Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

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 Speedy Delete. Nonsense. -- Fang Aili talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Lose a Shoe

Lose a Shoe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Deleted WP:PROD tag. Protologism with no recorded sources. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Chrisd87 00:00, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Tacit Software

Tacit Software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

spammy article but noability asserted. Guy ( Help!) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep this is slightly more keepable now. Its new issues are now more along the lines of content disputes. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for your comments. I'd still like to fight to hold onto this entry. In its current form, it is a factual description of a venture-backed company in Silicon Valley. The company has 13 patents issued and 12 pending. From the Wikipedia notability requirements for companies: "The company or corporation (is notable if it) has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Please see the 'notes' section of this entry. Thanks for your consideration. -- Cbyeh 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Even if the company is notable but the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring that out. Its not enough that the company be notable, the Wikipedia article has to establish it. You indicated that the company has 13 patents, but that is not in the article so it cannot be considered in determining whether to delete the article. If you want to improve the article (or at least have the article survive this Article for Deletion), look at other Wikipedia articles on companies and use those as a guide. (see, for example, Microsoft). Basically, Wikipedia articles on corporations usually include a lead section, an Infobox_Company template, a history section, and other sections that may go into particularly notable events listed in the history section. Articles usually contain more than that. Please review creating new articles. To give you a time frame, this Article for Deletion (AfD) may close after five days (e.g., after 00:19, 10 January 2007). -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring out notability. (The article also lacks footnotes.) I reviewed the 'notes' section of this entry and the articles provided in the link do not seem to provide enough history about the company to bring out notability. They more or less relate to marketing events. A bigger problem is that the company itself does not see its history important enough to include on its own web page (see About Tacit). Since the article should be deleted as it presently exists and the company itself does not see its own history as important enough to include on its web page, the appropriate course of action appears to be Delete. Note to user:Cbyeh - If there are significant changes to the article in the next few days, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my reasoning and vote in light of the new information. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Since the article still appears as an advertisement masquerading as an article, the article still is spammy as indicated in the nomination. It's no secret that Tacit Software's information gathering software is funded by the CIA and that Tacit Software gives away its information gathering software free to individuals. There are several third party articles that connect these two facts and conclude that the CIA can spy on individuals all over the world who use Tacit Software's freely issued, patented products. Despite my prodding, this information -- which would make the company noteworthy -- has not been added to the article. With a little help, the article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy and thus I added the advert tag and have changed my vote to Keep. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Much as I do not like spam articles, there is enough hint of notability to keep this article. --- Skapur 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Enough independent sources presented to satisfy WP:N, WP:CORP Criteria 1. Article definitely needs a rewrite for WP:NPOV, but that's a separate issue. Whther this company deserved to have its press releases picked up and printed in major media outlets or not, it did, and hence notability is established. -- Shirahadasha 08:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reprints of press releases are trivial and not independent, so do not fulfill the criteria for multiple non-trivial coverage in relibale sources independent of the subject. Guy ( Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks again for your comments. Articles about a company that are not written by the company itself cannot be considered to be press releases. You may perceive some articles to be favorable to the company, but that is not because the company wrote them. Especially in the case of major news organizations, articles about companies are written from the unbiased, individual perspective of each reporter as formed by interviews with the company, its customers and independent analysts. Not all of these points of view are necessarily favorable to the company. As for WP:NPOV, I hope my latest edits are helpful. -- Cbyeh 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • To Cbyeh - Here is what the article reads so far: The company was founded. The company’s first product was released. Tacit released its second product. Tacit released its third product. Please note that every company has a founding date and just about all of them release some product. The article essentially is saying that there is nothing notable enough about Tacit to include in the Wikipedia article but if you are interested in learning more, here an a lot of external links. The Wikipedia:Notability requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The source material linked in the article does not provide enough source material to write a Wikipedia:Verifiability, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article still violates the policy Wikipedia:Notability (note - WP:CORP is only guideline and AfD is based on policies. You could avoid the issue of whether the external links provide enough source material by actually including the source material in the body of the article.) Also, except for the lead section, each sentence should have a footnote to permit other editors to verify the statements in the article. I posted a footnote in the article as an example (the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, which it is not). The information in the article is not verifiable. The article violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm glad to see you add more to the article, but I haven't changed my opinion and still think the article should be deleted. You haven't made many posts on Wikipedia. What is your interest in creating an article on Tacit Software? -- Jreferee 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • To Jreferee - thanks for your help and for your comments. I have modified the content of the page significantly so that it better states (and supports) the notability requirements (and hopefully the neutrality requirements) the community has cited in this dialog. Let me address your more personal questions. This is indeed my first posting in Wikipedia. Tacit Software is a company that has recently come under much more public scrutiny because of a new product it just launched. My goal for posting in Wikipedia is to provide a fact-based description of the company and its technologies so users can learn more in a neutral environment. If the article violates Wikipedia notability and neutrality rules, I think that's due to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia novice and not that the company itself is not notable. As always, your comments are welcome. I am particularly interested in community feedback on cleanup - what specifically should be worked on? -- Cbyeh 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Cbyeh - The cleaned up article looks even more like an advertisement for the company's products, which makes it even a stronger deletion candidate (see WP:AFDP#Companies). Didn't anything notable happen to the company or was caused by the company between 1997 and 2007? Review this google search for notable items to include in the article. Did the company receive any legitimate awards for notable merit? Did Tacit best other companies to win any awards? A company having products or patents is not notable. Did the ActiveNet or illumio products make a notable difference in the companies that purchased the product? Was there some notable event in the development of these products? Were any of the Tacit patents subject to a notable legal fight? Did Tacit buy any of the patents for a huge amount of money? As for further clean up, you should review the cited external links for facts to include in the article and add the link as a footnote and remove it from the external links. - Jreferee 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Jreferee - thanks again for your comments. Thanks for pushing me to make this article better. I have made additional changes to the article per your thoughts. -- Cbyeh 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia is more of a fact based environment rather than a neutral environment. You might want to include in the article information about the public scrutiny of Tacit Software that you mention above. I'm sure it will eventually be added and, if you don't do it yourself, you might not like the results. Also, I think it's great that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia beyond this one article. If you are interested in developing articles on other CIA backed companies, there is list at CIA investments. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
keep Nice to see real imrovement as a result of the discussion. DGG 04:50, 10 January 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 G11, A7. Naconkantari 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Avangate

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

Not only a partial copyvio, but does not meet the corresponding notability criteria. TRKtv t c e 00:23, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 05:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Vagrant Downfall and David Beeler

Vagrant Downfall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
David Beeler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hoax. Nothing about this band at artist direct, despite claims of great sales on their first album (and apparently on their second album which has been out for less than three days?), and no hits for '"Van's Warped Tour" "Vagrant Downfall"'. Also include their 16-year-old member, whose MySpace page name is the same name as the creator of the two articles. User:Zoe

It's all true I swear. Cmon guys

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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bro (second nomination)

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

Regional slang without any sign of reliable sources for a definition. The other definition of "bro" that I've seen flatly contradicts this one. Original VFD supported deletion, but the article was redirected instead. Content is substantially different, so no speedy-repost. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:57, 5 January 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 to Heaven on Earth I'm also doing the same to Portland Walk Shopping Centre-- Robdurbar 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Dalton Road

Dalton Road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Similar sized towns don't have lists for each of their shopping streets. MrBeast 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe the editor is the owner of the photo, inherited from a relative. From 1912, it's likely public-domain anyway. -- Oakshade 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Perhaps not. This wasn't taken in the US, so the pre-1923 clause is irrelevant. If the copyright statute in the UK (and I don't know what it is) is 50 or 70 years after the death of the author, it's possible it could still be copyright. If the author was 18 when the picture was taken, he or she could easily have died in the 1960s or 1970s. -- Charlene 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
UK law is 70 years after the death of the artist. [1]. Tevildo 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
So if the author died less than 24 years after that was taken, it's still under copyright. -- Charlene 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unless the photographer is "unknown", in which case the copyright expired on January 1st, 1983. I don't pretend to know what the legal definition of "unknown" is in this context - let's just say that there's a more-than-trivial chance that the picture is still in copyright. Tevildo 12:40, 5 January 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 what BS! - crz crztalk 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Josh avni

Josh avni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

This page is nonsense Ccmolik 01:03, 5 January 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 - crz crztalk 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Quick Key

Quick Key (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

an unnotable software Gravity Talk 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  • In response to "an unnotable software"

Because you personally do not use it? That is hardly a reason. This program is widely used, and is the most popular Open Source application in its class. This type of application is designed for people who use multiple languages, and has a target audience that probably doesn't include you. Nathanaeljones 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:03, 5 January 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 transwiki to Commons. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Gallery of illuminated manuscript images (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Gallery of Book of Kells pages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gallery of Froissart's Chronicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not Commons, and some equivalent galleries already exist at: Commons:Category:Illuminated manuscripts, Commons:Book of Kells, Commons:Vienna Dioscurides. -- Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Move/merge to commons. We don't want to lose that resource but yes it belongs on commons. If nobody wants to take it on then just delete, we have to get this out of the mainspace -- froth T C 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
There shouldnt be that many images to move to commons. Most of them already exist there. -- Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin

Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Porny mahjong game released only in Japan. Along with this one I am bundling the game's sequel:

Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neither game seems notable for any reason. -- Masamage 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I didn't mean it as a major reason, just as evidence that no one cared much about it. I may be wrong, but if so, the article sure doesn't inform me of my mistake. -- Masamage 02:14, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Crappling

Crappling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

BMB Finishes

BMB Finishes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

A small company that has only really made one movie, non-notable. Scepia 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

University of Nottingham Students' Union

University of Nottingham Students' Union (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

nn student group — Swpb talk contribs 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb talk contribs 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot ( talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)-- Docg 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep nominator doesn't understand UK universities. This is not a 'student group' but the statutory organisation that includes every student in this very large university. UK university student unions an their politics are inherently notable.-- Docg 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as Doc says, student unions are important institutions within the universities; under the Education Act 1994 they are responsible for the representation of the interests of all students within the University, without prejudice to their affiliation (so in the case of the University of Nottingham we're talking about a statutory organisation providing representation to in excess of 30,000 people). I agree that the article at present is poor and includes a lot of vanity material, and the List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union is excessive, but the student union is a very important part of UK student life. Robotforaday 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Perhaps this is notable within the school, but if Doc Glasgow there can demonstrate why it's notable beyond the walls of the school and/or what otherwise comprises the "softer" parts of the school (i.e., off-campus housing and such), then the article probably has a fighting chance. -- Dennisthe2 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times [3] and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money [4] Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union [5]. Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Please also see WP:NOTABILITY for notability standards. This will give a guide as to what constitutes "notable" around here. -- Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable in by my judgment, informative, and verifiable. And on further reading of the article, seems well done. I can't conceive of a reason to remove information of this caliber. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wait for sources, otherwise Delete. The criteria for notability are not about how well the article is written, or about how large or useful the subject is, but whether it's gotten enough independent coverage that information about it can be verified. This organization is local and so WP:ORG Criterion 2 applies, and multiple independent reliable sources are required. The article in its current state simply doesn't demonstrate that. Folks who are interested in having the article kept would be wise to spend their time trying to dig up sources where the Union is mentioned, or preferably featured, in independent media articles and the like that meet the WP:RS policy. If they can't be produced, Delete. -- Shirahadasha 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Shirahadasha. Notability MUST be established by references to non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mere existence is not good enough for inclusion, this organisation must have done something newsworthy in order to merit an article. Zun aid © Review me! 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all above. Jcuk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because my brain just can't comprehend how a "organisation that includes every student" is somehow fundamentally different from a "student group". At best this would be a merge with the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)-- Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Delete; merge with the article regarding the school. Case-in-point, there are no articles for each and every student government body for each and every college in either the US or the UK (and there shouldn't be!). -- Mhking 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Why not?-- Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb talk contribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far). Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Doc Glasgow. A statutory organisation recognised by the Government, a member body of the National Union of Students and recognised by the university who's students it represents. NUS and the University of Nottingham should represent reliable sources. Like almost every other students union it's mentioned in the various university guides describing facilities and giving reviews. Also referenced by British University Sports Association with regards to sports results. All this most surely represent multiple reliable sources. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random [6].if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus. Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Various British Wikipedians are testifying that University Student Unions in the UK are inherently notable. Will those who are obviously ignorant of UK Educational arrangements please at least consider that we might know what we are talking about. Anyone who insists in talking about a UK University as just a 'school' obviously knows nothing about the subject matter and probably should no more comment than I would on articles on astrophysics.-- Docg 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. -- SunStar Net talk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep changing vote per Doc glasgow's argument. -- SunStar Net talk 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Student Union at the University I attended in the U.S. was composed exactly how Doc describes Student Unions in the UK - every student was automatically a member, it exerted significant policy influence over the institution, the whole shebang. I am still not impressed that such organizations are exempt from the requirements of multiple non-trivial (note the documentation Heligoland and Geni describe is certainly reliable, but is trivial) sources documenting notability. Lyrl Talk C 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based. Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable. I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep student's unions are inherently notable. Geni 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT - For those who are insisting that, as per Geni's note immediately above, "student's unions are inherently notable", please refer to this link, which explains what is considered notable here on Wikipedia. If I am reading this correctly, a student union is actually not inherently notable - it is simply a student union. If a student union is notable at all, notability needs to be demonstrated here as per the standards - and in this case we're not seeing notability being demonstrated. Please also note that, per my replacement of the removed afdanons template, this is not a tally vote, this is a concensus, and this requires a good argument. My !vote as such remains "delete". -- Dennisthe2 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. -- Docg 04:16, 6 January 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. Don't do copy and paste moves like this. If you want to turn James McFadden into a dab page, do it by using the move function. W.marsh 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player)

James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Pointless copy of James McFadden, with a name which doesn't seem to relate to the article. ArtVandelay13 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

speedy no sense edit. Matthew_hk t c 02:35, 5 January 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 A7 by Royalguard11. Tevildo 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fraze Gang

Fraze Gang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Fraser. — Swpb talk contribs 02:05, 5 January 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Greg Fraser

Greg Fraser (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraze Gang. — Swpb talk contribs 02:05, 5 January 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 G1. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Prank

The Prank (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

This contested CSD candidate proves just what its title suggests. Speedy Delete (G1) as nom, and block its creator, SlugsRus ( talk · contribs), for a week. Slg r a n d s o n ( page - messages - contribs) 02:13, 5 January 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 raw vote totals are 4 Delete, 3 Keep, 4 Merge (two of the Keep voters struck out their bolded "vote", for some reason, but they didn't strike out their Keep arguments, so they still count as Keep comments. So clearly there's no consensus to outright delete the article, and no real consensus at all about what to do. I found the Keep arguments to be pretty well-made and cogent, so by strength of argument we get Keep. Herostratus 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Armistice and Dedication Day

Armistice and Dedication Day (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable juvenilia from songwriter Robert B. Sherman. Play written when author was 16, performed at the amateur/high school level, and apparently not since. Nice that it raised money for the war effort during WWII, but the notability of the author as a songwriter does not automatically make every work notable. No sources, reliable or otherwise provided, and the <20 Ghits on title + author's surname primarily refer back to WP or mirrors. Robertissimo 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Do Not Delete. Because he's more famous for writing songs than plays/screenplays, does not make his work in this area unremarkable. See the page Robert B. Sherman to see his work in screenplays. The fact that it was written when the author was 16 is not the point of the article either: What is important is that the play and author were recognized for fiscal contribution to the war effort, raising thousands of dollars. This play along with two radio programs produced and written by the same author appear on page 109 of Walt's Time [1] which was a published, joint autobiography, from 1998. Howard352 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. What we're dealing with, however, is not the worthiness of the project, one among thousands that helped support the war effort. What we need are reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this work. A mention in the author's bio article may well be appropriate; given that it, from what Howard352 says, gets less than a page's mention in the author's own autobiography seems telling. Robertissimo 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply


  • Response to Robertissimo Walt's Time is a joint autobiography of both Sherman Brothers so Armistice and Dedication Day's "less than one page's mention" is understandable. (I don't know how Robertissimo can consider this legitimate criteria for deletion however.) As a side note, I have reason to believe that there is more of a mention in the author's currently unpublished (but recently completed) personal autobiography. I did not site that source here, because, as I'm certain Wikipedia standards would concur, an unpublished source cannot be cited. Nevertheless, Walt's Time was cited, and it is a published source, so that really should be adequete. Regardless, and as I mentioned above, I don't think that "a page mention" is actually considered a Wikipedia dividing line. Further to Robertissmo's argument, I am not aware of the "thousands that helped support the war effort" to whom he is haphazzardly refering. Certainly Robertissmo isn't suggesting that there were thousands of plays written in support of the war effort. Simply put, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publically, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may be of interest to users. Lastly, it was referenced in a recently published and available book (i.e. " Walt's Time"). For the reasons cited, the Armistice and Dedication Day page should not be deleted or merged. Howard352 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The information should not be lost. I agree with Howard's reasoning, recognition by War Department and famous author makes it notable. Should be kept, especially as a unique example of his work. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to Robert B. Sherman. There's about two sentences of unique content in the article -- the rest of it recapitulates Sherman's life story. If it were an article with any depth I might vote differently. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In response to Dhartung, I have been doing on going research on this article and have to get access to some archives which I plan to do over the next few months. There will be more information, when I am able to access it, but like many articles found in Wikipedia, this is a work in progress. It is being developed. I don't believe that I have been irresponsible or premature in creating the separate page either. However, I must make a personal note on this, I find it very discouraging to find articles deleted before they have a chance to be fully developed and will wait to know the immediate status of the article prior to spending any more time doing research for it. I hope this doesn't come across as bitterness, it's not meant as such. I recognize the balance that must be attained between hard line "deletionism" and a more liberal view. I just have better things to do with my time than to do research in good faith, only to see that work fall into the abyss! Howard352 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Recommend author works on article in userspace ( User:Horard352/development) until he can do the above. Right now, Dhartung's right - it's not referenced, and really doesn't say anything besides "he wrote it, here's the plot, here's a short summary of his life story". -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)\ reply
  • Keep, Do Not Move To Userspace Wooty is correct that the article was not referenced, but that has now been corrected. Thank you for pointing out my ommision. Let me restate that this article is a work in progress. But that said, there will probably be other contributors to this page as there are a number of people who are interested in the Sherman Brothers, World War II and Disney related media. There are people who know about this play. Nothing in the article has been "guessed at", but it is sparce, admittedly. But I don't think userspace is appropriate because then it won't have the chance of properly expanding and therefore will be defeating one of the purposes of Wikipedia, to build accurate articles about meaningful data by a community of Wikipedians. (This is not a quote, I did not find this anywhere. But it seems to me to capture, in part, the spirit) I will restate, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publicly, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may prove to be of value to users. Howard352 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with article on the person himself, where this is already covered. Doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article - has it ever been performed again ? WMMartin 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. As WMMartin says, it doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, even if it is verified. However, some of the information could add value to the Robert B. Sherman article. Dekimasu 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Robert B. Sherman. It's notable, but not quite article-notable.-- Wizardman 05:47, 13 January 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, the history is available to users. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Silver Chips Online (2nd Nomination)

Silver Chips Online (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
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, I think it's pretty clear that people aren't going to accept a nomination five days after the previous one. The nominator's edits other than this seem to be POV warring on Oral sex, so I think that can be ignored. - Amarkov blah edits 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

American Nihilist Underground Society (4th Nomination)

American Nihilist Underground Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non notable, nominated previously for deletion but vote was commandeered by sockpuppets and affiliates of site owners. Not notable to an encyclopedia even compared to other recreational internet forums, due to lack of readership and influence. HeavyMetalManiac 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy close. This is Articles for deletion. The nominator noted that the article was a duplicate article, and even noted the merger tag. But xe brought the article to AFD instead of discussing the merger on the indicated talk page or simply doing the merger xyrself. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. It does not require administrator tools. Even editors without accounts have all of the editing tools necessary to perform article mergers. Uncle G 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Japanese suffixes

Japanese suffixes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Obviously quite some work went into this, but unfortunately the article is not much more than a duplication of info already available at Japanese titles. The "Japanese titles" article is also written with much more accordance to wikipedia standards. This article has been marked with a merge tag for some time now, as well. TomorrowTime 03:03, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Crystal of Ultimate Vision

Crystal of Ultimate Vision (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

nn fictional item, pure fancruft, fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NOR merge somewhere if there is any useful info or delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a fan-fiction, or something. Anyway, violates WP:NOT and original research. -- Wafulz 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into one of the X-Men or Marvel Comics articles, after trimming and seriously condensing, if an appropriate one can be found - it's a Marvel Universe plot device, but it's really not important/notable enough to warrant it's own article. Delete if no suitable article exists. -- Mrph 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. A reason these fan pages keep getting deleted is that they appear to be written from someone's personal memory of the topic. There might be something that we are overlooking. For example, look at today's featured article, The Adventures of Tintin. It became a featured article, even though it links to the troubled article Secondary characters and settings in The Adventures of Tintin. Is there some special Wikipedia rule for fan pages? I don't know of any so I believe that delete is appropriate here. It's unfortunate that many of these fan pages have to be deleted. There probably is valid, factual information in the article that would permit the article to survive AfD if an editor did the leg work and provided footnotes. Keeping these troubled fan pages and giving featured article status to articles that link to these troubled fan pages only encourages more problem pages, results in more AfD work, and creates more disappointed editors whose hard work continues to be deleted because it is allow to exists and grow in the first place. -- Jreferee 18:40, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move

TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Unreferenced and unsourced neologism with no claim to notability or widespread use. A "contested" prod. Salad Days 03:19, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fkn0wned

Fkn0wned (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable community of CS hackers, appears to serve no purpose other than advertisement. Cites no references, and barely qualifies as a stub. Google results mainly bring up distributions of a hack they have authored, which does not meet notability guidelines even remotely. Generally fails under WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM -- Haemo 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit

Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

[Check Google hits] Non-notable restaurant, not a single gHit. Fails WP:V. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:43, 5 January 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 G4, A7. Naconkantari 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

HARRY POTTER ONLINE

HARRY POTTER ONLINE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources indicating development. The only "source" is a hypothetical "this would be a cool game" feature on Gamespot.  :: mikm t 03:49, 5 January 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 Procedural close, AfD shelved until sockpuppet issues are resolved. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

PGNx Media (3rd nomination)

PGNx Media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

A multiplatform videogame website. Prior deletions have been overturned at deletion review and the article is now back here for consideration of the claims and sources. This is procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep, but it needs more WP:V. Just H 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I would be happen to verify anything in the article that would require a source. Do you have a particular example? Infomanager 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • In regards to the critical acclaim and well known associates (such as Rotten Tomatoes) of the site. That seemed to put it just over the border of Keep for me, more of that will send it further over the edge. Just H 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on WP:WEB - PGNx Media meets the third possibility in the WP:WEB requirement. As a reminder, it requires that "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" - The content is actually distributed through a number of independent online publications, but for the source of this argument, I will be using Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Comment on WP:RS - The sources mentioned in the article, namely Metacritic, Game Rankings, and Rotten Tomoatoes are notable, reliable, and independent sources. As I mentioned above, PGNx Media does not share any editors, owners, etc with any of those sources. Any notable claims, such as the size of the review archives, business opportunities, etc are sources. The claims in the article are not extraordinary or self-supporting. Infomanager 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on website's content - Its review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews, making it the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications [16]. Keep in mind that while users can add links to Gamerankings, all links have to be approved by a Gamerankings editor. Infomanager 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on article's structure - The article was written to comply with Wikipedia's objective tone and I followed the structure used by other websites (namely Introduction, Coverage, Notability, Staff, Criticisms) Infomanager 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on passing the five-year rule - As mentioned in the article, PGNx Media will began its sixth year of operations in two weeks. As someone who follows videogame websites, this is an important milestone and one that not many are able to claim (especially those that are independent). Also, in looking at the website today, I noticed that they have published over 13,000 articles in the last five years [17]. Infomanager 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - Websites primarily seem to involve WP:WEB and WP:RS. As discussed above, I fully believe that both of those requirements have been aptly met and demonstrated in the article. With 5 years, 13,000 articles, and 1,200 reviews under their belts, I don't see this website going away anytime soon. They have demonstrated to be important in their field. Infomanager 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Infomanager has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that the article is notable and verifiable. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:WEB, WP:RS were demonstrated. I have absolutely no concerns not addressed above. Brendan Alcorn 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met (though it is questionable whether the distribution methods truly demostrate notability). My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) are definitely met. So, weak keep. --- RockMFR 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Stronger than normal keep - Comments on WP:WEB and WP:RS demonstrate that these policies/guidelines have been met. Other comments pushed me towards a strong-ish keep. Paul D. Meehan 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More "this is gonna be renominated time and again till we get the result we want?" Jcuk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep but needs major work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:RS and WP:WEB have been well demonstrated. Brad Guzman 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Infomanager has aptly proved WP:WEB and WP:RS. Some of the notability section should be cleaned up a bit, although I understand why it was written that way for the purposes of a deletion review and AfD. Gisele Hsieh 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep from me as well. I cleaned up the notability section because some of it came across as boasting. Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:RS extremely well. Alan Shatte 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per infomanager. Website meets requirements stipulated in WP:RS and WP:WEB. Article seems to be written in an encyclopedic manner, especially after the recent string of edits. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep passes WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS Joel Jimenez 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - gaming media sites seem under constant attack for whatever reason. Tarinth 10:20, 6 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Morgan Featherstone

Morgan Featherstone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Unsourced biography of a seemingly unnotable person janejellyroll 04:06, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

L. A. Rotheraine

L. A. Rotheraine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 5 January 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 move to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards (I spell checked and googled the name). - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004

Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Unnecessary article, we don't yet even have an article on the awards themselves. Orphaned contested prod. MER-C 04:07, 5 January 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. The nominator is advised to seek opinion of colleagues in the future. This article certainly didn't look like spam or vanity or new cult or hoax. And there are quite a few foreign languages if you don't find much in English, and wikipedian who speak these languages. `' mikka 05:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Russian True Orthodox Church

Russian True Orthodox Church (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Personally, I know nothing about this subject but when I came across the article, it looked a little suspect. I'm unaware of any 3rd party sources for this church but the Google test comes up with only around 80 unique hits. As such, I prodded it, but it was removed with the message "de-prod, this is a denomination, and denominations are almost always kept" (I actually have no idea where this logic comes from since most articles are de-prodded by the author and then deleted at AfD). Anyway, I looked at WP:CHURCH and WP:ORG and both mention the requirement of 3rd party sources which this article lacks. However, I am actually neutral and I'm only here to create a place for discussion about the article's inclusion. Axem Titanium 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • speedy keep. A very notable denomination. -- Irpen 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Well, if we search in Cyrillic we get [18] 17K ghits of the "True Orthodox Church", [19] 11K ghits on the Cathacom Church and many more hits on other decendants (the church had a lot of schisms and now is divided on 6 indepndent churches). Even without the googlecounting, the church is quite important historically as the only church for Orthodoxes in Russia that did not colloborate with the communist authorities (and have very bad relations with the modern Russian authorities). Thousands of their people were executed, murdered or imprisoned Alex Bakharev 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles about real religions are better than articles about fictional cartoon characters, of which WP has many. Wasted Time R 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. The edit summary almost certainly meant that "articles about religious denominations are almost always kept", as opposed to articles about individual churches. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Orca (supercar)

Orca (supercar) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Unsourced and does not assert notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete as probable attack page. Someone might want to get rid of the links to this article. Sandstein 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Faxed Head

Faxed Head (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable, unlistenable joke "band". Their releases are on the band's vanity label and if they've ever toured (or even given actual concerts) I can't find evidence of it, thus fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. Band site doesn't load, the other site gives a bunch of bogus rambling but includes the statement "Gregg used to run Amarillo Records and Faxed Head was another excuse for him to release a bunch of singles and a couple of CDs of he and his friends shitty-fiddling around" which I guess sums it up. Herostratus 04:59, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Bradford Gypsy

The Bradford Gypsy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Boyfriend's vanity? Hoax? The article doesnt make a lot of sense. Unencyclopaedic as it stands. Less than 30 Google hits, of which most are wikipedia mirrors. Not referenced, no articles link to it. MegX 05:02, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

CCS (magazine)

CCS (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Is this mail order catalogue (masquerading as a "magazine") notable? I don't think so. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:05, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

John Russell Herbert

John Russell Herbert (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Also nominating the following related page:

New Spiritual Aestheticism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist. Previously speedied; contested PROD. Relevant Ghits on full name = 0 (after subtracting link to deleted Wiktionary entry), on "John Herbert" +artist = none apparent in top 100 results; on employer the Lagniappe Project + surname = 0; on "MW Balance" + Wroclaw = 0. Two sources are provided. The first ("Baccalaureate Career") allows one to access a self-generated alumnus profile indicating that subject did indeed double-major as an undergraduate at a Maryland College. The second is a link to employer The Lagniappe Project that does not mention the subject. A search of the website for second employer, Maryland Institute College of Art, finds a directory listing for subject as employed in the Alumni Program Development office. [20]. In short, nothing appears to back up statement that the subject is "credited as a major figure in the turn of the twenty-first century movement" synthesizing trends of the previous century. In the absence of veriable information on exhibitions, publications, reviews, etc., fails WP:BIO. Also nominating article on subject's "movement", New Spiritual Aestheticism (oddly, not mentioned in subject's own article), of which I cannot find a trace. Robertissimo 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Voice of All, G1. - Amarkov blah edits 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field

Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Bump from speedy, because hoax is still not a criteria. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 05:20, 5 January 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 Sock infested, but obvious consenus. - Docg 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bestian Order of Aestheteka

Bestian Order of Aestheteka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Delete - non-notable organization, no verifiable sources, most likely self-promotion. Tunnels of Set 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and the 22 unique Google hits (and that's including Wikipedia and mirrors) aren't exactly a good sign either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article lacks any independent references, and I could not find any in Proquest. So a worldwide religious order with claiimed number of adherents in the hundreds has not yet gained sufficient notability for an article. And nothing here to meet WP:CONG. Edison 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete smacks of a hoax, lacks clear verifiability, a movement with several hundred members would have some evidence for its existence. I had a quick look at the linked "Theistic Satanism" and "Left-Hand Path" articles, they're getting into some murky waters but just about pass the test for inclusion, but there's nothing in them to clearly back up this article. PatGallacher 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Aestheteka is a new and growing inluential group. I've seen their ideas independently through a few different websites and I know they have two books out. I've heard that their system is pretty unique and innovative. Either way, I know they are a legitamate group and I don't see a basis for deletion as in learning about them I've spent some time talking to various members from all over the globe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) — Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KeepI am writing to enquire why the Bestian Order of Aestheteka entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheteka%2C_Bestian_Order_of - is up for deletion. We are a legitimate group. The several hundred members that have been 'questioned' would quite like to post their comments concerning whether the page should be Kept or Deleted, but thereisno option for them to do so, unlike the several other Satanic groups which youhave also decided to delete. we are registered in the Slovak Republic as a company entity. our teachings are legitmate and are published in the form of two books - both by Crystal Dreams Publishing in the United States - and by Aestheteka itself elsewhere. As for legitimate links - there were several links to discussion groups, forums and otehr internet entities, due to our globally located membership, yet these have been deleted from the reference page. As for the legitimate existence of the Bestian Order of aestheteka, just do a google on 'Aestheteka' and you will see how substantial both our membership and our coverage is. Please advise - it is hardly non-discriminatory for the refernce to be deletd if its members and adherents cannot comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) — Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Note - the article has been updated. However, a simple google on 'aestheteka' would have answered any queries you might have had.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete unsourced. To answer the author's complaint, the process here is definitely discrimintory - we're trying to discriminate subjects that should have articles from those that shouldn't. This falls into the latter group. WilyD 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! Bestian Order of the Aestheteka is a legitimate group that has maintained contact, worldwide, via the internet. Open discussions on a variety of spiritual concepts is a main function of this group. It is a budding religion focused on the need for self to be recognized more intimately. This is not a religion based on strict code of moral or dogma. These are discovered and worked through by each individual, with the aid and support of the groups members. The importance of this order, is the melding of ancient wisdom (as passed down through the ages) and more modernistic concepts from the likes of Jung and Crowley. It is a religion focused on self, but not exclusive of the world at large. - Kevin W. Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.223.38 ( talk • contribs) — 209.232.223.38 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KeepTo answer Wilyd's comments - perhaps he does not know how to google or how to look up sources himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) - second keep vote by this individual ( Jefferson Anderson 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) reply
Source 1, as stated in the article - Sophia Bestiae, published by Crystal Dreams publishing; source 2 - Grimoire Bestiae, ditto. Both of these texts are the fundament of Aestheteka ideology - a legitimate ideology with several hundred adherents worldwide.
source 3 - the ammendment to theistioc Satanism (the original ammendment was to Satanism but was later split into two topics). This was not done by Aestheteka but by another Satanic Group after the Church of Satan's and Sinagogue of Satan's reading of the Sophia Bestiae (relevance already stated in previosu thread)- sources here:

http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/News.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rev._Michael_S._Margolin/Sinagogue_of_Satan http://www.anathemabooks.com/satan.shtml http://www.eyeofthoth.com/history.html http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2006/08aug/cthulhucult.html http://www.dpjs.co.uk/animal.html (where we are quoted as source material due to the reasons stated in the previous comment)

Aestheteka is recognised by many in the Left Hand Path communities and is known globally as a melting pot of Dark Art and teh dark Arts. To remove the entry would be to discriminate solely on religious terms. Should you wish us to edit the entry to make it more Wikippealing, then please state how. The sources are plentiful; as previously stated on two occasions 'just google aestheteka'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs)
I know how to google - what google does not give (as far as I can see) is reliable, third party sources. It's now also glaringly evident to me the article fails WP:VAIN. WilyD 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Perhaps WilyD would be good enough to explain why he is so obsessed about the removal of a page describing a religious order? Sources have been cited, yet these have been ignored. it is clear that WilyD is being objectionable on something other than purely academic grounds andhis comments such be taken into account in such light. The article may be updated to fit those sources (if they are not removed again by hands unseesn), but it is intolerable for such discriminatory behaviour to be enacted upon given suchlegislation as UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comments Article 18. Wikipedia is supposed to be about information and it is an invaluable research tool. One learns from using it. Perhaps those who had notheard of aestheteka due to theirlack of connection to LHP activities, now have access to its basic tenets (as opposed to its stated Occult Ideology here - http://www.aestheteka.com/aestheteka%20occult%20ideology.htm ). As the Aestheteka Forum is currently ranked c.60,000 out of all internet sites, it is clearthatmore than a handful of people know of Aestheteka and its activities. but again a simple google would have shown that.
Happy to oblige. I really don't like spam, except maybe fried with ketchup. In any event, it doesn't taste good in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no need to advertise your lack of taste either gastronomically or philosophically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC). reply
You asked, so I obliged. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's policy is that spam has no place in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka equates to a post-modern intelligent construct with creativity at warp-drive. Deleting the entry pertaining to this, will, in my opinion, rock the boat on Wikipedia offering pertinent, useful and up-to-date information on getting outside the box that we came in. In deep respect, Su Leybourn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.13.60 ( talk) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC). — 144.138.13.60 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an innovative and active system of LHP initiation. The Order currently has three published texts outlining It's initiation ceremonies, core ideology, and practices. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka Has an international hub on the Internet as well as local groups in Slovakia, Germany, and the US. I, along with the hundreds of other members, were shocked to hear that the entry on our order is being considered for deletion on the supposition that we don't exist. We find this humorous, but disturbing. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is endorsed by the Magickal Paradigms Occult group and myself it's moderator. Thank you. 68.206.197.128 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jay Krodel. — 68.206.197.128 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep While not everyone may find Aesthetheka politically correct, there are many individuals who find it relevant, and having access to this information for both research and networking, on Wikipedia, is necessary. If Wikipedia wants to maintain any credibility as an impartial tool for information, and not an instrument of arbitrary censorship, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Mr. O'Toole has several books published, an E-zine, and a worldwide internet following. This is all easily verified.… Based on those facts alone, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Chaosmom 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Chaosmom — Chaosmom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete - That "coverage" is illusory. Yes, there are over 9000 hits for the word, but if you exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors, aestheteka -wikipedia, there are less than 1000. Most of the "coverage" is generated by an active campaign of Google-bombing Wikipedia and other sites where a "listing" can be posted by anybody. Jefferson Anderson 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
'Listings' generally 'are' posted by somebody... So the fact that we exist now works against us? One factual entry on Wikipedia is hardly google-bombing. Perhaps those calling for deletion should also state their name, age, location, occupation and religious beliefs - otherwise they could be just 'anybody' and as has been claimed in the previous post, an 'anybody' has no worth to their post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Keep- As a member of the Bestian Order of Aestheteka, I can state here and now that this organization is far from insubstantial. We have scripture, we have philosophy and we have creed. While we are a widely ranged group of individuals, Aestheteka is our anchor in that it gives us common grounding for our own pursuits in the occult paths.
To remove such a tiny entry purely due to a few religious bigots who are basing their argument on lack of source material and at the same time ignoring the fact that the leader of our group, Edward O'Toole, is an author whose work (our founding tenets - the Sophia Bestiae and the Grimoire Bestiae) is registered and easily accessible to anyone who either understands ISBN numbers or the internet, or Amazon, etc, and that the Aestheteka symbol is a copyrighted symbol with an extremely indepth meaning (originally copyrighted by the English and US magazine Phenomena - countless sources concerning O'Toole's writings, including Coast-to-Coast may be accessed using online search engines).
Maybe you would be kind enough to explain how the article may be improved rather than deleted? After all - we are real, you just haven't taken the time to establish that fact. LJ, Liverpool, England — Preceding unsigned comment added by LolaJane ( talk • contribs) — LolaJane ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. I have dealt with the Bestian Order of Aestheteka and they are a real group. as Wiki suggests, a head count does not determine the validity of anything. even if there are a dozen members of this organization, it should be recorded and available on Wikipedia. signed 24.177.130.98 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Venger Satanis, Cult of Cthulhu High Priest reply

This entry does not violate any of the following Wikipedia Policy as is claimed by WillyD: 1)WP:RS Reliable Published Sources. The material given here is based on reliable published sources: Sophia Bestiae is published by Crystal Dreams Publishing, ISBN  1-59146-075-1, as is Grimoire Bestiae, 1-59146-666-0) 2)WP:OR Is also used to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source or is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." This is negated by the above explanation and also by the fact that Aestheteka exists as an international occult group with hundreds of members and therefore should be listed for the same reasons that Wikipedia lists Christianity. 3)WP:SPAM Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. This article is not selling or promoting anyone or anything and does not meet the criteria for being spam. This article is designed to provide information on a rapidly growing religious-philosophical movement. 4)WP:V Verifiability, not truth. That The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an fast growing International Occult Order with local groups in three countries, with three texts published by a well-known publishing company and available on Amazon.com and is endorsed by several external organizations (linked to above in this article) is easily verifiable by anyone capable of a web search. 5) WP:VAIN or WP:COI The only Conflict of interest in the move to have this article deleted is on the part of the editor who is obviously prejudiced by the inclusion of the terms Luciferian and Satanist. The comments made by WillyD constitute mere intolerance, but the deleting of this article would constitute an illegal act of religious discrimination and censorship. 6) WP:KITCHEN SINK States that: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. IF Wikipedia wishes to remain true to it's commitment to providing a high quality encyclopedia it is important that it not delete relevant articles relating to important religious movements just because some prejudiced editor has a personal problem with the articles ideology. Wikipedia is incomplete without reference to the one of the occult community's fastest growing sub-cultures; Aestheteka. Unless one of the certain things that Wikipedia is not happens to be - unbiased. 7) It appears that this article has been attacked by an unscrupulous character calling himself WillyD who is determined to convince Wikipedia that this article violates Wikipedia policy, which it does not, due to his personal dislike of the content of this page. Aestheteka is an innovative and rapidly growing international quasi-religious organization. Any Online Encyclopedia not including it would be incomplete. 68.206.197.128 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Jay Krodel. 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Order of Nine Angles

Order of Nine Angles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete, non-notable organization's website is hosted on tripod??? Tunnels of Set 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Tripod?!? Also, at least some of the sources seem to be fake. "094664604X" for example turns up nothing on the ISBNdb. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Reserving judgment pending discussion of the sources cited. This article at least claims to have some sources, but it is difficult to evaluate whether they are reliable, verifiable, and independent. "Thormynd Press" is the main publisher cited and only gets 236 google hits and apparently is primarily a publisher of books on Nazi Satanism. Is Thormynd independent of the subject of the article? Are the other sources cited reliable, verifiable and independent? Edison 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This organization is mentioned in several published books - such as the one by Goodrick-Clark which mention is several pages long - and has been detailed in academic articles such as the Anthropoetics, and in various published magazines such as Searchlight. The Tripod site is a mirror site - not the actual site of the group. The assertion that some sources are "fake" is incorrect - did the writer of that comment bother to check the British Library catalogue, for instance? It does seem that there is or could be some partionship involved by some users associated maybe with ToS who want the article deleted - as the group under discussion s not liked by some adherents of other "satanic" paths or cults. The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed. 65.57.106.27 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — 65.57.106.27 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. Since the group has been mentioned many times in various publications, both books and journals, it is notable, and its works are for sale by publishers such as Ixaxaar. There is also other non-Tripod like sites which contain the majority of ONA material such as www.openinquiry.org and www.sodl.moonfruit.com/onabooks. Anyways, what is wrong with a tripod site? Coolmoon 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a notable organization, which has received attention in a variety of published literature, from books to articles. Some of its own publications are listed in the British Library online cataloge. The sources as given in the current revision of the Wikipedia article are verifiable and broad, and perhaps some more sources could be included - they are "out there". Cloud-dreamer 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Cloud-dreamer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. This organization has been around forever and is generally a very respected group. Of all the groups on Wiki it's kind of ridiculous this is up for deletion. They have a number of published books and a small but dedicated and inluential following. This is a very important group actually who's members are usually somehat secretive but usually quite open when you meet them. Again, most defientily a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs). — Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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. 
— 
Nearly Headless Nick 
13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Order of the Black Venus

The Order of the Black Venus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Delete, article of non-notable organization appears to rely completely on self-published sources. Tunnels of Set 05:55, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Satanic artists

Satanic artists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Delete, article appear to be opinion and original research and may have WP:LIVING issues as well. Tunnels of Set 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as original research. I agree with the BLP issue too; we can't call people Satanic without a pretty good reference - this article has none. - Eron Talk 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most of the article is based on purely original research and lacks sources. TSO1D 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • SPEEDY Delete, unless backed up by sources before tagging ... there are problems with sources, citations, original research and WP:LIVING. A good eaxample of how not to do it (hey maybe we could keep it as a don't-do-this example) Alf photoman 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, you can call me Satanic if you want, and it's no skin off my nose, but there are certainly people who might object, and I suspect that Bosch would be one if he were still around. Yes, his images of hell are fairly iconic, but that doesn't make it appropriate to call him a "Satanic artist". The article is pure OR, and seems to mix up artists-who-happen-to-be-Satanists (or claim to be) with artists-who-depict-Satan (or hell--not sure Bosch ever actually painted Satan himself). There might possibly be an article to be written on the topic, but this certainly isn't it! (And Satanic Art would probably be a better topic to start with in any case.) What's there is unsalvageable in my opinion. Xtifr tälk 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fiscalism

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

I've never heard the term used in this way, nor have I seen the theory described here being advocated by anyone. A Google search for "contained fiscalism" produces only this article and mirrors. JQ 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep The article is a little confusing and unsourced, but fiscalism is the structuring of public policy on private capital to maximize public revenue collection. The term Supply-side economics was originally called "supply-side fiscalism." Static Universe 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fiscalism isn't the same as supply-side economics, which is a specific type of fiscalism. Usually is it contrasted with Monetarism, so Fiscalism is to Fiscal policy what Monetarism is to Monetary policy. Static Universe 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
That explicitly fails WP:NEO. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 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 (withdrawn, page moved). Patstuart talk| edits 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

English Tourist Board

English Tourist Board (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Not possible to verify the existence of such a body. The article appears to be a front for a commercial website. Mais oui! 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Apparently the organisation was renamed in 1999 to "English Tourism Council", which has itself been defunct since 2003. As it hasn't been around for 8 years it does not Google! Support a page move, as proposed below. Withdraw nomination. Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Mais oui! 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strong Keep. Major UK quango - difficult to imagine anything more notable in the UK tourist industry. Possible bad-faith nom? Tevildo 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment What may seem obvious to you or someone else is not obvious to people from other backgrounds. I would not suggest bad faith here. GassyGuy 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • A glance at Mais oui!'s userpage might possibly suggest that they are not entirely unfamiliar with the UK tourism industry. But this is not the place for such accusations - it's merely an issue that should be borne in mind for this AfD. Tevildo 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Err... hold on just a minute with the "bad faith" accusations!!! There most certainly does exist an organisation called VisitBritain, but I can find no evidence whatsoever of the existence of an "English Tourist Board" (sic). Just try to find a verifiable external source please. -- Mais oui! 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My sincerest apologies. I think this may just be a confusion over official and colloquial nomenclature. The site http://www.enjoyengland.com , linked to from the article, is also linked as the official site for England on the VisitBritain index page ( [21]). It's also the first site that comes up on a Google search for "English Tourist Board", and was the historical name of the organization until 1999 (See this BBC article). I would support a Move to EnjoyEngland, with a redirect from this page, if it's just the name that's the issue. Tevildo 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Apology accepted. This whole area is very confusing due to devolution and mergers of bodies. The VisitBritain article says that it was a merger of the BTA and something called the "English Tourism Council", but that BBC article clarifies that. In view of the links you provide I would be happy with a page move, leaving this as a redirect. I really did not think that the enjoyengland website looked like anything other than a commercial enterprise, certainly not very "official" looking, but there you go... -- Mais oui! 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I would merge/redirect to VisitBritain as that is the successor organization. EnjoyEngland is the "domestic marketing arm" of VisitBritain, a not overwhelmingly extensive article in which a note of this could be accomodated. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • We'd probably need to merge VisitScotland and Visit Wales as well, if we did that. VisitBritain is the sucessor to the old BTA, responsible for all of Britain (not Northern Ireland - that's still controlled by the NITB) - EnjoyEngland is the arm of it specifically responsible for England. And this really should be on the article talk page, as it's now (at best) a merge proposal. Tevildo 11:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you have a source for NI being excluded from VisitBritain? Tourism is a devolved matter, and VisitScotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive; snap with Visit Wales and the WAG. -- Mais oui! 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's mainly a matter of negative evidence. :) Unlike the English, Scottish, and Welsh sites, the Northern Ireland site ( http://www.nitb.com/ ) does _not_ contain any reference to VisitBritain, and the VisitBritian page giving details of its management ( [22]), contains the statement "As chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Tom McGrath attends VisitBritain Board meetings as an observer", strongly implying (but not, I agree, stating explicitly) that the NITB isn't in any way a subsidiary of VB. Tevildo 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

See Talk:VisitBritain for further discussion. Tevildo 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Deltabeignet (CSD A7 (non-notable group)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bull Moose Party II

Bull Moose Party II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non notable fringe "political party" that claims to have been founded a couple weeks ago. Absolutely no reliable sources that would allow this to meet verifiability rules. Speedy and prod tags removed by an anon that is likely also the creator. Resolute 06:47, 5 January 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 Adenosine monophosphate. Kesh 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ergadenylic acid

Ergadenylic acid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

This article seems to be pseudoscience. "Ergadenylic acid" is an obscure term for adenosine monophosphate (AMP) [23], and cannot even be found at PubMed [24].

The entire text is meant to support the notion that AMP is a vitamin by disguising it as "ergadenylic acid". Not only is there a lack of citations to back this claim up, but AMP can be endogenously generated by a number of different mechanisms, as discussed in the article on adenosine monophosphate. This contradicts the notion that it is a vitamin.

For these reasons, I recommend deleting redirecting Ergadenylic acid. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 11:19, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Petri Suvanto

Petri Suvanto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Fourteen year old kid who drives kart. Finnish youth champion. Participated at few international junior events, best result was winning a Scandinavian race. Not really "highest level" achievements. Let's delete this page. Time will tell whether there is reason to recreate it. Julius Sahara 08:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Let's wait until he actually wins some international racing events (and not junior one's). Jayden54 13:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per MER-C & Jayden54. He's no Michael Schumacher, yet. Budgiekiller 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Looks to me as if he has won more than Scandinavian race, he is Finnish Junior Champion and if you follow the link against International Open Masters you can see that the races will be televised this year on RAI and Eurosport, and that the Championship is the virtual equivalent of the World Championship's. Following some research I also note that other sporting individuals who have achieved less than this guy have their Wikipedia entries allowed without question. I don't see how something interesting, factual and that is televised internationally should be removed at this stage. If he is the 'reigning' Finnish Junior Champion then there is probably interest in his career from important sources. If he doesnt deliver for a year then I agree it should be removed at that time but why be harsh on a young guy trying to achieve something and so far doing a good job? Mikedonlough 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper, notability can be open to interpretation, but this guy does seem to have some significant achievements, there are probably several articles on other people with equivalent achievements in other areas of human activity. PatGallacher 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Your argument is flawed and is often used by article creators to justify notability of their article. There has to be sensible ways to determine importance (or lack of it) of each subject. When it comes to sports biographies, it is clear that the sportsperson in question has to compete at senior level. This racing driver has still years to reach it. He attends the KF3 class (for under-15's), which is, frankly, a children's class! More creditable karting classes, like KF1 (aka Formula A) and ICA ( Intercontinental A) are also effectively junior classes since most drivers move to bigger vehicles (like Formula Ford or Formula BMW) immediately when they are allowed to do so. Furthermore, nothing implies this driver has outstanding achievements. In Europe alone, there are likely tenfolds of equally talented drivers of his age group. What if all of them would post autobiographies at Wikipedia? If Petri Suvanto matures into a famous driver, he will certainly have a page at Wikipedia. But this is not a crystal ball, he might fail as well. Julius Sahara 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Julius, with the greatest respect my specialist subject's are motor cycling and motor sport and particularly the junior levels which are often underrated by many people as being insignificant - having followed Junior levels of two and four wheels for over 30 years I have seen many stars (Including Schumacher, Raikkonen) rise from Junior categories which are extremely competitive and fought out at international level. Many of the 'children' you refer too are paid as professional's before reaching the higher level's. If I were the original poster Julius then I don't think I would have been as polite to you as I have, particularly when you use a put you down comment by saying that all this driver has done is won a few Scandinavian races when quite clearly he has and is in the continual process of achieving so much more than that. I am not here to argue the rights or wrongs for Wikipedia or this article because I am new and have never seen Petri Suvanto race but sometimes a fresh perspective can be worth a look at, if I am wrong then it will have been served as a lesson but at the same time I am very grateful to Wikipedia for allowing me the opportunity to cast my view and own opinion (after all that is one of the beauties of this site and on-line encyclopaedia). I would argue that the age of an athlete is not relevant to the level of professionalism or competitiveness or credibility of what he or she does with their profession OR to which Championship they compete in. In fact if they are children, then in a way they deserve more credit and encouragement for at least trying to achieve something at a young age. To finalise my message I would like to note the following reasons why in my opinion it seems appropriate for this particular article to remain:

1)Karting is most certainly not a Junior racing category, it has several drivers still racing (such as David Fore and Marco Ardigo) who raced against the likes of Schumacher, Trulli and Fisichella and they took the decision to remain in karting as professionally paid sportsmen which serves as a far better career than many hundreds of drivers in series Julius mentions such as Formula BMW and Formula Ford

2)I see that Petri Suvanto will race in Maranello team in 2007 and that his team-mate will be none other than 5 time Karting World Champion Davide Fore

3) He is Finnish Junior Champion; Finland is acknowledged as a nation which produces many stars. A couple of drivers who competed in this Championship and did NOT win it include Kimi Raikkonen and Heikki Kovalainen

4) Petri Suvanto's 2007 races will be shown on RAI Live Italian television with Live broadcasts simultaneously shown on Eurosport

5) Petri Suvanto is one of the favourites to win the KF3 title in 2007. Even if he wins just one of the races which is shown live on TV then there is a very good chance at least one Wikipedia user would like to refer to see if he can find out more on him

6) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and one of the beauties of this is that the inclusion of this page is that it is not taking up unavailable space or preventing someone elses page appearing

7) For 2007 Suvanto's 'no longer' Italian Championship was awarded International status by the FIA (governing body to the Formula One World Championship) who have given permission for the series to be called the INTERNATIONAL Open Championship due to its mass international credibility throughout the world of motor sport. It was called the Italian Championship when Raikkonen, Schumacher, Montoya, Fisichella and Trulli competed in it but due to the overall success, interest and commercial viability of karting, the series has moved up a gear

8) Karting is recognised as one of the most exciting categories of motor sport that can be watched hence the high ratings and continued live coverage by RAI and the Eurosport TV channel

9) Despite being three years younger than the reigning Formula A European Champion (Michael Christensen), Petri Suvanto beat this driver as a twelve year old

10) Suvanto is a driver who has achieved great things as a youngster and is already moving on to the international platform that karting is recognised as. Why not be proud of representing a great achiever at such a tender age.

11) Anyone who understands motor sport knows that the Championship's hosted by the International Open Masters in 2007 are the equivalent of the World Championship's. There are many other Wikipedia entries that hold other Junior champions and achievers from all walks of life and sports in general. - Mikedonlough 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Dear Wikipedia, as the original poster of this article I am not sure whether I am allowed a say in this area or not, but if I may reply then I would like too purely with facts and without biase: There are several reasons as to why I thought the inclusion of Petri Suvanto in Wikipedia was appropriate but without going into huge detail as someone has done above, I'd like to also mention in addition that this driver is coached by the same driver coach for Raikkonen, McLaren and RedBull. He is also legally represented by Macfarlanes who are the law firm to Sir Jackie Stewart and Red Bull F1 team and he is managed by Allstar International who have represented Nelson Piquet Junior and Antonio Pizzonia amongst others. He is also competing in an International series which is aired live on Eurosport, the leading Pan-European Sports channel reaching over 100 million households, 240 million viewers in 54 different countries plus RAI, the Italian channel. In 2007 he is also team mates with Davide Fore the five time karting World Champion. I will slightly update the entry to demonstrate these facts. In terms of article notability I hope I have satisfied this request by putting in over 20 links - if this is still not appropriate then please let me know and I will act accordingly to your request.
  • User account created today. Petri Suvanto may be fairly promising driver, but Wikipedia is not a prediction league. Let alone a place to comment his tyre selections. Julius Sahara 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Another Red Card to Julius Sahara - not only with another put you down (without good reason) comment but by now criticising a new Wikipedian who has already offered more than one useful opinion in sports categories. At least the new users I have seen in this thread seem to be dealing with the facts instead of trying to paint the black tarnished picture that Sahara is intent on doing without any validity whatsoever. Please don't let this go unnoticed Wikipedia. For me, the facts of this driver speak for themselves. Mikedonlough 18:54, 11 January 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 A7 by Lectonar. Tevildo 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

John deyto

John deyto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 08:26, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Communologue

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

This appears to be mostly original research, or at best an essay about a new idea (of which there are many at any given time). This really fails to be any sort of encyclopaedia article, and appears to be a neologism. Google doesn't find much on this term or concept to indicate it's very widely used. NMChico24 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate what you guys are doing to maintain standards for Wikipedia and to also give us so much thought. Thanks. As I am out of the country for three weeks, I will pass this on to the team. -- Alturtle 03:29, 6 January 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 admitted and obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Careless Whisper Break

Careless Whisper Break (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Blatant hoax, based on this forum thread in which the article creator encourages people to add more misinformation into the article. (They also created a fake Discogs entry to back this article up: [26]) I have tagged it for vandalism but it appears that someone disagrees that a deliberate hoax constitutes vandalism, thus bringing here for consensus to delete. Deleting admin please consider protecting the page as the thread also mentions they will try to re-create the page. Flyingtoaster1337 09:10, 5 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Formulism

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

Seems non-notable, website is dead. No ghits. Seems like something we made up in school one day. Megapixie 09:33, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Timothy FANTiM Frazier

Timothy FANTiM Frazier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable photographer; only external references are either his own websites or trivial directory entries. Also probably a WP:COI given the username of the author. Demiurge 09:39, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Frozen scars

Frozen scars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Frozen scars time.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Time (Frozen Scars album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Generic band vanity, albums appear to be self-produced. Guy ( Help!) 11:19, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ridgewood High School (Florida)

Ridgewood High School (Florida) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

The article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability and is biased as of this revision. I can't find the district's page, but if it is created then the article can be merged with that. Also, see the edit history and talk page to see the problems with the article since its creation. It seems like the images might not be free too. EvaGears 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - nothing notable about this school as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability per WP:SCHOOL, especially regarding multiple sports championships. This is a thorough article that more than adequately covers the school and its activities. This is yet another pathetic case of an article that should have been tagged for sources, tone or image issues. There are dozens of tags that could have -- and should have -- been applied. There is no reason that an AfD needed to be initiated to address these issues. A few minutes at the keyboard was more than enough to address POV concerns and add several sources. Alansohn 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • WP:SCHOOL is not even a guideline, but a proposed and much-contested proposed guideline which, despite the bad faith of certain people who push for its adoption, has been rejected repeatedly. Speedy keep is an invalid and bad faith !vote, and I request you withdraw it. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • He might be sentimental because he created the original article -- EvaGears 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Let's start taking apart the statements made above from the beginning, with the creation of this article. I did it. I admit it. I created this article. I created it after someone had edited the original article "Ridgewood High School", which was about a school in New Jersey, and overlaid the text with the description of a school somewhere in Florida. After some back and forth, I restored the New Jersey school article, took the Florida text and pasted it in to create the Ridgewood High School (Florida) article. You can take a gander at this link for some of the details. A disambiguation page was created shortly thereafter at Ridgewood High School. My only connection in creating the article was to resolve a nascent edit war by creating a new article. I don't attend the school. I'm not an alumnus. I don't know where New Port Richey is, nor do have any idea of where the original Port Richey is located. I do know school articles. And I also know that if the AfD nominator states that "[t]he article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability", then indicating why it does indeed meet the notability criteria specified by WP:SCHOOL would be an appropriate refutation of the claim that it should be deleted. As the WP:SCHOOL argument fails, and the concerns about "bias" and images can be or already have been easily addressed, my argument for a Speedy Keep seem rather well justified. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Some fairly good results in sports do not grant notability to the institution.-- Hús ö nd 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — It satisfies my personal criteria for High School notability. I couldn't find the bias mentioned above. The article seems sufficiently neutral. The images are irrelevant to the AfD since they can be removed. — RJH ( talk) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOL per Alansohn, which is at any rate only proposed. Bias also appears to be gone. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article is much better than the vast majority of those on similar topics. TSO1D 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It fails my personal criteria for high school notability (i.e., the school needs to do more than exist). GassyGuy 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — The school is a very important piece of a community numbering nearly 200,000 people. I see no reason why this article can't exist in its current form. — Dchauncey
  • You are a student of the school which can lead to bias. Please give a reason on how the school is notable other then that it serves a large community. If that is the reason why there should be an article, then many schools can have their own articles, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. I can see how you feel because I went to the school for two years myself and lived in Pasco, but the school is nothing special. I also believe you written the history of the school but please keep it in the school's website. Thank you. -- EvaGears 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So, now we see the bias of the nominator in creating this AfD. WP:NOT is the poor man's excuse for deleting an article, resorted to by those who can't appeal to a relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline. A reading of the clearly worded WP:NOT#DIR states that the definition of "Wikipedia is not a directory" as "1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." No, "2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Not Close, or "3) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." Not a Prayer. I understand that you have a bias, after all familiarity breeds contempt, but please recognize that the article is a complete and thorough description of the school, and that the article makes explicit claims of notability in compliance with WP:SCHOOL, contrary to your assertion in the AfD nomination. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 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 Martin Smith (songwriter), Merge the rest. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Timothy Jupp

