what it is actually about. Cruftbane 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No context. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Perhaps it has no context because it's not a real term? I googled and couldn't find the expression except in spam sites....no major news source uses the term (wall street journal, forbes, NY Times, cnn, financial times, etc). There may be a real notable sub-class of business out there, but if so there's probably a different name (and an article already) for it. If it were a real financial term or classification of stockbroker these sources would be using the word.Wikidemo 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the not-much-better
discount brokerage. The term is out there but the boundaries between the two are subjective. (Oh, and deep discount broker yields 684 HITS for me vs. 24,800 for deep discount brokerage.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Good find. Maybe we should keep after all and look for some sources and info, if it's really a distinct term and class of business. I could swear I've heard it somewhere too. However, the fact that the best source found to date is a 1994 article, albeit in the New York Times, suggests the term isn't in general use and as you say is subjective. If it were an obscure field of business, a single NY Times reference plus a few others would be enough to sustain an article. As a term that if real would apply to a several billion dollar a year industry, if that's all there is then perhaps it's just not worth discussing in an article.Wikidemo 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to close this as no consensus per Wikidemo's above comment. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 15 October 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. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeley Boys Under 18's

Heeley Boys Under 18's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable under-18 football club. Corvus cornix 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD#A7. --Finngall ^talk 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete, as non-notable. Thanks,
Sign here 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth team. GiantSnowman 23:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of above Peanut4 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to American Wrestling Federation. KrakatoaKatie 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alperstein

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

Delete. NN, also fails WP:Bio Endless Dan 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if references can be found - David Gerard 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, indeed, merge per Accounting4Taste - David Gerard 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Wrestling Federation after taking out the unsubstantiated slurs. He's not especially notable but his (former) organization seems to be. Accounting4Taste 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to American Wrestling Federation. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

30mins

30mins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged in February as failing notability guidelines, no independent sources have ever been included to support the rather tenuous claim of notability. Created by TinaChong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has no other contributions before or since, save to link this to a high-level article on editorial cartooning. The entire thing appears to be original research and the subject does not appear to be notable. Cruftbane 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This user has not created anything else, just soley worked on this article, which leads me to believe this is an single purpose account.--NightRider63 02:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:SPA is not a rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:N. (But unreferenced is not the same thing as original research.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Enozinho's Law

Enozinho's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Google notes 4 instances of use, excluding wikipedias. Deltopia 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be deleted. A neologism coined on one blog with no evidence of currency elsewhere. Cruftbane 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, a non-notable neologism, but one that seems strangely familiar. Isn't this a re-stating of
Godwin's Law? ~~In which case, credit has not been given where it's due.~~ Accounting4Taste 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Just looked at the article again, the reference is there. If this was more notable/widespread, it could have been merged with Godwin's Law. Accounting4Taste 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source seems to be a blog discussion. --B. Wolterding 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

(View AfD)
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are a magnet for POV, OR and vandalism, and mostly consist of a top 10 list and a hunk of unsourced trivia and analysis. As well, there are no sources that prove their significance. There was a similar article for the 100 Greatest Guitarists that was deleted roughly a year ago. The AFD can be found for that here. At the very least, the pages should be merged into the Rolling Stone article. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate keeping these, I'm afraid. Yes, they are a maintenance nightmare but the Rolling Stone all-time 500 blah is very widely discussed as a benchmark, at least where its upper echelons are concerned. It was, of course, a seasonal space-filler, but it has garnered a lot of independent attention. The guitarists list was not, I think ,quite the same - it was essentially a repeat of the list, wasn't it? Which would violate copyright. These seem to make at least an attempt to talk about the articles, their compilation and critical reaction rather than simply republishing them. So it seems to me, anyway. Cruftbane 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that prove that these articles are discussed as benchmarks? Besides, Rolling Stone has done many articles that have garnered widespread discussion, do all of them deserve their own page? I think a mention in the Rolling Stone article and perhaps a section called "Rolling Stone lists" is more than enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some relevant discussion can be found on
n 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

keep - if it were a reproduction of the list (as I expected before I clicked on it) it'd be a no-brainer delete, but this is actually a pretty good article about the list that avoids any copyvio problems. Artw 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wha? There are no sources whatsoever, little information about real world context, and most of it is analysis. Am I missing something here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely per Artw. There's some sourcing issues, but they can be addressed. Rolling Stone is something of an authority on music, and when they do lists of this scope, it's significant. --UsaSatsui 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hahnchen and Artw. Vandalism issues are a reason to place the article on your watchlist and patrol it, but they are not a valid reason to delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about lack of notability and a lack of sources that prove notability? Isn't that a reason to delete? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A widely discussed list by a major music publication, which sparked both a hardback book containing the list and a collection of essays by major critics in response to the list, seems notable enough for me. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, notable since this list was published as a book and since the Kill Yr Idols book was written as a response to the list. 96T 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This article continues to be referenced, discussed and debated nearly 4 years after it was written. Very notable. --Endless Dan 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many references. [5] do some due diligence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe some sort of limited editing or something, since the article basically doesn't need editing and is an open door for vandalism, but the article should definitely stay.--Mariogc 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's a valuable source for a major magazine's music review special and shows trends throughout decades, among bands, etc.
Marty Donakowski 04:21, 13 October 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, including the category and the template. --
desat 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles in Category:Lists of pieces by composer

List of pieces by composer: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pieces by composer: S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View AfD
)

Incomplete and redundant now we have Category:Compositions by composer Centy – reply• contribs – 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be a given since List of pieces by composer: F made it through Afd. Dafoeberezin3494 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Lists of pieces by composer and Template:Pieces-composer should also be deleted once these lists are. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Dafoeberezin3494's reasoning -- just because other articles have been deleted doesn't mean these should be. But I do come to the same conclusion here: these should be deleted as redundant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

George hakun

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

Claims of notability, so I didn't immediately list it for speedy deletion, but there are only 19 Google hits for "George hakun". There are no entries at artistidrect.com or allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Googled this name in combination with each individual song and band name mentioned -- nothing. Apparently not as well known as is asserted here; doesn't meet
WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. Googling his name alone only gets 18 hits, none for a musician. Also, the claims are rather bizarre. How does one get to be a five-time honorable mention on Billboard, especially for songs that are "popular" only in one part of the US? I highly suspect this is a vanity bio or, worse, wishful thinking.--Sethacus 05:10, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Challenge fights

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

Blatant hoax - 0 ghits on either Scentarians or Leminicies. This reads suspiciously like someone transcribing part of an RPG. "Hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, and not quite nonsense enough for a G1 —
iridescent (talk to me!) 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's one: if we delete non-notable massacres from AD1981, why wouldn't we delete non-notable wine theft from AD165?--Victor falk 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent hoax. I'm not convinced of the notability it would have were it real,so I'm not sure I agree with Victor above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree it appears to be a hoax. Article is only ghit, and names don't have Latin origin. Lemon Icees appears to be the source of the latter.Horrorshowj 06:21, 12 October 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. KrakatoaKatie 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Day

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

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
94 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:54, 14 October 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. KrakatoaKatie 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harris (newscaster)

Scott Harris (newscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
94 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:55, 14 October 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. --
desat 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Chase Evans

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

Already speedied once under the name
iridescent (talk to me!) 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
94 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment COI isn't a deletion reason - there is nothing in
iridescent (talk to me!) 22:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

why would you delete it --Chaseevans 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the standards for inclusion listed at WP:PORNBIO, and a remarkably small number of films (two) cited. Accounting4Taste 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Hasn't been around long enough yet to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Borderline spam.--Sethacus 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind and tagged for speedy delete as spam. We'll see how that goes.--Sethacus 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was denied. I'll still vote delete.--Sethacus 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:COI get no presumption of good faith. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Legis. Also lacks any reliable source for verification. -Jmh123 18:35, 13 October 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. --
desat 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Adrian Clarkson

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

No evidence that this radio presenter meets
WP:NOTE. Solumeiras ^talk 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
94 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO. Unsure about the speedy.--Sethacus 05:24, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

D.P. Da Phranchise

D.P. Da Phranchise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another unremarkable rapper. Speedy was declined on the basis of claiming to have a smash hit, "Let Me In". Attempting to search for his smash hit yields very minimal results, and none of them appear reliable. None of his mixtapes or albums check out either. Probably an autobiography, but I have no evidence of this. Bongwarrior 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
94 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, very few Google hits, and most of those are to MySpace pages. His agent has a yahoo email address. Corvus cornix 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, STORMTRACKER. Pig^man 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:40, 11 October 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, nomination withdrawn. KrakatoaKatie 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Spyrou

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

This article's creator and only major contributor
friendly) 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. Right now
WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to Airship Management Services. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (Nominator) with a recommendation to merge and redirect. I made a poor choice in nominating this article, and hereby withdraw my nomination.
friendly) 15:23, 10 October 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 good grief, delete, delete. --
desat 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Work Abroad Philippines

Work Abroad Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Creator worked only on this article. Probable spam Lenticel ^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Vegaswikian 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Good grief, delete, delete! Alternativity 09:40, 13 October 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 closed as keep due to nominator withdrawing his nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airship Management Services, Inc.

Airship Management Services, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This article's creator and only major contributor
friendly) 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A conflict of interest alone is not a reason to delete. From
WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." I suggest withdrawing the deletion nomination unless you actually think the company isn't notable, which it might well not be, but your nomination didn't mention that. --W.marsh 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: The article is an awful mess at the moment - and shows a strong conflict oif intrest, but does seem to have Reliable Sorces - if these actually do support the article and talk about the company (rather than just a passing mention) then this probably is notable.Nigel Ish 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please don't confuse COI with blatant spam. COI is not a reason to delete. This article is referenced, and yes it had some spammy language, but I and other editors have cleaned this up. I've moved the article to a MOS compliant name (dropped the "Inc"). It probably could stand further cleanup, but as one of the few companies that is actively building and operating airships, it's notable in that regard, the article has good sourcing (though I'm sure more can be found), and IMHO meets our policies and guidelines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggested the article about
WP:NPOV (for instance, deleting the direct link to the company's website). Accounting4Taste 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment A "direct link to the company's website" is not in violation of
WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. But it should be airshipman.com and not the holding company (amusingly, one of the sister companies seems to have lost control of its domain). Official websites of companies are routinely linked to in their articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Though it needs clean-up as stated in above posts. Also, we do have direct links to many company pages on Wkipedia, so we just need tomake sure it's the top-level page, not a link to a sale department. -
BillCJ 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but move to
WP:NCC. Adlike tone still predominates but references check out. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Article has already been moved to that name. Btw,
BillCJ 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep (Nominator). I made a poor choice in nominating this article, and hereby withdraw my nomination.
friendly) 15:23, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Neil Rudd

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

No indication that this radio presenter meets
notability policy. No reliable third-party sources that assert notability either (references to him removed from radio station websites). Solumeiras ^talk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Google search gets confused with people with the same name, but his current employers don't post any biographical information that I could find. No third-party sources beyond his name. Doesn't meet
WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing indicates he satisfies
WP:BIO. Pig^man 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:52, 12 October 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
Metroid (series). KrakatoaKatie 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Metroid Prime Trilogy

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

Articles already exist for each of these games. There is no reason why they should be rehashed here. DurinsBane87 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this information is already covered in
Metroid (series), and what isn't is definitely covered in the five games' individual articles, making this trilogy page unnecessary. Arrowned 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Worth merging as a possible search term, however. humblefool ® 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Metroid (series) Will ^(talk) 21:30, 10 October 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. --
desat 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Fergie discography

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

There has been consensus that artists who've only released one album don't need a separate discography page. 17Drew 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that separate discography for one album is unnecessary. Pig^man 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothin new. Discography of one album is always deleted.
Luxurious.gaurav 06:03, 11 October 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. W.marsh 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online selling

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

Was spam for a kind of eBay intermediary in India; once all corporate references removed, this became a bunch of original research that seems confused about what it's trying to define. Accounting4Taste 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually think there might be a worthwhile article under this heading, but my feeling is that you'd have to start from scratch... this article is defining the terms in terms of the Indian corporation's business model, which leaves it, IMHO, fatally flawed. But I'd be happy if someone picked up this ball and ran with it in a different direction. Accounting4Taste 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to how-to about online auctions. I don't see that there's anything worth merging. (Sure it's not a copyvio? Reads like a chatty blurb article from AOL or something.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Dhartung -- Whpq 16:16, 12 October 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. --
desat 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Number of the Beast (occurrence)

Number of the Beast (occurrence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced list of occasions someone has used the number 666. This is listcruft and unencyclopedic. We don't need "popular culture references" sections in every article. B 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall this used to be a part of the Number of the Beast article, so I'm guessing it has grown out of proportion until it weighed on the article so heavily an editor decided to split it off. I can't see how any sort of useful or encyclopedic article will result from this information being walled off here so I vote to ~~delete~~ rewrite and merge; The original article has a "Culture and Significance" heading just waiting for a rewrite salvaging the best of the content here and ignoring the rest. --AceMyth 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete delete delete (Delete has six letters in it, get it?) Like Ace, I can't see anything encylopedic about someone else's mark of the beast imitation. These aren't occurrences, they're all planned. Mandsford 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as trivia list. "This article covers trivia and other items involving the Number of the Beast". Note how the lead also says "Many of these items are unverified". Punkmorten 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've revised the lead sentence and format of the article some, but please do add more sources. The topic can be encyclopedic if improved. I'll do a quick source search after I post this message. Best, --
Tally-ho! 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Listcruft is one way to put it, but for those who are just now tuning in, this is a list of loosely associated trivia of the non-encyclopedic type, violating the very core of our
Burntsauce 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete violates
WP:V Jbeach56 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Massive
OR and a virtually infinite topic raising huge notability and POV issues any direction you turn. ... And if, as another editor suggested, it's a split-off from the original article, then instead of returning it to the original article there needs to be a synthesized discussion about the matter with a few particular examples. For instance "Sometimes used intentionally in popular culture, as in x and y, by producers seeking to garner additional publicity for their work. Some have suggested carries hidden messages or has actual religious significance; for example in these works, commentators A and B suggested that producers inserted intentionally, although that was disputed. Other times the very existence of the item has been disputed, as in the famous satanic grilled cheese." In other words, prose. There's just no reason to list these things. --lquilter 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article currently is in need of help, clarity and sourcing all of which can be accomplished through regular editing. The Mark (or number) of the Beast is well represented in popular culture and has books and lectures on the subject. Yes, the article needs work but that is no reason for deletion. Per
Benjiboi 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think anybody's disputing that this topic is encyclopedic and notable - just that it needs its own article. It seems right now that the only reason it can't go back to the original number of the beast article, or indeed the only reason it left there in the first place, is its huge size and choppy presentation. Which in turn are only a necessity because it insists to list in painstaking detail each and every occurrence of the nubmer in bullet-listed form. Given that having this type of "article" is against Wikipedia guidelines (
WP:TRIVIA), and this will in all probability have to be reduced to paragraphs of prose as lquilter suggested, I think it is best if this is rewritten and merged back pre-emptively; Unless it becomes some gigantic, well-referenced, brilliant treatise- and I frankly don't think there's enough to be said about this subject to warrant that- the best it can hope for is probably to undergo a substantial rewrite and then be merged back by consensus anyway, when it'll be obvious there isn't enough material in it to justify a separate article. --AceMyth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strongly disagree. There is plenty of content it simply hasn't been introduced into the article as of yet. Years ago I was looking into the subject and there were quite a few books and plenty of papers on the very subject. Granted I felt that some of the thinking was a bit extreme it was pitch-perfect tabloid fodder and there was plenty of it. And lists or bulleted points in and of themselves can be encyclopedic it's just that this one needs more work. I think a decent article should be written and some notable examples provided.
Benjiboi 11:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know how much time this AfD has left, but if you do have the material to turn this into an article you feel could stand on its own, I strongly advise you to rewrite it as at least a proof of concept and make an announcement here once you're done. AfD is not a vote and if the closing admin sees the article does have potential and you are serious about this, they might even overturn a "delete" majority (especially if most of the votes were cast prior to the rewrite). Myself, I still think that 1. No, bulleted points of loosely associated trivia functioning as the entire framework of an article are unencyclopedic by definition, and it would do well to shift the article into prose form; and 2. This text, as it currently is, stands more to gain from being given a context inside of the original article than it does from being given its own article to expand. I very much doubt I'd change my mind about 1, and I urge you to take my advice on that- going head to head with guidelines and consensus rarely benefits an article's health. As for 2, I might be proven wrong just yet. Have at it. --AceMyth 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as much as I've had success rewriting or rescuing articles from AfD I find the entire exercise a bit too stressful. I saw this was up for AfD and then saw how much the article needed some TLC but I have numerous other commitments to tend to before doing a rewrite to maybe save an article. I believe it certainly can be a great article and to me AfD is to explore the potential of an article: Is it beyond hope of ever being a good article or can it be improved through regular editing? If I have time I will try to research some potential sources for research.
Benjiboi 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentory

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

Probably non notable company. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Improbcat 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No claim to notability, speedy delete per
talk | contribs) 18:31, 9 October 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. --
desat 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Jewish American musicians

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians

Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians (2nd nomination)

List of Jewish American musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This fails WP:NOT#DIR to the letter. Wikipedia is not a list KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I take no position on the deletion of this article, I would point out there are plenty of list pages on Wikipedia. There should be a better reason then that, for deletion. And that there are plenty of lists of people based on various different division. See
Lists_of_peopleUcscottb4u 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - while acting in good faith, the nominator doesn't appear to be familiar with the system that this page is part of. This isn't a seperate list, it is part of Lists of people collection. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete Not all of us think that there should be Lists of American Jews. I think they're a holdover from when Wikipedia was starting up and begging for articles, which led to Lists of Jewish American Philosophers, Jewish American Social and political scientists, Jewish American Linguists, Jewish American Psychologists, Jewish American Economists, Jewish American Historians, Jewish American Physicists, Jewish American Chemists, Jewish American Biologists and physicians, Jewish American Mathematicians, Jewish American Computer scientists, Jewish American Engineers, Jewish American Inventors, Jewish American Visual artists, Jewish American Architects, Jewish American Photographers, Jewish American Fashion designers, Jewish American Cartoonists, Jewish American Authors, Jewish American Poets, Jewish American Playwrights, Jewish American Journalists, Jewish American Composers, Jewish American Businesspeople, Jewish American Mobsters, Jewish American Entertainers, and, this one, Jewish American Musicians.

Call me Auntie Semite, but what the hell does being Jewish have to do with being a musician? Should we have a list of Christian American musicians? If so, why? For what other reason than political correctness (or segregation) would you maintain a List of Jewish American Fashion Designers? It's an anachronism that needs to go. Mandsford 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Transhumanist and especially Mandsford. The "list of *ish/*an/*ese blanks" have to go. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, better served by categories. humblefool ® 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to categories. I'm sure there was a long discussion with a consensus that we were not going to be having lists of (foo) (bar) (baz)s. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Total bogwash.
WP:NOT#DIR specifically mentions List of Jewish musicians as notable. This is a sub-section of that list and is nicely referenced. So I completely disagree with the justification for this AfD and the arguments above. — RJH (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete The list has been sitting there for years without a single significant improvement. Why? Because relevant reliable sources are hardly available for a list like this. It's time for it to go. Seems like an irrelevant intersection of ethnicity/religion/self-identification with profession anyway. Oh, and it isn't nicely referenced. It's referenced obscurely, and most of the names are commented out for not having any easily-found sources. Bulldog123 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for a good review of Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, see the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. In any event, Policy states that List of Jewish musicians is notable. See Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I proposed that such information be removed from the policy here. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Each of the following has been to AFD:
List of Jewish American academics

List of Jewish American artists

List of Jewish American business figure

List of Jewish American fashion designers

List of Jewish American musicians

List of Jewish American political figures

List of Jewish American scientists

List of Jewish American show business figures

List of Jewish American sport figures

List of Jewish American writers

List of Jewish inventors

-- Jreferee t/c 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - While there may be plenty of reasons to keep our cogent and well-researched
Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items. The criterion for inclusion in the list is not defined sufficiently such that inclusion is too subjective. For example, how Jewish must one be to be on the list? To what extent does the notability of the person have to be attributed to the person being Jewish to be included in this list? To what extent does the notability of the person have to be attributed to the person being an American Jew to be included in this list? What level of relationship need there be between being Jewish and American to that of being a notable musician? Also, if this list were to be complete, it would be too big to be manageable. Further, this list encourages inclusion politics. There seemingly is an endless number of hyphenated Americans who are notable musicians and this list encourages others to seek representation of their hyphenated American group by posting their own hyphenated American musician list. Of course, then the other nations will want their own hyphenated musician lists. Wikipedia is on the wrong path with these hyphenated musician lists and AfD is a place to correct that. -- Jreferee t/c 22:57, 12 October 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. --
desat 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

InQuira

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

Possibly non notable company, created by an account with no contribs except those to this article and a product of InQuira. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Improbcat 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and would have supported {{
WP:CORP badly. In order to be viable even as a stub, need some evidence that this will become a viable page eventually. DMacks 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No assertion of notability. Pig^man 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion as part of a series of nonsense/attack articles created by one editor.--Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo (slang)

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

Dictionary definition, looks like a hoax or similar. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
uncited...take your pick. DMacks 18:01, 9 October 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 withdrawn. —David Eppstein 06:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Hambrick

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

~~Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
I withdraw the nomination, I didn't read carefully enough.

Keep. The link to the Broadcaster's Hall of Fame checks out, he's there, that seems like enough notability to me ... or am I missing something? I couldn't find a citation for the "local Emmy awards", admittedly. Accounting4Taste 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit I could be wrong. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the induction into the Broadcaster's HoF.--Sethacus 05:53, 10 October 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. GDonato (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FECRIS

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

Notability has not been proven, since the article (still) has no third party sources, relying solely on the one primary source(org's website. Sfacets 11:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - try to first resolve the unreferenced tag in the article. Quick google search comes up with [6] [7] [8] and[9], which appear to be attributable enough for Wikipedia. Be advised that there's an organization with the same name, and thus may result in attributing events to the wrong organization. --Sigma 7 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet
WP:RS. The article has been tagged for 5 months and it still does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 24,000 google hits - definitely notable and verifiable. Mukadderat 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Here are some good key sources that could be used to expand the article - [10].
Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:55, 12 October 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. W.marsh 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iBrick

AfDs for this article:

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

web/inernet neologism SYSS Mouse 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redidect to iPhone. While the word made a buzz, does not warrant a separate article. Mukadderat 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~, and move any relevant information to the iPhone article~~. Doesn't even warrant a redirect, and that can be seen as perjorative anyway. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If material is merged to another article, we must redirect to preserve attribution under the
GFDL
. --07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I reviewed the article, and it seems that the brick problem is sufficiently covered. Removed the suggestion to move data over. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 10 October 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. W.marsh 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Dawson

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

Non-notable bio of local newscaster Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Need Help - since I'm not experienced enough, I don't know how to withdraw this and resubmit it as a CSD. I just viewed the log and discovered that this was previously deleted - speedily - for copyvio G12. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy delete declined (this version is different than the one that was deleted as a copyright violation). NawlinWiki 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I couldn't see the previously deleted version. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - inducted into the Broadcast Hall of Fame -- Whpq 16:22, 12 October 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. W.marsh 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Maynor

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

Non notable biography of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable on WP standards Neozoon 23:17, 13 October 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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the
WP:N and were dismissed by the delete discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rocket World

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

Deletion nomination Contested speedy. Article is about a non-notable corporation per
WP:CORP. The article claims that the company is a notable one in the world of designer vinyl toys. While some sources have been added, these are all about the industry of designer vinyl toys in general, and NO evidence has been presented which indicates that this company is notable within that industry. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak Delete~~. Keep (see below). I did find this page on a site called Vinyl Pulse that talks about the toys, but (a) it seems to be aimed at stores that would carry them, which doesn't really lend notability IMHO, and (b) I couldn't find anything else of significance. I admit the idea of homicidal members of endangered species struck me as funny, but not sufficient to recommend keeping this. Accounting4Taste 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a participant and follower of this genre of Designer Toys you astute contributors might try doing a search in Google for "Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo" to open your eyes to much more content regarding Rocket World. You 2 may know more than I ever hope to know about football or pulp mystery novels ;-), but do some leg work in a genre you clearly know very little about before making quick myopic judgments on this article and this company's relevance in its field. I have been collecting numerous figures from just about all the artists/designers/companies mentioned in this article and Rocket World's Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo is definitely one of the most notable company contributing to this area. Only recently having found the article about Designer Toys on Wikipedia during a Google search, I was pleased to see many of the other companies deservedly mentioned in this article with supporting links. Rocket World needs one too. I think this article should definitely bee a keeper. Thanks guys. :-) Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Publicstorage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment, although you neglected to mention that you created the article in question and thus your suggestion to keep it might not meet
conflict of interest guidelines. You might want to find the impartial third-party arm's-length references that you suggest are plentiful and add them to the article in order that it could be reconsidered -- that's what AfD is for. You're correct that I don't know much about vinyl toys, but I do consider myself an expert Internet researcher with a lot of experience in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines, and I couldn't find anything much that added notability to the article, including the search parameters you suggested; I wish you better luck. Accounting4Taste 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think it was obvious that I wrote the article based on the history anyone can see when viewing the tab. I felt the article worth writing. I do fully admit that I am a neophyte to Wikipedia and all of the ins and outs. I am still learning the correct SOP's and "interpreted guidelines" so graciously pointed out by sagacious wiki-giants such as yourself. Thanks for being such a gentleman about it. Well, as for "better luck" looks like your "Internet research expertise" was just recently expanded. Ahh..both our minds and skill sets have suddenly grown. Life is good. -- Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having covered the designer toy marketplace for about 5 years, I can tell you that Rocket World is a major player in the genre. They are one of the first US based companies to design and produce a line of urban vinyl figures (Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo). Over the past several years, they have consistently released quality limited edition products for collectors. And their booth is always one of the most popular in the UV section of San Diego Comic Con. If you're looking for coverage of Rocket World, please check out our Rocket World section on Plastic and Plush. We have a number of reviews of their figures and products. (which we don't sell...we're just a news source) Please reconsider deleting this entry. Slovak34 03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Slovak34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I'm always willing to be convinced, and this tips me over the edge in the opposite direction. I was fooled upon seeing it the first time because I thought the price listings on the first item indicated that the site was selling the toys; this appears to be an arm's-length third party review site which adds notability sufficient for me to change my suggestion to "Keep". I'll add the citation to the article myself. Accounting4Taste 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site shown has 2 problems with it. 1) It really looks like simply a menu of products, having items for sale does not make one notable, else Ebay would be all that we need. There is a rudimentary review of each product. 2) The page is a blog, and does not have the hallmark of a
WP:RS. I still have seen no evidence that such references exist.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Good luck finding a Designer Toy website that doesn't use a blog to convey news. I hate to tell you, but if you don't accept Vinyl Pulse or Plastic and Plush as reliable sources for the Urban Vinyl scene, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't have anything about the genre listed. My "rudimentary" blog has been noted in the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly and several other mainstream publications. You can also add Millionaire Playboy as a site that has a decent amount of Rocket World coverage. And I just saw that site mentioned on G4TV's Attack of the Show a few weeks back. Slovak34 14:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.205.190 (talk) [reply]

Comment Jayron32 you amaze me with your self appointed expertise on the subject of "Designer Toys". While who can deny your display of vigor and verve on summary conclusions about a genre you clearly know little about, perhaps you are applying interpreted Wikipedia guidelines to suit your own sense of prosecution and edification. We can all appreciate the self appointed guardians of the right from time to time when taken in good measure, but in this scenario it seems a bit overdone, no? Common good sir, try and see beyond your cursory dabble tempered by your years of expert mainstreaming. XO, ;-). -- Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To omit Rocketworld from the Designer Toy entries of Wikipedia would be an incredibly short sided decision. The definition of Designer Toys (as found on this site) is “Designer toys is a term used to describe toys and other collectables that are produced in limited editions (as few as 50 or as many as 2000 pieces) and created by artists and designers. Designer toys employ a variety of materials; plastic and vinyl are most common, although wood and metal are occasionally used. The term also encompasses plush, cloth dolls and latex. Creators of designer toys usually have backgrounds in graphic design, illustration or self-described low-brow art; some are classically trained in art and design, while others are self-taught. Designer toys first appeared in the 1990s and are a flourishing industry.” The toys created by Rocketworld are limited, created by a graphic designer (with art schooling), and made from vinyl. Obviously, they are Designer Toys since they fit the already established guidelines. The Eastern movement of this genre started in the late 80s to early 90s, but the Western movement really hit in the late 90s to early 2000s. It’s worth noting that Titus, Rocketworld’s first toy debuted at this time and was the start of one of the first continuing lines of Designer Toys. Not all Designer Toys need to have “earth shattering” principles. Take Qees for example. These toys are undisputable as a staple in the Designer Toy world, but don’t really do more than look nice. Rocketworld toys, however, have a solid design aesthetic as well as convey a message (like great art often does). Their tongue in cheek depiction brings attention to the problem of our world’s rapidly declining natural resources. Finally, it’s worth noting that Rocketworld is very active in the Designer Toy community. The creator, Patrick Ma, has been interviewed in documentaries such as “Toys Are Us”; and has been mentioned in numerous magazines, such as Juxtapoz, Entertainment Weekly, and Mass Appeal; and books such as MTV’s Overground 3: Toys, Dot Dot Dash, and I Am Plastic. The gallery at their California based store has art/toy openings bringing the community together and introducing new people to the genre. Rocketworld always has a booth (this year actually it was 2) at San Diego Comic Con, and the toys always sell out. All these points make it obvious that the Designer Toy community believes that Rocketworld is a legitimate part of the genre. Again, it would be extremely short sided to omit Rocketworld from the Designer Toy section of Wikipedia. Not only does the company fit the definition, it is a popular line loved my much of the community. Please see MillionairePlayboy.com articles. -- Jager-MPb (talk · contribs · logs) 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — Jager-MPb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Can't merge and delete, the edit history must be preserved. But merge/redirect is possible, and doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Life is Wild episodes

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

I'm pretty sure a TV show with only one episode so far doesn't need a separate article for an episode list. Recommend merge and delete. shoy 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wikipedia is not paper. This is a fresh new show, and judging from ways of american TV, their number will grow quiote fast. Mukadderat 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have more than one episode scheduled so a list is justifiable. Hut 8.5 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per
WP:EPISODE. Corvus cornix 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; a separate list is only justified if the main article is so huge that sections need to be forked.
Life is Wild is little more than a few sentences, plus a cut-and-pasted Plot section, so creating a separate list for 3 episodes is over the top (even if there were 20 episodes, they could still be listed in the main article). Masaruemoto 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This show was the lowest-rated scripted show for its premiere week. It won't be around for the fourth show, let alone the third, unless it picks up an audience somewhere. Corvus cornix 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Life is Wild. Really not necessary as a separate article in its current length; one long or two short seasons are the minimum length of an ep lists for me. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 10 October 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. W.marsh 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Rangers F.C.

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

This club does not seem to exist in the
Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also check out teams in the same league -
Rottingdean Village F.C. and Ovingdean F.C. GiantSnowman 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Ovingdean yes definitely, nominate them. Rottingdean's first team is now in the Sussex County League Division Three, level 11 so they may be a bit more borderline but probably still would be a delete from me. - fchd 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly used to exist, last year they finished fourth in the Brighton & Hove League (and third and fifth in Division One in the two previous seasons), but they don't appear to be active this season. They don't make the "Level 10" grade we've previously frequently used as the bar of notability of English clubs, and with no other seeming claim to notability (I don't think this lot are the same Brighton Rangers who won the County Cup in 1882-83!), Delete. - fchd 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, we should now raise the bar of notability by creating articles on clubs in the level 11 (or step 7) of the
Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - very, very few clubs at level 11 are eligbile for the FA Vase - mainly due to the lack of lights etc. No clubs are eligble for the NLS Cup, it is merely league representative sides that compete for that trophy. Again, clubs aren't part of the National League System, league are. I'm perfectly comfortable with the split between level 10 and level 11 being a reasonable one for notable/non-notable, with of course any exceptional claims for notability from lower clubs being taken into account. And, I say this who is a great supporter of non-league football in England (and Wales), to well below level 11! Also, if notability is permament(and consensus is that it is), how can you justify your position that Ovingdean are notable as they are in the Brighton & Hove Premier this year, while Brighton Rangers are not, but they were in that division last year? - fchd 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, to be fair, I am not aware that Brighton Rangers F.C. was in the Brighton Hove and District Football League Premier Division last season. However, do you know in which division this club is in this season? --
Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - enough comments I think, let's get some consensus. We are establishing non-notability by our lack of knowledge of the club in question. Also, why do they not feature in the list of member clubs within the article
Brighton Hove and District Football League, as claimed? Oversight or untruth? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I have returned to the article and edited it into a truthful account, with the aid of this reference here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Richard's comments above, this team was certainly in the BH&DL last season but appears to have dropped out this year - maybe someone updated their article for this season before that happened....? Anyway, there's no evidence this team has ever played at a notable level, so delete ChrisTheDude 21:03, 13 October 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. PeaceNT 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Haverson

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

A semiprofessional footballer who has never played a league game for his club Moglex 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to clarify, does the conference count as a professional league or not? He's played games for Hayes but not for Grays (or Bournemouth). - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a semi-professional league. --Malcolmxl5 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable ..yet..if ever --Hooperbloob 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. I'm no expert on soccer, but after this athlete scores a goal in the world cup he'll be notable. • Tiptopper 29 Sep 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was never listed; I'll list it in today's logs. For the purposes of determining closing time, this AfD starts now. --ais523 16:11, 9 October 2007 (U T C)

delete not notable Iamchrisryan 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
Conference National is not a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:34, 10 October 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. W.marsh 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson

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

Henderson doesn't meet the notability guidelines. His only claim to "fame" seems to be self-publishing two books and being involved in a couple of lawsuits. SandyHand 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While that may be his only claim to fame, his claim to
reliable sources for separate reasons. I see no issue with keeping this article, given the sources listed in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This has been User:SandyHand's only contribution. Assuming good faith & that he/she is not a sockpuppet, how does he/she have enough experience of guidelines to nominate this? --Beloved Freak 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good-faith answer is that they are a long-time IP contributor who has recently created an account. I didn't say that was the true answer, just the one based on good faith... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject has been mentioned in independent secondary source, including the New York Post and at least one book. [11] --Beloved Freak 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a pretty well known consumer activist. I'm also suspicious of User:SandyHand's motivation as the article HAS been repeatedly vandalised. Shritwod 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven’t been around Wikipedia too long, but I don’t think being mentioned once in a New York Post article and once in a local paper makes him notable. Looks like the guy is just using Wikipedia to promote his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesullivan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to User:BelovedFreak’s comment: I’m a real boy, not a sockpuppet! I travel a lot and use a wireless card in my laptop, and I never bothered to register with WP before – it just didn’t seem important. Obviously, now I wish I had. Given my lack of verifiable history, I can understand User:Shritwod’s suspicion of my motives, but I have never made any contributions or changes to Henderson’s article. I came to the article by way of Lou Pearlman after hearing about him in the news.

Here’s why I think Henderson isn’t notable.
1. He had to publish his books himself. Not one publisher would put out either of his books. Doesn’t that tend to show that the works aren’t notable or of interest to the general public?

2. He hasn’t received press coverage on his own. While he has been mentioned in the New York Post, the Gainesville Sun and the Orlando Weekly, all of those articles were primarily about someone else. Look at the titles: “Louie Wasn’t ’N Sync,” “Book: Crist Tried to Whitewash Probe” and “Pearlman’s Jihad.” The Washington Post was also listed as a source, but the free article preview doesn’t mention Henderson. (Maybe he’s somewhere in the rest of the article, but I didn’t want to pay to find out.)

3. Lawsuits don’t confer notability. Yes, Henderson sued Pearlman. But if being involved in some kind of legal action were reason enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, we’d have to deal with a bunch of frivolous articles. (More than we already do, I mean!)

4. Several references are iffy. Are unjustis.co.uk, fraudsandscams.com and crimes-of-persuasion.com – the subject’s own site – reliable sources?

If you publish a book accusing a famous person of something, you’re bound to get some media attention – that’s the sort of thing reporters live for! I have no idea if the stuff in Henderson’s books is true or not, and I don’t think it matters here.

I don’t have anything against this guy personally – in fact, I admire his persistence and dedication. I think he definitely has a place in Wikipedia – as a part of the Lou Pearlman article, maybe. I just don’t think he’s notable in his own right. SandyHand 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to these:
1. Simply because one aspect of a person's life does not make them notable, does not mean they aren't notable for other reasons. For example: David Berkowitz was a postal worker. To say that he can't have an article because he was a postal worker is silly. Likewise, simply because this guy published his own books means that he can't be notable for that reason. Just like Berkowitz was notable for reasons OTHER than being postal worker, Les Henderson can be notable for reasons OTHER than being a self-published author.

2. No where in the
notability
guidelines does it say that the coverage must be by ones self. Wikipedia guidelines only say that the corverage is multiple (he is in the media for several different events) and non-trivial (while he is not the sole item covered in the articles, his coverage was significant), and in reliable sources (The New York Post, Washington Post, Orlando Journal Sentinel, etc. are all notable)

3. Really? While not every lawsuit confers notability, some certainly DO. Consider Dred Scott, whose sole notability comes from a lawsuit.

4. True, but that calls for cleanup, not deletion. While there are some sources of iffy reliability, there are also some sources of unquestionable reliability. The existance of bad sources does not cancel out the existance of good sources.