Timothy Jupp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Martin Smith (songwriter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stuart Garrard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stewart Smith (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timothy Jupp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Five articles on members of the Christian band Delirious?. The band gets external coverage so is notable, but I can find no evidence that the individual members have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and the only source for the bio data seems to be the band's own website. Guy ( Help!) 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. WP:MUSIC doesn't appear to say that being a member of a notable band is enough on its own to confer notability. Since their articles have (at most) some extra trivia about these people, I'd say delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - not notable enough for their own articles (per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC). Jayden54 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Delirious? Catchpole 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep One of these articles was already nominated for deletion, and it survived then. Why delete it now when it's only developed more? — D. Wo. 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my understanding of Wiki:Music and the fact one of the articles already survived AFD Jcuk 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, I guess that they marginally meet WP:MUSIC, which as written does not leave space to interpretation ... on the other hand, do we need an article about every "famous" band member ? Alf photoman 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep: I've worked on most of these articles... independent, reliable sources include Martin Smith [29] [30] (I'm sure that there are others somewhere; I've definitely seen more from other reliable sources). Meh; if members of a notable band (I would say possibly the most influential Christian band of the 90s, given that they and Matt Redman kick-started the modern worship movement) aren't necessarily notable themselves, go ahead and delete; I cast Keep for Martin at least, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatheMezzaMorphis163 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC). reply
    • Edit & Comment: Oops; I forgot to sign the above. Anyway, I would actually say that it's much harder for British Christian bands to meet the criteria. In America, there's a massive CCM industry willing to report on bands, etc.; in Britain, there's literally no CCM subculture... and a lot of music magazines, channels, etc. refuse to consider Christian bands (and hence especially their by-definition less-notable members) as being worthy of attention. Oh, well... I still would say Keep for Martin and Weak Keep for the rest. -- 3M163// Complete Geek 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Include any verifiable and pertinent info in the band article and redirect the pages there. GassyGuy 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delerious is one of the most important bands in contemporary Christian circles, especially in the UK. and has influenced worship in 1000s of churches. Martin Smith and Stu Garrard in particular have written songs that are used regularly in worship and are Christian hymnwriters in their own right. It might be best to keep their articles seperate and combine the others into Delerious' article. There are other sources of information about them. MMcCaghrey 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delirious and the song writing partnership of Smith/Garrand have been a major worldwide influence on christian worship music over the last decade, penning some of the most sung songs in churches throughout the world - these are modern hymmns - do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.93.196 ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Keep Martin Smith, merge others into Delirious?. I happen to be quite a fan of Delirious, but I don't think any of the band members, save Martin (who's written a lot of very popular songs) is notable in and of themselves. - Patstuart talk| edits 21:36, 10 January 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. — Cryptic 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Glasnost (band)

Glasnost (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:V - Nv8200p talk 12:52, 5 January 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. MER-C 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Omendil

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

Mis-spelt article, correct entry is Ornendil Thu 13:17, 5 January 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. No sourced information to merge. — Centrx→ talk • 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Berwick High School

Berwick High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

not notable Monotonehell 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

keep and expand - their are numerous high schools that are listed. this one does have some notability CarmenBryan 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • This was the high school of Jimmy Spencer, and I remember hearing that Berwick won several statewide football championships. However, unless someone locates sufficient sources, this is just a directory listing. Unless sourced and claims of notability added, merge and redirect to Berwick, Pennsylvania (or to its public school district if there's a valid article for it). The competing schools notability guidelines agree on handling unsourced stubs. Barno 18:52, 8 January 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. Reasons given for keeping are poor (i.e. "he's on Google" and "the article is new"). — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Davey Andrews

Davey Andrews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪ Lakes ( Talk) 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Afd etiquette before making any further comments? Secondly, OWW is a fansite and not reliable. Example [31] states "Khosrow Vaziri started out as an amature wrestler and even won a medel at the 1968 Olympic Games, representing Iran". Ignoring that your "reliable source" can't even spell medal or amateur, it is incorrect. Khosrow Vaziri states "Although he was billed as having been a 1968 Olympic medalist, this is untrue", which is confirmed by the relevant results from the 1968 Olympics. OWW is nothing more than a fansite, and should not be considering a reliable source. One Night In Hackney 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Maybe we should remove OWW as a source from all wrestling bios, as if you look at any of them, they are there.
    • Then why not remove IGN and GameSpot from all video game articles just because they have made errors? I'm not arguing for or againat OWW, jut pointing out they aren't the only ones to have errors. TJ Spyke 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. OWW is a glorified fan site for wrestling fans. I doubt every wrestler listed on the site is notable. The fact OWW links are listed in many wrestling articles means very little: seeing as how there isn't alot of other major wrestling sites out there (besides the official ones for WWE, TNA, etc, along with news sites and fan sites such as OWW). RobJ1981 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work but i think he has worked with major independent promotions and has worked internationally and thats enough to make him notable -- Paulley
Comment Reliable source for the international work please. One Night In Hackney 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
My mistake, it's Davey Richards who is schedualed to compete in the KOE cup. --- Paulley
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 - in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, articles are not deleted articles simply because they are philosophically displeasing - otherwise, Christians would disallow Gnosticism, Jews Messianic Judaism, etc. If they are notable and sourced, the article ought to remain. Patstuart talk| edits 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Takwin

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

non-existent,no sources or whatsoever,a muslim will never ever say "takwin refers to the artificial creation of life in the laboratory",this is clearly false information. Alnokta 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem is that, there is a conflict; you cannot be a muslim and at the same time believe that you can create life in a laboratory. Jabir was an experimental chemist, also alchemy in Islam differs from alchemy at large. so there is no point of keeping the article, because if we remove the line about Jabir and the other irrelevant paragraph; there will be no article hence I'm adding it for deletion.
Comment - I think you do wrong assumptions. The article talk about research of about 1300 year ago. Islamic theology was not very developed, as also communications. Do you think that in a century the traditions and local believes can be erased? And in all the people? I think "Islamic" it should be interpreted more in an historical way, about environment, not in a very strict way. Cate | Talk 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nah, there is no such thing called takwin or not takwin, also that is not a proof of verifiability, I don't care if it from pennsylvania or else..there is a possibility of being a fake research or something.. the article is a false assumption and no need to keep it..btw, that don't happen in Islam and even if it happens, it will not happen in the golden era.. you don't just say need that or that..you don't know Islam and you keep in talking convincing other fellows of false information...I don't like to appear as bashing every keep statement but it is necessary to explain.. again, the article's subject is non-existent and needs to be deleted!.-- Alnokta 05:12, 8 January 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. Joe 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The High Society

The High Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
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. — Cryptic 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Spammy article riddled with weblinks but subject may be notable. CReated by a WP:SPA and edited since exclusively by a single IP (probably the same person). Won a prize from a redlinked press, that sort of thing. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 5 January 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 Robdurbar 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Sean Cody

Sean Cody (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable amateur pornography company, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 14:34, 5 January 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. Agent 86 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Cowley Club

Cowley Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notyable music venue in Brighton. Spamtastic. Guy ( Help!) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article doesn't mention being a music venue at all, because that's a tiny part of what goes on there, the main activities being those actually detailed in the article. It's an important venue for anarchist and other left wing and community groups in the area. Regarding notability, please see the article's talk page for links to other sources concerning the centre. The article is linked to by UK Social Centre Network and Social Centre Wikipedia articles, and I don't really understand why those articles are fine but an article about the Cowley Club isn't. -- Bobbob94 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article asserts notability in many fields. Eludium-q36 09:58, 6 January 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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H

List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

None notable, poorly sourced and could easily be classed as cruft Computerjoe 's talk 14:23, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Life of Eddie

The Life of Eddie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Crystal Ball - crz crztalk 15:02, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Shrammed

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

Dictionary definition, pure and simple. Emeraude 15:39, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Coppi's (2nd nomination)

Coppi's (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

I was surprised to see that a previous AFD was judged to have no consensus on this article. I've eaten in this restaurant (decent food, if anyone's interested) and can think of nothing that makes it more notable than a dozen other restaurants within a block radius. Banyan Tree 15:41, 5 January 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 g1, obvious hoax (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Tyler Ford

Tyler Ford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Most likely a hoax. Prod contested and notability is claimed but there seem to be no credible source to back this up. I highly doubt that anyone would buy his way out of prison after a triple murder (in a foreign country to boot). Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

International trade of India

International trade of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

This is a very brief and confused page which could easily be cleaned up, but the subject is covered comprehensively and clearly in the India and Economy of India articles so I see no point in keeping this. Emeraude 16:11, 5 January 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. Reliable sources are a necessity. Proto:: ► 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Lost Colony (game)

Lost Colony (game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

An online game. Nothingon Google News, nothing on Factiva, "Version 0.71 is due to be out on Friday, January 4." No sources outside the game's own website ( WP:OR?). Guy ( Help!) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The game is classified as "in development". The Game's website is a primary source, why should it be up for deletion? 24.136.249.147 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The game is listed on Gameshout.com http://www.gameshout.com/news/pc_games_gameshout_announces_lost_colony_video_game/article8617.htm however, as Red Planet LLC seems to belong to gameshout...... I would argue that the controvesy surrounding the game is enough to merit a Wiki entry not to mention the staffs tactics in dealing with anyone who criticises it. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 0534GMT 6/1/07.
  • Keep: OMaHTLD is correct in the site he provided, however I do disagree with his reasoning for wanting the article not deleted. The article HAS had the problem of edit wars by people who seem to have a vindetta against the game on multiple sites, and the user StateofShock, who is a developer of the game. While Im not sure it is nessaraly approperiate for a developer to be editing out things in place of info that essentially plugs the game, on the same token it has also been a problem for the article being vandalised and constantly putting up things of speculative nature as fact. Though peoples opinions and speculation have been put in a community reaction section, which is where I think it is approperiate imho. But I digress, the game is still under development and the game's site is a primary source. The link OMaHTLD provided, albiet a sister company, is a seperate source that the game exists, again Under Development. Simply because the company has not had a great amount of advertising or is not prevelent in the news, it should have merit for an entry in wikipedia because of thoes sources, or at least as much right as other games being developed that have articles. Thanks. TheSittingDuck 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes you are quite correct in that some people have made some fairly vitriolic comments about the game/devs, and some unsubstantiated comments, mainly relating to the licensing of the Torque Engine, something of which they would have no way of knowing either way.
There is also speculation over the actual existence of the full game the devs have claimed is completed after a years development, of which they are unwilling to release any screenshots etc before asking for cash. This has led to speculation that they intend to begin production on the money gained by pre orders and delay the game due to ‘bugs’ as the only in game screenshots are from their testbed version of the game which has drawn criticism as being a simply modified version of the Torque demo included with the engine.
Just as the Wikipedia entry should contain information about the gameplay, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in adding, it should also contain information on the controversy surrounding the games inception, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in removing. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1210GMT 7/1/07.
  • Comment: Should we delete every article for every game that isn't out yet? Following Lost Colony there are many people who want to see it fail, including a rival company. A base for deletion needs more then the fact that the game isn't out yet and that people don't like it (or want it to succeed). The only merit in deletion that there is, is that this is a hot topic. But on the same coin, why let an article die because its controversial? Zanduar 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What rival company would that be? Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1244GMT 8/1/07.
  • Comment: I am here as OMaHTLD's advocate and will not be making a keep or delete recommendation of my own, although I may present some arguments in OMaHTLD's favor. I've tried to reformat everyone's comments to make clear who thinks the article should be kept, and to make clear who has been saying what. If I've gotten anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As a representative for the game itself, Lost Colony, I am all for deletion of this Wiki article. There's no way we can fairly provide information about the game while both Vashner and OMaHTLD are running this speculative crusade. All they have done at Wikipedia, according to their logs, is to pick on this game and to stir up more controversy. Yes, there was a thread posted on GarageGames which was CLOSED because of the speculative nature. Lost Colony is VERY much involved with the community, you can see that from our website. We also have involved community members in the game using some of the faction logos they created. We have done a lot of development for this game, using Torque's Shader Engine early adopter, which the "early adopter" doesn't even provide a running game engine. Thus, we had to make several development changes to make it work for Lost Colony. By default, TSE (TGEA) early adopter is not a runable game engine.We have argued these truths, but both Vashner and OMaHTLD keep coming back with "you're running the Torque Demo". This comes from the same 2 people who originally thought we were using "Torque", which we are not. We are using a different engine made by Torque known as "Shader Engine", or TGEA. All of this fuss is a waste of time, and the only reason Vashner and OMaHTLD want this article to remain, is so they can further confuse the public about our video game. Enough already. I say get it off Wiki if this is the way it's going to be. We've had enough of this nonsense. Stateofshock 22:05, 9 January 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 you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bootstrapped-Brain

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

Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 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. GRBerry 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Internet cesspool

Internet cesspool (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ollie Silva

Ollie Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non-notable semi-pro driver, POV obituaryesque entry Drdisque 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable driver. Budgiekiller 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. Needs sources but Silva received primary coverage in a STOCK CAR RACING magazine feature article from the 1970s for certain, and also in other reliable sources. I don't have the SCR issue and the mag's past content isn't online, so we need someone to find it and cite it. Silva also was headlined for winning local and regional special races in many newspapers and racing trade papers. Article needs NPOV cleanup and fleshing out, but topic can certainly be the basis for an encyclopedic article. I will try to round up sources. Barno 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I rewrote the article essentially from scratch. He should be kept just on the basis of him being inducted in the New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame if nothing else. I'm sure that Barno will come up with more resources. I will continue enhancing and citing the article. Royalbroil  T :  C 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep the new version. I'm glad the article went through this process to bring it up to wikistandards. - Drdisque 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Me too. He deserved much better. Sounds like we have a withdrawl of the nomination! Royalbroil  T :  C 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I was hoping to setup a WikiProject for notable U.S. or North American racers like Silva who fall through cracks of the other racing WikiProjects. Barno has expressed interest. Anyone else interested should contact me. Royalbroil  T :  C 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The guy is notable enough to have multiple articles written about him in both specialist and non-specialist press. Alexj2002 10:28, 6 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

12 parsecks to freedom

12 parsecks to freedom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Not notable. Group just started in 2005. Poorly written page. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 03:07, 5 January 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. Raw totals, disregarding one likely puppet, are 4-2 Delete. Keep arguments are not strong: one indicates that having a single book published by a non-vanity press is sufficient for an article on the author (rather than the book), which seems dubious to me. The other points to a review in the online edition of the Guardian, but it is after all of the "briefly noted" variety, two paragraphs. And that is the only thread on which to hang the article - one brief notice. These arguments do not to me seem sufficiently convincing. Herostratus 04:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

David Llewellyn (author)

David Llewellyn (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Non notable author, page used to promote non-notable book... also the page is a clear vanity addition.

The article was created by Tidal Wave ( talk · contribs), who also recently edited the Donny Tourette article (punk rock frontman and current Big Brother contestant.) adding his non-notable opinion, with " David Llewellyn, in his Myspace blog, described Tourette's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as "another trustafarian wanker" [35]

The address of the mentioned MySpace profile? MySpace.com/tidalwave1978, thus proving the article is a vanity addition by Llewellyn himself in an attempt to sell a book. - Deathrocker 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Author is very recent and does not much if any notability. Original edit to his first book listed it published in 2003 and with the current edit 2006. Publishing a book, especially your first one should be an unforgetable date (from article's history of edits) Ronbo76 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Well done in finding that review! I searched for the other one referenced in the book article, but couldn't locate it online. If an actual citation for that review could be dredged up, I could support keeping a merged article as having multiple nontrivial sources. Short of that, WP is not a crystal ball, so we don't know if the article would meet the guidelines in the future. If you are confident, you could always preserve the contents in user space, pending further career developments.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:15, 10 January 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 I really hope this is not recreated. Proto:: ► 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

List of celebrity cocaine addicts

List of celebrity cocaine addicts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

If Brad Patrick were to see this he'd have a fit. Most of the sources are far from reliable, the list seems to ignore the difference between consumption and addiction, and someone will eventually sneak in a name that will make his/her lawyer's day. A liability. yandman 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll list it once this one is zapped (linking to this !vote to make things go faster). yandman 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Just no.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuron ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of known cocaine users and keep. Nothing here makes out a case for deletion, although "celebrity" and "addict" probably should be rephrased to something more neutral. Quite a number of people, from Marion Barry to Sigmund Freud, are known for having used cocaine, and there is no good reason not to have a list of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with less POV name change. All are sourced and with a random walk through the sources, they look reliable. Perhaps "Known cocaine users" may be a better name. And remind people that an entry must have a Wikipedia article already. People sipping in names should not be an excuse for deletion, people already do that for every other acceptable "vice" category. This is less subjective than the "alcoholic" list, everyone has a drink, but not everyone uses cocaine and then mentions it in an interview, is arrested for possession, or dies from an overdose. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too much potential for abuse. (No pun intended) Also "celebrity" seems like a debatable concept.-- T. Anthony 23:31, 8 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

List of minor Babylon 5 characters

List of minor Babylon 5 characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Subset of the fabled List of non-notable people. A list of non-notables is not made notable by including a lot of them. Article is entirely unreferenced (for months), and I can find no non-trivial secondary source mentions in reliable sources regarding any of these characters. Seraphimblade 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment "I saw the episode and observed that..." is the same as "I did an experiment and observed that..."- original research. Of course, if a secondary source has written up the character, that'd be a source. Seraphimblade 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Um...if that was true, we could never cite TV shows. Or books. I think what Manticore is saying is that the episodes themselves are references. -- Masamage 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Would agree, TV shows shouldn't be cited. Of course, for plot summaries and the like, there's usually the tv.com's and such of the world which offer plot summaries-that would be a secondary source, but in that case, you're not posting your interpretation, you're posting theirs. That's the definition of source research vs. original research-basically, with proper sourcing, someone who has never seen the show should be able to verify everything in the article. Seraphimblade 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
But isn't that like...I mean, if I'm talking about the character of Hamlet, shouldn't I make references to William Shakespeare? Commentators are great, but they don't completely preclude ever using the original as a source, do they? -- Masamage 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh of course not! However, primary sources should be used in conjunction with secondary sources, not in place of them. I don't think anyone would be hard-up to find reliable third-party analyses of Hamlet. There'd be nothing wrong with citing the part of Hamlet the critic cites in addition to citing the criticism-just not instead of the criticism. However, per WP:NOR, we still shouldn't be offering our own interpretations of Hamlet, only reporting on others' evaluations. Seraphimblade 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Right. So it seems like "TV shows shouldn't be cited" is a little stronger a statement than what you meant--oftentimes the best commentary on any work of fiction will be in the work itself, like when a character talks about himself. I think the real issue is that TV shows need to be cited very exactly, which is to say, without any extra commentary, unless that commentary is coming from somewhere else. -- Masamage 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Right. I think direct quotes from the characters would be perfect candidates for direct sourcing. However, interpretations (such as plot summaries) should be secondarily sourced. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hmm, no, I think I'm quite comfortable with relating simple facts from television shows and other fictional media as quite acceptable. Why? Because anybody else can also observe the thing. It is not an experiment, it is not a theory. It is reporting directly from the media. It is really no different from saying "And Author So-and-So says this about that" . Basically, I don't need some third-party book to tell me Hamlet is about a Danish prince who returned home from England to find his father dead, and his uncle married to his mother. Analysis beyond that, yes, that would need further sources, but to say that we can't report what occurs in a television show (or other fictional work) unless we can find some other source that says it? Far too strict an interpretation of NOR. Sure, if there's some dispute or disagreement as to what happened on a show, or to some specific detail behind it, that'd mean checking other sources, but even then, given that the episodes were named here, I would say a link to a book on B5 or a website would be quite feasible if you desired to do it. Might even be references in the Wikipedia articles on those episodes already. Anyway, the real point is, I don't see that objection as possessing much merit. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I still disagree, but I'd suggest moving this to user talk-I don't think an individual AfD would be the place for such a discussion. I'm also not sure how it's "too strict" an interpretation of WP:NOR-the policy is no original research, not "Only a little bit of original research." Anyone can get hold of a lemon and make a battery out of it, but to say "I did this and it works" is OR, regardless of "anyone can do it"-and even regardless of the fact that it's dead-on correct. On the other hand, reporting on a reliable source stating that this can be done is sourced and verifiable to anyone. Also remember that Wikipedia is worldwide-while probably most anyone can get hold of Hamlet, some of our readers in various parts of the world might find it difficult or impossible to obtain a Babylon 5 episode, at least legally. Using reliable sources would mean that any reader, anywhere in the world, can verify the information. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I would say that Template:Cite_video and Template:Cite_episode covers all your citation needs. The Babylon 5 DVDs constitute published, verifiable, commercially available primary sources. Static Universe 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
"Primary source" is the problem-if some part of a TV series/movie/etc. has not been covered in secondary sources in some form, it isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Seraphimblade 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Regarding notability - I think the main thing we need to establish is that the work of fiction is notable. If the work, as a whole, is truly notable, then by extension, so are its characters. Minor characters, however, don't earn their own articles - that's why, according to WP:FICTION, it's best to combine them in a list. I made this minor chars list to address that exact concern - I don't really care what list these character bios end up on, but they shouldn't be split up.
Now, regarding the use of primary sources, I think this is the most relevant quote from WP:OR:
anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.
If the plot summary says "Bob shot Greg", this is verifiable by anyone who watches the show. We don't need a movie reviewer to say "Bob shot Greg" before we're allowed to say it. The key question here is, when does a plot summary turn into original research? I wrote up a " thought experiment" on this a while ago - it's not really finished, but given that it's relevant here, I'd appreciate any feedback. I'd just like to re-emphasise the disclaimer at the very top of the page that most of it is shite in its current state - it's just a scratchpad. Still, if you've got any comments, feel free to start up a discussion page there and speak your piece. Hell, if you folks just want to discuss this further on a user talk page, I'm happy to host the party there :-p Quack 688 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
If you've already got a proposal going, I'm all for moving it there, no use crapping up the AfD (any further). Seraphimblade 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually, WP:NOR is much more verbose than just "No original research" even the nutshell statement is far longer: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." As these episodes were unquestionably published, the data from them is not a problem. Access to Babylon 5 episodes is not an especially big issue, there are plenty of books used as references I could not easily obtain. And if you really want to do so, there are plenty of books and other material on Babylon 5 you could review and use as a reference. So basically, as a deletion reason, OR is not especially applicable in this case. Feel free to edit some of the content though. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - if this article is not a clear-cut poster child for violations of WP:OR, I don't know what is. Actually, I do, but that's another matter. CyberAnth 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Even if it does have some OR in it, that's got nothing to do with the inherent concept of the page, which is about characters in a television show. Easily verifiable, doesn't have to advocate a position. Not a real problem. So as a poster-child, no, I'm afraid it's not a good one, except for the value of clean-up over deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm also still concerned about notability here-earlier, you suggested "notability by association", if the show is notable so by definition are all its characters, with which I (and WP:FICT) strongly disagree. McDonald's is notable. That doesn't mean each one of its workers is, or even each one of its stores. Notability has a purpose-if no or very little secondary-source material exists on something, it would be impossible to write a thing but a very short article without OR. Seraphimblade 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I think the relevant part of WP:FICT is:
Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." (emphasis in original)
I agree that shouldn't be extended to truly insignificant characters (e.g. the guy who opens the door for someone, then is never seen again). However, all the characters listed here have a significant effect on the the plot of at least one episode or novel. Quack 688 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
There already is a perfectly good List of Babylon 5 characters. You do bring up another point though-who determines what a "minor character" is? If these characters had major plot impact, they may not have been minor. As an example, take Q out of Star Trek-he only appeared in a pretty small minority of episodes. But was he minor? I really don't know you could say he was. By placing anyone on this list, we're editorializing. (On the other hand, placing Q on a "List of Star Trek characters" would not be an editorial, there's no doubt he certainly was that.) But let's not have cruft. Seraphimblade 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Considering there are quite a lot of Lists of minor characters on OP, this probably opens yet another discussion we really shouldn't get into on AFD. There have been several merge votes, however, which seems like a solid approach. I've even changed my vote to reflect my support. -- Masamage 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, on minor vs major, WP:FICT says "the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.", but it's intentionally vague on the matter. However, I take your point about editorializing - I'd be happy to see this merged into the main B5 list. In my mind, the only real reason to have separate lists is size (like the Star Wars lists), and that's not applicable in this case. Quack 688 23:41, 9 January 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. — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)

second nomination - fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. — Swpb talk contribs 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

And I always thought the burden of proof was with the arguement that an article did pass notability. — Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 5 January 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. Robdurbar 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rafi Sharif Bey

Rafi Sharif Bey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

The subject of this hagiography is a non-notable person — WP:BIO failure. ➥the Epopt 17:36, 5 January 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pedophobia

Pedophobia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Dicdef Keith D. Tyler ( AMA) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. I think it goes very slightly beyond the dicdef by including the adultism thing, and it certainly has the potential to expand into a good encyclopedia article. Why not add an expand tag instead of deleting? Plus, it is referenced to an article by an anti-ageism group. If others do choose to delete, I'd suggest considering a redirect to ageism. delldot | talk 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to merge to Ephebiphobia per KeithTyler's comment below: Ephebiphobia already has a short bit about Pedophobia, so the merge should be really easy anyway. Switching back to keep per KPalicz (am I wishy washy, or what?) delldot | talk 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, a well-known example: Jean-Luc Picard's "character flaw" seemed to be some form of Pedophobia, although he overcame it as the series progressed. Yes, that was nerdy, but it had to be said. - Scharb 02:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The key is the source of the name. Some web sites have created lists of many hundreds of phobias. (Spartaphobia is fear of Sparta, etc). What are the sources that say this is a psycological fear? The fact that this word exists on the net and a web article discussing ageism puts the word in a box is not enough for me. Is the word used other than on web lists? With no better sources I think no article and redirect to Ageism is fine. Obina 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic of pedophobia is explored in several academic circles, and there is substantial evidence to support its maintenance as an article. See updates. Freechild 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • By way of critical thinking, I've gotta ask why the articles about child and youth related oppression continually run up against this type of resistance within the Wikipedia community. I look up terms like gynarchy and androcracy and manx cat, and all of them lack citations of any kind - yet their validity is undoubted. However, ephebiphobia, adultism, and student voice, have all been extremely scrutized - and now this. How biased is the Wikipedia community against young people and the realities they face every single day? Unfortunately, with the call to delete this article I am afraid the answer is coming clearer. Freechild 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Per KeithTyler's comment above: The two words mean two different things, sourced in their roots. Academic literature supports the differentiation between them. Is it Wikipedia's place to negate what the academy has proven? Freechild 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: 8 google scholar hits, the word appears in the title of a 1995 book. Opinion of an expert may be better than the voting. Pavel Vozenilek 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While it is similar to ephebiphobia, they talk about two different groups of people (teens vs. children) and some people may fear children but be ok with youth and vice versa. They are distinct enough to warrant individual pages I believe. KPalicz 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The entire article is nonsense. It is original research and special pleading. It's highly questionable whether there ought to be an article on "pedophibia", and if there should it would probably be better to delete this one and start from scratch. We have had the same problem over at Ephebiphobia... the technique used is the same: establish (or try to) the existance of an obscure medical condition and then use that for leverage to write a social advocacy essay. OK, first: as to the medical condition "pedophobia": there's no question that the number of people who are subject to actual phobic reactions (panic, shortness of breath, sweating, etc.) brought on by the idea or presence of children is not zero. The number of people who have phobic reactions brought on by the idea or presence of spiced ham, Bob Hope, slotted spoons, or most anything is usually not zero, either. We don't have articles for each of these; I think we have one article where obscure phobias are given a one-line listing. I think that "pedophobia" rates a line in this list and no more. Second: as to the social phenomena "pedophobia", I'm not at all convinced that fear/scorn/hatred of children is sufficiently well established by verifiable neutral respected authority that the assertion of its notability is not original research. (Unlike Ephebiphobia, which article deserves existence because Ephebiphobia (fear/scorn/hatred of teens) is a real enough phenomena.) Yes, some people think that children are ridiculous or despicable. That does not in any way require this article's existence. Lots of people think that mullets are ridiculous or despicable; lots of people hate cheese; lots of people think frogs are slimy and disgusting; and so forth. We don't have separate articles for these. The article looks on the surface to be scholarly. Closer examination shows that it is not, and ought to be deleted. And I don't say that lightly. Herostratus 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Since when is it the domain of Wikipedia editors to decide the relevance or veritability of established scientific study? Is this discussion really about the legitimacy of this article, or individual editors' opinions about the subject at hand? Are those two things synonomous, or does meeting the encyclopedic premise of Wikipedia supercede personal perspectives? Also, Herostratus, it would be good to see where your "closer examination" shows that the citations are not scholarly - and I don't say that lightly, either. Freechild 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Uh, we judge the relevance and verifiability of sources and material all the time; that's what we do here. The discussion of is about the legitimacy of the article, the point being that, basically, there is no such term as pedophobia. Wikipedia is not the place for articles about terms that you yourself have made up. It is also not your personal soapbox. Get yourself published in sociological journals, establish the term "pedophobia" as an actual term in the literature, and we'd be happy to have the article. Not til then. However, I doubt that anyone will publish your work until you use more rigrorous reasoning. Your essay (and this is what it is, not an encyclopedia article) transparently attempts to conflate medical and sociological terminolgy for advocacy purposes. Scholarly journals don't fall for that. Sorry to be harsh, but there it is. Herostratus 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
You have not directly addressed your concerns about the illegitimacy of the references, nor have you shown that any of the publications or other sources cited here is illegitimate. I don't understand your charges of me "making up" a term when the article references academic journals, publishers, organizations, psychotherapists, social scientists, critical pedagogues, and even a few other advocates who have used the term - dating back into the 1980s, when I was probably the subject of the said non-existant phobia. Can you please explain how this term doesn't make your grade, and what gives you more authority than the articles referenced? Does anyone else support that concern? And for the sake of being pithy, can you compare and contrast why soapbox has an article of its own, but pedophobia should not? Freechild 07:02, 8 January 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. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 and Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