The fact remains that notability is not determined by the substance of WHY a person is notable. According to the
notability guidelines, what makes someone notable is nto what they did, but who NOTICED what they did and what the WROTE about it. If a subject has been a focus of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources, they are notable REGARDLESS of what they did to earn that coverage. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Obfuscating ones original destination computer IP via wireless aircards does not work for the USSS, dear Billiam. Neither does having Bulgarian DJ/webmaster friends. --SooperJoo 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. AfD seems to be only to make a point. Espresso Addict 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead white males

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

Article has no sources, also Dead black males has been nominated for deletion. Erwin Morland 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This seems to be a
WP:POINT-y nomination to me. Even a cursory search of google news for "dead white (men OR males)" turns up a number of sources ([12] [13] [14] [15]). Further, any search of literature (via google scholar for the same term) turns up a plethora of sources ([16] [17] [18], to choose 3 more or less at random). A need for sourcing or cleanup is not grounds for deletion. (PS: My rationale for calling this POINT-y isn't a PA, my reasons are shown in this diff). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Concur, Speedy keep as the article appears to have been nominated to make a
WP:POINT. --TeaDrinker 05:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first I thought this would be a list of caucasian males who have passed away, but after looking at the article and the sources mentioned above, the subject looks
notable to me. Useight 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep as nominator seems to be making a
simply because a similarly titled article is being deleted does not mean that this one should to. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep, as per reasons already stated. -- Roleplayer 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term has been an established point of contention in identity politics and "political correctness" since ~~last~~ late 1980s. • Gene93k 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hundreds of hits in google scholar and books show this easily passes notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the nominator's grand total of 5 edits, one of them is at the AFD for
WP:POINTy.--Beloved Freak 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to Multiculturalism. This article is a mostly-unreferenced, hopelessly point of view essay and has little in it that is not breezy original research. The gist of it is that women, people who are not yet (but eventually will be) dead, and people of other than European origin, also made contributions to history and culture. The refs cited in this AFD make passing reference to the term "dead white male" on the way to discussing ethnic studies or multiculturalism. Edison 17:16, 9 October 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. W.marsh 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Rose

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

Fails
NCAA). The person doesn't appear in top 10 list of Google search Derrick Rose basketball - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

he's in
C-USA a NCAA Division 1... just to let you know - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
SLAM Magazine' 2006 "Punks" special. In addition, there are 530 Google News hits for "Derrick Rose" + basketball. He's already received enough significant coverage from national sources that he probably passes the general notability criteria. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Here are some specific sources of interest: [19], [20], [21],[22]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.
WP:SPORT is now a rejected guideline. Smashville 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies

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

I created article with wrong name (should be "National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition.") Additionally, it looks like this is a fishery-industry-backed non-profit of little significance except for their one marketing attempt at trying to get pregnant women/mothers to eat more fish than otherwise reccomended. [23] --Zeke pbuh 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs expanding, not deleting, and the fisheries information should be kept as well. The organization is quite notable, and is most commonly known by the name it is currently under. See google search which turns up plenty of information. Seems quite notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename Mukadderat 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current name. It certainly is of no consequence to us whether or not the group has been backed (once, or forever) by the fisheries industry. The article has
WP:COATRACK issues in its present form. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I did a quick check and seems to have had lots of coverage in third party reliable sources. The name should be fixed though as "National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition". --Kudret abi^Talk 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: the objection (being redlink-only DAB page) has been removed. Mukadderat 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neagra

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

Disambiguation page that contins only red links. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and list over at
WP:AFD. That's not miscellany. --UsaSatsui 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note, moved from
WP:AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to vote keep, since all of the redlinked articles it dabs for are, in themselves, notable and thus all one would have to do to make this disambiguation page keepable is to stub the articles for the towns in question. It seems pointless to delete this DAB page when it becomes instantly keepable with 5 minutes of work... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~per Jayron32--Victor falk 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~ per walking the walk, not talking the talk.--Victor falk 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing so Victor. This seems to be easily keepable now, as the only objection has been fixed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stubs have been completed so this is definitely worth keeping. Well done Victor! --Beloved Freak 17:23, 9 October 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. W.marsh 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champion (song)

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

Deletion nomination This is a non-notable song. Article shows no evidence that this song has any independant notability besides the artist that recorded it, the album it appears on, and the song it samples (incorrectly identified, I might add. The song by Steely Dan is "Kid Charlemagne"). Since this song lacks any independant notability, the article should be either deleted or redirected to the artist who performs it or album it appears on. Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable by itself. If it was a single, it would be a different story. Spellcast 06:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It describes the song. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HLyford11 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
reliable sources. This song does not appear to have received that coverage. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Nationally charted single (#94
WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolve ^talk 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw Nomination Article needs expansion, but the fact that it charted seems to bring it just above notability levels. BARELY. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you withdrew this nomination, I still think it should continue. The song still has no potential to expand. It can easily be mentioned in the album. Spellcast 08:20, 15 October 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.
☎ 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Vachon wrestling family

Vachon wrestling family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Not a family in need of a seperate article, an infobox similar to the Hart family may be a better way of connecting the articles. Information from this page should be worked into the main articles. Darrenhusted 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If "the family was the subject of a documentary" then there is some evidence of separate notability for the family. JJL 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual family members are probably notable, but this family is nowhere near the levels of the
Hart family or the Von Erich family. Possibly redirect to one of the members (the father or the daughter, I think the daughter is the most notable). And move it to Vachon family if it's kept. --UsaSatsui 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. ~~Nikki311 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep, I've changed my mind due to sourcing and expansion of the article. Nikki311 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added five cited references to the article, specifically those refering to family members as part of the "legendary Vachon wrestling family" or refering to the family as prominent within professional wrestling. To be fair, regarding the statement of the above editor, the references already provided support the Vachon family to be on equal ground with the Hart family or the Von Erichs. 209.213.84.10 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Vachon family is nowhere near as significant as the other wrestling families discussed here. Many wrestlers have relatives involved in the business, but stub articles that do little more than link to the invidividual articles don't help. GaryColemanFan 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's got enough sources to satisfy the notability & verifiability criteria. Yes it could be expanded and improved but deletion isn't really going to neither expand nor improve it. It could for example be expanded to cover their Kayfabe brother Stan Vachon who doesn't warrant his own article but should be mentioned on the family page. MPJ-DK 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is arguably a family more deserving of a page than, say, the
WCW in scope). Then Luna was the first female to have one-on-one matches with heavyweight men in ECW and WWF, long before Chyna. This article fills a gap. There are members who don't have their own pages, and their info can't be stuffed into a navbox. It does need to be fleshed out, but keep.TravelingCat 06:21, 13 October 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. Nobody has produced an argument to defend the rank OR problems with this article. Given the keep comments are all (bar one) "per Bikeable", who subsequently changed his argument to "merge", there is little in favour of keeping. And Gandalf61's argument is not convincing. Asserting something is not OR but failing to provide any evidence to back up that assertion is never convincing. Consensus - rooted in policy - is clearly to not retain this article. None of Wiktionary, Wikisaurus or Wikibooks would accept this as they do not want original research, so a transwiki is out (other wikiprojects are not our dumping grounds). There are already examples on the
☎ 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of snowclones

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of snowclones

Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (3 nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (Second nomination)

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

One big original research. The term "
original research `'Míkka 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Transwiki to Wiktionary the raw list. Merge into snowclone any that can be properly attested (any?) as an example. --Dhartung | Talk 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want wiktionary to collect unreferenced garbage? Besides, wiktionary is a dictionary not a thesaurus.`'Míkka 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am an eventualist? OK, then transwiki to Wikisaurus. Or if you're really, really picky, then Wikibooks, or the Annex. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The list is poorly referenced, but could easily be restricted to those with sources. Snowclones have received a lot of attention of late in linguistic circles, and sources like the Language Log (written by linguists) are authoritative on such a topic. Needs trimming something terrible, though. bikeable (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that I don't dispute the "
garden path sentence). Wikipedia started killing lists of trivia mercilessly. Wikipedia lists are mostly for navigation among articles and for small items that are notable but just to small to waste a separate page. Indiscriminate listcruft has long been frowned upon. `'Míkka 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I see what you mean. And there's still plenty of room in Snowclone for more examples, with good references. therefore, I am flip-flopping and now say merge. bikeable (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for bikeable's reasons. —Quasirandom 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Several most notable, discussed examples in the main article is sufficient to illustrate a linguistic notion. Judging from the list, there are hundreds of them, and people didn't even start adding references from other languages/cultures yet. The list serves no encyclopedic purpose. 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (incomplete sig by user:Mukadderat)

Comment: I fully understand that snowclone is a new, interesting observation in linguistics made by a person with some mathematical way of thinking. At the same time the concept is not crystallized enough. For example, "You are my X": "you are my sunshine", "you are my flower", and endless other metaphors. If you did deeper, the whole idea of language based on recognizable cliches. "Let's go X": "lets go shopping" "lets go home". The author of the notion made a cute observation, but there is unfinished works by experts, and it is too early to collect lists of what some anonymous wikipedians think to be this new flashy thingy. `'Míkka 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; if that's impractical, then weak keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and source Examples illustrating the concept are useful for understanding it. —Quasirandom 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because (i) it is a useful navigational list; (ii) membership criteria is clear - it is obvious when a phrase is a snowclone; (iii) reason for nomination is not logical - a list is an extended category; adding articles to a category is not OR; so adding entries to a list is not OR; (iv) last AfD was less than 6 months ago and keep decision was unconditional. Could be trimmed back to entries with reference or underlying article. Gandalf61 10:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(i) navigational? we don't have separate articles for each snowclone (ii) "clear", "obvious" means original research. It is not at all clear (iii) list is not extended category. (iv) for 6 months the list did not become referenced non-OR. It was kept by ILIKEIT voting. "Could be trimmed back" means it was and will be a magnet for OR, because it is "clear" and "obvious" for some. `'Míkka 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (ii) clear and obvious membership criteria means that no research is required to determine whether a phrase is a snowclone - it is immediately obvious from the definition; (iii)
deletion review, not a new AfD. Gandalf61 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
(ii) "immediately obvious" is for you. I could have given you guys some slack if it were a well-established concept, but it is a neologism and I have no reason to believe that your opinion is valid, not to say mainstream (iii) "two ways of grouping articles" is not "list is an extended category". What is more, please explain which articles are grouped by the discussed list (iv) DRV is for restoring deleted pages. Previous nominations ignored the issue of Original Research. `'Míkka 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From
WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion". And what do you mean by "you guys" ? You seem to be personalising this debate, which can only harm your case. Anyway, I have explained my position, so I am out of here. Gandalf61 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for both Gandalf61 and bikeable's reasons.--Databoybiz 16:25, 13 October 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. It had been redirected, but the redirect is orphaned and probably not useful in the long run. --
desat 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Sunset Beach soap connections

List of Sunset Beach soap connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not IMDB. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of actors who have appeared on a particular soap opera and another soap opera. Otto4711 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonencyclopedic bit of trivia.`'Míkka 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopaedic. --Beloved Freak 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not appropriate for Wikipedia per
Wikia wiki if anyone wants. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:34, 9 October 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 for
Electronic voice phenomena (EVPs) are sometimes referred to as "Rorschach audio," after the psychological test in which subjects read their own interpretation of inkblot images.[25] This provides confusion with the research artwork topic run by "Disinformation." Consensus is that the topic for Rorschach Audio lacks source material that is independent of control of the the group Disinformation to meet general notability guidelines. Regarding Disinformation (art and music project), the article lists many references, none of which is connected to the text in the article. However, there was little to no discussion on the merits of each of the article listed references in the context of whether there was sufficient reliable source material, independent of Disinformation, to maintain a Wikipedia article on the topic. Ignoring the SPAs, the discussion was not clear as to whether Disinformation (art and music project) met general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Disinformation (art and music project) and Rorschach Audio

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Disinformation (art and music project)

Articles for deletion/Disinformation (art and music project) (2nd nomination)

Disinformation (art and music project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rorschach Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two audio art projects of dubious notability which came to my attention after revert warring over whether they should be nominated for speedy deletion. There is a notability claimed but it is in some fairly obscure sources. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Disinformation page as the exhibits have generated coverage in
The Financial Times. The contents of the article need a tidy up; most of it seems like unsourced original research and it's written more like a promo than an encyclopedia article. Rorschach Audio should probably be merged into the Disinformation article as there's a lot of overlap, it wouldn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, and the sources are publications of the artist rather than substantial independent coverage. Thomjakobsen 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as shameless promo and
COnflict of interest. If a verifiable text may be written, it is better be started from scratch. If the projects are notable, someone else must write it sooner or later. Míkka 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Both articles are written by sock puppets (new one each day) of the main subject 'Joe Banks'. The users add items then disappear. Both articles belong on a private website and not here. They are essays and certainly not neutral. Very repetitive a. if you read the press coverage, notability is still questionable. (as a side note, his sock puppets are also involved in shameless edits to Tacita Dean, and Lise Autogena, using those articles to claim provenance for disinformation. If article is to be retained - it must be highly edited. I suggest a fresh start is better. Redisburys 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) If i'm allowed a vote, delete both Redisburys 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC) How can an article that long and that edited not have a talk page - unless the editors are the same person? -- Redisburys (talk · contribs · logs) 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Redisburys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The Rorschach Audio page as the material on this page clearly relates to a serious research project which has already satisfied standards for academic peer-review, eg - the connection that the Rorschach Audio page claims to having been published in Leonardo Music Journal (an academic journal) by The MIT Press and supported by The Arts and Humanities Research Council, both check out. Sam Blacketer's claim that these projects are "dubious" itself seems therefore dubious, and his (or her) comments should therefore be disregarded. Although Thomjakobsen broadly supports keeping these pages, his claim that the articles contain "unsourced original research" seems hasty, as extensive citations are provided in both the Rorschach Audio and Disinformation (art and music project) articles - in the latter, sleeve notes are included within quotation marks and the CDs from which these sleevenotes are quoted are clearly cited. Redisburys claim that the articles are "repetitive" is palpably false, and his (or her) other allegations should be considered in this light; that "users add items then disappear" a/ proves nothing and b/ upon checking seems to be a comment that Redisburys is making about himself! -- Emulant (talk · contribs · logs) 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Emulant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Emulant being another sock puppet? CoI? Redisburys 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "extensive citations", from what I can see, are written by the subject of the article (also the creator, judging from the edit history) and so don't qualify as independent secondary sources, regardless of whether they appear in journals or not. Primary sources have their uses, but when you base an article around your own interpretation of them, that's original research. You can read about it in more detail at
conflict of interest. It'd be a whole lot easier in the long run just shelling out on a proper website and posting the promo material there. Thomjakobsen 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and keep, but cut back extensively - the credentials check out, but the tone and excessive length of coverage are clearly promotional. And the sockpuppetry and COI need stamping on, hard. Gordonofcartoon 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep. Per Gordonofcartoon. I think there are enough sources, though it is just on the edge, but it needs cutting from the looks of it. Disinformation (art and music project) does not seem to use sources. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being recognized by academia as an arts project is fine. However, the way Rorschach Audio is written, it is presented as scientific research, which requires very different academic recognition--which it has not received. Meanwhile the article is used largely to attack Electronic Voice Phenomena. It is clear that this is a self-promoting attempt to say things in Wikipedia about EVP that would not stand in the EVP article. Even if you merge it with the second article, it remains an art-based comment about EVP that would not stand the test of NPOV. If you do anything other than delete the article, then I suggest that you merge it with the EVP article. Judging by the quality of its references, I expect it will be quickly edited out. Tom Butler 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was let in because it's the construct on one person - (the subject) - using a host of socks. -- Redisburys 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, if the article is not deleted, then after it is released for editing, it must be subject to the same rules applied to other articles concerning neutral point of view, verifiable references, original research and conflict of interest. The article moves from describing a work of art, which is off-limits to academic criticism in my mind, to a nonfiction, academic article with this statement alone: ""Rorschach Audio" offers the primary hypothesis that an understanding of the relevant aspects of psychoacoustics provides a complete explanation for most EVP recordings,...." There are other problem statements, but it will save us a lot of time if we just ask for that statement to meet wiki standards. I might propose an alternative solution to deletion. That is, to merge the article with the EVP article, since it is a clear-cut criticism of EVP it belongs there. -- Tom Butler 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. Could be expanded though. That might help the article in general, since there are so few skeptical sources re EVP. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean a link to it as a definition of a term--cut and paste. As the article stands now, I see it as an effort to camouflage a simple fabrication of explanations as art so that it does not have to be properly vetted. At the very least, there needs to be a tag placed on the article indicating that it includes unsubstantiated claims. Following some of the editing practices I have seen in the past, whole blocks of it can be properly deleted as being unsubstantiated. For instance, the loaded statement: "... (the name Disinformation is used in the spirit of what Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to as the "Liar Paradox". The research into (mostly Very Low Frequency band) radio science that was required to realise early Disinformation LPs and CDs etc provided the technical experience necessary to explain the source and behaviour of the stray radio signals that form the subject matter of EVP research...." Where is the research supporting that statement? Why have none of the wiki lawyers not demanded that he support such comments? One more interesting statement: "Nonetheless "Rorschach Audio" is an active and ongoing research project, and (under the terms of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) every writer has a (moral and legal) right to be accurately credited as the author of their own work, and the author of "Rorschach Audio" is no exception." Based on that, the author has conflict of interest and all of the work is original research. There simply is no reason to keep this article unless it is intended to set a new precidence. Tom Butler 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs sourcing, as several have noted. You could go through it and put citation requests on each uncited paragraph. After a few weeks, if they remain uncited, the info can properly be deleted. Technically, it could be deleted now, but that would cause angst. The only reason for keeping it is that it seems to be notable: it has been mentioned in sources outside of itself. So I don't think there is a technical reason to delete it. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors here are missing my point. And being rather rude about it in the process, I might add. Is that how art platoons always behave? The
Electronic voice phenomena article, you will see that it is written as a balance of opinion between EVP being the mundane mistaken as phenomenal or paranormal. The Rorschach Audio is used as a reference for the mundane argument. I see no problem with that, as it is a valid theory that should be tested, but when I look at the article, I see no evidence, no research, only art by one guy who claims copyright of his art. That as a reference is circular logic. The Rorschach Audio article is fine if it is not taken as evidential. As an alternative to deleting it if you all think it is okay for self-advertisements as articles in Wikipedia, either established support for the claims or those claims must be deleted. Looking at the article, I see that little of it will be left. Tom Butler 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I think notability is satisfied for the subject of these two articles, though I have no opinion as to whether the articles should be merged. Certainly deleting their histories is unnecessary. ScienceApologist 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author claims this is AHRC funded research. The AHRC list all award holders online. Whatever term I search, I find no reference; I've tried the subject, author and even keywords. www.ahrc.ac.uk /awards/ -- Redisburys 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there. They clearly have a crap search engine. Go here, click Sort List By ... Holder, and you find "6. Rorschach Audio: The Reality of Auditory and Visual Illusions, Amount awarded: £234484, Award Holder Name: Mr. Joseph Banks, Institution: University of London, Date Awarded: 02/03/2007". Gordonofcartoon 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(see below) Redisburys 11:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both pages. Critics of these pages - "Sam Blacketer" and "Redisburys" are SOCK PUPPETS of user "JPortway" - real name (artist) Joshua Portway. One page is about a music and art group, the other page is about debunking parapsychological research, so, although there is some overlap, merging the 2 pages would produce a very confusing hybrid (and these pages don't "promote" their subjects any more or less than any other pages about any eg - music or art groups). As Gordonofcartoon has proven (22:21, 11 October 2007 UTC, below) Redisburys was not telling the truth when he claimed that the credentials referenced in the Rorschach Audio page don't check out. One could only speculate about Redisburys motive for misrepresenting this discussion, but all Redisburys' claims should be regarded as suspect. -- 158.223.31.56 (talk · contribs · logs) 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — 158.223.31.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That was not my implication. The AHRC site search engine fails to find Banks' entry, even with reasonable keywords, and I see no reason to assume anything more than that Redisburys ran into the same problem. I only found it by being geeky and skimming the list manually. Gordonofcartoon 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my intention to mislead, but it really does not show up using their search feature. One tends to trust such features to work. Joe - check this and talk to the AHRC. I note, thought, this is funding for a min of three years, which has only *recently* been awarded. If it needs a page would this not be AFTER or towards the end of the research -- when something has been found. I should point out that unsigned comment IP is Goldsmiths' College (Joe Banks). Redisburys 11:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, the simple search doesn't work; you have to click through to the advanced search. Gordonofcartoon 11:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it via the direct link. I can now see it is there. Just pointing out thee details of the award. ( lenght) Redisburys 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe has made a care to delete his own article, we missed it in the sock confusion : the other page is about debunking parapsychological research. Redisburys 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the accusation that I am a sockpuppet of Joshua Portway is ludicrous. Sam Blacketer 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably pointless, but I'd also like to assert that I (Joshua Portway) have no idea who Redisbury is (he's not me), and that it's plainly ridiculous to think that I'm Sam Blacketer. The only account I have on Wikipedia is this one (Jportway). As I told you in the email I sent you Joe, I have contacted everyone that I could and let them know that I didn't think that deleting your page was a good idea. Hopefully the people who I contacted can verify that here - I'm sorry everyone if that seems petty, but I really, really don't want this to be the start of another ridiculous paranoid vendetta.--Jportway 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange to me that when an article throws up questions about itself the users don't produce attempts at answers and clarifications but instead adopt a stalinist stance to entirely purge the article from wiki history - why focus with such vitriol on this particular entry when so many entries contain far more overtly unreliable or promotional material. Why do the questioners feel so passionate about excising this particular page? Let the article stand and let those that question it flag up the claims they question - isn't that the point of Wikipedia - infinitely editable - each article getting refined by more input? Plenty of pages blatantly promoting cultural product elsewhere, why target this one? This doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything to anyone. Interesting use of phrase - "dubious notability" - Disinformation has clearly featured in many key arts publications, galleries and arts festivals across Europe and beyond for a decade or more. I'd say that would constitute "notable", so the use of the word "dubious" seems very loaded to me in this context - what's the agenda? Csawza (talk · contribs · logs) 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) — Csawza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep these pages! It's no surprise that a project that critiques belief that the dead speak to us through household appliances (EVP) attracts hostility from people who are a few cards short of a full deck. Before Redisburys, the last person to vandalize the Disinformation page was a lunatic with the username LOLLERCAUST11 (20 Aug 07) whose "edits" consisted of replacing Wikipedia pages with redirects to the terms "Nazi" and "Jew"; and it's interesting to see this guy Joshua Portway finally identify himself - he wouldn't have even known about this debate, let along contacted anyone about it, if he hadn't been covertly involved in it all along. I'm not impressed by sock puppets who accuse other people of sock puppetry, or by critics who can't even spell the word "delete". I found both pages informative and well-written, for that reason alone they should be kept. SmashyPond 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — SmashyPond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello "SmashyPond". I'm going to be generous and assume that you aren't the subject of the article and that you genuinely don't know any better, despite the oddly paranoid tone of your posting being unusual for a disinterested observer. The reason I haven't taken part in this discussion before is that, for reasons that should be starting to become obvious, I didn't want to be involved in anything to do with deleting this page. I really don't care much whether these pages stay or go, and I was well aware that I would become the target of these kind delusional accusations if the page was deleted. Unfortunately, given the historical precedent, I suspect that if this page is deleted then I will be the target of the resulting tantrums outside the playpen of Wikipedia and I just have better things to do with my life than deal with that kind of crap. I have indeed been "involved all along" as you claim - but not in trying to get this page deleted. A couple of other people who have commented on this page already know some of the history behind this, and I am being very restrained in not publicly posting the whole sad story to this page because it would be extremely embarrassing for the subject of this article. However, if there's any more silliness in this thread (especially by apparently newly created accounts) claiming that I'm somehow victimizing Mr. Banks (and associating me with Nazi vandalism) I will be tempted to explain it all here just to show how nice I'm actually being to him. If you like, Smashypond, you are welcome to email me (as is anyone else - I'll put my address on my user page) so I can disabuse you of these conspiracy theories.--Jportway 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — Jportway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

However unfortunate, the LOLLERCAUST11 edits are an absolute fact. -- AZLEY 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But they are absolutely nothing to do with me. Are you implying that I did those edits ? --Jportway 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - both texts have satisfied tests for notability and verifiability. As to neutrality, issues of vandalism and censorship (by critics of these pages) are just as important, so any argument for deletion is totally OTT. Even if we accept the criticisms at face value, the most critics could argue is that these texts may need the standard Wikipedia tag for reading like a news release, at worst some of these critics have shown their own testimonies to be surreal and dubious AZLEY 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — AZLEY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Joe, you do realize that a couple of superficial edits doesn't hide the fact that this is a new account created solely to post a comment here, don't you? Thomjakobsen 15:23, 15 October 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. This naturally does not preclude cleanup and merge proposals on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish-Israeli relations

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Israeli relations

Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Israeli relations (2nd nomination)

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

Page discussed at a prior
GRBerry 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Contrary to some previously expressed opinions, sub-national units can have diplomatic relations worthy of encyclopedia coverage. For example, see
GRBerry 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all of the above (sort of). I do believe that articles with such titles should only refer to the diplomatic relations of countries, or even better a different naming scheme should be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite. This article does not reflect its title at all. The content should be merged with appropriate articles, and the article should be stubified, if it should be kept.
T_C 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect per nom and per following:

1 I think it should be made crystal clear that (un-)(semi-)official bi- or multilateral diplomatic relations can be had, and be encyclopedically notable, between any political entities, especially of such a quasi/de facto state as Iraqi Kurdistan, regardless of their affiliation with the United Nations and/or of general international recognition.

2 The current contents of the article should be split and merged:
2a
Kurdish-Israeli relations#Relations => Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan

2b
Origins of the Kurds#Connection with the Jewish People.

2c
History of the Kurdish people#Modern history of the Kurds

3 Redirect [[Kurdish-Israeli relations]] to Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan

--Victor falk 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page should be deleted as per reasons I mentioned on the
chi?
16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

keep/rename into a title that does not allude to official inter-national
foreign relations, something like Relations of Israel and Kurds or Ties between Israel and Kurds. As seen from the article, the topic is valid. The nominator themselves writes "The drafted article is about the history of interactions between Jews or modern Israel and Kurds/Kurdish parties." And I fail to see why this "history of interactions" cannot be in a separate article, since it is a clearly separate subject, with sufficient amount of verifiable information to fill a page. Mukadderat 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Such an article would be fine but not with the current content (per nom). --
chi?
18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What about just
Kurdish-Israeli relations#Relations (point 2a in my proposal)?--Victor falk 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Most of it is OR, remaining is not a Kurdish-Israeli relation. It may be an Iraq-Israeli relation (Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan is a part of Iraq according to everyone and themselves) and a seperate Turkey-Israeli (PKK never claimed to be a country. If it received any international help that can be talked about in
chi?
20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and I agree they are not "Kurdish-Israeli relations", but like you say between Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel; refining Mukkaderat's proposal above, what would you say about Ties between Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan? --Victor falk 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Iraq is a mess. This is a complicated manner. My statements aren't intended to have loaded meanings. Let me clarify some important points on the topic at hand. Agree/disagree if you will.
Between the first and second Iraq war involving the US, there were two factions (KDP and PUK) in control of North of Iraq due to a power vacuum as a result of the northern no-fly zone. These two factions were at a state of war between each other for most of the time and at times one or the other were nearly annihilated. Weather that constitutes as a defacto country or two different defacto countries or none at all may be up for debate. I dare not venture to close to that heated debate.

After the second Iraq war involving the US the entities in North of Iraq have merged and pledged loyalty to the Iraqi government and are recognised as an entity under the central government of Baghdad, Iraq. Neither PUK nor KDP ever claimed to be a country ever since. California is an entity under Washington DC's rule. Relations of California with other non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here) is always conducted through Washington DC and is a relation between US and the non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here). So the coverage should be likewise.

I feel the coverage of "pre 1st Iraq war" era, "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war" era, "post 2nd iraq war" era relationships should NOT be covered together. Dynamics of the eras are significantly different. Aside from "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era", there was/is no entity in Iraq that can have any relationship with any entity without using Baghdad. Not certain if "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era" can have real relations either and it may be better to cover the related material on a history-related article. Perhaps histories of KDP and PUK.

--
chi?
21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There is a
Japan-Korea_relations. Korea in and of itself isn't a country but actually two countries. Whenever we create articles about "Kurdish-Other entity" relations, we would take into account the three regions in the same manner as which the Japan-Korea article took into account the two countries. Just because the current article is poorly written isn't a reason to delete it as I believe the article can be improved. Pocopocopocopoco 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not similar at all. Both Koreas are UN recognised countries. A-B relations to date has been reserved for country relationships on wikipedia. None of the so called Kurdistans claim to be a country. Treating them like countries would be soapboxy
chi?
22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't interpret this as criticism directed at you but I don't understand why you're flip-flopping on whether or not non-countries are allowed in "A-B relations". In the previous AFD you first said that it should be for countries, later on in the same AFD you said it that something like "PKK-Hezbollah relations" are OK and unrecognized de-facto entities are OK. Now you're saying that it should be for UN recognized countries. Also, I brought up the Korea article as an example of how "Kurdish-Other entity relations" article could be structured. Pocopocopocopoco 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
don't forget Taiwan...--Victor falk 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not say "it should be for UN recognized countries". I did say "do not compare relations between UN recognised countries" and others. As for
chi?
22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned I wasn't comparing Kurdistan with Korea but suggesting that the structure of the article could be similar when this one is rewritten. I also think that you can't compare Kurds with Korea but you also shouldn't compare Kurds with African Americans which you seem to be suggesting as many Kurds in the three countries (Iraq, Turkey, and Iran) seem to be trying to assert their independence. I think that a fairer comparison is
Kurdish-Israeli relations is not OK. I think it's better to just have the article say Kurdish-Israeli relations as you might end up with a host of articles with overlapping information. Pocopocopocopoco 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not know what
chi?
20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As for stuff like "PJAK-Israeli relations", fundamentally there are no problems with it but the coverage may be better of at
chi?
22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you seem to keep insisting that you see no difference between African Americans and Kurds on this issue:
As mentioned Kurds have an autonomous region that seems to develop relations with other entities

Kurds are an indigenous people trying to assert independence and in the process they have developed relations with other entities (including Israel).

Also, Kurds seem to have relations with Israel not just in terms of PJAK, I found this without much effort searching. It can be used to beef up the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you agree Kurds are trying to assert independence which means they are not independent yet as they do not claim to be independent. Therefore they cannot develop any kind of relations with anybody by very nature. Israel will not have a relationship with an entity it does not recognize diplomatically to a degree. Israel covert operations in Iraq and Iran is article worthy but this is not really a "relation" between Kurds but with Iraq at best.

Even if such an entity claiming to be independent existed, that would be a relationship between that entity and the country. It would not be a relationship with Kurds in general. Ethnicities cannot have relationships, only governments can.
WP:NOT#CRYSTAL

--
chi?
19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing for a binary policy on "A-B articles" where if it's a country or an organization such as PKK or PJAK it's OK but if it's a people then it's not OK. I don't think this is a good idea and every case whether it's a people or an organization or a country should be allowed to have "A-B relations" articles based on it's merits. Pocopocopocopoco 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As said in the previous one, Basque relations with another nation would be relevant. In specific, I'm thinking of, say, the Basque-French relationship (the Basque region, while multinational, is mostly in Spain); while there's no article on it, it would be very encyclopedic. For example, during the Franco era, the relationship was complex to the point where France often (apparently) ignored Basque terrorists in a snub to the Spanish regime. However, after the Franco era, it all changed. This is incredibly important and equally encyclopedic, even if there's no article on it. If one people group relates different to a friend/enemy of its nation state, this is important. Similarly if the Quechua people (they span many present day South American nations) were to have a separate relationship with a historic enemy of their hosts, this would be worth an encyclopedia entry. We're out to maintain knowledge here, not get rid of it just because we don't like the way it looks. If necessary, the article can be renamed or, at best, changed to better reflect the fact that it's not a nation. But deleting this article would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 128.118.161.244 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — 128.118.161.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Shouldn't we be paying attention to the argument, not according to how many times this user has contributed? 64.178.96.168 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. If the argument is new, or contains new facts, it should be listened to accordingly. Arguments from new contributors that are a rehash of those by established users and contains no new facts, don't provide evidence as to how many people hold a particular opinion, because it is far too easy for one person to contribute with multiple accounts/IPs. There are some IP editors with stable IP addresses who are established users with a long edit history, but they are rarer than hen's teeth.
GRBerry 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per myself from the previous AFD and Pocox4. It would've been nice if someone notified me about this. This article needs a rewrite not a deletion. I would like to point out that there is another Kurdish - x relations article, (see
Kurdish-Armenian relations) which is well written and sourced. Is White Cat going to AFD that one as well? Also I'd like to point out that White Cat's whitewashing Wikipedia out of anything Kurdish related never stops [26] . VartanM 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This deletion was not initiated by me. I am ignoring your personal remarks as they have nothing to do with the AFD. --
chi?
20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No personal attack was intended, that was just my observation of your editing pattern of Kurdish related articles. VartanM 08:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for it. Feel free to file an RFC or an RFAR or use other means of
chi?
19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is fine. But this AfD discussion is rather heated it seems. . .--S.dedalus 01:01, 16 October 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. W.marsh 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Postero

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

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

Unremarkable person -- not suitable for CSD. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't by most of this unverifiable information. NN. - Rjd0060 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leonard's Losers was a widely-syndicated radio program and that is sufficient to establish notability per
WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Host of a radio show carried on 1,400 stations including AFR. This fact verified in the obituary in The Sporting News. Meets
WP:N.--Cube lurker 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on Nomination It looks like there was never a tag placed on the article itself. Unless this is going to be speedy kept, that should probably be fixed. (I'm not positive how to get it all to link up myself.)--Cube lurker 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hugely popular radio show in the 70's and 80's.MccullarsJ 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Leonard Postoasties (Leonard Postero's pen name) is widely known by both college and professional football fans, especially in the South. The show never made it to the internet while Leonard Postero, Sr was the talent and voice of the program. At the height of popularity in the mid-1980s, Leonard's Losers was the most widely syndicated sports radio show in the world and could be heard just about anywhere in the world through Armed Forces Radio. There are several links included in this entry and in this AFD confirming the contents of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oretsop (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Oretsop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Given his long running show/publication, Leonard's Losers, article should be kept or moved to "Leonard's Losers" and reworked accordingly. -Fnlayson 01:20, 15 October 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. W.marsh 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem community theatre

Salem community theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theatre group. No
WP:N Rackabello 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: There are no verifiable sources for this NN theatre. - Rjd0060 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no coverage in third party reliable sources. --Kudret abi^Talk 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable sources that I could find. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 08:21, 16 October 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. --
desat 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

MeizuMe

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

Non-notable fansite, vaguely asserts notability. Alexa rank is 89498. MER-C 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: NN per
WP:WEB and the only thing that could be notable is the 6,600 people that registered in the first year, but that is unverifiable, and really not enough notability to constitute a page. - Rjd0060 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Alexa rank is not part of the notability guidelines, this site however is far away from being notable. No published work whatsoever of an independent source. VikingCommand 23:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC) — VikingCommand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. --
desat 02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Tal revivo

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

Apparent vanity/advertising piece; not speedying/prodding, as a google search does show some hits in Hebrew, so it may be possible for a Hebrew-speaker to source & improve this. Nothing in English-language sources I can see to expand this from. —
iridescent (talk to me!) 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. No indication of reasonable notability. WWGB 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertisement. NN - Rjd0060 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, my rationale is slightly different: it does not meet our notability standards, although it would to the Hebrew Wikipedia. Notability policies vary between the Wikipedias, and I can't see why it shouldn't exist there, if they deem it to be notable enough. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With a nod to Solumeiras's reasoning, I don't see notability for English WP. Pig^man 01:50, 10 October 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. --
desat 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jooky

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

Non-notable minor aspect of an advertising campaign. Article is essentially
unverifiable, with about 20 ghits. I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody cares. MER-C 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The subject is apparently so non-notable even the creator of the article did not finish it. It claims three separate campaigns, but while describing the second campaign, it drops off in the middle of a sentence, and never finishes. That was two weeks ago.
Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Unverifiable, but NN anyways. - Rjd0060 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, my second choice, Merge with
notable here that I can see and its only societal referent is as part of a Coca-Cola campaign, so that's where it should be mentioned, if at all. Accounting4Taste 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is one of my favorite ad campaigns. Unfortunately, I think I'm probably the only one. Maxa megalon 2000 05:18, 10 October 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. --
desat 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A Good Man

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

Delete - prod removed by WIkistalker without explanation. This is an article on an essay written by a non-notable person about a non-notable person published in a non-notable journal. In other words, fails
WP:N. Otto4711 12:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment i think you'll find a comment in the edit summary that says, your issues with notability require improvement, then i replaced your prod with a request for expert attention from the psychology project. you then deleted the request for attention when you put this afd up. you don't know that this is not notable, beyond your own pov because you never gave it any time to be improved and cited. --Buridan 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD period is time for the article to be improved and cited. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no afd is a process for deletion. to use afd to force improvement is to delete improvable content and it is inherently using bureacracy to bully people, which is against the spirit of wp as best as i can tell.--Buridan 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:COATRACK -- Additionally, it doesn't have one non-wikipedia+mirror google hit. I didn't expect many because it claims to be an essay published in a journal but I expected atleast one. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per above. (
NN). - Rjd0060 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unsourced, non-notable and textbook Coatrack. --RaiderAspect 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JJL 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any such journal as the "Journal of Alternative Scientific Research", nor would I expect it to be peer-reviewed science. No other references offered or found: doesn't meet
WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 19:12, 9 October 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 all a7, positive assertion of nonnotability: "The truth about Rhiannan T. is that she is not very well known. So she won't be able to be searched on the internet at all, because of that reason ." (from Rhiannan Teret Truth). NawlinWiki 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannan T.