Nothing encyclopaedic about these incredibly long lists, and heaven forbid if every attendance list of every political party convention receives the same treatment. Fails most of the criteria of the first of the Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. It is not a soapbox or means of self-promotion, a directory, convention list, or party database. We also do not need the voting record for every leadership convention. Agent 86 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete as a pointlessly long and unneeded list. Darth griz 98 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete I honestly do not see the purpose of this article. It is basically just excessively detailed electioncruft. Some of the table showing the province by province breakdowns could be merged into Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, but this is really too much. Resolute 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep - First, the content is historically relevant. Second, the Wikipedia list was actually significant in the process of this election; it was by far the most comprehensive account of ex-officio delegates and was cited extensively among commentators and in the mainstream media. I honestly think this page is a Wikipedia success story. - Joshuapaquin 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep - I agree with Joshuapaquin. Also better cited than most articles. -- Falcorian  (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep per Joshuapaquin. - Jord 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I would be interested in seeing the sources for the mainstream media using this information. If sources can be referenced to create the list, they can be referenced to substantiate the claim that the list was actually cited by the media. I agree with Resolute that it looks like electioncruft; remember that usefulness for a particular group of people is not a criterion for inclusion. Leebo 86 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Sure. Here are some mentions of the ex-officio list.
  • Liberal candidates court 'prestige' delegates; Ex-officio voters could influence convention Camps mount campaigns to woo big-name support; [ONT Edition]. Les Whittington. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 18, 2006. pg. F.2. Breaks down ex-officio delegate counts according to Wikipedia.
  • 'Super Weekend' will show who has a chance:; [All But Toronto Edition]. Graeme Hamilton. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Sep 29, 2006. pg. A.5. Mentions ex-officios and uses Wikipedia numbers to indicate how the candidates are doing.
  • Website shows five-way Liberal race:; [Early Edition] Joan Bryden. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Jul 31, 2006. pg. A.6. As you might guess from the headline, this article is entirely about Wikipedia's numbers.
  • Liberal hopefuls watch Wikis. Jane Taber. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jul 29, 2006. pg. F.2. This article isn't about the Wikipedia numbers - it's an MSM article about the Wikipedia articles themselves, specifically the two listed for deletion.
I won't post full texts here because of copyright concerns - but if anyone here has ProQuest (Canada Newsstand Major Dailies) access, it can be verified there. - Joshuapaquin 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Only because we all know a similar American article would never be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I wish we had equivalent articles for earlier Canadian leadership races. Cas510 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is obviously worth maintaining as a record. CJCurrie 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I don't know how the insinuation of what the result would be for a similar American article or "wouldn't it be nice" addresses the inherent problems with these "articles" and their failure to meet the basic core policies. As for maintaining this as a "record", maybe some other wiki-project would be suitable if the intent is to create some sort of primary record, but this is not the place. This is not a web-host for an organization's data. Finally, regarding the media use of these articles, the citation of the articles by the press doesn't make them encyclopedic. If anything, it supports the assertion that the articles were successful for the purposes of self-promotion. Agent 86 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't quite understand what you're saying about self-promotion in your nomination and last comment. Are you accusing the Liberal Party of Canada of being the primary editors of these articles? Cas510 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - articles can be seen as extensions of the main convention article. Eludium-q36 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — I agree that these pages are useful, historically relevant and that they serve what might be a vital and unique purpose within the Canadian political communications process. However, as WP:NOT suggests, Wikipedia is not meant to be a host for websites that would otherwise not exist; in this case, the appropriate home would be a website associated with the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically subpages of http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx. An article relating the salient points of 2006 events within the Liberal Party of Canada, including the Leadership Convention, would be quite appropriate; but the extensive content included in these pages should have a home on the Liberal Party's website; if that is not possible due to technical, human resource, political or financial reasons, that is unfortunate but it would not be a reason for using Wikipedia as a replacement website. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There was an entire article in Canada's most prominent newspaper on this page. - SimonP 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A lot of it is incorrect and it's misleading as many ex-officios changed allegiances as the voting rounds progressed. 1130130 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Joshuapaquin. —  coelacan talk — 02:43, 12 January 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 Bruce Cole, delete duplicate page Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman. — Centrx→ talk • 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman, Bruce Cole

Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Bruce Cole (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a dump of some NEH press release, not remotely resembling an encyclopedic article. As it's from a .gov site, it's not a copyvio, but it's certainly not an article either. Author's only response to {{ cleanup}} and {{ wikify}} tags is to repeatedly remove the tags and format it further away from Wiki standards. I don't know if there's anything salvageable here or not. My recommendation is Delete. Fan-1967 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Its not a simple cut and paste. Its proper content and it should stay.
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly ( talk • contribs)
    • There are some useres who like to make up stories, and user Fan is one. Why make problems User Fan ? Standards are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly ( talk • contribs)
    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 Attila the Hun. — Wknight94 ( talk) 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Scourge of Europe

    Scourge of Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Delete - states right in the article that it's a neologism and that there's no consensus as to when or how the term is used or to whom it can refer. No ghits I can find using the term to refer to the character grouping outside of Wikipedia and the occasional bit of fanfic. Nothing in the article that can't be appropriately housed in one of the many other articles dealing with one or another of the four characters. Otto4711 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Don't Delete - the article provides some information that I can not see being placed on the character's individual page. In addition, the page provides a way for readers to see gathered and summerized information about the four vampires all on the same page. Further more, the title of the page can be changed to something that is not a fan neologism. In conclusion, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and my opinion is to keep the article. -- Meraculas 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Specifically what information do you believe can't be placed in one of the character pages? What alternate name do you suggest for the article? Otto4711 17:16, 6 January 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 multiple independent published reliable sources about the subject could not be found, so notability to WP:WEB standards was not demonstrated. GRBerry 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Sore Thumbs

    Sore Thumbs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT. Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment - So we should keep the article because of who wrote it? AFAIK that's not how we measure notability. Honestly, all the articles you listed seem to serve the same purpose (self promotion). FWIW I've also AfD'd the other articles you mentioned. See WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I believe Johan meant the strip is written by Crosby, not the article. And works of a notable author are often themselves notable primarily for that reason. Powers T 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Existance of external links does not satisfy WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment The Comics Buyers Guide review (reference supplied in External Links) satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB, as do the print collections themselves. 66.35.99.183 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Clear Delete, fails pretty much all our content policies as Wikipedia is not an internet guide and this is original research with no third-party reliable sources, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. This also fails the WP:WEB guideline, not that we could keep an article that meets a notability guideline but fails multiple content policies. The idea that "The Comics Buyers Guide review ... satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB as do the print collections themselves" is incorrect. First, The Buyers Guide article doesn't even mention this webcomic. Second, the single brief mention on that web page of this comic is in a press release, and a single mention in a press release is not independent of the site, or non-trivial, or for that matter multiple non-trivial and independent. Third, the self-published book (with the Amazon sales rank of "none") is not an independent source either. My searches for non-trivial reliable third-party sources at my library have turned up nothing, let alone anything that suggests notability. -- Dragonfiend 07:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - You misunderstood the Comics Buyers Guide review I referred to. What I referred to was this index of Comics Buyers Guide reviews that lists Sore Thumbs Election Special 2004 as a previously reviewed title in said print magazine (the review itself does not appear to be available for viewing on the internet). Secondly, the Sore Thumbs book you link to is not yet published (despite Amazon's incorrect publication date), and to call it "self-published" is (arguably) somewhat of a misnomer, as its publisher (Keenspot) is only partially owned and run by Crosby. Past events indicate that he is in far from full control of what Keenspot publishes, such as his failed attempt to get his brother's comic "Pumpkin" accepted by Keenspot's board of directors, among other comics. 66.35.99.183 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    That would still be far from meeting the WP:WEB guideline, let alone our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 14:34, 12 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    2007 Monday Night Raw results

    2007 Monday Night Raw results (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Pages like this are just cruft, Wikipedia isn't a guide to every Raw episode and it's results. As a note: previous pages like this (for 2006 and other years) have been deleted in the past. RobJ1981 18:32, 5 January 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 Transwiki and delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results

    2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Wikipedia isn't a guide to every ECW show and it's results. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki RobJ1981 18:35, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Carpet Football

    Carpet Football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Per WP:NEO, it seems this article is describing a neologism and it should be deleted -- search reveals no notable hits and the article has no sources provided. // Laughing Man 18:48, 5 January 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. Which I think is unfortunate, but there it is. First of all, a goodly number of editors were kind enough to comment. The raw vote total by my count is 13-7 Delete. That's not counting a "Keep only if expanded and modified" - since there's no guarantee that this will happen, that's probably more a Delete than A Keep, but I didn't count it either way. Two of the Keeps were Weak, as was one of the Deletes. Granting that AfD is not a vote, when 20+ editors comment with 2/3 in one camp, that has to be taken into account.

    A couple of notes: first, the fact this this person was a crank counts against him, for this reason: his work is not and cannot be the basis for any later research. He's a complete dead end. Thus he's never going to gain any more notability than he already has. So that's a point against him. Second, the article as it stands is mostly copyvio and must go. (You can use short passages for illustrative purposes, not glom whole paragraphs to create the body of an article. This doesn't really bear on this AfD either way, though.

    Now on to the arguments. A synopsis of each Keep editor's comments:

    • '"Seems to pass WP:BIO" (but not further elucidated)
    • "probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor" (but it is not clear if he has, although it's not clear that he hasn't)
    • "co-author of a ... noted theory"
    • "Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky." (but de Grazia at least appears to have many other accomplishments, and the notability of the subject of one's work is not really germane)
    • "[Arguments] that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship" (but this does not really address the issue at hand (notability), nor does this editor's later comments)
    • "somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair".
    • "If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful."

    As to the Keep arguments, I'll just note that failure to meed WP:BIO does not require an article to be deleted. And WP:PROF is mostly cited for articles about someone's professor. Here's a guy dead 30 years and someone wanted to write a highly researched article about him. He's around halfway to meeting the 100-year test right there.

    Basically, it seems that this article hangs on Juergen's co-authorship of The Velikovsky Affair. There's no question in my mind that The Velikovsky Affair is notable. Is Juergens's 1/3 authorship of that book sufficient for his inclusion?

    No, not as I see it. The 13-7 supermajority clinches it. (A shame, because I think we ought to have the article, but there you have it.) Herostratus 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ralph Juergens

    Ralph Juergens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This article fails the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular this claimed "researcher" is only published by vanity presses and the author has tried to establish notability with non-notable journals such as Kronos. -- ScienceApologist 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Can you point to why it passes WP:BIO? By the way the electric universe "theory" as you term it is up for deletion too. -- ScienceApologist 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I would say that verifiability is a bigger issue. -- Philosophus T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete without prejudice. The article as it stands consists essentially of a quote by one individual, whom I've never heard of, whose importance is never asserted and is without a Wikipedia article himself. — BillC talk 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- non-notable as per nomination. The article is also verging on a copyright violation; if the article is kept, then that big quote and the related footnotes definitely want to be removed. Mike Peel 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep only if expanded and modified I think this is not terrible, but it has almost no content. It definitely should be labelled as pseudoscience and obscure. Perhaps too obscure to even have its own article. From what I can see here, there is not enough from an article. If it can be reasonably expanded, it is worth keeping, but if not, it has to go.-- Filll 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      As I just reminded someone at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (science), obscurity is never a problem at Wikipedia, but notability may be an issue. -- ScienceApologist 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist. There are no sources that are not from vanity publishers. -- Philosophus T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - While this guy is (most likely) a crackpot, he probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor. Tarinth 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      Hold the phone! This guy has published far less than most college professors and he hasn't "published" in the normal sense of peer review. This is a total misapplication of WP:PROF. -- ScienceApologist 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      Looking through Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests nothing in the 6 criteria or 10 examples there to support a claim of notability here. — BillC talk 20:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I'm willing to reconsider, but it brings up an interesting point: just how much does the average college professor publish? Thus far, the professor test is somewhat subjective since it is defended on the basis of someone's subjective opinion of whether someone publishes more or less. Some concrete information on this would be helpful! Incidentally, WP:BIO does not state that the professor test is based only upon publications made only in peer-reviewed journals, although I can see why one might wish to interpret it that way. Tarinth 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • comment It depends on subject, but one can attain tenure & Associate professor rank in most colleges with 3 or 4 articles, if at least 1 is in a major journal. At Ph.D. -granting research universities the requirement is much higher, depending on the university--but the difference is quality, not quantity. In most fields, top universities do not go by quantity. But the test says merely an academic.

    But read it again--WP:Prof is a guideline, not policy, and the test as it stands makes no reference to number of papers written, no matter of how high their quality. It requires that they be written about, that is, cited. The frequency again depends on field. The average article gets 1 cite, and there is no WP specification for how many more are needed, but I think a tenurable person at a college would have at least a few articles with more than 5 or 10 cites--in most science fields, including this one. Below that is definitely not notable. There's an active discussion on the criteria, and no consensus whatsoever.

    In this case RJ has published no papers whatsoever in the mainstream literature. Therefore he is not a scientist, notable or otherwise, and should not be judged under this test. Zero is certainly not notable, and non peer-reviewed papers are simply not considered RS in this context--especially when ALL of them are not even mainstream non-peer-reviewed. (and no evidence that his work, whatever it may be thought to be, has been written about except in self published souces.)

    He has no graduate degree either, only a BS. A BS by itself does not make someone a scientist.-there is no requirement for conventional graduate education, and a BS and notable published peer-reviewed work would certainly count. But he has zero peer-reviewed work in physics or astonomy journals. He is simply not a scientist. If he is to be notable, it must be on other grounds.

    The electric universe article was judged non-notable, so he must be judged on the basis of the first paragraph alone, whether he is a notable supporter of Velikovsky. He does not seem to be, having written only one non self-published article on the subject. Therefore a
    Strong delete DGG 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Other comments: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html contains an excerpt from SKEPTIC for an article entitled "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" which mentions him quite a bit, and a quick search via google also turns up numerous other skeptic sites (as well as the run of the usual ZOMG ACADEMIC CONSPIRACY sites, but I'll discount those). I think it would be hard to argue against his inclusion purely on the basis of WP:BIO. While I think the goal of educating the public about pseudoscience is admirable, erradicating people from the historical record doesn't seem like a good idea to me--I'd rather simply have an accurate portrayal of their lives, including the fact that they are considered pseudoscientists. Tarinth 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    How is the theory "noted"? -- ScienceApologist 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It was mentioned in several non-trivial publications, in several books and been laughed at by several hundred professors IMO that is noted. Same thing happened to Zeppelin when he tried to sell his dirigible to the French sciences academy Alf photoman 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You have any evidence of this? I will note that the argument that it has "received criticism" is one specifically rejected in WP:SCI. I think your rationale is bordering dangerously on WP:ILIKEIT. -- ScienceApologist 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The standards for WP:BIO are considerably lower, and widespread criticism would probably account for notability. Tarinth 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I see your point, but I don't see how Mr. Jurgens passes WP:BIO either. The relevant criteria is
    The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
    This is much more restictive than just being mentioned in published works. In addition, without the citations it cannot be determined if these works are "independent of the person". -- EMS | Talk 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment in my firm opinion, he's not a scientist, and is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean that he's not notable. We have articles on many notable crackpots. Judging crackpots on the notability criteria for academics is inappropriate. I've heard of this guy and his theories, and he does seem to have a bit of a cult following, which might make him notable. On the other hand, I'm far too lazy and uninterested to research this further, so I'll leave it up to those who care to either salvage or toss this article. Xtifr tälk 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky. Juergens' own theory is verifiable in several journals, and while it may be bogus, he deserves them to be explained reliably -- Iantresman 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: User Science Apologist's contention that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship.-- feline1 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Where did I make that contention exactly? -- ScienceApologist 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    In your proposal for deletion. It looks a bit ridiculous when rephrased in a less weasling fashion, doesn't it? :) -- feline1 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps you should re-read the nomination with an eye toward WP:SCI. The rationale is not "delete this article because the guy doesn't publish in conventional journals". The rationale is that the guy is non-notable, and his only publications are in journals that do not qualify him as notable under WP:SCI. -- ScienceApologist 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    But you don't regard him as a valid scientist in the first place, so obviously by definition he won't meet the criterea of WP:SCI. You might as well demand that articles about Genesis P-Orridge, Pol Pot or Mickey Mouse measure up to WP:SCI-- feline1 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The whole point of notability criteria is that articles are subject to all of them simultaneously not just individual ones. If you think WP:SCI isn't the best standard to use for this article, then perhaps you think one of the other notability criteria that this article fulfills. I'll point out that Juergens also fails the WP:PROF test and other ideas listed at WP:BIO. However, the articles you listed are all notable according the relevant notability guidelines. -- ScienceApologist 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, but you regard Juergens' ideas as pseudoscience, and you do not accept notability for pseudoscience: you don't think pseudoscience should be in an encyclopedia, "period", as they say in America. That's your bottom line, isn't it? Whereas, to me that would be censorship, and I think wikipedia should have have a concise mention of the idea in question, and explain that mainstream science rejects it. Otherwise, if some high school student in Alabama tries to look it up in wikipedia, he won't find it and will have to go somewhere that's potentially a lot less objective for his answer.-- feline1 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Pseudoscience definitely belongs in any good encyclopedia. For example, astrology, modern geocentrism, creation science, perpetual motion machines, time cube, and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations all belong in Wikipedia. What doesn't belong are non-notable subjects. By attempting to change the subject as to whether pseudoscience belongs in Wikipedia or not, you are missing the whold point of this AfD. Whether this subject relates to pseudoscience or not is not the issue. In fact, if you read the last point in WP:SCI about arguments not to use you'll see that pseudoscience is not a rationale to be used for deleting an article. I also would thank you not to make false declarations about my agenda. Disabuse yourself of the notion immediately that I am here to excise pseudoscience from this encyclopedia. -- ScienceApologist 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    But Jeurgens and the Electic Universe idea (which I was quite flabberghasted to see had been deleted from wikipedia) are a part of the ongoing legacy of Immanuel Velikovsky, who is certainly a notable pseudoscientist.-- feline1 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The idea that Velikovsky has an "ongoing legacy" is fairly contentious. He does not receive the media attention he once enjoyed when Sagan was all the rage. Certainly the electric universe and Ralph Jeurgens do not seem to rise to the level of notability in popular culture which is all that is left since (I think) we agree that these subjects defy scientific notability. It may be that Ralph Jeurgens can be mentioned at the Immanuel Velikovsky#"The Velikovsky Affair" section but to insist that he be a biographical subject in his own right or that the Electric Sun/Electric Universe articles be subjects in their own right doesn't seem to have any justification. They just don't seem to be notable enough. -- ScienceApologist 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, scientific articles need to have sources in the conventional literature. As this topic does not have sources in conventional literature, and as it does not have enough sources to be presented as a media phenomenon, it should be deleted. -- Philosophus T 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, yes, Kronos seems to be more crackpot than vanity. When Egyptologists are reviewing supposedly scientific contributions, it's hard to call the journal something else. In any case, a handfull of fringe publications does not notability make. Sdedeo ( tips) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Do you think that when Nature reviews and article for publication, that it asks the chemists on the staff to referee the articles on astronomy, and the astronomers to referee articles on biology? -- Iantresman 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep or make dab page linking to "The Velikovsky Affair". Juergens is not notable as a scientist but he is somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair". He contributed some 20,000 words - see e.g. here. This means the article needs to be pruned quite a bit: nearly all Juergens' nn pseudoscience info has to go. One line should be sufficient. AvB ÷  talk 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or turn into a redirect to The Velikovsky Affair. If his alleged notability stems from his contribution to The Velikovsky Affair, then he should be mentioned there first (he is not), certainly before warranting his own separate article. The "electric sun" crap is non-notable, as was well established in that article's recent AfD (not to mention that it consists of an enormous copyvio quote). HEL 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep with a note ... Can this article, or something like it, be kept, with a note that the Electric sun hypothesis is not accepted as mainstream science? If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful. (Maybe the sections could be merged with other articles, except that the Electric Universe article is now deleted.) Deletion makes me think of a witch-hunt. Do we really have to drown this stuff entirely, so in the future it will seem not to have existed? Can't we just hang a sign around its neck to indicate that mainstream science either ignores it or holds it in low regard? I am not suggesting that those arguing for deletion have bad intentions, because, as far as I know, those who pursued "witches" had perfectly good intentions. Its just that deletion seems over-the-top - it is less informative and more destructive than keeping the article in some form with some notes to guard against a naive reader thinking the theory is more highly regarded than it actually is. Also, perhaps, a note that Kronos does not meet WP's criteria for scientific notability because it is not a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Robin Whittle 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • We nominate these sorts of articles for deletion not because we want to blot them out, but because we can't make them both comply with Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and no original research while also complying with the equally fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Most respectable scientists don't have time to write a critique of pseudotheories like this one, and then publish it in a reputable scientific source. Most reputable scientific sources don't have room for rebuttals of the thousands of individuals who each have their own miraculous theory of everything. On the other hand, most of the individuals in question have copious amounts of time in which to sing the praise of their ideas, and rebuke the unfaithful with yet more praise and misunderstanding. If we were to have acceptable sources for all of these ideas, then we should keep them without hesitation, but as we do not, and are thus unable to craft an article that would not be a disgrace to Wikipedia, we have no choice but to delete them. -- Philosophus T 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You don't have to write a critique of an article to make it conform to NPOV. We don't critique "Jewish beliefs" with "Christian beliefs" to make it NPOV, and we don't critique Stephen Hawkins latest theory on black holes, to make it NPOV. -- Iantresman 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh what a load of waffle, and from a self-professed sock puppet too! From time to time, people will go to wikipedia and type in "Electric universe" or maybe even "Ralph Jeurgens" (most likely led there by summat on Immanuel Velikovsky). If the wiping-pseudoscience-off-the-face-of-the-interweb brigade get there way, wikipedia will just say "No article with that name exists", when it could quite easily have one or two paragraphs summarizing what the theory is and calmly noting how it is rejected by current mainstream science, all in compliance with the various necessary policies. It just makes for a less informative and useful encyclopedia.-- feline1 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • That's just the problem. We do not believe that we can have an article like that in compliance with policies, as I have described. If you would like to show that we are incorrect, then I would suggest that you create an article like the one you describe, and put it here. It is quite probable that if it were to be respectable while complying with policy, a significant number of these votes would change. That has happened before in these cases. Furthermore, please note that, as I said, I am a sock puppet only on a technicality, since the definition of the term in policy is very different from the meaning that most people understand and expect. With the policy definition, for example, many administrators are sock puppeteers (all bots are sock puppets). -- Philosophus T 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well, a cynic might note that since the eradicate-pseudoscience-from-wikipedia brigade seem so deeply versed in what does and doesn't constitute compliance with wikipolicies, they should find it relatively easy to lobotomize any article into compliance... conversely, having checked out the behaviour of some of these characters on wikipedia in recent times (I note Science Apologist was before the arbitration committee not so long ago...), I'd be reluctant to spend the time editing something only to have it all just erased by that lot. This is why their conduct can be disruptive: notwithstanding their desire to censor certain types of information, it puts people off contributing, cos they don't want to become involved in edit wars with zealots /sighs/-- feline1 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    User:Feline1's comments are bordering very close on getting too personal and he seems to be accusing me of forming a cabal. I suggest he try to resolve his issues at dispute resolution rather than trying to defame the messengers. -- ScienceApologist 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Auch look, I really have no desire to get into a personal confrontation about this. To be honest though: I feel that you yourself make things personal, because of your self-professed antipathy to what you deem "pseudoscience". When other editors read your comments, despite them being packed full of diligent references to various wikipolicies, it is all too easy to think "here is a guy with an agenda". It tends to undermine your credibility - all those careful wiki policy references begin to come across like carefully-researched excuses for you to be able to get your own way: i.e. eradicating pseudoscience. -- feline1 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You seem to be accusing me now of wikilawyering. And I am not too fond of you ascribing an agenda to me. As I've said before, I have no problem with verifiable articles on notable pseudoscience being included in Wikipedia. However, when articles are written that are unverifiable or not notable, I don't think they belong here. In the future, please assume good faith about those whom you oppose. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    LOL wikilawyering, you know all the tricks don't you! LOL Anyways but I *did* assume good faith, until I started reading your user/talk pages, your edit history and your arbitration history! That's when I got suspicious :-D LOL. Please also see my reply to your comment above^^ Best wishes-- feline1 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me that your laughter is belying a bit of discomfort with being called out for doing shoddy research into my edit history and arbitration history. Vague ideas and suspicions are never a good thing to base community relations on. You could have asked me about what my opinions were instead of arrogantly assuming that you obviously knew. -- ScienceApologist 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It is my opinion that nearly all of these articles are neither verifiable or notable. I don't consider notability to be an important point of Wikipedia policy, and instead think that verifiability and neutral point of view obviate the need for notability restrictions in most cases, including these. For a response to your reply to my last comment, I will agree that we are deeply versed in Wikipedia policy, and know enough to understand that we cannot create articles of this sort that comply with the policy. There have been attempts by some of us to change the policy in the past to allow for proper coverage of topics like these, but they haven't been accepted, in part because they would require changes in the non-negotiable fundamentals of Wikipedia. As for ScienceApologist being before the Arbitration committee recently, that is of little detriment to his character: requests for arbitration against decent editors are often created by pseudoscientist supporters, who often then find that the process backfires. I am currently a party in arbitration as well, for example, by my own choice. Finally, there is no cabal (though there are the Einstein's Witnesses). -- Philosophus T 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    "Actually, I'm back now, since it seems that dispute resolution has changed enough that it is possible to defeat pseudoscientific points of view, thanks especially to the recent work of the Arbitration Committee" - you crack me up, you do! Can't you go and do something more useful with your time, like go down to the Grand Canyon and tell them how old it is? :)-- feline1 11:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete, without prejudice. Not notable as a scientist, and much of the article seems to be a copyright violation. Involvement in the Velikovsky Affair seems to come close to notability. Cardamon 09:52, 13 January 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 and no further comments other than keep. Note: I am NOT an admin. I am closing this discussion as permitted by Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Bwithh 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Hell and High Water

    Hell and High Water (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Reads like an advertisement; no attempt at critical analysis or encyclopedic content. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Comment. Not necessarily a good reason to delete, but to fix. OTOH I don't look forward to another round of Exploded Consensus or whatever it was. Are there notability criteria for books? William M. Connolley 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I added the article on this book, and I certainly welcome contributions by other editors who are more experienced at writing book reviews than me. The book relies on the same science as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (except that Romm's book is almost a year newer than Gore's). It has only been out for a month, and I have only seen one major media review of the book so far (from the Toronto Star). As soon as more reviews come out, we can add those. The book has quotes from California's energy commissioner, among others, but I did not quote these, since they are being used by Morrow to market the book. -- Ssilvers 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    If you can edit the article so that it doesn't seem so promotional it would go a long way toward satisfying my concerns. Starting out by describing the author as a "physics and technology expert" is awfully generic and has echoes of puffery. Additionally, the author's views are seemingly taken at face value. Can you tweak the article towards a more neutral and objective tone? Raymond Arritt 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You misqote the article. The author is described as a " Physicist and energy technology expert". As described in detail at Joseph J. Romm, he's an MIT PhD. physicist, and a well-published energy expert, who served as the head of Energy efficiency and renewable energy at the US Dept of Energy. What details do you think are most appropriate? I've tried to tweak the article for NPOV as you suggest, but the article needs some more editors to contribute. It was only created an hour ago. -- Ssilvers 20:13, 5 January 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. - Docg 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Veronica Afflerbach