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

Contested prod.
spam. Evb-wiki 12:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is
WP:RS
is provided:

Me's And Me's Couz Friend (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Evb-wiki 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both along with Rhiannan Teret Truth as unverifiable, nn (likely hoax). JJL 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is no such notable person in Australia. These are hoax or vanity pages. WWGB 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Assuming it is a hoax (however, Rhiannan T. could contain sufficient information & notability to keep the article and would just need to be
wikified, but again, assuming it is a hoax, delete). - Rjd0060 14:02, 9 October 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. W.marsh 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams Call Out to Me

Dreams Call Out to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

I think this article fails
WP:NOTABILITY. I couldn't find any good evidence that this song was released at all. See here, Evermore's official site doesn't even list this song as a released single! A search in Google and Sanity (online Australian music store) fails to produce any results. — *H ippi ippi 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect: To Evermore (band). NN song, but the band's page exists. - Rjd0060 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL. PeaceNT 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day 74

Day 74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Day 74 is a First Person Shooter rumoured to be in development at Starbreeze Studios. This is however not true, Starbreeze Studios is currently not involved in this production." My
unverified article. MER-C 11:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It seems highly unlikely that a Quentin Tarantino project would get no press other than this.[27] Hoax/rumor that fails
WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 11:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:CRYSTAL due to it predicting a future game without sufficient sources to back it up.--Alasdair 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per above
WP:CBALL. - Rjd0060 14:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - the word "rumoured" is grounds alone for deletion. -- Roleplayer 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
hoax. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:41, 9 October 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. --
desat 03:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ecotarianism

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

"The term "ecotarian" is
relatively new and has not been noticeably appropriated into any popular cultural, economic, medical, or scientific context." Yep, indeed. MER-C 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:N. The term is so new and obscure that Google thinks it's a misspelling of 'Sectarianism.'Blcfilm 12:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per
NN anyways. - Rjd0060 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

He, he. Delete WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, and did I mention WP:NEO? CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 10 October 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 deletified. --
desat 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

FEMAfied

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

An article on various related
neologisms. No evidence of widespread use beyond the original NYTimes article, compare google:FEMAfied, google:FEMAfication and google:FEMArati. MER-C 10:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, falls short of
WP:COATRACK in presented sources. --Dhartung | Talk 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per above (
WP:NEO especially). - Rjd0060 14:08, 9 October 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 g7, see below, moving other game page back to this title. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subversion (computer game)

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

This is a non notable future game made as a school project with no
Subversion by Introversion Software, which IS notable, was moved without any discussion from this page by the creator of this new article. Darksun 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As above, it's just a school project,
Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No verifiability, no sources, and relates to
WP:CBALL
. -

Rjd0060 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ok, you can delete it. I'm inexperienced editing stuff on wikipedia. I understand we don't have any
WP:NN
, we're going to try and get some. You can delete it and move it back. When we're going to have those sources, we'll contact you. -

Mile92 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No verifiability, no sources, no
WP:CBALL
. The notibility however is in question. -

Wrapper 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
m 14:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Since the original creator and only contributer to the article (Mile92) agreed with deletion here, can it be speedied under CSD G7? Darksun 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since there are no other contributions to the page, I've tagged it. - Rjd0060 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7, also non-notable game. Carlosguitar 17:15, 9 October 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. If assistance is needed with the transwiki process, please feel free to contact me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laze “Fixer” Loneozner

Laze “Fixer” Loneozner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale

Speculative article on a character cut from the film. Other related articles have been deleted.

I'd rather see this go through AfD. Pascal.Tesson 10:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the link on the afd template is red Transwiki to wikistarwars.--Victor falk 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wookieepedia article, which is chiefly in-universe. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, wikis are not
m 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Aren't those proper sources there in the bibliography section? Anyways, I can't see giving him an article when people who were actually in the movie are relegated to the "minor" list. Give him a slot there. --UsaSatsui 04:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, or possibly merge whatever good material is here somewhere - but there's not much that can be said. This character was cut from the film, and has appeared since then in a scant few derivative works. There are no citations and no notability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. --EEMeltonIV 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the list of Star Wars-related Articles for Deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:55, 14 October 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. --
desat 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Paddlewheel Excursions (formerly Western Cruise)

Paddlewheel Excursions (formerly Western Cruise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails
RFF that it is based entirely on his own experience. Adrian M. H. 10:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Much of it reads like spam. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 10:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 12:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- I am the creator and former paddlewheel captain, much of this page is my person experience as an employee of cedar point. This information has no verifiable online resources, but any guest of cedar point that has visited can verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshogan1 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that would be
RS, but that is precisely what it needs if it is to stay. And for the record, we are not interested only in online sources. Adrian M. H. 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. Just reading through the "spiel" ... <shudder>. Completely
WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as spam, unverifiable, non-notable... just a big mess really. Terraxos 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious original research. --S.dedalus 01:40, 11 October 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. W.marsh 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hlema boland

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

This person is not notable; see only two Google hits. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete the title name is incorrect. I found this article, by the way is a COPYVIO. I do not know how she is notable, the correct way to know that is probably to find her name in Arabic language. Carlosguitar 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to be a legitimate Kuwaiti TV "star" presenter with a beauty pageant background and a singing career too.[28] Note that Arabic has no standard transliteration into English and her first name is variously spelled "Halima", "Haleema" and even "Halime". --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment: Well, she could be notable if there are sources added that confirm she is a television personality in Kuwait. - Rjd0060 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on to see if some sources can be dug up to support what Dhartung wrote. If none are added, I'll change my vote to weak delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs sources, wikify and more info Elmao 04:24, 11 October 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. --
desat 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Corey Rice

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MER-C 09:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete When this subject was alive, he was just an ordinary student who had no claims of
S iva1979^{Talk to me} 11:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Really not notable. - Rjd0060 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above
m 14:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable individual. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:44, 9 October 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. PeaceNT 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coatigan

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

Smells like
some new idea by a fashion designer that hasn't caught on. Google fails to bring up anything useful. MER-C 09:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:NEO "Coatigan -wikipedia" has 231 hits. Some talk about the clothing but most is about a small body of water.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This is sooo not à la wiki-mode even though it's paradoxally a
COATRACK.--Victor falk 10:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Info. Coatigan Run is a place in Maryland state (USA). Anthony Appleyard 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a dictionary definition, hence violates
WP:DICDEF. Also because it's a newly made neologism that hasn't increased in popularity.--Alasdair 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete nonnotable yet. Mukadderat 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
m 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Firefoxman. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:51, 10 October 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. WjBscribe 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change (Sugababes song)

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

Fails
WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find a reliable source that describes the release of this song. The article mentioned that the release was confirmed by www.dailystar.co.uk, but I could not find anything in the site that confirms the release. Here are the Daily Star article search results for 'Sugababes' [29] — *H ippi ippi 09:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Reliable sources could be found for the Change album, but not for the single. Another single's been widely covered, but not this one. Probably would be a
WP:CRYSTAL violation, since it documents something in the future that is not covered by sources.--Alasdair 10:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The sticker on the album cover says "includes the singles About You Now and Change". suggests it'll be a single, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.64.140 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, it doesn't. And besides, that's not a reliable source. — *H ippi ippi 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why else would the record company put it on all copies...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.127 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well it suggests that the record comapany must be considering releasing it, or it wouldn't mention it on the album cover. Sometimes plans change, but as it is, it looks like Change will be released next. If the next single is annocunced that it won't be change, you may as well delete the page. Otherwise you'll have egg on your faces when Change is announced a s a future single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.64.140 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge into the album. Looks like a crystal problem, no independent notability. Cool Hand Luke 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A song may not be notable, even when the album is, and the evidence mentioned above is not encouraging. In addition we have the CRYSTAL problem. The article itself is little but speculation about if and when the single will be released: i.e., not too informative. EdJohnston 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. If the single is released, try again. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:33, 17 October 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. --
desat 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Books iRead

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

Just another Facebook extension. There is nothing to suggest that this is in any way more notable than the other 4500 extensions out there (see, e.g. these 319 ghits). MER-C 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per what
^talk/_contribs) 08:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: NN - Rjd0060 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails
m 23:47, 9 October 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. --
desat 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "disambiguation" page was the subject of a prod. Its talk page reflects solid proof why it does not deserve to exist because it does not "disambiguate" between any articles but only links to outside dubious websites, violating
WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is also bound to be a POV magnet. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A disambiguation page which doesn't "disambiguate" anything at all. Nick mallory 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this disambig page in order to remove a clear ambiguity. IZAK is mistaken in his assumption that the page was "created to get around deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews".The problem is that there are several groups, both religious and secular, using the name Jews Against Zionism. A number of other articles refer to the secular group Jews Against Zionism, but before the disambiguation page was created links on the pages were redirected to the article on the religious group Neturei Karta (which does not actually use this name). This was clearly inappropriate, and it was necessary to clartify this. I believe that the individual groups are notable enough to merit their own articles, and I could write one on the secular group. I am reluctant to do so because I am a leading activist in the group, and this could be seen as self-promotion; but, if other editors agree that this could be acceptable, then I will produce a draft, in as NPOV a way as I can. in the hope that others will amend and improve it. Given the background, I think that it would be a mistake to delete this page, and to further the ambiguities. RolandR 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roland: While your edits may have gone in one direction, the recent edits by Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) [30] [31] were clearly meant to lead back to the "True Torah Jews" issue. Also, you seem to miss the reasons behind this AfD, nothing has been mentioned about anyone's POV or NPOV, so why do you bring that up? This AfD is because it does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, see also Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide that make it quite clear that disambiguation pages are for Wikipedia articles and not for external websites of a dubious sort. Thank you, IZAK 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly now meets every requirement since it has a main page and many other links that a few are now deleted speedily and it will no doubt re-surface in the future as too many users think it should not be erased, this one article was already recreated by users over 5 times i know so i dont think in the long term it will be a non existing article. Yes the satmar users are not so much as the Zioinists but they are alive and are not going anywhere, while Zionists do indeed diminish they are busy having 12 kids and are multiplying and spreading their cause so it will eventually reach Notability standers by every singe estimate.--יודל 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, what does having 12 babies have to do with this discussion? Maybe 12 babies is not enough come to think of it when the rest of the
Jews against zionism and thereby restored an article that had been previously deleted TWICE, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2005) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (2007). You thereby did not follow the correct procedure by submitting this to Wikipedia:Deletion review for recreating an article and topic that has been twice deleted. IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes you are right. It is not Satamr vs the World, it is indeed Satamr vs. the Zionists, as many times you will delete it, it will more times be created. and this was never ever created without posting the debate on the so called Jewish Wiki-Project, lets face it, this article has all the right sources and citations to establish its Notability, but as the users who delete always say, AH Satamr they are fringe POV. Sorry this isn't a reason to delete, and it wont stay deleted with this bias, but only time will prove me right, this discussion was already gone for now the other way.--יודל 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article recreated by Yidisheryid shows the need for this disambiguation page, since once again references to the secular group Jews Against Zionism are being redirected to an article about religious opposition to Zionism. See instances at Counterpunch, Gilad Atzmon, Talk:Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. If, as seems to be likely, the consensus is to delete this page, how can such inappropriate redirects be prevented?RolandR 08:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and write the articles quickly including a serious attempt by a neutral party at replacement of the previous deleted article with real sourcing if it exists. Stub articles would do, as long as it is clear there are sources. DGG (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did so but it was deleted speedily. [33]--יודל 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the Satmar group should never had been deleted since it is real and alive with weekly citations in the Yiddish media. I am a user who reads Yiddish and can easily provide you with those much needed sources. Please keep in mind that this org is nothing more then a think thank to spread Satmar Rebbe's view on Zinism, all they do is take money from Satamr Hasidim in order to make radio and Newspaper ads and pay for a website and publish books and leaflets, they have 9 respected board members but their website is not like any other website since their rabbis are opposed to internet, so they do not list an address and telephone number, just the bare minimum. The Satmar community today is divided in 2 parts, this org is the only org that has the backing of both party's. I already work on a article with citations and sources to establish its notability.--יודל 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's indeed a "Satmar" group then it can easily be redirected and become part of the
WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) and wasting your and everybody else's time. Thank you, IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Izak i need you to calm down first of all about your innuendo that this particular group has met with the Iranian leader is false, You actually took that out of your but. This group was opened and founded for the reason alone to take away the Satamr mission from
Think thank about the teachings of their Rabbi, You are right once their Rabbi was alive there was no need to spread and further his mision, he was Holy and even the Zionist jews had the utmost respect for his word, now that he is dead, The satmar Hasidim have decided its time to act, and see ways how to spread this mision. Is it notable yes, and the article did have claims with proof to that effect. Is it fringe POV i dont care. If it is out there it has its place in wikipedia, and no user can sensor it because he does not like what they do.--יודל 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my talk page comments above. There are no articles even linking to this page except a redirect from
MOS:DAB), in which case set up the disambiguation at Jews Against Zionism, but only if there are Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Please look back in the history and on its talk page and see that those who want to dleete have asked to block a user simply for qouting this site, so he was forced to change his link, and it does have an atrticle leading to
neturei karta--יודל 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Useless disambig. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless disambig attempting to use wikipedia as a vehicle to push various points-of-view. Avi 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Agree with above, this is a useless disambiguation page. Doesn't help anything. - Rjd0060 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page does not disambiguate any Wikipedia articles, neither currently nor when it was first created. --Shirahadasha 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see many articles,
Neturei karta and more that were already speedily erased while you were writing this, with utterly disregard for conflict of interest here[34].--יודל 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Natrina was created with extreme disregard for wikipedia policy. Please see
Neturei karta was not, and will not, be deleted, speedy or otherwise, as the group is sufficiently notable to warrant a wiki article. Please restrict yourself to facts and not suppositions, unjustified accusations, or misrepresentations of wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Avi 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I see only one user going personnel here and everybody sees whats his name. But now that it was asked i will answer it: This was deleted by a user who has voted to delete in his words POV pushing while he himself goes ahead and deletes the article so his POV should win. This is a perfect example of a conflict of interest here. and its not the first time those sysop tools were used in such a way, this issue suffered already before of this while the article Haredim and Zionism was blocked for a week with unsourced slanderers line. So lets straitened out the FACT: The article Natrina was re-established as a stub as other users have requested here, and it was deleted here by a deleter vote!--יודל 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please read
WP:ANI and see how you can continue to contribute gainfully without disrupting process or policy. -- Avi 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This Admin should not be an issue here, but I think asking to delete something while saying that your concern is POV while using some tools that other do not have to delete something else to win your vote against others, is not a personal attack, it is simply a way how to put an editing history in focus. This is a real conflict of interest here and i hope everybody can understand why, if not i am mistaken and i would apologize.--יודל 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain how you can view a clear-cut case of upholding a wikipedia policy as a "conflict-of-interest"? If anything, your editing history demonstrates a significant propensity towards a point-of-view and a disregard for wikipedia policies? -- Avi 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest means that even though policy says that the article must be erased or even though some user must be blocked, the Admin who had his conflict on the matter cannot do it because of conflict of interest.--יודל 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And being that this was a clear-cut case of a wikipedia violation, and being that I have no personal or professional relationship with any organization pro- or con- Zionism, there is no issue. Now please stop trying to create issues where there are none and restrict yourself to content and policy, and not people. -- Avi 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being that you have declared this issue a POV Pushing and being that u used some tools that others dont have to win this debate i ask other Admins to restore the artice in question since it is being rather drastically improved by me and it was addressed successfully all the issues raised in the initial deletion. It is still a stub and most users have declared it fine if effort is being put into it to establish notability which i will do. Everybody has his POV mine is clear and yours is also clear so lets have a chance to make our views reach some consensus and not use one stronger hand against the other to win the issue.--יודל 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The place to request that a deletion be overturned is
WP:DRV. -- Avi 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks please dont make work harder then needed, you erased this article clearly agaisnt the rules and polices of an Admin, You were clearly invoved here and have already expressed your desire to delete it, be so kind and give it to me i will not make it into an article i will simply put it in my sandbox to work on it until its perfect. I know you have already said that you wont bock me becaouse you don't want to use your sysop tools in a way to win discussions, please do the same here and undo your actions if you are right why win it with tools that others don't have? let the system of consensus building play out its role. I don't beleave it should be put back as a stub now since you don't want it but i promise you i will work on it to perfect it i have already experience with fixing deleted articles trust me--יודל 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I suggest you carefully review wikipedia policy and guidelines. Making improper and unfounded accusations of impropriety is considered a
personal attack, of which you have made a number on this page already. Those kinds of edits are not allowed on wikipedia, of which you have been informed a number of times already. -- Avi 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
For the 5'th time i do not see where pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack, i see you have said this about me endless times but i am still waiting for third opinion here to see if i was wrong. so please do not repeat yourself against my actions, becaouse you and i aren't the issue here. 2 users, DGG and i have thought it proper to re-esteblish the articles as stubs, you have done what you have done against us, now lets wait for others to express their opinions here--יודל 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as the rganizations are all non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that one of the three isn't Notable but the purpose from this disambiguation wasn't for that alone we need here to make a page to list all subjects who use this header. And when including them we must first include everything that is Notable for the user, then another editor can come and take out all the subjects he deems not notable but to delete the whole page because one link isn't the way.--יודל 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is not a disambiguation page at all. Mukadderat 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a disambiguation page. --Malcolmxl5 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes right now it isnt becouse an Admin used his tolls to make it like this. I asked to re-edit it, i myself wont do this since i do not want to disrupt wikipedia. But the chronicle of events must be clear. now it is rightfully destined for deletion. i guess th system works somehow, only if the Admins play by the same rules as a the other normal users--יודל 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 6SJ7 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disambiguation pages are only supposed to provide disambiguation between articles. There is no need to refer to groups whose notability has not yet been clearly established anywhere in wikipedia. When and if such articles do exist, then things would be different. John Carter 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that those articles u r referring to were indeed wikipedia established articles, it was deleted only because of more votes to delete, but in no way does it reflect the real wikipedia process. It will be re-created in no time, and it will be again deleted by those Zionist wikiProject users who evidently have the more votes here, this happened until now every month this was re-created a new because it is notable and real subjects to the minority of people in the world, we should not make wikipedia into a demcartecy of majourety rules, we are a consensus based project, the anti Zionist Jews are indeed a fringe group, but we cannot therefore delete them as a subject, I know i am one here against twenty but i feel i am right.--יודל 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I tend to agree with RolandR on this as far as the purpose of this disambig page being to help alleviate some confusion and ambiguity between a few groups (including an anonymous website) lumped under the same name. I'll have to think more on this before I can sway one way or the other. --MPerel 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nowhere in Wikipedia:Disambiguation is it stated that disambiguation pages cannot disambiguate titles that don't have articles; the only requirement is that potential for confusion exists when typing the name into Wikipedia. At least one of these entries is clearly notable; a book which has been reviewed in International Journal of Middle East Studies and The Observer among others. At the same time, the websites and advocacy groups are probably much better known than the book, so the potential for confusion exists. Jewish anti-Zionism is maybe a 4 or 5% viewpoint within Judaism, and was a >50% view prior to 1945. In other words, it is not a fringe viewpoint, and its various organizations and outgrowths can be documented on Wikipedia. Policy is being ignored here in favor of unwarranted assumptions (and uncivil attacks on those who vote to apply policy). <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Eleland notes, disambig pages don't always link to articles, although admittedly external links seem odd to me. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2nd nomination), I propose replacing that article with one about the British group Jews Against Zionism discussed above by RolandR, which would alleviate some concern about this page not linking to articles. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if we delete JAZ or it's disambiguation then it will appear that Wikipedia prefers hate-sites to sources preaching tolerance between religions - since
Haredim let along Haredim and Zionism, but I've Googled many times for "Jews Against Zionism" (and the older? "Jews Not Zionists" over the last 10 years). These people have a major web-footprint, surfers such as me are almost certainly searching for them constantly. They would be notable even if they were "only a web-site", and I'm pretty sure they're not. (More on this subject, including membership figures at my entry here. PR^talk 12:40, 11 October 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. WjBscribe 03:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying America

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

This film fails
Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Borderline (naturally enough, considering who sent it :)

Pros:

1 on imdb (and w/ a rating!)

2 external review (switch magazine) that satisfies wp:rs & v

(3 notable skaters starring)

Cons

1 filtered googling yields precious little hits [35]

2 Opinions seem generally unanimous that "it stinks", maybe this can be interpreted as "it is not notable"?

? #39,165 on amazon dvd sales. I can't say what that means, beware of the long tail before jumping to conclusions.

--Victor falk 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an IMDB listing as such is usually considered trivial coverage. The external review also seems to be below standards. --B. Wolterding 09:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the review is bad is not directly an argument against notability; however it makes me doubt that this film was a major part of somebody's career. --B. Wolterding 09:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on imdb. It might be below standards for a film review, but Switch is I believe a major skateboard magazine, which are the criterion I think we should apply here. The question here is "did it make a notable impact in the skateboarding community" (it is obviously non-notable to the general public)? Considering I got only 422 ghits, most of them torrent or sales sites, it seems that that community dare speak of this film only on non-googable forums, or not at all... draw your own conclusions.--Victor falk 09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per deprod - Several notable people star / appear in the movie (Erik Estrada, Tony Hawk et al). Not the greatest cinematic work ever commited to celluloid, but not insignificant either. Agree that lack of sources is an issue. Deiz talk 11:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Amazon ranking #39,165: "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought..."

Real movies:

Lords of Dogtown #5,387

Dogtown and Z-Boys #8,056

Grind (2003 film) #5,525

Thrashin' #15,869

Skate videos:

DC Video #8,471

Skateboarding Mayhem #70,432

ESPN & 900 Presents - Tony Hawks Gigantic Skateboard Park Tour Summer 2002 #44,580

Tony Hawk's Boom Boom Huck Jam North American Tour (2002) #75,407

Tony Hawk's Secret Skatepark Tour (2004) #11,999

Tony Hawk's Gigantic Skatepark Tour 2001 #55,304

Almost Round Three (2004) #54,771

Amazon editorial review: This attempt to elevate a skateboard video to an action-adventure film nearly makes MTV's Jackass look like Masterpiece Theater...

--Victor falk 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The long and disjointed summary above not withstanding, I couldn't find the notability in this subject. --Stormbay 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Borderline~~ Delete Nothing notable apart Estrada and Hawk really, and movies do not inherit theirs stars notability--Victor falk 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. notability not inherited from celebrity appearances. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable source material for the article: (1) Worcester Telegram & Gazette. January 19, 2001. Cable access spat spurs punishment / Teenagers pushing of limits produces televised pranks in Grafton. (2) Seattle Post-Intelligencer. (February 19, 2001) Digital film festival starts here. Page E1. (3) Seattle Times. (February 22, 2001) Weekend jammed with movie specials. Page E3. (4) Daily Star (United Kingdom). (March 16, 2003) American Beauties. Uncovered. The stars and stripes stunners. Pg. 39. -- Jreferee t/c 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! How could I forget to check the news archives?--victor falk 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Source #1 is about an unrelated public access TV show in Grafton. #2 only includes the line "The lineup includes "Destroying America," a skateboard film starring Eric Estrada." #3 only says "It's made up entirely of digitally created movies, including the skateboard film Destroying America." #4 does not appear to mention the film at all, and talks instead about "gorgeous babes ... born in the USA." In short, this is garbage, and makes me even more convinced the article should be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree the quoted sources are not sufficient to establish notability, although I believe it is entirely possible to convey this without using words such as "garbage". Deiz talk 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I'm sorry. I was just frustrated by this source dump because a casual glance would have shown no substantive treatment and completely irrelevant material. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparing the sources found so far with the list of requirements in Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_Principles, I don't think the film measures up. For example, full-length reviews by at least two nationally known critics? Though Jreferee's findings are useful, we don't know what those people actually said, or whether any of those articles gave more than a passing mention to this film. The filtered Google search offered above by Victor Falk gets about 450 hits, not enough to suggest that better sources are just around the corner. EdJohnston 01:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What we've got here is ... failure ... to significate. Not notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:40, 17 October 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. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Harnar

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

This article is heavily promotional in tone, fails to cite any independent sources, and is linked to very few other artilces. Google shows just under 1,000 hits, among which I did not spot anything that would be useful as a source. Even though his cabaret career "blossomed" in 1983, and he has an "unusually smooth baritone voice" (lucky chap) I could not find any non-trivial independent sources from which to rewrite the article. Cruftbane 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep could probably be a delete by most standards, but it's a well-written article and he does get some ghits. Note the reviews here [36] of his album. If the reviews are verifiable, this should be a (weak) keep. JJL 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with JJL. The article is ok and there are enough news and positive reviews [37] [38] [39] (google news) to make a verifyable article based on reliable sources. Seems to meet
WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 21:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.ultimate-anonymity.com

Www.ultimate-anonymity.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this article is blatant advt for a company. the afd tag has been removed due to Bad faith Mugunth 06:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Article creator has a history of making ad pages and is even spamming external links of this site to other articles. No notability even asserted. Spellcast 07:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speede delete. Even if the ad part is overlooked, it still qualifies for speedy as there is absolutely no notability asserted. --soum ^talk 08:09, 9 October 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. Page was re-created after previous nom (above), hence the double nomination. Page already deleted by: User:NawlinWiki. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.ultimate-anonymity.com

Www.ultimate-anonymity.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be of a non-notable company. The speedy deletion tag has been contested so I've just decided to nominate it for AFD. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. JJL 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sure that the Speedy would have stuck. NN. - Rjd0060 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there four separate AfDs for this article on today's log.......? ChrisTheDude 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have been deleted already
m 14:46, 9 October 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. --
desat 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jimmy Terrel

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

Non-notable fighter, unreferenced Thesaddestday 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 09:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has not received significant coverage in
Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stein

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Greg Stein

Articles for deletion/Greg Stein (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Greg Stein (musician)

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

A speedy deletion via AFD in July; a user asked for the deletion to be overturned. I believe an argument for keeping the page is forthcoming; I have no opinion. Ral315 » 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently editing the article to better express Stein's accomplishments/notability, and to cite sources. When done, I'll drop another note here. I hope it's all right to ask that the discussion wait a bit (an hour or two) for those changes to be done. --Karl Fogel 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a go at fleshing out the article with some more information and references. Comments/improvements welcome. Note that one of the references is a book I wrote -- I didn't do that out of egotism, it's just that it's a published source and is an appropriate reference for a factual statement in the article. I'm not sure what the etiquette is around citations like that. I'm happy to be educated, though; just let me know what the usual procedure is. Thanks. --Karl Fogel 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software deletions. --Gavin Collins 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now, appears to be marginally notable; article can be expanded further. •
Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Stein was Chairman of the Apache Foundation for five years, an important advocacy role, and is an important figure in open source. (In other words, not just some guy who wrote an extension once.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess I should formally register my "keep", though it's probably obvious from the fact that I rewrote the article. I believe Stein meets
WP:BIO notability criteria (though those are a guideline rather than a policy), specifically the "widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field". --Karl Fogel 22:57, 9 October 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
reply hazy, try again. Please re-list seperately where it may be appropriate to do so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CrossRoads Middle School

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

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

H. E. Corley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Harbison West Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Oak Pointe Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

River Springs Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

WP:OUTCOMES says that while high schools are kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, I've deleted a few blue ribbon winners, as those seem to be notable. But the others (including CrossRoads m.s.) don't assert notability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL-per
WP:OUTCOMES only high schools are kept TonyBallioni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete almost all Except for Nursery Rd and Dutch Fork. Those two seem to have won some semi-notable award from the Dept of Educ, which may make them notable (although I'm not familiar enough with the blue ribbon award to know if it's rare enough that winning it confers some notability). If it isn't that important, then delete all. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Above and beyond the nominator's failure to review and improve the articles in clear violation of
WP:OUTCOMES does NOT say that all elementary and middle school articles are deleted, and the use of this policy to justify deletion, without describing any violation of Wikipedia policy by these articles, is problematic in and of itself. Alansohn 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment So after reading
WP:OUTCOMES being used as a reason to delete. It's fine to use OUTCOMES when trying to decide whether to AfD something (so long as it isn't the sole/primary reason for nomination), but it is not a good reason to delete. Instead, we should cite the underlying reason(s) why this class of articles (and this article in specific) should be deleted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all. To be frank, I've never read or heard of
WP:OUTCOMES until today, but lumping together a number of Blue Ribbon recipients with other schools is no way to achieve a consensus. Worse case scenario, they should be merged to their parent school district or locality! Silensor 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all and reference better
WP:OUTCOMES isn't close to consensus, each article must be on its own merits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Can someone explain to me what exactly is encyclopedic about listing every school in the country? It just seems like wikipedia is not the place for some of this info. Even if the schools have won awards is that a reason to have them here. Not arguing with anyone just honestly asking. I'm kind of caught between the opinion that we include way to many things in wikipedia or that we should just list everything. I mean if we are going to get rid of bands and artist because they are unsigned local acts with no major national press coverage, why should every school be listed? Ridernyc 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all- ruling schools of this size automatically notable. Period.JJJ999 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and relist What OUTCOMES says is that we usually delete such articles, unless they have individual merit. so lets consider the individual merit. OUTCOMES is in any event just a summary of what usually happens here, and I note that it has almost always been considered that Blue Ribbon schools are sufficiently distinctive for their quality to be considered important. I personally have my doubts, but checking back it shows the consensus has been that this is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG. Speedy keep and relist individually. shoy 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that. Should we close this one and reopen them individually, or should we just put a relist template, rm and list the elementary schools individually? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with speedy keep and relist individually. -- Roleplayer 16:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist individually--Victor falk 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you nominate these together? A note to the nom—never do mass noms. Mass noms sink almost instantly; people almost always refuse to discuss more than one at a time. I, however, am not one of those people. Delete them all because I see none as notable. i ^said 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I is valliant--Victor falk 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? i ^said 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all except Nursery Rd/Dutch Fork, on which I am neutral (lack of information). The remaining schools don't even claim notability and should be deleted. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:55, 10 October 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. PeaceNT 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wires On Fire

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

There does seem to be press on this group but much of the early Ghits seem to be from the same press release. I'm having trouble satisfying
conflict of interest since the sole editor of the article is named after the manager and brother of a band member. Just sayin'... Pig^man 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral Found a few very small articles, but also found that have been on tour with some very notable artists.Ridernyc 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-brainer Keep As Michael Shuman is a current member of Queens of the Stone Age, this band meets WP:Notability (music) criterion 6:Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Furthermore, a redirect to Queens of the Stone Age would be inappropriate as Wires On Fire is not a side-project, but a fully-fledged band in its own right.Skomorokh ^incite 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:MUSIC #6 as noted by Skomorokh.--Cube lurker 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. Article needs clean-up, but clearly meet
WP:BAND criteria #4 (touring), 5 (multiple releases on a significant indie label) and 6 (as per Skomorokh). Bondegezou 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm uncertain if there is a protocol for withdrawing an AfD nomination but I'm currently satisfied that notability is apparent and verifiable. The article has sources and looks much better now. Pig^man 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; there's no formal procedure that I know of, just make the closing admin aware that you are withdrawing the nomination, and as long as there are no delete votes, the Afd merits a
speedy keep. Skomorokh ^incite 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Skomorokh but also for the not-inconsiderable fact that the album was on Buddyhead. tomasz. 12:29, 10 October 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 Hoax, Speedied. humblefool ® 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lost

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

"Best-seller" that apparently doesn't exist, zero Google hits but notability was asserted. Also apparently written ten years in the future. Accounting4Taste 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and tagged for G1. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:44, 9 October 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 hoax. DS 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnamon church massacre

The article has no references or sources, there is no mention of the incident on the Internet - except for Wikipedia and it's mirrors and the original author has made no other edits except for the creation of this article. This, in addition to the comment left on the talk page, by the party who had originally written to OTRS - lead me to believe the article is a hoax. Versa geek 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per above. Pete.Hurd 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed google test miserably and per above--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Talk comment is upsetting, although to be sure this is probably just a ghost story that got out of hand during a confirmation class overnight, or something like that. Fails
WP:V. Get rid of it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete seems to be a hoax
m 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, hoaxalicious. Can we
WP:SNOW this yet? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Amazing that it stayed up more than two months. The red links are evidence enough that there is no such thing as "Devil's Den State Park", "Strickler, Arkansas" or "sno-cones"! Creepy, round the campfire story...And they never found the murderer in the Richard Nixon mask... (Then you make peace signs and scream "I AM NOT A CROOK!!!") Mandsford 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sno-cones = snow cones, a swift google congirms that there IS a "Strickler, Arkansas" (there's a nuclear power station nearby - SEFOR). DuncanHill 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment and there is (according to this link) a Zinnamon Church in Strickler. [40] DuncanHill 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again and according to Google maps, Strickler and the Zinnamon Church are near to Devil's Den State Park, look here [41]. DuncanHill 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 10 October 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. --
desat 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Panocracy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Panocracy

Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination)

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

This article appears to violate
WP:OR. It has no relaiable references. It returns zero hits on google scholar, which is suggestive, even if not a complete guide. User:John Talbot, who started the article, also seems to be the main person promoting the idea. For example, he wrote: "It is for this reason that I proposed some years ago the use of the word panocracy. Pan meaning everyone so panocracy is rule by everyone" on [42] on 2006-06-20 12:17, and seems to be the main author of the site promoting this idea [43]. Of course, I could be missing something, so I hope someoen with better knowledge of this field will examine this article. Anarchia 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment this was deleted in the first AfD, speedy delete if this qualifies as CSD G4 (I can't view the old article, so I can't say) Pete.Hurd 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy G4 Looking at the previous article (from 2005) it was very much briefer, consisting of only the first paragraph of the present one. No comment at present on the merits. DGG (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleunwiki for
original thoughtcrime The IngPanCrat has spoken. --Victor falk 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. How does "rule by all" even work? You wouldn't have anyone left to rule! --Agamemnon2 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Agamennon2, report for thoughtcrime. In Pancracy, everybody rules YOU!!--Victor falk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your question, see collectivist anarchism and related (perfectly notable) topics. Pete.Hurd 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack of
neogolism. --Gavin Collins 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per Gavin Collins Pete.Hurd 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No merge or redirect to Panarchy (or Panarchism, which ought to be merged with the former), the words are similar, but the meanings completely different, nor to Pantocracy (which ought to be deleted on the same grounds as this article). Pete.Hurd 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone rename the Panocracy article to Pantocracy (no that can't be it, the articles have slight differences)? Why does the AfD template at the top of Pantocracy link to this AfD on Panocracy? Either way, both articles should share the same fate, as they don't differ in any substantial manner. Pete.Hurd 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no jokes about pancreas or pinocchio. I think it would be "pantocracy", which is better than "democracy" because it's not limited to human beings. Mandsford 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Panarchy which seems to be a more established term for the same idea. Redirect to Pantocracy (which I have already created as a demonstration). I believe panocracy is no different than panarchy. Only one reference suggests that panarchy is talking about a single government, and so I changed that on the panarchy page so that that reference points to the new pantocracy page. I found several links, including Google groups which have material about 'panocracy', but I'm finding that Talbot seems to be the primary perpetrator of 'panocracy' in these forums. Panokratie (translated by at least someone as 'panocracy') is the name of a book apparently published in 1991 on the subject. I agree with Mandsford that the word here should be "pantocracy" instead of "panocracy", and ~~I think both should redirect to the older "panarchy"~~ I think that we should chose pantocracy because it turns up Google Scholar results. Additionally, I think Direct democracy (and less accurately Participatory democracy), Sociocracy and Collectivist anarchism are all different ways of enabling the Grandiose Concept of Pantocracy, and I think they should be immediately noted on any page about 'rule by all'. Jwiley80 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doubleunwiki for~~
~~original thoughtcrime~~ Merge with Panarchy Plusgood doublethink of Jwiley80 in blackwhiting panarchy with ~~pancracy~~ (now an unword). Panarchy has always been at war with Pancracy. ~~IngPanCrat~~ IngPanArch Victor falk 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Why 'merge' something that violates
WP:OR? Anarchia 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Every single word of it is not OR, and merging parts of it would improve panarchy.--Victor falk 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, from memory, one reference in the article. Surely it would be better to get information from a reliable source to include in panarchy, and then include the reference? Anarchia 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think panocracy has any really reliable references except those that look like original research, possibly by the wikipedia editors?? Something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted. It should NOT be referred to in either panarchy or panarchism for that reason.Carol Moore 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

delete pantocracy too. It doesn't have any external links at all! Just some editor's theory/original research. Carol Moore 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Comment Evidently what a few call "pantocracy" and "panocracy" is widely known as panarchy (39 resp 46 vs 203000 ghits). Nevertheless, they contain some information that could be included in "panarchy", hence a merger being more appropriate than a deletion. Don't flush the baby with the bath water.--Victor falk 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment. As I researched further down the search engines, I realized that pantocracy and panocracy have been described by a variety of people. The problem is NO ONE bothers to discuss those sources or link to them in either article. Therefore it's just someone's philosophy with a lot of wiki links. If someone wants to keep those articles in they should beef them up with real info, and not just opinions, ASAP.

Carol Moore 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Respectfully, I think you're missing what I'm saying. I mean that what's applicable to panarchy from pantocracy and panocracy should be merged into it.--Victor falk 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with merging any sourced and accurate info. There is little credible in one article and none in the other. There IS such sourced info on pantocracy and panocracy on the web that could be added, if it is proved it is relevant. But you can't merge someone's original unsourced research and opinion on how all these things relate to each other. That's what it means when the articles are being deleted for violating
WP:OR
.