    Veronica Afflerbach (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The subject of the article is a young actress who has so far only appeared in one movie where she is a minor named character; this does not sufficiently pass WP:BIO for an actor/actress. Internet searchs provide nothing reliable besides mention of her minor role in School of Rock. The page has also been subject to extraneous and trivial information added by IPs. If reliable, third party sources can be provided that further her notability, this shouldn't be a problem. I have not problem with there being a page if and/or when she takes part in more movies, or at least a larger role in a notable one. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • I think it should stay, for various reasons. Firstly, she has more than a few lines in these films, and I'm sure people would like to search up on her! As well as this, she is likely to be in films more in the future, meaning that her popularity is only going to improve, and then this will already be here, like it should anyway with her being an actress. And she isn't that minor at all really. I can't really explain it too well, so I'm not making it sound as good as it really is, but it should really stay here though, and a lot of people do actually like her also!
    • MAZITO - Friday, 5 January, 2007; 21:53 (GMT)
      • Comment in cases like this the deletion is generally without prejudice, that is, with more notability and sources the article may be recreated at a future date (for example, with a starring role in a major motion picture). -- Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom SUBWAYguy 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete although I love the movie and love the character, she really doesn't meet WP's notability criteria (yet). Possible smerge to School of Rock. Xtifr tälk 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I think it should stay. Wikipedias goal is to have as much knowlege as possible correct? Well by deleting this it would limit the knowlege and show decreases. Plus if you look back on any actors or actresses career a lot of them do one commericial when they are 11 then stay out of Hollywood until they are 22 (finished University) then they work there way up to the top with smaller roles than this. She had around 20 somelines which is pretty big, plus she had to act without roles constinatnly. For example; when she Was listening to Zach's song, or when she was with Franky when he told Miss Mullens "your the man", or how she had to act enthusiastic at the end. She may not have been the star of the scenes but imagine Zach singing to nobody "that would be weird". Ok, directors will also most likely use her as tributes to Schoool of Rock. This can boost her popularity tremendously and thus make her the next Star. And wouldn't want you to have her a site on WP when that happens? "From Middle School Students for preserving Afflerbach" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.247.179 ( talk • contribs)
      • No, Wikipedia's goal is not to have "as much knowledge as possible". That's why we have a policy about verifiability, guidelines about notability and reliable sources, and a whole list of things (policy again) that Wikipedia is not. We don't (for example) want articles about things made up in school one day, even though that is, technically, knowledge. Anyway, the verifiability policy means that we're not "limiting knowledge", because everything in Wikipedia has to be traceable to other sources, which means the information is still available. If you want to create a fan page, there are plenty of free hosting services out there that will allow you to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. As I said, I loved the movie, and thought Ms. Afflerbach did a fine job in it, but until she actually becomes "the next Star", she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. But she can certainly have as many fan pages elsewhere as the traffic will bear. Xtifr tälk 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I say we keep the page and merge it with other the Other School of Rock Groupie to make a "school of Rock groupie page" or you give her or her fan base several days to create a fan hosting page which when created will be given 2 days on wikipedia saying this site has been moved away from wikipedia to a new website. Then after the 2 days delete the site. Again the merge is preferable but creating a free hosted site is quiet easy. And me and my collegues would be willing to help create and run it. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.247.179 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 Jan 2007 (UTC)
          • I rekon this page should be kept. I agree that in the future, and even now, she will get bigger as a star, and therefore it would be better if the article was kept, and a lot of people seem to like her in SOR, where her part is definitely what I wouldn't call small! It's important, and really, quite big, it just ain't one of the main ones, but they're not just the big ones, and more importantly, they're not just the important ones. Veronica is an important one, and an important person. I reckon it should be kept on Wikipedia like it is now. I know she ain't the biggest of stars (yet, at least), but that can, and probably will, change as the time continues; Wikipedia is good for finding things out, and I actually am very surprised it's up for possible deletion. Something like this must surely be here. I say keep, for sure! And although this is just one entry, it's the opinion of many of us, here at the college. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.189.55 ( talk • contribs)
    • Weak Delete - i think it is on the line of NN, but nonethess, NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I propose that wikipedia sets up a moviepedia and has both major and minor stars in it including afflerbach and her friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDeer ( talk • contribs)

    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. - Docg 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ouzounian Productions, Inc

    Ouzounian Productions, Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable production company and vanity page, based on article creator name. Google searches on major terms from article ("Ouzounian Productions, Inc", "Ouzounian Productions" and "Ouzoun Productions") bring back no returns at all. Search on "Sniperz Gone Wild" brings back only 6 unique on 131 total, all inconsequential. Delete TheRealFennShysa 19:16, 5 January 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. GRBerry 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Omar Al Eryan

    Omar Al Eryan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This article is about the son of Tarek Al Eryan. Tarek, being a famous director, is notable but his son is not. The only contributer is User:Omar Alarian. There is another deleted article named Omar Alarian which is a variant of the same Arabic name: عمر العريان. Please see User talk:Omar Alarian#Omar Alarian. Meno25 19:19, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Carla Brown

    Carla Brown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable model, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    You could say the same with most of the pages on here!!!

    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. - Docg 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jan Klerks

    Jan Klerks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    NonNotable architect. Does not have recognation, therefore unarticle worthy. - User:BushCheney2004 19:31 UTC

    COMMENT: But the focus of the article is less upon his occupation as an architect and more upon skyscapercity.com, the notability of which has been explained in the article. - Erebus555 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Question How many cases can you think of where someone's status as leader of a web forum has been considered sufficient notability to merit an article? Fan-1967 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Reply: I am not a regular visitor to the AfD pages so I would not know. But when this web forum has such a large number of members and was created by this person who has developed an internet celebrity status among architecture webforums, just like people on youtube have (not on architectural webforums though), then this could warrant as notable. - Erebus555 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Delete upon request by article's subject - Erebus555 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Potentially move to SkyscraperCity. Alexa rank around 5,000 is highish for a specialty forum, and there are a handful of Google News Archive citations. If WP:RS cannot be found, though, delete. Delete per Erebus555 (although that bulletin post is not viewable without registration). -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Sorry, I did not realise this was the case. It says "I'd rather not. I asked it to be deleted." upon a reply to a general discussion on the article. - Erebus555 20:29, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Active game

    Active game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Almost certain neologism; we're the number one result on Google and only one peripheral manufacturer seems to use anything approximating this meaning for the term. Sockatume 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep. I have heard this term in news outlets and such. It requires a cleanup and frankly, "active game" is not a genre of game rather, a typr of gaming. SYSS Mouse 04:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Regardless of how widely it has been used, it needs to be shown that there is enough reliable material out there that is specifically about the term and its particular usage, per WP:NEO. I feel that plenty of time has been given to address those concerns. It's been nearly two months since I originally tagged the article. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This doesn't seem to be even a neologism, but a protologism. Any traction the term may have gained is probably because the Wikipedia article was allowed to stay up for a while. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - I had never heard this term before today, despite being an avid gamer, and a regular magazine/website reader. It is undeniable that there are games that do require active user input (especially with the release of the Wii), but I have not heard this term previously - I certainly wouldn't say it's widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia. -- Dreaded Walrus 23:50, 12 January 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.

    User: Acalamari

    The result was speedy keep, AFD is the wrong place to discuss userpages. In addition, the page was PROD'ded [36] instead of putting {{ subst:afd1}}. MaxSem 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    User: Acalamari (  | [[Talk:User: Acalamari|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    No sources or anything. pointless user page. Opronc-oB 19:45, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    TSIT

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

    Contested PROD, but no change since PROD tag. Non-notable organization, non-standard page title (should be actual org name not a generic-looking abbreviation). If anything, would be a one- or two-sentence note in the parent organization's page. DMacks 19:46, 5 January 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 WP:OR (!votes without reasons, saying only "cruft", or keep because the nominator hasn't a reason were discounted. But of the rest there was a consensus that this was OR. - Docg 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore

    Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Although slightly sourced very crufty article. Computerjoe 's talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    But the sources do not suggest the argument put forward, only the information used by the writer. Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep no valid nomination reason given. crufty is no different than "I don't like this" and as such is very inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: While the nomination reason isn't valid, that doesn't mean the article itself is fine. Please do not make the same mistake as the nominator and discuss the article rather than the nomination. -- Scottie theNerd 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I am sorry, but a bad nomination reason is still a bad nomination reason. If an article is going to be nominated, there should be a high responsibility to make sure you have a proper reason. If you can't articulate it, then ask someone else for help. At the least, picking insulting and demeaning language is highly inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It is the nominator's responsibility to outline the reason for deletion, but the nominator's phrasing is not definitive nor is it final. The whole point of the deletion debate process is to gather more opinions on the value of an article, and in most cases the resulting debate expands on the original nomination, as is the case here. A bad nomination reason does not automatically make the article a good one. What you're doing is disagreeing with the nomination using a deletion debate version of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you don't like the nomination doesn't mean the debate isn't valid. -- Scottie theNerd 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
            • It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, it's a matter of not accepting the nomination when done so poorly. I'm not saying anything about the article per se (I actually think it would best be a sub-section of some large Warcraft article), but I do find myself forced to reject the initial action. And while fostering discussion may be important, it's less likely to happen when you start it off poorly. I see at least two opinions expressed that don't even have an iota of reasoning behind them. Maybe you should say something about that? FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
              • What's there to say? The nominator put forward an argument you don't like, we put forward arguments that are more relevant. Just because the nomination doesn't refer to any policy doesn't mean the whole process is invalid. Why don't you put forward your own valid argument instead of "I don't like the nominator's argument"? -- Scottie theNerd 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I have offered my rebuttal to comments that this is OR. You even replied to me. What more do you want me to do? If you want a stronger argument, I don't much care. My initial concern was that the process was tainted by a poor nomination. That remains a problem. So are the bad arguments spoken by others. I can accept that people who think this is OR have a valid (if mistaken concern). That includes you. Other people? not so much. Do I really care about this article? Not so much. I think it would be better done in the articles on the subjects in question, rather than one base article. Still doesn't mean I can't speak out against bad nomination reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • Your responses to our OR concerns are fair enough. I'm pointing out that your initial post was a Keep because you didn't like the nomination rather than the article's merits. If you had intended otherwise, it certainly was not conveyed in that contribution. -- Scottie theNerd 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, that implies I have some interest in the page, a more accurate description is I don't like the nomination reasons given. This would apply regardless of the subject. I suppose I could have been more verbose, so I'm sorry if that confused you. Whether the article should be kept or not, well, I don't have the opinion that there's anything sufficiently wrong with this article that warrants deletion. Clean-up yes, diffusion elsewhere? Maybe. But deletion? Nope, don't see it. And like it or not, I'm not going to look for reasons to delete an article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. It even cites WoWWiki! Axem Titanium 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. Maybe WoWWiki will take it? -- Alan Au 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. In order not to be OR, there would have to be a citation for each claim, not from the warcraft history, but from a source that's pointing out that claim. Otherwise you're drawing these conclusions in the article. delldot | talk 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: violates WP:OR and uses unreliable sources (WoWWiki, of all things). This article would be better on WoWWiki than on Wikipedia. As noted above, being a "crufty" article doesn't mean automatically mean it should be deleted. -- Scottie theNerd 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You may object to WOWWIKI as a unreliable source, but the existence of it does mean there is a source. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible source, so naturally other Wikis would also be considered the same. No one here has argued against sourcing, but arguments have been put forward over the misuse of sources. -- Scottie theNerd 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • If you can demonstrate where the source given is wrong on this thing, then that would be something, but just saying "NOR!" when it's another site doing the research? Doesn't make sense. Say poor sources, that might be something, though in this case, it's not too convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. I do personally find it a pretty interesting read, but a lot of these claims aren't backed by the correct sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom, very crufty -- Selmo ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I started the article and I must admit that it could definately be classified as original research. However, my dictionary doesn't contain the word "crufty" or even "cruft," so I'm not entirely sure what that means. :) RobertM525 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete Even though I'm usually a vigilante when it comes to helping and working on Warcraft articles, I've been extremely skeptical to this article since it was first created. Whereas I tried to get people to source everything. But, as it stands now, it breaks WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If people can clean it up before the AfD is over, I'll change my vote to Keep, but as it stands I give a weak delete. I would also like to point out that the AfD reason is not the reason I voted what I did, as "cruft" if not a good reason to delete anything. Havok (T/ C/ e/ c) 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Give it a little bit, then relist I know this isn't a real vote, but I say give it a bit to see if anybody will source it (I may give it a shot if I have time) and if they don't, relist and let the inevitable do its thing. - Ryanbomber 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Trivia. Combination 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:OR The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Fails WP:N. The game itself is notable, but its plot holes are not. Also fails WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNT. Determining whether something constitutes a conflict in a creative work inherently involves advancing a new position.-- Trystan 23:55, 8 January 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. I've redirected, merging can be done from the history. Sandstein 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Claire Kiriakis

    Claire Kiriakis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Nominate for WP:HOLE. Wiki is Freaakky. 20:29, 5 January 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. - Docg 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    All-Star Lists

    All-Star Near Misses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star All-Stars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Accomplishments (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Families (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Hall of Famers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie MVPs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Cy-Youngs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Managers of the Year (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    rather trivial info about a minor award wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate collection of information, also violates WP:NOR, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I added 2 more articles to the list Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    And add also All-Star Rookie Families, All-Star Rookie Records (that could be rename to List of Major League Rookie Records though, All-Star Hall of Famers, All-Star Rookie MVPs, All-Star Rookie Cy-Youngs and All-Star Rookie Managers of the Year Jaranda wat's sup 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Heinen's Fine Foods

    Heinen's Fine Foods (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Commercial, advertising content Haans42 20:54, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Abolitionist Generation

    Abolitionist Generation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This is one of a large series of interlinked articles devoted to extolling the view of American history put forward by historians/lifestyle gurus Strauss and Howe in their book Generations. They think that American history (and English history before America) can be divided into distinct generations, each of which has a distinct archetype, be it 'Hero', 'Artist', 'Nomad', or 'Prophet'. It sounds like cobblers, and most of the articles are wholly uncritical.

    I'm nominating this particular article for deletion principally because it's a non-notable neologism, confined to the books of Strauss and Howe. It does not appear to be a widely used historical term, and giving it a separate article undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Nydas (Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Undue weight given to the views of two historians. A lack of sources doesn't help much either. -- Folantin 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The William Strauss and Neil Howe books are influential, published by mainstream publishers, and the names they use for each generation are in some use outside of the context of just Strauss and Howe fans. At worst this is comparable to having articles on each Star Trek or South Park episode, what some might consider "fancruft". That and the characterization of the authors as "lifestyle gurus" doesn't reflect well on this nomination. The article does need some work and expansion, starting with an explanation of where the term originated and who coined it. Dragomiloff 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Interesting, googling turns up that this is not a Strauss and Howe term. Strauss and Howe use the name Gilded Generation for this generation. "Abolitionist Generation" does appear to be in some use though. For example: [37] [38]. I still say keep and expand. Dragomiloff 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Not all the terms they use are in popular usage, Compromise Generation for one. I don't see the problem with describing them as lifestyle gurus, given their website is named Life Course Associates. In any case, since this is not a Strauss and Howe term, it is even less notable than before. One of those sources is a collection of literature essays with no strong connection to the term as defined here, the other is a passing mention.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Nydas, I think you are right that there are serious issues with this whole series of articles. All the "names" for generations are or were neologisms, though some have clearly become sufficiently notable for articles (e.g. Greatest generation). Some of the names are basically Strauss and Howe inventions, others are more widely used, and still others are somewhere in between. This one appears to be somewhere in between - I found more mentions of the term in respected sources - [39] [40]. It seems to me that the whole panorama of generation name related articles needs to be cleaned up, perhaps centered around an improved List of generations article. Some of the content from this article could be merged there. It's a can of worms that may be better resolved through a process other than AfD.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Those two sources just use the term in passing, though. It's also unlikely that they refer to 'abolitionist generation' as defined in this article, with a strict start and end date. ' Thatcher generation' gets almost as many Ghits, and includes plenty of respected sources using the term. They're both just a stock phrases, like Red armchair or Second hand car, and not worth including in Wikipedia.
    As for the Strauss and Howe generations, I'm concerned that articles on commonly used terms like Generation X are dominated by their perspective. I agree that a list might be more appropriate than a series of articles.-- Nydas (Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I don't disagree with you, and I have no heartburn about seeing this article deleted. My larger point is that deleting this one article will do little towards cleaning up the larger morass of the generations articles. If you are using this as a first step towards a larger cleanup, then you have my wholehearted support. It seems to me that the article on the Strauss and Howe book should be expanded a bit to include a little info on each of "their" generational definitions - there's no need to have separate articles for each.-- Kubigula ( talk) 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I've nominated Generation X for the article improvement drive. That should help a bit.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Re-reading the above discussion, I recalled that "abolitionist generation" is not even the Straus and Howe name for this generation. Therefore, I agree that this needs to be deleted as an insufficiently sourced and notable neologism. At most, it could be listed as one name on the "List of generations". I still hope that some bold editor(s) will tackle the current generations scheme and template.-- Kubigula ( talk) 16:53, 9 January 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 G11. Naconkantari 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bioinformatics Solutions Inc.

    Bioinformatics Solutions Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Advertising Jvhertum 21:00, 5 January 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 G11. Naconkantari 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Mateusse

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

    Advertising. Jvhertum 21:04, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The New Way Forward

    The New Way Forward (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Propaganda term, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation. User:Zoe

    I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation. It's an undeniable, sourceable fact that five high level posts related to the Iraq war are being changed, that the press is reporting on a "surge" and that in the many NOTABLE sources cited above ALL sources use the words "new way forward" to describe this series of initiatives. Whether or not a speech happens, it is clear that the Bush administration is leading the press to use the words "New Way Forward" or "The New Way Forward" with respect to these changes. Please reread the article and reconsider. MPS 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    That's the second time that you have asked me to reconsider, and for a second time, I will say Delete. So, it is confirmed that this is going to be the title for Bush's speech. But the contents of the speech are only speculation, as I said above. Wait until Bush does his speech, and THEN write the article. You said above "I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation.", when it's the speculation that we are trying to avoid. Wait until Bush makes his speech, and THEN make the article. P TO 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    but what about the contents of the stragegy change? It is abundantly clear (to the media-- i.e., independent citeable sources) that these changes are already taking place... the series of initiatives listed in the article. If you are suggeesting a name changes that is one thing, but to delete the article is to delete perfectly good (and sourced)content. What are you trying to hide? MPS 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Clearly a bad faith comment, MPS, and I expect you to retract it. This has nothing to do with "trying to hide" anything, and completely with trying to keep propaganda and speculation out of an encyclopedia. If you want to write your or other people's speculations on a blog somewhere, that is certainly your right, but we expect encyclopedia articles, not somebody's expectations. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Not a bad faith comment; just frustration coming out, and for acting on this frustration I do apologize. Re: the topic, I have two responses....(1) These opinions aren't just opinions (the annouced personnel changes aren't opinions... the term "new way forward" is not some opinion I made up or the media made up -- it was introduced used by Bush to describe his coming changes, and reinforced by his subsequent press secretary statements at whitehouse.gov) the media is reporting on this set of changes with more than speculations, more than just opinions. (2) The WSJ, Time magazine, reuters, USA Today, and CBS News are not just "some people" as you suggest. This is a significant chunk of the mainstream news establishment reporting on "NWF" I'm not citing bloggers, I am citing The media MPS 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Its not simply a speech so much as it is a policy change. You dont like the name? You think its a propaganda term? Doesnt matter one bit, take one look at the Great Leap Forward article and you will see that even when a program is named to make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread we can still have articles on it. There are reliable sources talking about it, waiting for the speech to happen before making an article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The sources cited are most certainly reliable sources. Let me put this into terms similar to the earlier football analogy. Lets say experts predict that Eagles will win. We cannot state that the Eagles will win as a matter of fact, but we can state that experts predict the Eagles will win the Superbowl in the Super Bowl XLI. Thats what is being done in regards to the commentary. But not all of the information is speculation, neither in this article or in Super Bowl XLI. For instance, the date has been officially announced, the logo has been officially announced, the location has been officially announced. The fact that Super Bowl XLI has not yet happened does not keep us from having an article on it, does not keep us from stating the information we know, and does not keep us from stating information that is being speculated in reliable sources. The situation for the New Way Forward, or any other subject matter, is no different. Again, the entire premise behind this deletion appears to be a misunderstanding of guidelines and rules. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • (to Rangeley): This doesn't have anything to do with the name. My comment was drawing a similarity between The New Way Forward and the Great Leap Forward. P TO 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I was responding to the argument that because this was a propaganda term, it could not have an article. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh, ok. Never mind. P TO 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, as of right now, it is only an informal term. It would be different if it were something like the New Deal or the Great Society where it is used often enough that it actually becomes a proper term. Currently, it's just a short phrase that the media has fixated on just as a way to give it a name (despite the supposed speech not even taken place). Axem Titanium 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Axem... this is what I don't understand... we all recognize that there is something here... we all recognize that the news media and the Bush administration is "informally" calling this whatever, this foo, this topic, is called "NWF" ... but it could just as well be called Bush Administration's reaction to the Iraq study group report and all the crap they are taking over bungling the Iraq war. Why should we delete it if we can't think of a clever title for it? The media and the Bush administration have a clever title. Finish the thought for me here, please. MPS 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    From my perspective, the problem with this article is that it's just people's opinions, and we won't know if they're right or not till the speech is given. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well Zoe, your stance has moved from thing to thing and reached a point where its merely your perspective and not actually an argument meant to change peoples minds. The simple fact is that a lot of people are talking about it, its a speech thats going to happen, its a policy thats going to be implemented. We can only create articles for future events when we are quite certain that this said event will occur - and we are quite certain this event will occur. Please read the guideline again where it clarifies this. As for what will be said, what changes will occur, all we have are breif statements and things that the media expects. We can, and most certainly should represent these things as they are, expected announcements. We wont know if they are right or wrong till it happens, so we wont say they are right or wrong, we will just say that these are what the experts are expecting, or what the government has said thus far. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The Iraq War article is pretty big already, all I would really want to see there is a breif overview. The more in depth info deserves a place to be at, and in this case that warrants a new article. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I find 1,020,000 Ghits for Bush "Way Forward" compared to 1,060,000 for Roosevelt "New Deal" 417,000 for Johnson "Great Society" 217,000 for Kennedy "New Frontier" and 210,000 for Mao "Great leap forward" . The term has been repeatedly used as a coined term for a new Iraq strategy by White House spokesmen and the President [42] and has been widely discussed in the press. It is not crystal ball that he and his spokesmen have already been using the term. Edison 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep as a stub (for now) that links to an article at Wikinews. -- JWSchmidt 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep useful article. Too much content to merge into any other article proposed so far as they are already lengthy. Johntex\ talk 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: The name of the article is a term documented as used by President Bush to refer to the article's content. It is the most correct title to use, compare to 'New Deal', 'Great Society' etc. -- Joffeloff 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Delete Neutral I'm going to have to agree with the nominator here. No matter how notable the term is, I just don't see how we could write an article about what news organizations think the content of a future speech might be. Lets wait until after the speech before we create this article. Since the speech in question has now actually occured my concerns are null.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment Please see latest additions here that show the (heretofore not understood by me) links to the Heritage Foundation's "New Way Forward" conference November 9 as well as the American Enterprise Institute's December 14 "Choosing Victory" document. It is clear from media references that media is looking to and critiquing Bush's "New Way Forward" policies by examining the content of these other think tank reports. This is a significant revelation for this AFD Discussion in that it points to the fact that the media isn't just speculating willy nilly (crystal ball predictions), but they are critiquing actual published proposed policies. MPS 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Additional Comment - The research I've done on google and other sites reveals precious little about this "New Way Forward": see the search results for "The New Way Forward" (CNN) and FOX News, MSNBC, and the New York Times, and Google. Note that two of the first four sites that come up are blogs. There are only a few relevant articles within these searches, and the few that are relevant refer to Bush's upcoming speech. If this article is becoming a definition of the term "New Way Forward" based on the way the media uses the phrase, then this fails most of WP:NEO and possibly (?) WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If this article is becoming a summary of Bush's speech, then you would have to rely on media speculation which I have mentioned before as not being a good idea. <wink>Unless, of couse, you wait for Bush to make his speech before re-making the article.</wink> That way, you can use some genuine facts to build this article. P TO 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I think your method is wrong. First, you should search on "new way forward"... second... CNN website search comes up with blogs, but that seems to be a failure of the way news websites do searches. When I do a " google news search" of CNN, this turns up many articles, as seen here. Ok, now I will do the same for MSNBC, NYT, Fox News. It seems that there are plenty of articles about NWF by each of these news organzations. It's not a neologism ( WP:NEO) article in the sense that the topic of the article article isn't intended to be the words "New Way Forward"... but rather the topic is the political reponse/initiative. In the same way, six party talks and Road map for peace and Quartet on the Middle East are neologisms, but their articles are not about words but are coherent references to th complex of political initiatives associated with those words. The speech is the capstone, but the article is about the Bush initiative that has been going on for at least a month in response to public rejection of the way the war is going. MPS 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    My bad. But in all seriousness, I'd like to end this debate in a way that makes everybody happy. To do that, I think there are a couple things that need to be said: what you want in the article, what I want in the article (along with anybody else), and a way that we can incorporate those two (or more) things in the article. The only problem I have with this article is the abundance of media crap, to put it bluntly. Even the better links you provided above are plauged with speculation (to quote one, "...House has refused to talk publicly about any of the decisions that Mr. Bush has made about his plan, which is tentatively entitled “A New Way Forward"..."). I would support not doing anything with this article until the speech is done, and then write the article, as I have said a couple times before above. Comments? Concerns? Let's work together here, not against each other. P TO 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    PTO... let me first start my comment with a degree of wikilove...by saying that I have absolutely no ill will towards you or anyone else leaning towards a delete vote. My wiki-stress level is now set to copacetic, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. The reason we call these Article for Deletion instead of Vote For Deletion is because this is not just a vote but a discussion... among equals. Viva Wikipedia!!! Group Hug!!! Secondly I want to respond to the content of your post by saying that the subject of discussion is whether there is notable content here. The discussion over how to frame and present the notable content is better left to Talk:the New Way Forward, a page that is at present red-linked. If you agree that there is subject matter here worth writing about, then change your opinion to Keep IMHO, we can mercilessly edit the media links as better ones emerge. If you think there is grounds for deletion, you need to be clear about why... I think I have shown that the article documents the verifiable political machinations and intimations that have occurred prior to the speech, and the natural starting point for this narrative is the Nov 2006 Democratic Takeover, followed by the progressively higher profile meetings that the president has held leading up to his often-promised speech. The section on "the Speech" was deliberately left empty because we don't know what he is going to say, only that many of his actual recent speeches have alluded to an upcoming "new way forward" plan to change the situation in Iraq. In short, believe I have made the case for preservation of the article, and I agree that the links and references should be mercilessly edited (per WP:OWN) as further information emerges. WikiPeace, MPS 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I changed my vote to conditional keep. Doing some homework and reading the links you posted has revealed to me that the term is more of a blanket term than I thought...originally, I believed that the article was only going to be on the speech. Therefore, I've found that the article does have redeeming value, and I am willing to keep it if we don't use any media sources to speculate on what Bush's speech will be on. Cheers, P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    PTO and MPS – Thank you both for your most recent posts. I think they’re certainly moving this discussion in the right direction. I wanted to return to a question raised earlier by JWSchmidt that seems to me to be a threshold issue in the deletion debate. That is, does this topic merit a stub? Would you two (or anyone else reading this page) be willing to agree that the New Way Forward is a media title for potential changes to Bush’s Iraq strategy? If the answer is no, then there should not be a stub, let alone an article. Only if the answer is yes should we shift the discussion to the content of the article – and, as MPS suggests, that discussion might be better conducted in the Talk forum. Thoughts? Sean Kass 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Wikipedians are omniscient :D. We have had a few threads on you all at WP:ANI. Back on topic, though, after thinking this one through and doing a little homework, I've found that this warrants at least a stub discribing Bush's opposition about his Iraq policy and his promise to deliver a new plan. However, I still feel that the media garbage about Bush's speech should be left out until they can produce something that isn't just an educated guess. P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    We can state it as mass media speculation, we just cant pass it out as truth. There is wide speculation that there will be surge, for instance, in troop numbers. This warrants noting. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sean, it's a wikipedia:stub only because the content is partially there, not because the article is only partially merited. I think the many (NYT, Fox NEws, CNN, Time magazine) google citations I gave to PTO above establish that the media lumps Bush's strategy change under the rubric of "New Way Forward." In short, yes, I believe the content is there to merit an article. IMHO It's a stub for now because we all recognize there's still more research to be done. MPS 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Do others agree with MPS’ claim that there is enough consensus to merit an article? Keep in mind that stubs are supposed to be limited to three to ten sentences. If we cannot agree on any more than that, a stub may be all that is merited until we learn more about the New Way Forward (i.e. until the speech or some other announcement of policy). Sean Kass 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply


    • Comment - What is this encyclopedia article supposed to be about? A speech that hasn't been written that might be written and if it does then must be at least partly in response to Democratic actions in Congress that haven't even taken place? A newly coined phrase spinning that the President actually has a plan that is new and will be in a forward direction but with no clear specific meaning except to try to spin public opinion in the face of the public rejection and military failure of "stay the course"? (Now that's an idea. Move this to Stay the course?) Or about various and sundry recent unencyclopedic pundit reports filling commercial infotainment media containing teasing vague conjectures about what happens next between the between the commercials that the teases exist to provide eyeballs for? WAS 4.250 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Your comment seems to be phrased as if you don't expect a clear topic to be identified. This article is about the very public Bush response to the Iraq Study Group that he has repeatedly referred to as a "new way forward in iraq". Bush has consulted several conservative think tanks and high level officials and promised a speech that most of the mainstream press reports indicate will propose a troop "surge." I mean we could call it proposed troop surge of 2007 but that's a matter for talk:The New Way Forward to sort out, not AFD. MPS 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
      • Even though it is a speculation, the speculation has congealed as a thing of its own. Don't we want wikipedia to include famous media speculations (e.g. predictions of who will run for president)? In other words, a significant speculation can be viewed as a news event in itself. If it turns out to be wrong, that update should also be added to the page.
      • This page is useful for people who hear the term on the news and don't know what it is. Is there any rule about including pages that are useful? Bobrudin 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep – Even if there is currently uncertainty about the scope of this topic, there does seem to be a foundation of cited material and factual developments to justify the stub. More importantly, if Bush delivers this speech soon there may be many more people looking to read and edit this article. Abgb23 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, but with reservations. I think it's silly to have an article about what some people think a not-yet happened speech will be about, but it does not seem to violate the crystal ball rule because it is sufficiently documented in the press and it seems that the speech will happen in some form or another. As more details become clearer the article can be updated accordingly (but perhaps some of the sections, such as the personnel changes that may or may not be attributable to the New Way Forward speech/doctrine, are still to speculative for inclusion even if the article as a whole is sufficiently nonspeculative). I don't find any glaring neutrality issues, at least none that can't be cleaned up. And the bottom line to me is that by the time this debate settles on whether or not to delete the article the speech will have happened and then there will definitely be enough material for an article. But if, on the other hand, a couple weeks go by and it becomes clear that the New Way Forward speech will in fact not go forward, then there is certainly a strong argument to delete the article (as opposed to keeping it, and having the article be about the media speculation of a speech that never was). Bsiatadshmia 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Change to keep, since it's used on the president's website. Axem Titanium 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Proposed Compromise

    Reading the comments above, it sounds to me like the arguments for deletion are two fold:

    • 1) Neutrality: The positive phrase "The New Way Forward" seems to endorse the Bush Administrations policies and is therefore not neutral.
    • 2) Speculation: The speech "The New Way Forward" is in the future and not certain to happen.