Carol Moore 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Keep until a suitable place to merge is found. The contents of the article describe a real phenomenon, a way of distributing power that is showing itself in different settings, and may possibly become a major trend. However, the word panocracy seems to be invented by John Talbut, and does not have widespread use. Thus, it is really the title that is the problem. We should look for somewhere else to put the contents; but as that is difficult to find, I say keep it as is for the time being. Merging with Panarchy is not a solution: that is something quite different. Rune Kock 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wouldn't it make more sense to delete this unless
WP:V is satisfied, which is not the case for material in this article derived from John Talbot's OR web pages? Anarchia 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. It's a bad precedent to allow essentially all opinion articles to survive. People who want to keep the article should do the research and re-write it with sources! Unsourced opinion articles shouldn't be merged into sourced articles, thereby bringing down their quality. When does this get decided, anyway??

Carol Moore 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Delete I see no evidence whatever for general use of the term, or any importance. I am sometimes flexible about what I think can be considered not altogether OR, but this is unmistakable total OR, a purely personal unsourced essay on the subject. The article is more substantial than the previous version, which is why I said above it wasn' t a speedy for G4, but it still does not say anything encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:58, 14 October 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. --
desat 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Japanese names

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

Deltion nomination Too broad to be useful, not only unreferenced but likely unreferencable,
wikipedia is not a directory, no criteria for inclusion beyond "Japanese". Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Definitely too broad. A phonebook serves this purpose better. CitiCat^♫ 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate information, potentially thousands of names could be listed. There are now several similar lists in Category:Lists of names, I won't list them here, but if these type of lists are going start being deleted then we probably should do them all. Crazysuit 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced bare list with far-too-broad inclusion criteria. Most individual given names are not going to be notable, either, unlike surnames. Incidentally the far superior enamdict [44], part of
EDICT, is already available under a CC-BY-SA licence; this list, which doesn't even include kanji or proper romanization, is utterly useless by comparison. cab 05:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

In its current state, the list is incomplete, contains incorrect information, and is
not a good article. Delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

transfer to category-for those that are not redlinked, that does represent an outlay of time, and that would be a useful categorization. Chris 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The red links can be useful for creating new articles to go in the category. For that reason it might be worthwhile to temporarily save the list in somebody's user space or in a subpage of WikiProject Japan. Fg2 05:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a working copy
here for this purpose. Feel free to edit it to remove the spurious links mentioned below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Joe beat me to it, I was going to suggest making a fresh subsection of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan Chris 05:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again Speaking of links, many blue links are spurious. They lead to unrelated articles. Fg2 05:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize. This type of list would function much better as a category. Useight 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom, and all above, and reason mentioned in the English names debate.Ridernyc 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I would love to see the surnames that were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames come back. This list of given names is not of the same standard, though. Neier 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is practically (almost) impossible to list all of Japanese names. I can image there might be a list of , say, Japanese names of unusual readings, but not this one. -- Taku 09:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is largely a list of Japanese personal names. As such, it's a re-creation of something
already deleted, mostly because it can't be completed. To the extent that it isn't merely a list of Japanese personal names, it's a superset of such a list and therefore even more eligible for deletion. As pointed out above, a large percentage of the blue links are misleading. Don't subject Wiktionary to this junk: Wiktionary already suffers from, inter alia, a page that implies that the only way to write Akio is 明夫 and another that implies that names such as しにちろ ("Shinichiro") are used. -- Hoary 10:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The indiscriminate list of blue links at its very worst. This one includes first names, surnames, boy's names, girl's names... and its all in one big list! There's an occasional "F" or "P" written alongside. I guess it's here so that if you read that "Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan returned to Tokyo" you can see if Yasuo or Fukuda might be a "Japanese name". Mandsford 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, my vote seems like overkill, but I'll cast it anyway. Delete. Unlike the English names article, this one also suffers from tons of anime names, which are not always regular everyday Japanese names. You'd probably spend quite some time trying to dig up a real life flesh-and-blood "Himeko", for instance. Also, there's names for folklore beings and gods (Raiden, Amaterasu) and even a fictional band of mercenaries (!) (Bankotsu). How all this fits in with the concept of "Japanese names" is beyond me. Even if the list were maintained up to a standard, and only actual names were listed, I cannot imagine of what possible use it could be. TomorrowTime 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo is not a real japanese name? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, no. No, no no. Mandsford 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's a real name alright. Matter of fact, that's the name of the friendly old guy with the oden stand just down the road from where I used to live in Japan. TomorrowTime 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards properly sourced and notable version. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what might a "notable version" be? -- Hoary 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of legal Japanese personal names because the Japanese government has an official list of acceptable names, that may be used in Japanese legal documentation. 132.205.44.5 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of kanji which are acceptable, but, afaik there is no list of acceptable combinations, nor of the readings you have to assign to each kanji. Jinmeiyō kanji can cover that quite well, although the article is currently a mess. Neier 02:51, 10 October 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. Consensus is that Pixelism as an art movement topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelism Art Movement

Pixelism Art Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fun one here. This claims to be an art movement. At first I thought this was an elaborate hoax, but it isn't, as at least one genuine artist does seem to call one of his works a "pixelism" [45]. Other artists may produce work in this style [46], but do not call it pixelism that i can tell. The article gives 3 references, which actually do seem to exist [47] but again do not mention the term "pixelism" as far as I can tell. Then, I can't find anything else confirming this is a genuine art movement... [48] [49]. So until there are sources confirming the claims of this article, I think needs to be deleted for failing
WP:NOR. --W.marsh 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

delete if it's not
WP:N, what kind of art movement fails to generate verifiable coverage in secondary sources? A non-notable one. Pete.Hurd 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

weak keep if some better source can be found, or if it can be explained specifically how the references given support the article. DGG (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- per DGGJJJ999 08:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An attempt to create an art movement using Wikipedia to establish notability, therefore delete per
WP:V. Freshacconci | Talk 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 13:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already an article on Pixel art, a term coined in 1982. The article has one source. So, as a medium, there is some validity here, and if the artists listed in Pixelism Art Movement can pass notability tests, perhaps they should be moved there. But as an actual movement, there is no apparent legitimacy or notability. Freshacconci | Talk 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stuckist-approved paint. The two things seems totally unrelated, other than the same word appears in their title. Pete.Hurd 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

How is this related to Stuckism? I can't find that reference in the article. Freshacconci | Talk 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was more of a flippant comment than anything, alluding to the stuckists "Artists who don't paint aren't artists", and the mere fact that the "Pixelism Art Movement" is paint based, whereas the
stuckist-approved paint" could be replaced with "honest-to-snot paint", or "actual wet and smelly paint" etc. Pete.Hurd 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, that makes sense. Freshacconci | Talk 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Freshacconci, who said it best. It isn't really a movement, and shouldn't be treated as one. The article rather nonsensically states that pixel-based art "arrived spontaneously worldwide". It actually goes back to Dali and has roots even earlier than that. The Pixel art article is a far better treatment of this topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Modernist 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be a 'movement', nor yet passing the notability test. The exception per notability would be Chuck Close, but his use of pixelated images does not itself constitute a formal art movement. JNW 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks media coverage
Addhoc 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the article is updated with new references, including acknowledgement of the movement (and witty comments) by Knights of the Realm, Sir Christopher Frayling, Rector of the Royal College of Art, Sir Nicholas Serota of Tate Modern and the Tate Britain. It is also referenced in the Art/Tech Journal InterCommunication and a pop-culture reference in Asimov's Science Fiction. Several international artists added that use the term pixelism. It attracted media attention in the UK around Sept 2001, so it may have escaped the notice of US media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTshabalala (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, has potential. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this has potential?
Burntsauce 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Again, this is all speculative (as per
WP:NEO. Freshacconci | Talk 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This has nothing to do with
Burntsauce 17:02, 15 October 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 (patent nonsense). CitiCat^♫ 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon administrators

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

I don't even know what this would fail! The first half talks about wikipedia administrators, then goes on to discuss the element Carbon. They aren't even remotely linked. A^RendedWinter 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. It's a mashing together of text from the articles
WP:ADMIN and Carbon. Thomjakobsen 02:10, 9 October 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 - Being verifiable, indiscriminate, and notable are not issues for this list, because the content is verifiable, follows a clear theme, and can be sourced. Consensus regarding these issues is clear. However, just because the fact that Arby's and the other restaurants on the list are fast food restaurants and that fact can be sourced and verified does not address the real issues of this particlar list. The issue that needs to be the focus of any future AfD discussion is list vs. category and whether this list meets any of the three main list purposes. There was some discussion on these, but not enough to produce a clear consensus, in part because of the distraction of whether the list was verifiable, indiscriminate, or notable. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fast food restaurants

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

This page is very long and seems to be list of every single fast food restraunt known notable or not. The page is basicly a collection of Internal and External Links mixed in and violates these policys and Guidlines:
^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep It is verifiable and if it lists non-notable fast food restaurants then they should be removed. It does not violate
WP:LINK then remove the links. Tim Q. Wells 01:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete Per
t 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are already some dandy categories for these. SolidPlaid 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is superior to the categories because much of it contains redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhap the folks who care can userfy the list, and create real articles for the redlinks. SolidPlaid 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete o.O That's a very indiscriminate list. Maybe convert it into a category, with inclusion criteria (e.g. there must be a legitimate wiki article on it). i ^said 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another misuse of the word indiscriminate. I don't see how this article fits any of the mentioned policies. How WP:SOAP applies, I can't fathom. WP:LINKS applies to external links, not wikilinks. CitiCat^♫ 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would agree there shouldn't be these external links in the article, and they should probably be removed. CitiCat^♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a misuse of indiscriminate? i ^said 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because fast food restaurants is a commonly used grouping. A list of restaurants that have eight letter names, or that have green signs, would be an indiscriminate list. CitiCat^♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those would be more discriminate lists than "fast food restaurants". Not be semantic, but indiscriminate means lacking in finite distinctions, which, other than "it's a fast food restaurant by someone's standards", this article lacks. i ^said 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then list them this way: if the Wikipedia article can make the judgment on whether it is a fast food restaurant then it should be in the list. Tim Q. Wells 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to use
WP:NOT changed, because it just causes arguments. "Fast food restaurants" (note the plural) returns 1,700,000 ghits, it's a very commonly used category, including tons of articles in periodicals, and directories. And of course we have Category:Fast-food restaurants which would have to be deleted as well. As to a definition, I think it would be generally defined as an establishment where the food is pre-prepared [50] and counter served. CitiCat^♫ 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
So then indiscriminate, by your reasoning, means only a list of items that have nothing in common? Yes, these things, as well as others, have things in common. That does not made it discriminate. If you use "commonly grouped category" that means pretty much anything that has a collective name. For instance, we could say "made in China". According to your definition, that is not indiscriminate, as there is a collective term that they fall under(2.64m ghits). And finally, that definition is flawed, since not every "fast food" restaurant has pre-made food; in addition, wouldn't the capability of special orders disqualify a restaurant under the definition? i ^said 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a plethora of categories much more adequate for this: Fast-food chains of the United States | Fast-food chains of Canada | Fast-food franchises | Fast-food burger restaurants | Multinational food companies |, etc, etc. --Victor falk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not more suited because they cannot contain redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then a user or project page with red links is suitable--Victor falk 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is better covered by a category. Certainly not indiscriminate, but there's a whole lot of information that the cats handle better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just wrong. It is better covered by the list because categories cannont contain redlinks, as I said above. Tim Q. Wells 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Tim, Hwo in the world would I know the notability of the Red Linked restraunts?
^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 03:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Search to find evidence of existence and notability. If nothing turns up, it's not notable (or a hoax) and should be removed. If you get various sources, then create the article. Hmm, sounds familiar... Ideally, all lists should contain sources and inline citations to evidence each entry's merit of inclusion, however this is not usually the case (as with thousands of other noteworthy articles). - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize by country, and remove redlinked chains. Not indiscriminate, but perhaps this would be better suited as a category. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and categorize in Category:Fast-food restaurants by nationality. This is one of those cases where a category is better than a list, precisely because it prevents dozens of non notable fast food restaurants from being added, as has happened here. I checked several of the redlinked restaurants and the only Ghits they had were this article, so this list isn't being maintained (those non notable restaurants were added months ago), and will continue to be a list that any passing editor adds their local buger bar to. Crazysuit 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but then divide and improve. Indiscriminate can mean several things, and a list of literally all fast food restaurants would be indiscriminate. This isn't--its mainly notable ones that have WP entries (the usual criterion for notability on a list). a list of selected fffr's selected by a rational criterion like notabiity is the opposite of indiscriminate. That said, it's not a good article and should be divided and reconstructed. List of defunct fast food chains, which is one section, would make a good list article on its own. Possibly some of the others would be better as categories unless some information can be given. For areas where we seem to have no information but the name, perhaps articles should be written first. Surely this can be done for Russia, to give one example where theya re all red links. DGG (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. This is a useful navigational tool for (a) going by blue link to Wikipedia articles about a particular fast-food restaurant chain (b) determining, at a glance, which chains are based where and (c) seeing, by r e d link which chains exist, but about which there is no article. Fast food restaurants are big business the world over, clogging mankind's arteries regardless of nationality. Mandsford 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More proof that
fast food restaurant is reasonably clear and not "indiscriminate". Referenced criteria for inclusion should appear in the articles in chief for each chain. Lists serve valuable navigation purposes and call attention to gaps in coverage that categories cannot, since only articles that exist can be categorized. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable subject, proper for a list. But please put some navigational structure in there! 2 columns and/or an index; we have templates for that. Wikidemo 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better as a category. Colonel Warden 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. Using
WP:ILIKEIT as an argument is not sufficient reason to keep or delete this. Ihcoyc has made the point that lists can contain redlinks, categories cannot, which is very true. Also, it should probably be kept provided that there are some ground rules as to what can be in the list, and what can't. That way it will make it a lot easier to use for the reader. --Solumeiras ^talk 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Don't delete an article or a page because it's not good enough; make it better by editing it and fixing the problems instead. Fast food restaurants is clearly notable enough to warrant a list. This deletion nomination is a bad idea. Rray 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the navigational purpose would be better served by a category and the list is too big to be maintainable. It took over a minute to load in my browser just now. Cruftbane 21:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject, but I agree with what others say, needs better navigation Brooklynl 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has no
sources or content to demonstrate notability. I agree that navigation issues can only be resolved through categorization. --Gavin Collins 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Legitimate list, notable, clear criteria for inclusion. Does not violate any of the policies given in the nomination. --Kudret abi^Talk 08:12, 14 October 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 Farscape. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farscape One

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

A fictional spaceship. Prod tags removed. No sources, no real world notability. To my mind, it is not very interesting even within the show. Previous debates have revealed a hard core of Farscape editors, who argue furiously for the retention of Farscape articles but never actually add citations to back up their claims. SolidPlaid 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not notable. Seriously. - Rjd0060 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. i ^said 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farscape 132.205.44.5 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farscape --Craw-daddy | T | 09:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farscape, which is what I said when I removed the prod. PC78 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Farscape Will ^(talk) 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of deleting first, then redirecting. Of course I would just redirect, if that didn't leave the history for all time. SolidPlaid 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here since, for example, you had no problem redirecting
Warwick Elementary School without it first being deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
When I bring elementary schools to AfD people complain that I should just redirect. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should tell you something. PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If I went and began redirecting precious Farscape articles, people would complain that they were notable, if only I did some real research, or tell me I had redirected them to the wrong place. SolidPlaid 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you have against retaining the edit history? What difference does it make to you? PC78 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article survives if its history survives. I believe that fewer non-notable articles would be created if people feared the articles would vanish forever once deleted. Why do you want the history to survive? The only possible explanation is that you want some trace of it to survive. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history should be retained for future reference, and the posibility remains that a viable article may be created at some point in the future. It wouldn't be causing any harm and shouldn't be deleted without good reason, and I don't see you giving one.
I don't like it doesn't count. PC78 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You want the the article to remain somewhere for the future, which demonstrates my point. The harm is that fans can write an article on anything, no matter how non-notable, and hope that it will exist forever in history limbo even after deletion. I want to extinguish that hope to preclude the future creation of articles on non-notable topics. Do you understand? Wikipedia is not a vehicle to immortality. SolidPlaid 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You almost seem to be ranting, and you still haven't addressed my point. Why does this particular edit history need to be deleted? PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another interpretation is that you don't get what I am saying. I believe that I have made my point. This particular edit history needs to be deleted because it is the one being debated right now. SolidPlaid 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

r to
m 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Farscape. While I wouldn't complain if the article remained, redirection with retained history is a better alternative to the heavy-handed "delete first" approach. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes heavy-handed approaches are appropriate. SolidPlaid 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes, but why would they be in this particular case? I don't see a real benefit... --Kizor 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then Redirect to
OR vacuum. There is some material to merge in an orderly fashion into the parent article though. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the article content has no sources to verify its authenticity or demonstrate
notablability. Removing a prod template and not following through with the redirect has left this issue unresolved. Advice to PC78: be assertive in your edits, be bold, and follow through with your stated intentions. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge, Delete, Redirect - all of them, in that order. I find SolidPlaid's comments point-on. There is something to the view that if a non-notable article is merely redirected it will be resurrected somewhere down the road without the notability concern being addressed. --Jack Merridew 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Per other users' comments on this page. Rray 20:05, 14 October 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 and redirect to
desat 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mildred E. Strang Middle School

Mildred E. Strang Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable, also delete per
WP:OUTCOMES. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: NN school although OUTCOMES should have no bearing on AfD's, as they are just "statistics" (for lack of a better word) of previous AfD discussions. - Rjd0060 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nowhere to redirect it to. SolidPlaid 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OUTCOMES should never be used in discussions, because
by definition, they are not authoritative. But delete anyway because it isn't notable. i ^said 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable. Ridernyc 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiPolicy#Notability --Victor falk 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Nexthoudini 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:N. First, it's a middle school, which don't get kept. Second, it asserts no notability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for not asserting notability. Without an assertion of notability, it might even be speedyable. And I want to concur with i-said above:
WP:CSD#A7). Bfigura ^(talk) 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per our bastardized school and locality guidelines, Yorktown Heights, New York would make a lovely home. Silensor 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect OUTCOMES is merely a useful summary of what usually happens here, convenient for reference. Tho we are not bound by precedent, we certainly should try for some degree of consistency. Just as it says there, middle schools are generally redirected unless there is something special. This does not show anything noteworthy, and is just a directory entry. DGG (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. OUTCOMES does say that middle schools are usually deleted, but that's no reason for this one to be -- this one should be deleted since it fails
WP:V. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OUTCOMES actually says that articles such as these should be merged. Which one are you reading? Silensor 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect per Silensor and per
WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 21:00, 11 October 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. --
desat 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

NewPark Mall

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

Do individual malls that are not otherwise notable meet
WP:N? I wasn't aware that they did. Thoughts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. To answer the question, no. Oldest, yes; biggest, yes; otherwise significant, yes. But yer bog-standard mall, no. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a mall, nothing special. NN. - Rjd0060 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like every other mall. Verifiable? Yes, but I wouldn't call it notable. However, this mall is probably better known then some of the bands we include. The thing is, it's just a mall. I can't really see people looking for this information. There's nothing to say about it (besides what belongs in a directory). Personally, I think we rely on
WP:NOT#INFO, or better yet, common sense. Rocket000 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And what's with all these malls being nominated? Yesterday we had: Sierra Vista Mall, International Marketplace, Boulevard Mall, and Post Oak Mall. I just discovered we have a WikiProject Shopping Centers, so I let 'em know about these. Rocket000 02:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sounds like you have a bone to pick at the village pump ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable mall. i ^said 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, though a certain Wikipedian used to hang out there, but that doesn't make it notable.--Sethacus 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable. Ridernyc 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiPolicy#Notability --Victor falk 03:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources to show the mall is notable: [51], [52],[53],[54], [55], [56], [57],

~~[58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Tim Q. Wells 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

How do a bunch of maps and tourist info sites prove notabilty. I can pick any random thing in any city and find it listed on map sites. It's mall, is the largest, is it the best, is there anything unique about, no it's a mall.Ridernyc 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait, I take back what I said I missed the article that explains that they have Santa Claus there at Christmas time. Ridernyc 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, they are fairly bad links except maybe [63], [64], and [65] but that probably shouldn't establish notability. And, of course, that Santa Claus link was over-the-top. I remember seeing it but not actually posting it. Tim Q. Wells 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, but with articles like this, it's not simply about verifiability, it's about
Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Now this article is not in any specifically stated violation of that, but I believe it's in violation, generally speaking, of the spirit of the policy. This may be arguable, which is fine, but I haven't heard one ~~good~~ reason why we should keep the article. (I listen to logic over policies) Oh, and be nice, Ridernyc :) Rocket000 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I was just adding a bit of sarcasm to point out that the exact same mall exists in every city. In fact where I live in Orlando I have about 15 malls like this. Also the 3 articles still being held up to prove notability still fall short in my eyes. First one is basically a directory listing. Other 2 are press releases about a theater being built. My main point is this, why is this mall any different then the 1000's of other malls in the country. A simple news story about the new Sears will not show that Ridernyc 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. :) I wasn't arguing with you. I voted "delete" too. Rocket000 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:N. It's a mall. Just a normal mall. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. Shopping malls are cultural touchstones; the articles should be developed, not culled. 139.48.81.98 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and if there were
sources establishing this mall as a touchstone, then there might be a claim to notability. But so far, the sources around don't seem to really suggest that. (Unless you're proposing that all malls should be speedy kept -- in that case I would suggest that you'd be going against consensus.) Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, significant nontrivial coverage has been established.
Kappa 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

where? Ridernyc 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above
m 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep- Notability is derived from Economic Impact to the local community. And I do agree with User:Rocket000, it seems as though there is some
WP:Pointy nominations going on with all the Shopping Centres lately. My argument is the same in ALL these cases. A shopping Centre provides a staggering economic impact in initial construction, overall ownership, store ownerships, employment(onsite and offsite), "state" taxes, hydro, the list is long. The impact is long term, during contruction, lifecycle, demise, and historicly. WP:Corp allows for an organizations Economic Impact to be the cause of notability. How do Shopping Centres not qualify under this guideline? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Please see my reply to that argument: [66]--Victor falk 05:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how a Shopping Mall is not an organization. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate mindless wp:policyciting, but since you up wp:corp in sunset mall, let's do it: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies." Emphasis added. --Victor falk 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cites have, and will continue to be, provided as they are found. Please, on either conversation, explain your reasoning for why a Shopping Centre is not an organization, and thus entitled to use that guideline. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mall is an organisation, I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. I suggest we quit this discussion about malls in general, as to spend the time searching for sources establishing the notability of newpark and sunset mall instead. That should be of concern to you as none have been provided that meet standards for inclusion so far--Victor falk 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it telling about NewPark Mall's non-notability that people wanting to keep this mall argue upon wether malls in general are notable, and say nothing specific about this particular one--Victor falk 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a super regional mall. Vegaswikian 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This mall has got escalators, elevators, a food court and a lottery kiosk, but this is not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
Kappa. Rray 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete.. No notability. CitiCat^♫ 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adzke

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

Alleged internet phenomenon. Unreferenced. No links! No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Google search came up with nothing, appears to be
WP:HOAX. Tiptoety 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No references, no evidence that this isn't made up. -- Minute Lake 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm agreeing with Tiptoety, this just sounds hoaxish.
Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Probably a hoax. If it isn't, it is not notable anyways. - Rjd0060 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Aside from having a major case of
WP:BALLS, if this person even exists, s/he's certainly not notable in the slightest - thusly the A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:52, 9 October 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. PeaceNT 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni items

D'ni items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has no real-world significance. Belongs in a game guide, not an encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of precedent for game data in wikipedia,
D'ni article seems too big to fold this back into, as well; otherwise I'd totally think it was merge-worthy.) Deltopia 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. No real encyclopedic context. - Rjd0060 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, game guidy. SolidPlaid 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit on the POV side. Who is to really say what is interesting and/or unusual? Personally, I'd find the texturing and modeling more interesting than the items. A^RendedWinter 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Item" is too general a criterion for inclusion.
~~Myst franchise can sustain a few of these lists. Ichormosquito 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Delete In paragraph format, but otherwise what we'd call an indiscriminate list--everything in a game without discrimination of importance. DGG (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a couple of semi-active Myst Wikis we can add this information to if we decide to delete: [67][68]Ichormosquito 07:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless game guide information. I'm also nominating
SeizureDog 08:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don't think we can throw out stuff just because it holds no real-world significance or doesn't fall under traditional encyclopedic topics -- we'd spend six weeks just deleting video game and anime articles if we adopted that guideline. I think most of the arguments here boil down to
notable sources; it was a major pop culture phenomenon when it came out. This page is extended coverage of the subject and I think it's relevant. Deltopia 14:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And if you just scroll down a little further you'll see
SeizureDog 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

For the record,
I'm a Myst/Uru junkie. Ichormosquito 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Six weeks or longer, the non-notable video game and anime articles will be purged eventually. SolidPlaid 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete 'cos its
non-notable, D'init? --Gavin Collins 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete gamecruft with lashings of POV - "unusual or interesting items". Percy Snoodle 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it is strongly PoV, and outside of Myst, details to this level are not appropriate. If there is a Myst wiki, the individual entries might make sense, with a category to link them, but on Wikipedia, I don't think its appropriate. Turlo Lomon 10:56, 12 October 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. Whether it may become notable in the future is irrelevant to now, and keep/merge arguments seem to emphasize "possible" future notability for the school or one of its teachers (which wouldn't make the whole school meet
desat 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Sierra Vista Middle School

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

Non-notable, delete per
WP:OUTCOMES. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the criteria for including/excluding schools in Wikipedia? It seems like a lot of schools have articles similar to this one. Arthurrh 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High schools and above are usually kept, while middle schools, elementary schools, etc. are usually deleted (
WP:OUTCOMES). ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

That seems strange given the hundreds, perhaps thousands of schools in Category:Middle schools Arthurrh 00:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand total: three articles. The subcategories are all empty. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's incorrect, you need to go to the sub-sub categories, it gets pretty dispersed. You can see it better by using the Special:CategoryTree. For example, Category:Middle schools in the United States leads to Category:Middle schools in California which has over 200 entries. I don't know how if there is some wiki-way to quickly sum up the total of entries in a category and all it's sub-categories, but it would be helpful. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools seems to have no such distinction for preferring High schools but deleting elementary and middle schools. Arthurrh 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN school. Again, as far as OUTCOMES, that should bear on whether or not to AfD an article. OUTCOMES is just basically a results list of previous AfD's. - Rjd0060 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to display my ignorance on this, but I've just recently wandered into the schools area of wikipedia because of searching for vandals. I can't seem to tell what the notability criteria is for schools. What's discussed above certainly doesn't agree with the schools wikiproject. Either a lot of articles are being kept that should be deleted, or the reverse is happening. Arthurrh 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI a sum of all entries underneath the "Middle schools" category is 1670. (see list of Middle schools categories) This is somewhat inflated as I believe it also includes the sub-category names, but it is close. Obviously Middle schools are not an automatic deletion. Arthurrh 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability guideline is applicable to schools; some people just don't feel like listening. This one is not notable. See my comment here about OUTCOMES. i ^said 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If anything, this school should be kept for it's outstanding music program. In the Southern California Honor Orchestra, both the concertmaster positions for String and Full orchestra are held by Sierra Vista students, and the Southern California Honor Orchestra includes these counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. I think that's enough to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSMax8956 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:OUTCOMES. Middle schools are usually deleted, but high schools are kept. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I keep seeing this "Middle schools are usually deleted" but the fact that there are over 1500 of them seems to contradict this. Arthurrh 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's >1500 out of how many? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with a weak delete here - and the weak part is admittedlly because I'm from Orange County myself, so please forgive my bias. =^_^= I'm not entirely sure that inclusion in an orchestra for a school constitutes any sort of notability. Can we find something of articles to exhibit notabilty in the
Orange County Register or something? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I want to concur with what's been said above:
WP:RS backing it up) Bfigura ^(talk) 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:REDIRECT to it later this week. Silensor 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge for now into the article for the district as a section--it will perhaps become notable in the future. OUTCOMES is just a summary of what usually happens here, and what usually happens here is that middle schools get redirected or merged, unless there is something exceptional. There is no class of anything that is automatically always non-notable. a well established middle school with academic or athletic prizes can well be notable. A prize winning orchestra is notability ,an orchestra by itself is not. Try again in a year or two. DGG (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thank you Eusebeus - that is the information I was looking for. Arthurrh 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Per Rjd0060, OUTCOMES is irrelevant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Silensor and per
WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Science teacher Kathy Marvin was selected to go on a parabolic zero-gravity flight, and will be personally featured in a PBS documentary about it. Apparently, SV has also gotten some of the highest test scores in the state, I'll add that once I can find some proof.PSMax8956 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect verifiably notable bits per Silensor. Taking a look there is only one mildly significant item I see, a lawsuit http://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?C=a17a0b6abc2f5f885ce56a5bf3a8322a913cc9c9e34fbe21&D=b9ee0ad19b8ade6ec6df66e0a140917bb9f5dbe29c09fccf

(Bravo ex rel. Ramirez v. Hsu) regarding privilege to search students, but the case isn't cited by any others. – Zedla 06:46, 12 October 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. --
desat 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Pasquerilla Spiritual Center

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pasquerilla Spiritual Center

Pasquerilla Spiritual Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) StateCollege 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability, and it basically describes a new building complex on a university campus - and who contributed to its construction. An aside, I'm concerned about the lack of reason in here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Just because it is there, doesn't mean it is notable. - Rjd0060 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No assertion of notability. Unfortunately, it's not speedyable. So settle for regular old deletion for lack of
notability Bfigura ^(talk) 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete University buildings need to have some architectural or historic or iconic or newsworthy element of notability. A university chapel could possibly have all four, but this does not seem to have any. If sources can be found, for example as prize winning architecture, it would be another matter. If notable events are held there in the future, that might also do it--and then a proper article can be written. DGG (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. A kind of
WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Is the subject of secondary in depth coverage by reliable sources. [69][70], the primary criterion of
WP:ORG. --Oakshade 21:52, 11 October 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 already speedily deleted by
talk | contribs) 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Cherry Blossom (book)

Cherry Blossom (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. Nowhere near meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). Was told it can't be speedied, so it's here Drdisque 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio from the Barnes and Noble product description, no non-violating versions in article history. Thomjakobsen 00:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted per CSD#g12. This should be closed. -Rjd0060 01:36, 9 October 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. PeaceNT 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Mohan

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

Non Notable actress. Has only acted in 2 movies in which she played some small roles. See IMDB for her details. WriterListener 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN. - Rjd0060 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note that the author's contributions have all revolved around the subject, making this either a COI or a vanity bio.--Sethacus 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Tagged per A7. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not speedy) non-notable actress. Carlosguitar 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom today. Maybe recreate when her two post-production movies are blockbusters. --Evb-wiki 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her two roles in post-production movies, according to IMDB, are "Space Rest Area Greeter" and "Flight Attendant". Doesn't meet
WP:Notable and, IMHO, not likely to soon. Accounting4Taste 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
m 23:43, 9 October 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 the appropriate content to List of Nintendo 64 games. Sandstein 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games

Despite Floppydog66's reasons given on
SeizureDog 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

~~Delete~~ We already have a list of N64 games. I do not see the point to have only a list of Japanese games. Carlosguitar 08:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the Japaneses title, seems to be a better option. Carlosguitar 11:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Nintendo 64 games. A subsection listing games only released in Japan would work much better than a separate list. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Games only released in Japan are already listed in the main list.--
SeizureDog 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Find Wild Choppers on it. :) It's not a complete list. Give that game to someone and have them look for it on the List Of. ;) (Floppydog66 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
SeizureDog 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Wild Choppers is a game for the Nintendo 64 look it up online, despite it being re-released under another name for another type of Nintendo it has that name and you just wish to ignore that fact, and the fact that other publishers, published these games besides the U.S. versions. The first publisher should be listed then, and that would be the Japanese version and it doesn't have a reference to where or how the titles where translated. The Category N64 Game has a more complete listing of the games. As I mentioned when I first tried to add them to the List of Nintendo, those names need to be listed also or its not listing all the games and all those people who ask for a merge are asking for the same thing I did when I first brought them to the List of Nintendo 64 games page, you've proven your dislike of those titles and try re-wording it any way you can, but its still incomplete. You describe yourself as a otaku and yet don't seem to even bother learning the different names of Japanese things.

Floppydog66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I am wondering if the best tactic is to merge at first and wait until the list grows to be too long. Then it may be split again. WhisperToMe 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and create seperate section on List of Nintendo 64 games. --AlexOv Shaolin 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate section for what? Japanese titles? Japanese exclusive releases? --
SeizureDog 16:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If there is consensus on the List of Nintendo 64 games to exclude the Japanese (and presumably other language) titles, having a separate list is simply a way to avoid having to comply with consensus. People looking for a particular Japanese title can type it in the search box and be sent directly to the particular game's article page through a redirect. This list seems like unnecessary duplication. -- SiobhanHansa 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I'm in favor of a selective merge. I believe the information on both lists have merit, though because of the large amount of overlapping information, two lists are not really necessary. I also think the final list can be altered to be more comprehensive and accurately display content from both lists. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge, as mostly the only information not present on the List of Nintendo 64 games is the Japanese name. JIP | Talk 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Unnecessary duplication. Mukadderat 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between
List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games can evolve in the same way. "List of Nintendo 64 games" can include all american and european releases and "List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games" all japanese releases. PV250X 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, I think the argument to keep those two separate is about as weak as keeping these two separate. Also, per
WP:WAX, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply
]

Delete delete per nom. no context--NightRider63 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Alternate titles should be presented in the list in the case of games that were released under different titles in different regions. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it could be improved to include the kanji titles, released dates, and one or two other useful "at-a-glance" bits information, then I would suggest keeping the article. If not, it should be merged and redirected. I must have been looking at the wrong article, because it already includes that information. Very Strong Keep or Merge as the list allows for easily finding a game in both English and Japanese, as well as release date and publisher information, making the page much more useful than just a simple list of games. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But couldn't most of that information be integrated into one comprehensive list? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, thought we'd have to make another column to hold the English title (since it may be different than the romanized title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I had in mind. The first column, the most common name or something like that, and the second column, any alternative names. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think the first column should probably be the official title (if any), the second the romanized title (if it was released in Japan) and the third would be the kanji/kana title (if any). That would about cover it, I believe. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - an easy-to-reference list of games that were never released stateside seems encyclopedic to me, but I have no objections to including them as a subsection in the overall list of N64 games just the same. As long as the information is preserved, it's fine with me. MalikCarr 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom's reason for deletion is rather off-target-- what about English-speaking users who want to know about Japanese games? Going to a Japanese wiki, which is not going to be in English, is rather pointless for those users. I will further note that "delete per nom" and "delete, listcruft" entries might as well not be here, as they are essentially just votes, and AfD is not a vote. Jtrainor 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at
Wikipedia:Per. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Couldn't you also find those Japanese games on a one list that shows the North American, European, and Japanese titles, rather than two separate lists with a lot of duplicate content? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep or Merge. If we are able to integrate the article into the List of Nintendo 64 games without the article size going over 100kb, per Wikipedia:Article size, merge. If not, keep. Taric25 15:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "guidelines apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages." Also, because of the ammount of overlapping material, it should probably be ok. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge into List of Nintendo 64 games. Assuming that there are no technological reasons for keeping the lists separate (that is: a Japanese N64 game is effectively technologically identical to an American one), they should be merged into one list, with a separate column for Japanese name. Since many games appear on both lists, I'm guessing that's probably the case. Terraxos 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional column would only serve to clutter the list. This is hightened by the fact that this would likely lead to not one, but two additional columns: one for
SeizureDog 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that too many columns will clutter the tables. Additional columns for the Japanese kana, romaji, and translation are not necessary and is kind of biased towards Japanese titles. Besides, that information can be found by clicking on the wikilink for the article itself. However I think adding a single column for alternate titles (European/Japanese/North American, which ever was released later) won't clutter things up too much and it will help make the current N64 list more comprehensive/organized. If it gets too cluttered, then some info can be condensed. For instance, the "Publisher" and "Regions released" columns could be condensed into one column with the use of " WP:CVG has been leaning away from the use of flags for region releases anyway, so this would fit in with their guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply
]
The publisher/region released merge idea seems somewhat reasonable, except it makes the list less browse-friendly. I like the current set up as it makes browsing for games released only in specific regions quick and easy. Having abbreviations may make it more of a chore, as one would have to scan each individual entry to see the regions. --
SeizureDog 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
True, however merging them is not a necessity. I think adding a single column for alternate titles won't clutter things too much. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:07, 15 October 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. PeaceNT 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft items

SeizureDog 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is no way these are all notable, or even most of them.DurinsBane87 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
SeizureDog 07:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Indiscriminate list. Ichormosquito 08:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Not really an indiscriminate list, sorry; but wowhead.com suggests that there are more than twenty thousand items in World of Warcraft, of varying fame and notoriety. Their notoriety outside the game world and the long, convoluted WoW backstory seems fairly slight. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since Wikipedia is not a
game guide. Useight 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' as per
WP:N. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, all but perhaps one of these (and I use the word perhaps very, very loosely) have absolutely no notability outside of the game-world.
talk | contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per above, wikipedia is not a game guide. Tiptoety 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Listcruft,
m 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Although I'm not sure where the redirects would point to in cases where the item appears in more than one game - I suppose to
Warcraft universe. I don't like leaving terms like these deleted, because someone will inevitably waste their time by creating a page about it. Luatha 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If that ends up being a problem, there's often the salting option. Not to mention, the deletion log is now shown upon editing a redlink, so it at least keeps away the well intentioned editors. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - forgot about that. =) Luatha 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag per nom; gamecruft, et al. David Fuchs^(talk) 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are obviously not a TRUE Warcraft player if you cannot remember any items listed here. Just kidding. Delete per nom. hbdragon88 02:35, 13 October 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. CSD:G4 Recreation of deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. Avi 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natrina

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

Non-notable Zionist organization. Its references are all located on someone's user page. -- Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_9&oldid=1081101639"