    What do you all think about trying to address these concerns by making some changes to the article? To make the article more neutral, perhaps the article could include a small section describing--but not endorsing--criticism (by opposition politicians, people in the media, etc.) of the new strategy and/or the phrase itself? To make the article less speculative, perhaps the focus of the article could be on "The New Way Forward" as a policy or strategy rather than a speech. As others have pointed out, parts of the strategy associated with "The New Way Forward" have already been implemented, and are therefore no longer speculative. The article could still mention that the President is expected to lay out the details of this new policy in a speech. -- 3L Senioritis 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Hmmm... How do I say this... I appreciate your proposal, 3L. But ... there is already an expectation at wikipedia that this article is going to improve over time (become more WP:NPOV) as editors weigh in with new sourced content. Any wikipedia article becomes more neutral over time. The AFD page is a discussion of whether the article should exist at all. This article stub is less than 72 hours old. If you want to suggest neutrality improvements and title changess, I will start this discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward. In the mean time, be bold and feel free to update the content as you see fit. As for the discussion on wikipedia:speculation and the merits of this article even existing (IOW, this AFD), I really believe that the article currently documents quality information on Bush's publicly advertised Iraq strategy change (nicknamed "new way forward" ). IMHO, it's solidly referenced content about actually occurring historical events ... and for that reason I think it's not WP:CRYSTAL. We shouldn't delete an article stub that covers a legitimate topic that has been documented by the mainstream press for over a month. MPS 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The White house just announced to day that a "way forward" speech will occur Wednesday with details to follow Thursday at Fort Benning. [43] I have added this to the article. Are there any major objections left to ending this AFD? MPS 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - After hearing and reading the speech and reading and hearing comments about the speech, I find the article to be an unfocused mess that misinforms and is unencyclopedic. WAS 4.250 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep for now - At this present time, this is a really hot topic, and seems to be talked about widly in American media right now. I suggest that more time be given to see whether it really survives the test of long tern notability. Avador 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep but why not rename it? If it sounds like Wikipedia would be endorsing Bush policy by using the White House's name for his policy change, try to think of a more neutral article title. But don't delete it while there's a link to it on the Current Events page. But surely we have articles on anti-Bush (or Democratic Party initiatives) which have similar titles. We need a policy for describing government initiatives whose offical titles have a positive spin. -- Uncle Ed 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - I personally hate GWB and everything he says or does, but this is a good article on a valid subject. yalbik 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep- For the reasons stated by user edison LCpl 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The White House explains the new strategy with "Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq " [44]. That argues for keeping the article, and referring to it from Iraq War. Edison 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • comment 15 keep, two delete... I call the question. Will somebody please call the admins? MPS 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • keep It sounds like Newspeak, but even though Bush is doubleplusungood, imho, the article was enclopaedic from the beginning. Agree with rename to The New Way Forward in Iraq as per White House usage and above. Also, it would seem that this article should have had a breaking news template and that it still should.-- Hjal 15:52, 12 January 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. Advertising. -- Fang Aili talk 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Red-onions.com

    Red-onions.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Advertising, does not meet notability guidelines Jvhertum 21:10, 5 January 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. He's already listed at List of Countdown octochamps. Sandstein 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Steven Briers

    Steven Briers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Typical Countdown octochamp that has not seemed to transcend the boundaries of the show in terms of receiving major press coverage, nor has he broken a major record on the show. He also does not seem to be notable for any non-Countdown endeavors. As Countdown champions are not automatically notable as per previous AfDs on the subject, I am nominating the article for deletion. Andy Saund e rs 21:13, 5 January 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. -- Steel 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bickel

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

    Meaningless vandalism, of no purpose or value to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjbfour ( talk • contribs)

    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. - Docg 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of video game music

    List of video game music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Well, this is actually for List of video game music and List of video game music A to List of video game music Z - forgive me if I haven't the time to do everything to the other 26 pages. It seems to be trying to be a list of every single game soundtrack CD etc. ever released. It's just a huge, pretty much impossible to maintain list of mostly unnotable CDs (etc.). FredOrAlive 21:22, 5 January 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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    M-2 (Michigan highway)

    M-2 (Michigan highway) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    There is no conclusive proof that there's ever been a highway numbered M-2, except for one (stated in the article as unreliable) map. Thus, M-2 is just a placeholder designation, and there's no need to have an article on it.— Scott5114 ↗ 19:05, 5 January 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 TURNIP... er, mean KEEP. - Docg 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    (third nom)

    Completely unencyclopediac. Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles controlled by a cabal of trolls and POV pushers. Previously a POV fork from main article. Improperly kept on previous articles in violation of truth. Article exists only to allow Truthers to earn a buck and serves as an advertisement for their cause. TheOnlyChoice 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Turnip Will not be deleted currently. I vote turnip to avoid drama. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Um. There is a big, huge, titanic, enormous problem with this article: the hypothesis has zero basis in peer-reviewed research. 100% of the sources are conspiracy theory websites, whose reliability is slightly below that of an alcoholic crack addict. Why are there no rebuttals in the professional journals? Because the professional journals, without exception, treat the theory as the twaddle it clearly is and won't give it house room. But it has got a lot of coverage in the popular press, albeit again mostly borderline incredulity. I'd say it needs drastic pruning and the lead needs to eb rewritten to reflect the fact that nobody who had not already made their mind up has lent any support to this nonsense. Guy ( Help!) 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I couldn't have said it better than TheOnlyChoice -- rogerd 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep The article documents a social phenomenon - that of the facts of the hypothesis and the existence of the hypothesis. It does not argue for the hypothesis, nor does it argue against it. It simply, correctly and competently documents it as a hypothesis that exists. The topic is suitable for encyclopaedic coverage and the article simply gives it that. There was a certain inevitability that, as soon as a WP:Peer Review was asked for, someone would take the opportunity to propose it for deletion. There is no issue with that since an AfD is, in many ways, a review process. However it is important to make the distinction between the article which documents the demolitionists' hypothesis, which this handles correctly, and the hypothesis itself. A correct and encyclopaedic article, which this strives to be, documents that citable facts of the existence of the hypothesis without either validating or invalidating that hypothesis. The article needs to be judged on the merits of how it handles the topic - a notable, well reported topic - not on the merits of the various opinions people have about the truth or otherwise behind the destruction of the buildings. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The comment "POV Fork" in the nomination is incorrect. The article was created as a content fork, which is a valid, recommended and documented procedure when the parent article has grown too long, and the content which formed it was deleted from the parent article. As for trolls and POV pushers, as someone who has been working on the article itself while absolutely not supporting any thoughts about controlled demolition being respinsible for the destruction of the buildings, I do find that comment rather hard to swallow. You don't need to believe a thing is true when working on making a decent article about it. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep, once again this article is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, a page which violates several policies. [45] This article has been put up for deletion twice before, and everytime the article is kept (first time keep, second time no consensus).
      In addition, User:TheOnlyChoice who nominated this article has few or no other edits, Just over 20 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds. This is a bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. User:Hemlock Martinis, User:Nyp and User:Bouke in the last AfD [46] this "user" nominated all called that nomination a bad faith nomination. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Travb: Your argument here has nothing to do with the question of whether the article should be deleted. 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF ( talk • contribs)
    Okay, here is my argument why it should be kept. I keep repeating myself on all of these AfDs, sorry GabrielF that I didn't repeat myself here again. Even though this hypothesis is kooky and, in my opinion, total bullshit, that doesn't mean that it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. I would not support this hypothesis on the 9/11 page, but there is a small fringe group which support this theory, and which have written a lot of articles supporting the theory.
    See: Flat Earth Society Apollo moon landing hoax accusations Kennedy assassination theories for others group that believes kooky theories. The first two pages have never been put up for deletion, and the JFK page was closed early because of overwhelming consensus to keep.
    I think these editors who disagree with this theory should spend there time adding condemnations about this theory on the wikipage, instead of attempting to silence these conspiracy theorists. This takes work and research though. It is much easier to simply delete ideas you disagree with, then researching why those ideas are fallacious and have no merit. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The hypothesis is complete nonsense, but the fact that a lot of people believe it is unfortunately notable. The article does a good job of describing that notability. -- Bduke 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Bored Keep This is the 3rd nomination for this article! Have you nothing better to do? The article is in fact encyclopedic, and wikipedia if full of balanced articles on kooky theories. Seen the Flat Earth Society article? Just because there's an article doesn't mean that wikipedia endorses the concept. If the public want to find out what all the fuss is about, where better to go than a balanced article on wikipedia? Deleting the article will make wikipedia a poorer place and a less useful encyclopedia.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. 107 references. I love the name-calling in the nomination – very persuasive. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy keep and speedy close We've been through this many times now. Same circumstances, same result.-- Hús ö nd 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, I've just read about this entrepreneur from UK who is making furniture from human hair. Lovelight 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I wonder what could be made from recycled AfDs? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - This nomination was unnecessary and tendentious, especially in light of previous discussion and consensus. Please find a more productive manner of contributing to Wikipedia, thank you. Badagnani 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Nonsense, yes, but encyclopedic nonsense none the less. GabrielF 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - valid encylopedic entry for people looking for information. -- RedHillian 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep - Yes, the subject is a conspiracy theory not grounded in reality. However, it's very notable, easily verified as notable and currently undergoing Peer Review to improve the article's quality. The AfD is premature, and worded in a rather uncivil manner. - Kesh 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep per Fiddle Faddle, Travb, Seabhcan. SalvNaut 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Hoax, and a fairly silly one, but notable nonetheless, with multiple verifiable reliable sources. I worked in a similar building at that time, and I would have made serious inquiries if explosives had been installed around the structural columns. The plane crashes were a sufficient cause to bring down the flimsy buildings which lacked good fireproofing of structural members. But if this many sources said people believed the moon was made of green cheese, we should have an article noting the fact, which can also be a good debunking page. Edison 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Fantastic article. Maybe this is a GA nom put in the wrong place? ;) --- RockMFR 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I can't imagine an article could be deleted based on the argument offered in this nomination. An article can't be deleted on the basis of unsubstantiated claims about its editors' motives, can it? Even substantiated claims about such motives would be irrelevant if the article ultimately met WP standards (e.g., by the efforts of other editors). No specific criticism of the article's content has been offered.-- Thomas Basboll 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Turnips, per above. I still think this page is original research by synthesis, and will be until enough social scientists write papers about a Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center - and even if they ever do, I bet the papers are called something like Jewish Lightning -- Conspiracy theories about Building 7. But per Hipocrite, deletion is unlikely. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - While the subject matter itself is unlikely to ever have a valid peer review, it's pretty well established as a notable conspiracy theory. And if you want a more scientifically grounded view of the conspiracist's claims, try this book. As soon as I can scrape together the cash, I'm going to get a copy and use it to help improve the article. -- Kesh 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment:The mainstrem editor has spoken. ;) SalvNaut 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Cannot agree with any sentence in the nomination. Notable conspiracy theory. The Pet Goat says so. William Avery 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep On part because it seems like the deletion is being pushed by a cabal of POV pushers themselves. I disagree with the CD hypothesis myself, but I don't think it should be deleted, because it is a notable social phenomenon. I mean blink 182's Mark Hoppus and Charline Sheen believe this theory. South Park based an entire episode off of this, parodying the wingnuts. Plus... THERE'S A THING CALLED A CRITICISM SECTION. Which, is not based off sources from wingnut websites. -- Saint-Paddy 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep Highly notable, definitely encyclopedic. .V. 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • strong keep notable and important to wikipedia. Free expression is absolute. Wiki ian 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep The article expresses an issue with a portion of the population of the USA and other countries in the world. I agree with Saint-Paddy and others. (BTW: A view of the contributions by the nominator shows an entry onto the Conspiracy Noticeboard [47] and an FYI notice sent to other members.) Lmcelhiney 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Very Noteable, Very Idiotic. However, even idiotic theorys can become notable, and sane people can find out on wiki what the nitwits are blathering about. 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Personally biased about this page, because I was there. I did not sense or suspect any controlled demolition during or after the attack. Abe Froman 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment That you were present and saw no evidence of controlled demoliton may, if citable, be a useful part of the article. Additionally, the fact that you saw no evidence for it neither makes the article suitable for deletion nor for keeping. It is a valid personal statement but not a valid reason to "vote" either way. The article is not about whether the destructon had any elements of controlled demolition in it. The article is about a hypothesis that some people have proposed to explain the demolition. As one of the editors who have worked on the article I can state that I think the hypothesis is WP:BALLS, but that does not prevent it from being notable. The article is about a notable piece of what appears to be ludicrous folklore. It does not express any opinions or conclusions about this hypothesis, it simply documents that it exists. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Very reluctant keep - This is notable because there are sufficient numbers of 9/11 conspiracists who believe this. It's clearly WRONG, but enough wrong people are notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Dogpile Keep. Article satisfies all inclusion criteria. Is someone trying to make a WP:POINT? —  coelacan talk — 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep seems notable and fairly neutral to me. Atlantis Hawk 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The fact that some organizations have published material specifically to discredit this theory only adds to its notability. Also, the article doesn't say "The WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition." The article is about the hypothesis itself. What we have to do is provide NPOV coverage of the hypothesis (even if it's crap). A truly NPOV coverage requires outlining both sides of the argument. Quack 688 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If I may, I'd like to remind the nominator of WP:AGF. I think the name-calling in the nomination is entirely uncalled for (but then again, I think name-calling is always uncalled for.) .V. 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per unencyclopedic consipiracy cruft material and WP:NOR. -- Strothra 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete of course. The only reason for this article is so the conspiracy theory people can have a place to promote their zany ideas.-- Beguiled 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Neutral problemed article which does not appear to have improved much since I last looked. Does have notability, but that isn't the sole requirement for existence of an article. Most likely should still be just inculded in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and not have a seperate article. The current article is mostly a technical explanation rather than a summary of the idea, and therefore is unencyclopedic. The article is also written much like a paper trying to justify a thesis rather than an encylopedia, which falls under the previously mentioned "unencyclopedic. This all can be improved, though I have serious doubts as to whether or not that will ever happen. -- Wildnox (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It can't be reincluded in the root article because that is 112 kilobytes long when the maximum should be 30kb. This article itself is 70kb, rather than being deleted, it should be split in two. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I agree that your theory is as likely to be true as the one this article is about. However, we have no veriable sources that anyone actually supports your theory, while we do have verifiable sources that people support the boloney in this article. That is the difference and why your arguments for deletion are not valid. -- Bduke 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Exactly. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of a single known truth - it operates on the basis of reporting verifyable facts. It is easily verifyable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists include people who hold this opinion of what happened, and that they've written extensively about it. It's notable because enough people believe them. It would be neglegent of us not to report that people believe this, even if every single reasonable rational human being thinks that only crazy people think that way. We should (and do) report on the fringe opinions that we don't agree with; this is no exception. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Question In what ways does the article fail WP:NOR and WP:NOT? One cannot just throw things like that into the pot. That is like saying "The sky is green" and not justifying it. If it fails these then I think the closing admin needs to know what you are referring to. Equally those editing the article deserve the chance to put that right. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 January 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 RESULT. Agent 86 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Covered Hall

    The Covered Hall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The article does not state any reason for notability Meno25 22:11, 5 January 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 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Plastic Paddy

    Plastic Paddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    AfD nominated by Taramoon. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep - It's referenced and notable. :bloodofox: 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Sociological phenomena are notable if verifiable. Caknuck 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete - The references included don't seem to verify that the term is in general usage. The existence of one song doesn't make it a real slang term any more than "Polythene Pam" or "Mean Mr. Mustard". It is possible that a bit more work could remedy this, however. I found a couple other examples with a simple search, definitely better than footnote 5 (which is really stretching it). ANY reference from a slang dictionary would be welcome, whether general or specific to the U.K. I'm also not sure it means what the article says it means in most cases: it seems to be used as an adjective mostly, not a noun. (But who knows; maybe it will BECOME a term in use one day, like "Truthiness".) Rosencomet 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. I see a number of references to usage have been added, but has anybody written about the term in an academic context with respect to cultural appropriation. That is, this appears to be the first article to try to draw all these facts together and draw conclusions from them. That falls under the definition of "original research" on Wikipedia. Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Perhaps you haven't looked at the article recently but there are citations in academic journals. -- Pigman talk •  contribs 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Academic journals cited for the use of "plastic paddy" in terms of cultural appropriation include The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Irish Studies Review and Irish University Review. That's more citations than found on the majority of WP articles that *do* require academic-level cites. For an article of this type, popular culture cites would be sufficient. This article goes beyond that and includes citations of usage in both popular culture and academia. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    — 86.42.159.149 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    1. Does Wikipedia need an article on "people whose claim to be Irish is disputed or derided by many Irish people"
    2. If so, what is an appropriate name for such an article?
    I believe the answer to (1) is no. The phenomenon is real but not very well-defined or autonomous. The references seem more to prove the term exists than to define what precisely it means, who it is applied to, and by whom. The content and references belong in Irish diaspora, Republic of Ireland national football team, Immigration to Ireland, Irish American, cultural appropriation, cultural cringe, etc. If (the answer to (1) is yes, then I don't think "Plastic Paddy" is a POV answer to (2), but there may not be any neutral term to describe the alleged phenomenon (cf Neoliberalism). "Plastic Paddy" is a genuine term, and certainly merits a place in Wiktionary, but nothing more. jnestorius( talk) 18:29, 10 January 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. - Docg 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Edeals

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

    This is a definition and not suitable for Wikipedia. This kind of definition isn't suitable for Wiktionary, either. -- Адам12901 Talk 22:38, 5 January 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 Tubezone 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jeremy Ruffin

    Jeremy Ruffin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Not verifiable. He's a 14-year-old billionaire with no relevant Google hits. I'd prod it, but he removed the "not verified" tag, so I assume he'd contest the deletion. NickelShoe ( Talk) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The Delete arguments do not win the day here -- quite. Herostratus 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    VGMix

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

    First nomination here

    Looking at the old nomination, it looks like most of the "keep" arguments were based on content, rather than notability. Its Alexa ranking has actually decreased since the last nom. I saw a couple of keeps based on its supposed connection with " The Shizz" which has since been deleted. VGMix once enjoyed a hopelessly passing mention in a Salon.com article but still manages to fail the "multiple nontrivial publications" requirement of WP:WEB. One user mentioned that OCRemix would have to be removed too if this article were deleted but fails to realize that OCRemix has a bazillion publications about it and has even gained notoriety per WP:MUSIC through its music album releases. One final thing, VGMix's ability to "help less-established remixers get critiques on their work" will not be impaired by not having an article on Wikipedia (ie don't even try a WP:ILIKEIT argument). Axem Titanium 22:44, 5 January 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 as an unverifiable group without reliable sources to back up any claims. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Dark Chamber

    The Dark Chamber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Previous prod candidate deprodded by an anon. This article is totally unverifiable, and is not notable anyway. NatusRoma | Talk 22:56, 5 January 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 any reliably sourced information to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). — Centrx→ talk • 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jack Tweed

    Jack Tweed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Only claimed notability is as the boyfriend of Jade Goody and as a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). Individual game show contestants are, I think, not notable in themselves. The other Celebrity Big Brother contestants are celebrities, and so are notable already. Sam Blacketer 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • The number of hits isn't relevant. The question is whether he's the subject of multiple reliable sources. He could have two google hits and as long as they're independent multiple sources he meets the threshold. Otto4711 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The UK tabloid press have substantially lower standards of notability than an encyclopedia. Reality TV stars are generally not notable by encyclopedic standards, this has been established in many previous Afds. One Night In Hackney 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Jack Tweedy is a vapid non entity but to ignore his noteriety in todays Z list celebrity creating society would be snobbish and elitist (traits that I feel sometime prevent Wikipedia fulfilling its real promise)
    Reply - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, either, if you'd bother to read the link I posted. Nor is Wikipedia a reflection of popular culture. The person is not notable. You said this yourself. That's where the line is drawn, article deserves a swift deletion. -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Jack Tweed is famous as he is a model and a football agent in training. Also he has made lots of publicity. The article has been undated substantially, and is much larger than before. P e ter will 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - References? Not every minor model or football hopeful has an article. Please provide some press sources or web-based RS that justify your claim of "famous"ness.
    Comment - Doesn't him entering Celebrity Big Brother give a sort of idea? P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Keep- probably more famous than some of the other contestants. he is also fairly attractive. Astrotrain 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The guy is relatively well known on the Z list circuit and has appeared in many gossip coloums and magazines with Jade and is now in CBB 2007 which is probably enough in its own right -- Vintagekits 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Merge - his entire biographical information could be put into Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with no disruption. There's no guarantee anyone will be interested in him after he leaves the show, especially if he splits up with Goody. Surely he does not merit a separate entry until such time as he does something noteworthy in his own right. 81.159.14.140 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I might add that his surname is Tweed, not Tweedy as above, he's not even notable enough for us to get his name right! reply
    • Comment - Well I have been getting his name right, and I changed the page. Many tabloids also get his name wrong. He is well known, its just a thing that happens. Many people say Tescos or Lidls, however these don't have an s on the end. That doesn't prove anything. P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply It doesn't prove anything, but it's suggestive in this case. The examples you cite can't really compare, 'Tescos' and 'Lidls' are examples of a well known brand names acquiring a colloquial variant. That clearly doesn't apply here. A more appropriate example might be Jimmy Savile/Saville - but he has the excuse of having an unusual variant of the name. Clearly Tweed hasn't yet entered the public consciousness enough for people (even newspapers, as you say) to realise he's not a Tweedy. I never heard of him before today, and I'm not completely ignorant of pop culture. It may yet transpire that this guy forges a genuine celebrity career for himself in the future thanks to Big Brother, but until that time he does not merit encyclopaedic recognition outside a Big Brother/Jade Goody article. 81.159.14.140 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    DELETE - hardly notable - did we know him before CBB?

    Comment - I knew him. I don't read national newspapers or girl magazines, but I have still heard of him. Normally through TV adverts, so he is wellknown to some extent. I'm not say he is A list, but he deserves some articles. I have seen some articles, for example Toby Cockerell, Mandy Dingle or Peggy Skillbeck. These are all one line articles. If they can have a topic he can. I bet they'll all be shut now. P e ter will 18:11, 9 January 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 deleted, as per WP:SNOWBALL

    Visible canadian moon

    Visible canadian moon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This is probably a silly hoax, I'm pretty sure that the Moon can be seen in northern Canada. Speedy delete tag removed. Hopefully this shall be speedied per WP:SNOW, as hoaxes aren't a WP:CSD. Unless, of course, this fraxis lunas is an actual phenomenon. Hús ö nd 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment, I guess it is partially true for some of the year. The Orbit of the Moon of the moon is close to the Ecliptic, so as the Sun is not visiable during winter in the far north, it might be that the full-moon will be below the horizion in the summer. Still not canadian specific, could be worth including something in Orbit of the Moon. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The article, though, implies that the moon is never visible in those locations and any photographs showing it are forged, which is clearly untrue. I suppose the article could be rewritten to say that as opposed to flat deleted, but it's an unlikely search term in any event. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    If anyones interested I found a nice little program [48] which can show when the moon is above/below the equator and the corresponding phase. This confirms my guess about not being able to see a full moon in mid summer at high latitudes. -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, unlikely search term even if temporarily true (but the Moon goes below the horizon at all latitudes). See also midnight sun & polar night. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I've been as far north in Canada as the 55th parallel, and I had no problems seeing the Moon (although, it was summer). No ghits for fraxis lunas. If it smells hoaxy... Caknuck 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: "This is due to a scientific phenomenon called fraxis lunas." Balderdash. Fan-1967 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Deleteper WP:BALLS. Grutness... wha? 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I'm in Oulu (65° North), and the Moon is clearly visible (at least often enough when I've actually had any chance to go out of this home of mine at dark when the moon is not new). I spent my childhood in Muonio (67°57' North) and I have hazy recollections of seeing moon there too-oo. I don't have photographic proof because the Moon is so difficult to photograph, regrettably, we wolves think it's so-oo beauuutiful. My hazy knowledge of geography and astronomy notwithstanding, I can't see why moon visibility in Canada would be any different because this planet tends to kind of rotate or something. Yeah, obviously you can't take just my word for it in a deletion debate, but let's just blatantly assume that this is a hoax that has to justify its truthfulness, let alone existence, via reliable sources. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 13:07, 6 January 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.
    1. ^ Sherman, Robert B. Walt's Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.page 109
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5&oldid=1081099743"
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    < January 4 January 6 >

    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 Speedy Delete. Nonsense. -- Fang Aili talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Lose a Shoe

    Lose a Shoe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Deleted WP:PROD tag. Protologism with no recorded sources. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Chrisd87 00:00, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Tacit Software

    Tacit Software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    spammy article but noability asserted. Guy ( Help!) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak Keep this is slightly more keepable now. Its new issues are now more along the lines of content disputes. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for your comments. I'd still like to fight to hold onto this entry. In its current form, it is a factual description of a venture-backed company in Silicon Valley. The company has 13 patents issued and 12 pending. From the Wikipedia notability requirements for companies: "The company or corporation (is notable if it) has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Please see the 'notes' section of this entry. Thanks for your consideration. -- Cbyeh 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Even if the company is notable but the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring that out. Its not enough that the company be notable, the Wikipedia article has to establish it. You indicated that the company has 13 patents, but that is not in the article so it cannot be considered in determining whether to delete the article. If you want to improve the article (or at least have the article survive this Article for Deletion), look at other Wikipedia articles on companies and use those as a guide. (see, for example, Microsoft). Basically, Wikipedia articles on corporations usually include a lead section, an Infobox_Company template, a history section, and other sections that may go into particularly notable events listed in the history section. Articles usually contain more than that. Please review creating new articles. To give you a time frame, this Article for Deletion (AfD) may close after five days (e.g., after 00:19, 10 January 2007). -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - The Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring out notability. (The article also lacks footnotes.) I reviewed the 'notes' section of this entry and the articles provided in the link do not seem to provide enough history about the company to bring out notability. They more or less relate to marketing events. A bigger problem is that the company itself does not see its history important enough to include on its own web page (see About Tacit). Since the article should be deleted as it presently exists and the company itself does not see its own history as important enough to include on its web page, the appropriate course of action appears to be Delete. Note to user:Cbyeh - If there are significant changes to the article in the next few days, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my reasoning and vote in light of the new information. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Since the article still appears as an advertisement masquerading as an article, the article still is spammy as indicated in the nomination. It's no secret that Tacit Software's information gathering software is funded by the CIA and that Tacit Software gives away its information gathering software free to individuals. There are several third party articles that connect these two facts and conclude that the CIA can spy on individuals all over the world who use Tacit Software's freely issued, patented products. Despite my prodding, this information -- which would make the company noteworthy -- has not been added to the article. With a little help, the article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy and thus I added the advert tag and have changed my vote to Keep. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Much as I do not like spam articles, there is enough hint of notability to keep this article. --- Skapur 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Enough independent sources presented to satisfy WP:N, WP:CORP Criteria 1. Article definitely needs a rewrite for WP:NPOV, but that's a separate issue. Whther this company deserved to have its press releases picked up and printed in major media outlets or not, it did, and hence notability is established. -- Shirahadasha 08:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reprints of press releases are trivial and not independent, so do not fulfill the criteria for multiple non-trivial coverage in relibale sources independent of the subject. Guy ( Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks again for your comments. Articles about a company that are not written by the company itself cannot be considered to be press releases. You may perceive some articles to be favorable to the company, but that is not because the company wrote them. Especially in the case of major news organizations, articles about companies are written from the unbiased, individual perspective of each reporter as formed by interviews with the company, its customers and independent analysts. Not all of these points of view are necessarily favorable to the company. As for WP:NPOV, I hope my latest edits are helpful. -- Cbyeh 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • To Cbyeh - Here is what the article reads so far: The company was founded. The company’s first product was released. Tacit released its second product. Tacit released its third product. Please note that every company has a founding date and just about all of them release some product. The article essentially is saying that there is nothing notable enough about Tacit to include in the Wikipedia article but if you are interested in learning more, here an a lot of external links. The Wikipedia:Notability requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The source material linked in the article does not provide enough source material to write a Wikipedia:Verifiability, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article still violates the policy Wikipedia:Notability (note - WP:CORP is only guideline and AfD is based on policies. You could avoid the issue of whether the external links provide enough source material by actually including the source material in the body of the article.) Also, except for the lead section, each sentence should have a footnote to permit other editors to verify the statements in the article. I posted a footnote in the article as an example (the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, which it is not). The information in the article is not verifiable. The article violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm glad to see you add more to the article, but I haven't changed my opinion and still think the article should be deleted. You haven't made many posts on Wikipedia. What is your interest in creating an article on Tacit Software? -- Jreferee 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • To Jreferee - thanks for your help and for your comments. I have modified the content of the page significantly so that it better states (and supports) the notability requirements (and hopefully the neutrality requirements) the community has cited in this dialog. Let me address your more personal questions. This is indeed my first posting in Wikipedia. Tacit Software is a company that has recently come under much more public scrutiny because of a new product it just launched. My goal for posting in Wikipedia is to provide a fact-based description of the company and its technologies so users can learn more in a neutral environment. If the article violates Wikipedia notability and neutrality rules, I think that's due to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia novice and not that the company itself is not notable. As always, your comments are welcome. I am particularly interested in community feedback on cleanup - what specifically should be worked on? -- Cbyeh 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Cbyeh - The cleaned up article looks even more like an advertisement for the company's products, which makes it even a stronger deletion candidate (see WP:AFDP#Companies). Didn't anything notable happen to the company or was caused by the company between 1997 and 2007? Review this google search for notable items to include in the article. Did the company receive any legitimate awards for notable merit? Did Tacit best other companies to win any awards? A company having products or patents is not notable. Did the ActiveNet or illumio products make a notable difference in the companies that purchased the product? Was there some notable event in the development of these products? Were any of the Tacit patents subject to a notable legal fight? Did Tacit buy any of the patents for a huge amount of money? As for further clean up, you should review the cited external links for facts to include in the article and add the link as a footnote and remove it from the external links. - Jreferee 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Jreferee - thanks again for your comments. Thanks for pushing me to make this article better. I have made additional changes to the article per your thoughts. -- Cbyeh 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia is more of a fact based environment rather than a neutral environment. You might want to include in the article information about the public scrutiny of Tacit Software that you mention above. I'm sure it will eventually be added and, if you don't do it yourself, you might not like the results. Also, I think it's great that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia beyond this one article. If you are interested in developing articles on other CIA backed companies, there is list at CIA investments. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    keep Nice to see real imrovement as a result of the discussion. DGG 04:50, 10 January 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 G11, A7. Naconkantari 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Avangate

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

    Not only a partial copyvio, but does not meet the corresponding notability criteria. TRKtv t c e 00:23, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 05:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Vagrant Downfall and David Beeler

    Vagrant Downfall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    David Beeler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    hoax. Nothing about this band at artist direct, despite claims of great sales on their first album (and apparently on their second album which has been out for less than three days?), and no hits for '"Van's Warped Tour" "Vagrant Downfall"'. Also include their 16-year-old member, whose MySpace page name is the same name as the creator of the two articles. User:Zoe

    It's all true I swear. Cmon guys

    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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bro (second nomination)

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

    Regional slang without any sign of reliable sources for a definition. The other definition of "bro" that I've seen flatly contradicts this one. Original VFD supported deletion, but the article was redirected instead. Content is substantially different, so no speedy-repost. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:57, 5 January 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 to Heaven on Earth I'm also doing the same to Portland Walk Shopping Centre-- Robdurbar 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Dalton Road

    Dalton Road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a directory. Similar sized towns don't have lists for each of their shopping streets. MrBeast 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Maybe the editor is the owner of the photo, inherited from a relative. From 1912, it's likely public-domain anyway. -- Oakshade 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps not. This wasn't taken in the US, so the pre-1923 clause is irrelevant. If the copyright statute in the UK (and I don't know what it is) is 50 or 70 years after the death of the author, it's possible it could still be copyright. If the author was 18 when the picture was taken, he or she could easily have died in the 1960s or 1970s. -- Charlene 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    UK law is 70 years after the death of the artist. [1]. Tevildo 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    So if the author died less than 24 years after that was taken, it's still under copyright. -- Charlene 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Unless the photographer is "unknown", in which case the copyright expired on January 1st, 1983. I don't pretend to know what the legal definition of "unknown" is in this context - let's just say that there's a more-than-trivial chance that the picture is still in copyright. Tevildo 12:40, 5 January 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 what BS! - crz crztalk 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Josh avni

    Josh avni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This page is nonsense Ccmolik 01:03, 5 January 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 - crz crztalk 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Quick Key

    Quick Key (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    an unnotable software Gravity Talk 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • In response to "an unnotable software"

    Because you personally do not use it? That is hardly a reason. This program is widely used, and is the most popular Open Source application in its class. This type of application is designed for people who use multiple languages, and has a target audience that probably doesn't include you. Nathanaeljones 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

     Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
     Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:03, 5 January 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 transwiki to Commons. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Gallery of illuminated manuscript images (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    I am also nominating the following related pages:

    Gallery of Book of Kells pages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Gallery of Froissart's Chronicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Wikipedia is not Commons, and some equivalent galleries already exist at: Commons:Category:Illuminated manuscripts, Commons:Book of Kells, Commons:Vienna Dioscurides. -- Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Move/merge to commons. We don't want to lose that resource but yes it belongs on commons. If nobody wants to take it on then just delete, we have to get this out of the mainspace -- froth T C 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    There shouldnt be that many images to move to commons. Most of them already exist there. -- Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin

    Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Porny mahjong game released only in Japan. Along with this one I am bundling the game's sequel:

    Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Neither game seems notable for any reason. -- Masamage 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Yeah, I didn't mean it as a major reason, just as evidence that no one cared much about it. I may be wrong, but if so, the article sure doesn't inform me of my mistake. -- Masamage 02:14, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Crappling

    Crappling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    BMB Finishes

    BMB Finishes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    A small company that has only really made one movie, non-notable. Scepia 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    University of Nottingham Students' Union

    University of Nottingham Students' Union (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    nn student group — Swpb talk contribs 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb talk contribs 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot ( talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)-- Docg 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep nominator doesn't understand UK universities. This is not a 'student group' but the statutory organisation that includes every student in this very large university. UK university student unions an their politics are inherently notable.-- Docg 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep as Doc says, student unions are important institutions within the universities; under the Education Act 1994 they are responsible for the representation of the interests of all students within the University, without prejudice to their affiliation (so in the case of the University of Nottingham we're talking about a statutory organisation providing representation to in excess of 30,000 people). I agree that the article at present is poor and includes a lot of vanity material, and the List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union is excessive, but the student union is a very important part of UK student life. Robotforaday 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Perhaps this is notable within the school, but if Doc Glasgow there can demonstrate why it's notable beyond the walls of the school and/or what otherwise comprises the "softer" parts of the school (i.e., off-campus housing and such), then the article probably has a fighting chance. -- Dennisthe2 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times [3] and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money [4] Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union [5]. Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Please also see WP:NOTABILITY for notability standards. This will give a guide as to what constitutes "notable" around here. -- Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Notable in by my judgment, informative, and verifiable. And on further reading of the article, seems well done. I can't conceive of a reason to remove information of this caliber. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Wait for sources, otherwise Delete. The criteria for notability are not about how well the article is written, or about how large or useful the subject is, but whether it's gotten enough independent coverage that information about it can be verified. This organization is local and so WP:ORG Criterion 2 applies, and multiple independent reliable sources are required. The article in its current state simply doesn't demonstrate that. Folks who are interested in having the article kept would be wise to spend their time trying to dig up sources where the Union is mentioned, or preferably featured, in independent media articles and the like that meet the WP:RS policy. If they can't be produced, Delete. -- Shirahadasha 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per Shirahadasha. Notability MUST be established by references to non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mere existence is not good enough for inclusion, this organisation must have done something newsworthy in order to merit an article. Zun aid © Review me! 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per all above. Jcuk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete because my brain just can't comprehend how a "organisation that includes every student" is somehow fundamentally different from a "student group". At best this would be a merge with the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)-- Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge & Delete; merge with the article regarding the school. Case-in-point, there are no articles for each and every student government body for each and every college in either the US or the UK (and there shouldn't be!). -- Mhking 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Why not?-- Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb talk contribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far). Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per Doc Glasgow. A statutory organisation recognised by the Government, a member body of the National Union of Students and recognised by the university who's students it represents. NUS and the University of Nottingham should represent reliable sources. Like almost every other students union it's mentioned in the various university guides describing facilities and giving reviews. Also referenced by British University Sports Association with regards to sports results. All this most surely represent multiple reliable sources. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random [6].if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus. Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Various British Wikipedians are testifying that University Student Unions in the UK are inherently notable. Will those who are obviously ignorant of UK Educational arrangements please at least consider that we might know what we are talking about. Anyone who insists in talking about a UK University as just a 'school' obviously knows nothing about the subject matter and probably should no more comment than I would on articles on astrophysics.-- Docg 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. -- SunStar Net talk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep changing vote per Doc glasgow's argument. -- SunStar Net talk 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete The Student Union at the University I attended in the U.S. was composed exactly how Doc describes Student Unions in the UK - every student was automatically a member, it exerted significant policy influence over the institution, the whole shebang. I am still not impressed that such organizations are exempt from the requirements of multiple non-trivial (note the documentation Heligoland and Geni describe is certainly reliable, but is trivial) sources documenting notability. Lyrl Talk C 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based. Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable. I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • keep student's unions are inherently notable. Geni 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • COMMENT - For those who are insisting that, as per Geni's note immediately above, "student's unions are inherently notable", please refer to this link, which explains what is considered notable here on Wikipedia. If I am reading this correctly, a student union is actually not inherently notable - it is simply a student union. If a student union is notable at all, notability needs to be demonstrated here as per the standards - and in this case we're not seeing notability being demonstrated. Please also note that, per my replacement of the removed afdanons template, this is not a tally vote, this is a concensus, and this requires a good argument. My !vote as such remains "delete". -- Dennisthe2 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. -- Docg 04:16, 6 January 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. Don't do copy and paste moves like this. If you want to turn James McFadden into a dab page, do it by using the move function. W.marsh 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player)

    James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Pointless copy of James McFadden, with a name which doesn't seem to relate to the article. ArtVandelay13 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    speedy no sense edit. Matthew_hk t c 02:35, 5 January 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 A7 by Royalguard11. Tevildo 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Fraze Gang

    Fraze Gang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Fraser. — Swpb talk contribs 02:05, 5 January 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Greg Fraser

    Greg Fraser (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraze Gang. — Swpb talk contribs 02:05, 5 January 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 G1. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Prank

    The Prank (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This contested CSD candidate proves just what its title suggests. Speedy Delete (G1) as nom, and block its creator, SlugsRus ( talk · contribs), for a week. Slg r a n d s o n ( page - messages - contribs) 02:13, 5 January 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 raw vote totals are 4 Delete, 3 Keep, 4 Merge (two of the Keep voters struck out their bolded "vote", for some reason, but they didn't strike out their Keep arguments, so they still count as Keep comments. So clearly there's no consensus to outright delete the article, and no real consensus at all about what to do. I found the Keep arguments to be pretty well-made and cogent, so by strength of argument we get Keep. Herostratus 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Armistice and Dedication Day

    Armistice and Dedication Day (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable juvenilia from songwriter Robert B. Sherman. Play written when author was 16, performed at the amateur/high school level, and apparently not since. Nice that it raised money for the war effort during WWII, but the notability of the author as a songwriter does not automatically make every work notable. No sources, reliable or otherwise provided, and the <20 Ghits on title + author's surname primarily refer back to WP or mirrors. Robertissimo 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Do Not Delete. Because he's more famous for writing songs than plays/screenplays, does not make his work in this area unremarkable. See the page Robert B. Sherman to see his work in screenplays. The fact that it was written when the author was 16 is not the point of the article either: What is important is that the play and author were recognized for fiscal contribution to the war effort, raising thousands of dollars. This play along with two radio programs produced and written by the same author appear on page 109 of Walt's Time [1] which was a published, joint autobiography, from 1998. Howard352 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. What we're dealing with, however, is not the worthiness of the project, one among thousands that helped support the war effort. What we need are reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this work. A mention in the author's bio article may well be appropriate; given that it, from what Howard352 says, gets less than a page's mention in the author's own autobiography seems telling. Robertissimo 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply


    • Response to Robertissimo Walt's Time is a joint autobiography of both Sherman Brothers so Armistice and Dedication Day's "less than one page's mention" is understandable. (I don't know how Robertissimo can consider this legitimate criteria for deletion however.) As a side note, I have reason to believe that there is more of a mention in the author's currently unpublished (but recently completed) personal autobiography. I did not site that source here, because, as I'm certain Wikipedia standards would concur, an unpublished source cannot be cited. Nevertheless, Walt's Time was cited, and it is a published source, so that really should be adequete. Regardless, and as I mentioned above, I don't think that "a page mention" is actually considered a Wikipedia dividing line. Further to Robertissmo's argument, I am not aware of the "thousands that helped support the war effort" to whom he is haphazzardly refering. Certainly Robertissmo isn't suggesting that there were thousands of plays written in support of the war effort. Simply put, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publically, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may be of interest to users. Lastly, it was referenced in a recently published and available book (i.e. " Walt's Time"). For the reasons cited, the Armistice and Dedication Day page should not be deleted or merged. Howard352 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The information should not be lost. I agree with Howard's reasoning, recognition by War Department and famous author makes it notable. Should be kept, especially as a unique example of his work. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge/redirect to Robert B. Sherman. There's about two sentences of unique content in the article -- the rest of it recapitulates Sherman's life story. If it were an article with any depth I might vote differently. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep In response to Dhartung, I have been doing on going research on this article and have to get access to some archives which I plan to do over the next few months. There will be more information, when I am able to access it, but like many articles found in Wikipedia, this is a work in progress. It is being developed. I don't believe that I have been irresponsible or premature in creating the separate page either. However, I must make a personal note on this, I find it very discouraging to find articles deleted before they have a chance to be fully developed and will wait to know the immediate status of the article prior to spending any more time doing research for it. I hope this doesn't come across as bitterness, it's not meant as such. I recognize the balance that must be attained between hard line "deletionism" and a more liberal view. I just have better things to do with my time than to do research in good faith, only to see that work fall into the abyss! Howard352 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Recommend author works on article in userspace ( User:Horard352/development) until he can do the above. Right now, Dhartung's right - it's not referenced, and really doesn't say anything besides "he wrote it, here's the plot, here's a short summary of his life story". -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)\ reply
    • Keep, Do Not Move To Userspace Wooty is correct that the article was not referenced, but that has now been corrected. Thank you for pointing out my ommision. Let me restate that this article is a work in progress. But that said, there will probably be other contributors to this page as there are a number of people who are interested in the Sherman Brothers, World War II and Disney related media. There are people who know about this play. Nothing in the article has been "guessed at", but it is sparce, admittedly. But I don't think userspace is appropriate because then it won't have the chance of properly expanding and therefore will be defeating one of the purposes of Wikipedia, to build accurate articles about meaningful data by a community of Wikipedians. (This is not a quote, I did not find this anywhere. But it seems to me to capture, in part, the spirit) I will restate, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publicly, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may prove to be of value to users. Howard352 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge with article on the person himself, where this is already covered. Doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article - has it ever been performed again ? WMMartin 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge and redirect. As WMMartin says, it doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, even if it is verified. However, some of the information could add value to the Robert B. Sherman article. Dekimasu 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Robert B. Sherman. It's notable, but not quite article-notable.-- Wizardman 05:47, 13 January 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, the history is available to users. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Silver Chips Online (2nd Nomination)

    Silver Chips Online (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    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, I think it's pretty clear that people aren't going to accept a nomination five days after the previous one. The nominator's edits other than this seem to be POV warring on Oral sex, so I think that can be ignored. - Amarkov blah edits 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    American Nihilist Underground Society (4th Nomination)

    American Nihilist Underground Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non notable, nominated previously for deletion but vote was commandeered by sockpuppets and affiliates of site owners. Not notable to an encyclopedia even compared to other recreational internet forums, due to lack of readership and influence. HeavyMetalManiac 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy close. This is Articles for deletion. The nominator noted that the article was a duplicate article, and even noted the merger tag. But xe brought the article to AFD instead of discussing the merger on the indicated talk page or simply doing the merger xyrself. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. It does not require administrator tools. Even editors without accounts have all of the editing tools necessary to perform article mergers. Uncle G 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Japanese suffixes

    Japanese suffixes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Obviously quite some work went into this, but unfortunately the article is not much more than a duplication of info already available at Japanese titles. The "Japanese titles" article is also written with much more accordance to wikipedia standards. This article has been marked with a merge tag for some time now, as well. TomorrowTime 03:03, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Crystal of Ultimate Vision

    Crystal of Ultimate Vision (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    nn fictional item, pure fancruft, fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NOR merge somewhere if there is any useful info or delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete as a fan-fiction, or something. Anyway, violates WP:NOT and original research. -- Wafulz 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per above. MER-C 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge into one of the X-Men or Marvel Comics articles, after trimming and seriously condensing, if an appropriate one can be found - it's a Marvel Universe plot device, but it's really not important/notable enough to warrant it's own article. Delete if no suitable article exists. -- Mrph 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. A reason these fan pages keep getting deleted is that they appear to be written from someone's personal memory of the topic. There might be something that we are overlooking. For example, look at today's featured article, The Adventures of Tintin. It became a featured article, even though it links to the troubled article Secondary characters and settings in The Adventures of Tintin. Is there some special Wikipedia rule for fan pages? I don't know of any so I believe that delete is appropriate here. It's unfortunate that many of these fan pages have to be deleted. There probably is valid, factual information in the article that would permit the article to survive AfD if an editor did the leg work and provided footnotes. Keeping these troubled fan pages and giving featured article status to articles that link to these troubled fan pages only encourages more problem pages, results in more AfD work, and creates more disappointed editors whose hard work continues to be deleted because it is allow to exists and grow in the first place. -- Jreferee 18:40, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move

    TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unreferenced and unsourced neologism with no claim to notability or widespread use. A "contested" prod. Salad Days 03:19, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Fkn0wned

    Fkn0wned (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Appears to be a non-notable community of CS hackers, appears to serve no purpose other than advertisement. Cites no references, and barely qualifies as a stub. Google results mainly bring up distributions of a hack they have authored, which does not meet notability guidelines even remotely. Generally fails under WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM -- Haemo 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit

    Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    [Check Google hits] Non-notable restaurant, not a single gHit. Fails WP:V. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:43, 5 January 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 G4, A7. Naconkantari 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    HARRY POTTER ONLINE

    HARRY POTTER ONLINE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL, no sources indicating development. The only "source" is a hypothetical "this would be a cool game" feature on Gamespot.  :: mikm t 03:49, 5 January 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 Procedural close, AfD shelved until sockpuppet issues are resolved. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    PGNx Media (3rd nomination)

    PGNx Media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    A multiplatform videogame website. Prior deletions have been overturned at deletion review and the article is now back here for consideration of the claims and sources. This is procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak Keep, but it needs more WP:V. Just H 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I would be happen to verify anything in the article that would require a source. Do you have a particular example? Infomanager 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • In regards to the critical acclaim and well known associates (such as Rotten Tomatoes) of the site. That seemed to put it just over the border of Keep for me, more of that will send it further over the edge. Just H 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment on WP:WEB - PGNx Media meets the third possibility in the WP:WEB requirement. As a reminder, it requires that "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" - The content is actually distributed through a number of independent online publications, but for the source of this argument, I will be using Rotten Tomatoes.
    • Comment on WP:RS - The sources mentioned in the article, namely Metacritic, Game Rankings, and Rotten Tomoatoes are notable, reliable, and independent sources. As I mentioned above, PGNx Media does not share any editors, owners, etc with any of those sources. Any notable claims, such as the size of the review archives, business opportunities, etc are sources. The claims in the article are not extraordinary or self-supporting. Infomanager 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment on website's content - Its review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews, making it the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications [16]. Keep in mind that while users can add links to Gamerankings, all links have to be approved by a Gamerankings editor. Infomanager 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment on article's structure - The article was written to comply with Wikipedia's objective tone and I followed the structure used by other websites (namely Introduction, Coverage, Notability, Staff, Criticisms) Infomanager 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment on passing the five-year rule - As mentioned in the article, PGNx Media will began its sixth year of operations in two weeks. As someone who follows videogame websites, this is an important milestone and one that not many are able to claim (especially those that are independent). Also, in looking at the website today, I noticed that they have published over 13,000 articles in the last five years [17]. Infomanager 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep - Websites primarily seem to involve WP:WEB and WP:RS. As discussed above, I fully believe that both of those requirements have been aptly met and demonstrated in the article. With 5 years, 13,000 articles, and 1,200 reviews under their belts, I don't see this website going away anytime soon. They have demonstrated to be important in their field. Infomanager 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Infomanager has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that the article is notable and verifiable. -- Falcorian  (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep WP:WEB, WP:RS were demonstrated. I have absolutely no concerns not addressed above. Brendan Alcorn 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep - WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met (though it is questionable whether the distribution methods truly demostrate notability). My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) are definitely met. So, weak keep. --- RockMFR 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Stronger than normal keep - Comments on WP:WEB and WP:RS demonstrate that these policies/guidelines have been met. Other comments pushed me towards a strong-ish keep. Paul D. Meehan 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep More "this is gonna be renominated time and again till we get the result we want?" Jcuk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep but needs major work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep WP:RS and WP:WEB have been well demonstrated. Brad Guzman 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep Infomanager has aptly proved WP:WEB and WP:RS. Some of the notability section should be cleaned up a bit, although I understand why it was written that way for the purposes of a deletion review and AfD. Gisele Hsieh 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep from me as well. I cleaned up the notability section because some of it came across as boasting. Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:RS extremely well. Alan Shatte 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep per infomanager. Website meets requirements stipulated in WP:RS and WP:WEB. Article seems to be written in an encyclopedic manner, especially after the recent string of edits. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep passes WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS Joel Jimenez 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - gaming media sites seem under constant attack for whatever reason. Tarinth 10:20, 6 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Morgan Featherstone

    Morgan Featherstone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unsourced biography of a seemingly unnotable person janejellyroll 04:06, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    L. A. Rotheraine

    L. A. Rotheraine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 5 January 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 move to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards (I spell checked and googled the name). - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004

    Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unnecessary article, we don't yet even have an article on the awards themselves. Orphaned contested prod. MER-C 04:07, 5 January 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. The nominator is advised to seek opinion of colleagues in the future. This article certainly didn't look like spam or vanity or new cult or hoax. And there are quite a few foreign languages if you don't find much in English, and wikipedian who speak these languages. `' mikka 05:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Russian True Orthodox Church

    Russian True Orthodox Church (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Personally, I know nothing about this subject but when I came across the article, it looked a little suspect. I'm unaware of any 3rd party sources for this church but the Google test comes up with only around 80 unique hits. As such, I prodded it, but it was removed with the message "de-prod, this is a denomination, and denominations are almost always kept" (I actually have no idea where this logic comes from since most articles are de-prodded by the author and then deleted at AfD). Anyway, I looked at WP:CHURCH and WP:ORG and both mention the requirement of 3rd party sources which this article lacks. However, I am actually neutral and I'm only here to create a place for discussion about the article's inclusion. Axem Titanium 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • speedy keep. A very notable denomination. -- Irpen 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep Well, if we search in Cyrillic we get [18] 17K ghits of the "True Orthodox Church", [19] 11K ghits on the Cathacom Church and many more hits on other decendants (the church had a lot of schisms and now is divided on 6 indepndent churches). Even without the googlecounting, the church is quite important historically as the only church for Orthodoxes in Russia that did not colloborate with the communist authorities (and have very bad relations with the modern Russian authorities). Thousands of their people were executed, murdered or imprisoned Alex Bakharev 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Articles about real religions are better than articles about fictional cartoon characters, of which WP has many. Wasted Time R 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per above. The edit summary almost certainly meant that "articles about religious denominations are almost always kept", as opposed to articles about individual churches. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Orca (supercar)

    Orca (supercar) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unsourced and does not assert notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy delete as probable attack page. Someone might want to get rid of the links to this article. Sandstein 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Faxed Head

    Faxed Head (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable, unlistenable joke "band". Their releases are on the band's vanity label and if they've ever toured (or even given actual concerts) I can't find evidence of it, thus fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. Band site doesn't load, the other site gives a bunch of bogus rambling but includes the statement "Gregg used to run Amarillo Records and Faxed Head was another excuse for him to release a bunch of singles and a couple of CDs of he and his friends shitty-fiddling around" which I guess sums it up. Herostratus 04:59, 5 January 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. Naconkantari 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Bradford Gypsy

    The Bradford Gypsy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Boyfriend's vanity? Hoax? The article doesnt make a lot of sense. Unencyclopaedic as it stands. Less than 30 Google hits, of which most are wikipedia mirrors. Not referenced, no articles link to it. MegX 05:02, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    CCS (magazine)

    CCS (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Is this mail order catalogue (masquerading as a "magazine") notable? I don't think so. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:05, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    John Russell Herbert

    John Russell Herbert (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Also nominating the following related page:

    New Spiritual Aestheticism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non-notable artist. Previously speedied; contested PROD. Relevant Ghits on full name = 0 (after subtracting link to deleted Wiktionary entry), on "John Herbert" +artist = none apparent in top 100 results; on employer the Lagniappe Project + surname = 0; on "MW Balance" + Wroclaw = 0. Two sources are provided. The first ("Baccalaureate Career") allows one to access a self-generated alumnus profile indicating that subject did indeed double-major as an undergraduate at a Maryland College. The second is a link to employer The Lagniappe Project that does not mention the subject. A search of the website for second employer, Maryland Institute College of Art, finds a directory listing for subject as employed in the Alumni Program Development office. [20]. In short, nothing appears to back up statement that the subject is "credited as a major figure in the turn of the twenty-first century movement" synthesizing trends of the previous century. In the absence of veriable information on exhibitions, publications, reviews, etc., fails WP:BIO. Also nominating article on subject's "movement", New Spiritual Aestheticism (oddly, not mentioned in subject's own article), of which I cannot find a trace. Robertissimo 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy deleted by User:Voice of All, G1. - Amarkov blah edits 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field

    Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Bump from speedy, because hoax is still not a criteria. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 05:20, 5 January 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 Sock infested, but obvious consenus. - Docg 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bestian Order of Aestheteka

    Bestian Order of Aestheteka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Delete - non-notable organization, no verifiable sources, most likely self-promotion. Tunnels of Set 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom, and the 22 unique Google hits (and that's including Wikipedia and mirrors) aren't exactly a good sign either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete The article lacks any independent references, and I could not find any in Proquest. So a worldwide religious order with claiimed number of adherents in the hundreds has not yet gained sufficient notability for an article. And nothing here to meet WP:CONG. Edison 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete smacks of a hoax, lacks clear verifiability, a movement with several hundred members would have some evidence for its existence. I had a quick look at the linked "Theistic Satanism" and "Left-Hand Path" articles, they're getting into some murky waters but just about pass the test for inclusion, but there's nothing in them to clearly back up this article. PatGallacher 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Aestheteka is a new and growing inluential group. I've seen their ideas independently through a few different websites and I know they have two books out. I've heard that their system is pretty unique and innovative. Either way, I know they are a legitamate group and I don't see a basis for deletion as in learning about them I've spent some time talking to various members from all over the globe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) — Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • KeepI am writing to enquire why the Bestian Order of Aestheteka entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheteka%2C_Bestian_Order_of - is up for deletion. We are a legitimate group. The several hundred members that have been 'questioned' would quite like to post their comments concerning whether the page should be Kept or Deleted, but thereisno option for them to do so, unlike the several other Satanic groups which youhave also decided to delete. we are registered in the Slovak Republic as a company entity. our teachings are legitmate and are published in the form of two books - both by Crystal Dreams Publishing in the United States - and by Aestheteka itself elsewhere. As for legitimate links - there were several links to discussion groups, forums and otehr internet entities, due to our globally located membership, yet these have been deleted from the reference page. As for the legitimate existence of the Bestian Order of aestheteka, just do a google on 'Aestheteka' and you will see how substantial both our membership and our coverage is. Please advise - it is hardly non-discriminatory for the refernce to be deletd if its members and adherents cannot comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) — Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Note - the article has been updated. However, a simple google on 'aestheteka' would have answered any queries you might have had.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs)
    • Delete unsourced. To answer the author's complaint, the process here is definitely discrimintory - we're trying to discriminate subjects that should have articles from those that shouldn't. This falls into the latter group. WilyD 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep! Bestian Order of the Aestheteka is a legitimate group that has maintained contact, worldwide, via the internet. Open discussions on a variety of spiritual concepts is a main function of this group. It is a budding religion focused on the need for self to be recognized more intimately. This is not a religion based on strict code of moral or dogma. These are discovered and worked through by each individual, with the aid and support of the groups members. The importance of this order, is the melding of ancient wisdom (as passed down through the ages) and more modernistic concepts from the likes of Jung and Crowley. It is a religion focused on self, but not exclusive of the world at large. - Kevin W. Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.223.38 ( talk • contribs) — 209.232.223.38 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • KeepTo answer Wilyd's comments - perhaps he does not know how to google or how to look up sources himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) - second keep vote by this individual ( Jefferson Anderson 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) reply
    Source 1, as stated in the article - Sophia Bestiae, published by Crystal Dreams publishing; source 2 - Grimoire Bestiae, ditto. Both of these texts are the fundament of Aestheteka ideology - a legitimate ideology with several hundred adherents worldwide.
    source 3 - the ammendment to theistioc Satanism (the original ammendment was to Satanism but was later split into two topics). This was not done by Aestheteka but by another Satanic Group after the Church of Satan's and Sinagogue of Satan's reading of the Sophia Bestiae (relevance already stated in previosu thread)- sources here:

    http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/News.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rev._Michael_S._Margolin/Sinagogue_of_Satan http://www.anathemabooks.com/satan.shtml http://www.eyeofthoth.com/history.html http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2006/08aug/cthulhucult.html http://www.dpjs.co.uk/animal.html (where we are quoted as source material due to the reasons stated in the previous comment)

    Aestheteka is recognised by many in the Left Hand Path communities and is known globally as a melting pot of Dark Art and teh dark Arts. To remove the entry would be to discriminate solely on religious terms. Should you wish us to edit the entry to make it more Wikippealing, then please state how. The sources are plentiful; as previously stated on two occasions 'just google aestheteka'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs)
    I know how to google - what google does not give (as far as I can see) is reliable, third party sources. It's now also glaringly evident to me the article fails WP:VAIN. WilyD 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps WilyD would be good enough to explain why he is so obsessed about the removal of a page describing a religious order? Sources have been cited, yet these have been ignored. it is clear that WilyD is being objectionable on something other than purely academic grounds andhis comments such be taken into account in such light. The article may be updated to fit those sources (if they are not removed again by hands unseesn), but it is intolerable for such discriminatory behaviour to be enacted upon given suchlegislation as UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comments Article 18. Wikipedia is supposed to be about information and it is an invaluable research tool. One learns from using it. Perhaps those who had notheard of aestheteka due to theirlack of connection to LHP activities, now have access to its basic tenets (as opposed to its stated Occult Ideology here - http://www.aestheteka.com/aestheteka%20occult%20ideology.htm ). As the Aestheteka Forum is currently ranked c.60,000 out of all internet sites, it is clearthatmore than a handful of people know of Aestheteka and its activities. but again a simple google would have shown that.
    Happy to oblige. I really don't like spam, except maybe fried with ketchup. In any event, it doesn't taste good in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    There is no need to advertise your lack of taste either gastronomically or philosophically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC). reply
    You asked, so I obliged. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's policy is that spam has no place in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka equates to a post-modern intelligent construct with creativity at warp-drive. Deleting the entry pertaining to this, will, in my opinion, rock the boat on Wikipedia offering pertinent, useful and up-to-date information on getting outside the box that we came in. In deep respect, Su Leybourn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.13.60 ( talk) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC). — 144.138.13.60 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an innovative and active system of LHP initiation. The Order currently has three published texts outlining It's initiation ceremonies, core ideology, and practices. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka Has an international hub on the Internet as well as local groups in Slovakia, Germany, and the US. I, along with the hundreds of other members, were shocked to hear that the entry on our order is being considered for deletion on the supposition that we don't exist. We find this humorous, but disturbing. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is endorsed by the Magickal Paradigms Occult group and myself it's moderator. Thank you. 68.206.197.128 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jay Krodel. — 68.206.197.128 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Keep While not everyone may find Aesthetheka politically correct, there are many individuals who find it relevant, and having access to this information for both research and networking, on Wikipedia, is necessary. If Wikipedia wants to maintain any credibility as an impartial tool for information, and not an instrument of arbitrary censorship, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Mr. O'Toole has several books published, an E-zine, and a worldwide internet following. This is all easily verified.… Based on those facts alone, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Chaosmom 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Chaosmom — Chaosmom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Delete - That "coverage" is illusory. Yes, there are over 9000 hits for the word, but if you exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors, aestheteka -wikipedia, there are less than 1000. Most of the "coverage" is generated by an active campaign of Google-bombing Wikipedia and other sites where a "listing" can be posted by anybody. Jefferson Anderson 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    'Listings' generally 'are' posted by somebody... So the fact that we exist now works against us? One factual entry on Wikipedia is hardly google-bombing. Perhaps those calling for deletion should also state their name, age, location, occupation and religious beliefs - otherwise they could be just 'anybody' and as has been claimed in the previous post, an 'anybody' has no worth to their post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC). reply
    • Keep- As a member of the Bestian Order of Aestheteka, I can state here and now that this organization is far from insubstantial. We have scripture, we have philosophy and we have creed. While we are a widely ranged group of individuals, Aestheteka is our anchor in that it gives us common grounding for our own pursuits in the occult paths.
    To remove such a tiny entry purely due to a few religious bigots who are basing their argument on lack of source material and at the same time ignoring the fact that the leader of our group, Edward O'Toole, is an author whose work (our founding tenets - the Sophia Bestiae and the Grimoire Bestiae) is registered and easily accessible to anyone who either understands ISBN numbers or the internet, or Amazon, etc, and that the Aestheteka symbol is a copyrighted symbol with an extremely indepth meaning (originally copyrighted by the English and US magazine Phenomena - countless sources concerning O'Toole's writings, including Coast-to-Coast may be accessed using online search engines).
    Maybe you would be kind enough to explain how the article may be improved rather than deleted? After all - we are real, you just haven't taken the time to establish that fact. LJ, Liverpool, England — Preceding unsigned comment added by LolaJane ( talk • contribs) — LolaJane ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep. I have dealt with the Bestian Order of Aestheteka and they are a real group. as Wiki suggests, a head count does not determine the validity of anything. even if there are a dozen members of this organization, it should be recorded and available on Wikipedia. signed 24.177.130.98 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Venger Satanis, Cult of Cthulhu High Priest reply

    This entry does not violate any of the following Wikipedia Policy as is claimed by WillyD: 1)WP:RS Reliable Published Sources. The material given here is based on reliable published sources: Sophia Bestiae is published by Crystal Dreams Publishing, ISBN  1-59146-075-1, as is Grimoire Bestiae, 1-59146-666-0) 2)WP:OR Is also used to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source or is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." This is negated by the above explanation and also by the fact that Aestheteka exists as an international occult group with hundreds of members and therefore should be listed for the same reasons that Wikipedia lists Christianity. 3)WP:SPAM Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. This article is not selling or promoting anyone or anything and does not meet the criteria for being spam. This article is designed to provide information on a rapidly growing religious-philosophical movement. 4)WP:V Verifiability, not truth. That The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an fast growing International Occult Order with local groups in three countries, with three texts published by a well-known publishing company and available on Amazon.com and is endorsed by several external organizations (linked to above in this article) is easily verifiable by anyone capable of a web search. 5) WP:VAIN or WP:COI The only Conflict of interest in the move to have this article deleted is on the part of the editor who is obviously prejudiced by the inclusion of the terms Luciferian and Satanist. The comments made by WillyD constitute mere intolerance, but the deleting of this article would constitute an illegal act of religious discrimination and censorship. 6) WP:KITCHEN SINK States that: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. IF Wikipedia wishes to remain true to it's commitment to providing a high quality encyclopedia it is important that it not delete relevant articles relating to important religious movements just because some prejudiced editor has a personal problem with the articles ideology. Wikipedia is incomplete without reference to the one of the occult community's fastest growing sub-cultures; Aestheteka. Unless one of the certain things that Wikipedia is not happens to be - unbiased. 7) It appears that this article has been attacked by an unscrupulous character calling himself WillyD who is determined to convince Wikipedia that this article violates Wikipedia policy, which it does not, due to his personal dislike of the content of this page. Aestheteka is an innovative and rapidly growing international quasi-religious organization. Any Online Encyclopedia not including it would be incomplete. 68.206.197.128 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Jay Krodel. 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Order of Nine Angles

    Order of Nine Angles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
      ATTENTION!

    If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

    You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

    Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

    {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

    Delete, non-notable organization's website is hosted on tripod??? Tunnels of Set 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Tripod?!? Also, at least some of the sources seem to be fake. "094664604X" for example turns up nothing on the ISBNdb. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Reserving judgment pending discussion of the sources cited. This article at least claims to have some sources, but it is difficult to evaluate whether they are reliable, verifiable, and independent. "Thormynd Press" is the main publisher cited and only gets 236 google hits and apparently is primarily a publisher of books on Nazi Satanism. Is Thormynd independent of the subject of the article? Are the other sources cited reliable, verifiable and independent? Edison 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. This organization is mentioned in several published books - such as the one by Goodrick-Clark which mention is several pages long - and has been detailed in academic articles such as the Anthropoetics, and in various published magazines such as Searchlight. The Tripod site is a mirror site - not the actual site of the group. The assertion that some sources are "fake" is incorrect - did the writer of that comment bother to check the British Library catalogue, for instance? It does seem that there is or could be some partionship involved by some users associated maybe with ToS who want the article deleted - as the group under discussion s not liked by some adherents of other "satanic" paths or cults. The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed. 65.57.106.27 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — 65.57.106.27 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Keep. Since the group has been mentioned many times in various publications, both books and journals, it is notable, and its works are for sale by publishers such as Ixaxaar. There is also other non-Tripod like sites which contain the majority of ONA material such as www.openinquiry.org and www.sodl.moonfruit.com/onabooks. Anyways, what is wrong with a tripod site? Coolmoon 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. It's a notable organization, which has received attention in a variety of published literature, from books to articles. Some of its own publications are listed in the British Library online cataloge. The sources as given in the current revision of the Wikipedia article are verifiable and broad, and perhaps some more sources could be included - they are "out there". Cloud-dreamer 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Cloud-dreamer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Keep. This organization has been around forever and is generally a very respected group. Of all the groups on Wiki it's kind of ridiculous this is up for deletion. They have a number of published books and a small but dedicated and inluential following. This is a very important group actually who's members are usually somehat secretive but usually quite open when you meet them. Again, most defientily a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs). — Woe Unto Thee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    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. 
    — 
Nearly Headless Nick 
13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
    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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Order of the Black Venus

    The Order of the Black Venus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Delete, article of non-notable organization appears to rely completely on self-published sources. Tunnels of Set 05:55, 5 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Satanic artists

    Satanic artists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Delete, article appear to be opinion and original research and may have WP:LIVING issues as well. Tunnels of Set 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete as original research. I agree with the BLP issue too; we can't call people Satanic without a pretty good reference - this article has none. - Eron Talk 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete most of the article is based on purely original research and lacks sources. TSO1D 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • SPEEDY Delete, unless backed up by sources before tagging ... there are problems with sources, citations, original research and WP:LIVING. A good eaxample of how not to do it (hey maybe we could keep it as a don't-do-this example) Alf photoman 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, you can call me Satanic if you want, and it's no skin off my nose, but there are certainly people who might object, and I suspect that Bosch would be one if he were still around. Yes, his images of hell are fairly iconic, but that doesn't make it appropriate to call him a "Satanic artist". The article is pure OR, and seems to mix up artists-who-happen-to-be-Satanists (or claim to be) with artists-who-depict-Satan (or hell--not sure Bosch ever actually painted Satan himself). There might possibly be an article to be written on the topic, but this certainly isn't it! (And Satanic Art would probably be a better topic to start with in any case.) What's there is unsalvageable in my opinion. Xtifr tälk 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Fiscalism

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

    I've never heard the term used in this way, nor have I seen the theory described here being advocated by anyone. A Google search for "contained fiscalism" produces only this article and mirrors. JQ 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Keep The article is a little confusing and unsourced, but fiscalism is the structuring of public policy on private capital to maximize public revenue collection. The term Supply-side economics was originally called "supply-side fiscalism." Static Universe 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Fiscalism isn't the same as supply-side economics, which is a specific type of fiscalism. Usually is it contrasted with Monetarism, so Fiscalism is to Fiscal policy what Monetarism is to Monetary policy. Static Universe 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    That explicitly fails WP:NEO. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 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 (withdrawn, page moved). Patstuart talk| edits 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    English Tourist Board

    English Tourist Board (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Not possible to verify the existence of such a body. The article appears to be a front for a commercial website. Mais oui! 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Apparently the organisation was renamed in 1999 to "English Tourism Council", which has itself been defunct since 2003. As it hasn't been around for 8 years it does not Google! Support a page move, as proposed below. Withdraw nomination. Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Mais oui! 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Very Strong Keep. Major UK quango - difficult to imagine anything more notable in the UK tourist industry. Possible bad-faith nom? Tevildo 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment What may seem obvious to you or someone else is not obvious to people from other backgrounds. I would not suggest bad faith here. GassyGuy 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • A glance at Mais oui!'s userpage might possibly suggest that they are not entirely unfamiliar with the UK tourism industry. But this is not the place for such accusations - it's merely an issue that should be borne in mind for this AfD. Tevildo 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Err... hold on just a minute with the "bad faith" accusations!!! There most certainly does exist an organisation called VisitBritain, but I can find no evidence whatsoever of the existence of an "English Tourist Board" (sic). Just try to find a verifiable external source please. -- Mais oui! 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • My sincerest apologies. I think this may just be a confusion over official and colloquial nomenclature. The site http://www.enjoyengland.com , linked to from the article, is also linked as the official site for England on the VisitBritain index page ( [21]). It's also the first site that comes up on a Google search for "English Tourist Board", and was the historical name of the organization until 1999 (See this BBC article). I would support a Move to EnjoyEngland, with a redirect from this page, if it's just the name that's the issue. Tevildo 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Apology accepted. This whole area is very confusing due to devolution and mergers of bodies. The VisitBritain article says that it was a merger of the BTA and something called the "English Tourism Council", but that BBC article clarifies that. In view of the links you provide I would be happy with a page move, leaving this as a redirect. I really did not think that the enjoyengland website looked like anything other than a commercial enterprise, certainly not very "official" looking, but there you go... -- Mais oui! 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I would merge/redirect to VisitBritain as that is the successor organization. EnjoyEngland is the "domestic marketing arm" of VisitBritain, a not overwhelmingly extensive article in which a note of this could be accomodated. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • We'd probably need to merge VisitScotland and Visit Wales as well, if we did that. VisitBritain is the sucessor to the old BTA, responsible for all of Britain (not Northern Ireland - that's still controlled by the NITB) - EnjoyEngland is the arm of it specifically responsible for England. And this really should be on the article talk page, as it's now (at best) a merge proposal. Tevildo 11:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a source for NI being excluded from VisitBritain? Tourism is a devolved matter, and VisitScotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive; snap with Visit Wales and the WAG. -- Mais oui! 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It's mainly a matter of negative evidence. :) Unlike the English, Scottish, and Welsh sites, the Northern Ireland site ( http://www.nitb.com/ ) does _not_ contain any reference to VisitBritain, and the VisitBritian page giving details of its management ( [22]), contains the statement "As chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Tom McGrath attends VisitBritain Board meetings as an observer", strongly implying (but not, I agree, stating explicitly) that the NITB isn't in any way a subsidiary of VB. Tevildo 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    See Talk:VisitBritain for further discussion. Tevildo 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy deleted by admin Deltabeignet (CSD A7 (non-notable group)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bull Moose Party II

    Bull Moose Party II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non notable fringe "political party" that claims to have been founded a couple weeks ago. Absolutely no reliable sources that would allow this to meet verifiability rules. Speedy and prod tags removed by an anon that is likely also the creator. Resolute 06:47, 5 January 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 Adenosine monophosphate. Kesh 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ergadenylic acid

    Ergadenylic acid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This article seems to be pseudoscience. "Ergadenylic acid" is an obscure term for adenosine monophosphate (AMP) [23], and cannot even be found at PubMed [24].

    The entire text is meant to support the notion that AMP is a vitamin by disguising it as "ergadenylic acid". Not only is there a lack of citations to back this claim up, but AMP can be endogenously generated by a number of different mechanisms, as discussed in the article on adenosine monophosphate. This contradicts the notion that it is a vitamin.

    For these reasons, I recommend deleting redirecting Ergadenylic acid. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 11:19, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Petri Suvanto

    Petri Suvanto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Fourteen year old kid who drives kart. Finnish youth champion. Participated at few international junior events, best result was winning a Scandinavian race. Not really "highest level" achievements. Let's delete this page. Time will tell whether there is reason to recreate it. Julius Sahara 08:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Let's wait until he actually wins some international racing events (and not junior one's). Jayden54 13:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per MER-C & Jayden54. He's no Michael Schumacher, yet. Budgiekiller 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Looks to me as if he has won more than Scandinavian race, he is Finnish Junior Champion and if you follow the link against International Open Masters you can see that the races will be televised this year on RAI and Eurosport, and that the Championship is the virtual equivalent of the World Championship's. Following some research I also note that other sporting individuals who have achieved less than this guy have their Wikipedia entries allowed without question. I don't see how something interesting, factual and that is televised internationally should be removed at this stage. If he is the 'reigning' Finnish Junior Champion then there is probably interest in his career from important sources. If he doesnt deliver for a year then I agree it should be removed at that time but why be harsh on a young guy trying to achieve something and so far doing a good job? Mikedonlough 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Wikipedia is not paper, notability can be open to interpretation, but this guy does seem to have some significant achievements, there are probably several articles on other people with equivalent achievements in other areas of human activity. PatGallacher 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Your argument is flawed and is often used by article creators to justify notability of their article. There has to be sensible ways to determine importance (or lack of it) of each subject. When it comes to sports biographies, it is clear that the sportsperson in question has to compete at senior level. This racing driver has still years to reach it. He attends the KF3 class (for under-15's), which is, frankly, a children's class! More creditable karting classes, like KF1 (aka Formula A) and ICA ( Intercontinental A) are also effectively junior classes since most drivers move to bigger vehicles (like Formula Ford or Formula BMW) immediately when they are allowed to do so. Furthermore, nothing implies this driver has outstanding achievements. In Europe alone, there are likely tenfolds of equally talented drivers of his age group. What if all of them would post autobiographies at Wikipedia? If Petri Suvanto matures into a famous driver, he will certainly have a page at Wikipedia. But this is not a crystal ball, he might fail as well. Julius Sahara 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Julius, with the greatest respect my specialist subject's are motor cycling and motor sport and particularly the junior levels which are often underrated by many people as being insignificant - having followed Junior levels of two and four wheels for over 30 years I have seen many stars (Including Schumacher, Raikkonen) rise from Junior categories which are extremely competitive and fought out at international level. Many of the 'children' you refer too are paid as professional's before reaching the higher level's. If I were the original poster Julius then I don't think I would have been as polite to you as I have, particularly when you use a put you down comment by saying that all this driver has done is won a few Scandinavian races when quite clearly he has and is in the continual process of achieving so much more than that. I am not here to argue the rights or wrongs for Wikipedia or this article because I am new and have never seen Petri Suvanto race but sometimes a fresh perspective can be worth a look at, if I am wrong then it will have been served as a lesson but at the same time I am very grateful to Wikipedia for allowing me the opportunity to cast my view and own opinion (after all that is one of the beauties of this site and on-line encyclopaedia). I would argue that the age of an athlete is not relevant to the level of professionalism or competitiveness or credibility of what he or she does with their profession OR to which Championship they compete in. In fact if they are children, then in a way they deserve more credit and encouragement for at least trying to achieve something at a young age. To finalise my message I would like to note the following reasons why in my opinion it seems appropriate for this particular article to remain:

    1)Karting is most certainly not a Junior racing category, it has several drivers still racing (such as David Fore and Marco Ardigo) who raced against the likes of Schumacher, Trulli and Fisichella and they took the decision to remain in karting as professionally paid sportsmen which serves as a far better career than many hundreds of drivers in series Julius mentions such as Formula BMW and Formula Ford

    2)I see that Petri Suvanto will race in Maranello team in 2007 and that his team-mate will be none other than 5 time Karting World Champion Davide Fore

    3) He is Finnish Junior Champion; Finland is acknowledged as a nation which produces many stars. A couple of drivers who competed in this Championship and did NOT win it include Kimi Raikkonen and Heikki Kovalainen

    4) Petri Suvanto's 2007 races will be shown on RAI Live Italian television with Live broadcasts simultaneously shown on Eurosport

    5) Petri Suvanto is one of the favourites to win the KF3 title in 2007. Even if he wins just one of the races which is shown live on TV then there is a very good chance at least one Wikipedia user would like to refer to see if he can find out more on him

    6) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and one of the beauties of this is that the inclusion of this page is that it is not taking up unavailable space or preventing someone elses page appearing

    7) For 2007 Suvanto's 'no longer' Italian Championship was awarded International status by the FIA (governing body to the Formula One World Championship) who have given permission for the series to be called the INTERNATIONAL Open Championship due to its mass international credibility throughout the world of motor sport. It was called the Italian Championship when Raikkonen, Schumacher, Montoya, Fisichella and Trulli competed in it but due to the overall success, interest and commercial viability of karting, the series has moved up a gear

    8) Karting is recognised as one of the most exciting categories of motor sport that can be watched hence the high ratings and continued live coverage by RAI and the Eurosport TV channel

    9) Despite being three years younger than the reigning Formula A European Champion (Michael Christensen), Petri Suvanto beat this driver as a twelve year old

    10) Suvanto is a driver who has achieved great things as a youngster and is already moving on to the international platform that karting is recognised as. Why not be proud of representing a great achiever at such a tender age.

    11) Anyone who understands motor sport knows that the Championship's hosted by the International Open Masters in 2007 are the equivalent of the World Championship's. There are many other Wikipedia entries that hold other Junior champions and achievers from all walks of life and sports in general. - Mikedonlough 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep - Dear Wikipedia, as the original poster of this article I am not sure whether I am allowed a say in this area or not, but if I may reply then I would like too purely with facts and without biase: There are several reasons as to why I thought the inclusion of Petri Suvanto in Wikipedia was appropriate but without going into huge detail as someone has done above, I'd like to also mention in addition that this driver is coached by the same driver coach for Raikkonen, McLaren and RedBull. He is also legally represented by Macfarlanes who are the law firm to Sir Jackie Stewart and Red Bull F1 team and he is managed by Allstar International who have represented Nelson Piquet Junior and Antonio Pizzonia amongst others. He is also competing in an International series which is aired live on Eurosport, the leading Pan-European Sports channel reaching over 100 million households, 240 million viewers in 54 different countries plus RAI, the Italian channel. In 2007 he is also team mates with Davide Fore the five time karting World Champion. I will slightly update the entry to demonstrate these facts. In terms of article notability I hope I have satisfied this request by putting in over 20 links - if this is still not appropriate then please let me know and I will act accordingly to your request.
    • User account created today. Petri Suvanto may be fairly promising driver, but Wikipedia is not a prediction league. Let alone a place to comment his tyre selections. Julius Sahara 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Another Red Card to Julius Sahara - not only with another put you down (without good reason) comment but by now criticising a new Wikipedian who has already offered more than one useful opinion in sports categories. At least the new users I have seen in this thread seem to be dealing with the facts instead of trying to paint the black tarnished picture that Sahara is intent on doing without any validity whatsoever. Please don't let this go unnoticed Wikipedia. For me, the facts of this driver speak for themselves. Mikedonlough 18:54, 11 January 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 A7 by Lectonar. Tevildo 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    John deyto

    John deyto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 08:26, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Communologue

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

    This appears to be mostly original research, or at best an essay about a new idea (of which there are many at any given time). This really fails to be any sort of encyclopaedia article, and appears to be a neologism. Google doesn't find much on this term or concept to indicate it's very widely used. NMChico24 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I really appreciate what you guys are doing to maintain standards for Wikipedia and to also give us so much thought. Thanks. As I am out of the country for three weeks, I will pass this on to the team. -- Alturtle 03:29, 6 January 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 admitted and obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Careless Whisper Break

    Careless Whisper Break (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Blatant hoax, based on this forum thread in which the article creator encourages people to add more misinformation into the article. (They also created a fake Discogs entry to back this article up: [26]) I have tagged it for vandalism but it appears that someone disagrees that a deliberate hoax constitutes vandalism, thus bringing here for consensus to delete. Deleting admin please consider protecting the page as the thread also mentions they will try to re-create the page. Flyingtoaster1337 09:10, 5 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Formulism

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

    Seems non-notable, website is dead. No ghits. Seems like something we made up in school one day. Megapixie 09:33, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Timothy FANTiM Frazier

    Timothy FANTiM Frazier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable photographer; only external references are either his own websites or trivial directory entries. Also probably a WP:COI given the username of the author. Demiurge 09:39, 5 January 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. — Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Frozen scars

    Frozen scars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    File:Frozen scars time.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Time (Frozen Scars album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Generic band vanity, albums appear to be self-produced. Guy ( Help!) 11:19, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ridgewood High School (Florida)

    Ridgewood High School (Florida) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability and is biased as of this revision. I can't find the district's page, but if it is created then the article can be merged with that. Also, see the edit history and talk page to see the problems with the article since its creation. It seems like the images might not be free too. EvaGears 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - nothing notable about this school as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability per WP:SCHOOL, especially regarding multiple sports championships. This is a thorough article that more than adequately covers the school and its activities. This is yet another pathetic case of an article that should have been tagged for sources, tone or image issues. There are dozens of tags that could have -- and should have -- been applied. There is no reason that an AfD needed to be initiated to address these issues. A few minutes at the keyboard was more than enough to address POV concerns and add several sources. Alansohn 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • WP:SCHOOL is not even a guideline, but a proposed and much-contested proposed guideline which, despite the bad faith of certain people who push for its adoption, has been rejected repeatedly. Speedy keep is an invalid and bad faith !vote, and I request you withdraw it. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • He might be sentimental because he created the original article -- EvaGears 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Let's start taking apart the statements made above from the beginning, with the creation of this article. I did it. I admit it. I created this article. I created it after someone had edited the original article "Ridgewood High School", which was about a school in New Jersey, and overlaid the text with the description of a school somewhere in Florida. After some back and forth, I restored the New Jersey school article, took the Florida text and pasted it in to create the Ridgewood High School (Florida) article. You can take a gander at this link for some of the details. A disambiguation page was created shortly thereafter at Ridgewood High School. My only connection in creating the article was to resolve a nascent edit war by creating a new article. I don't attend the school. I'm not an alumnus. I don't know where New Port Richey is, nor do have any idea of where the original Port Richey is located. I do know school articles. And I also know that if the AfD nominator states that "[t]he article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability", then indicating why it does indeed meet the notability criteria specified by WP:SCHOOL would be an appropriate refutation of the claim that it should be deleted. As the WP:SCHOOL argument fails, and the concerns about "bias" and images can be or already have been easily addressed, my argument for a Speedy Keep seem rather well justified. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Some fairly good results in sports do not grant notability to the institution.-- Hús ö nd 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep — It satisfies my personal criteria for High School notability. I couldn't find the bias mentioned above. The article seems sufficiently neutral. The images are irrelevant to the AfD since they can be removed. — RJH ( talk) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOL per Alansohn, which is at any rate only proposed. Bias also appears to be gone. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep the article is much better than the vast majority of those on similar topics. TSO1D 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete It fails my personal criteria for high school notability (i.e., the school needs to do more than exist). GassyGuy 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep — The school is a very important piece of a community numbering nearly 200,000 people. I see no reason why this article can't exist in its current form. — Dchauncey
    • You are a student of the school which can lead to bias. Please give a reason on how the school is notable other then that it serves a large community. If that is the reason why there should be an article, then many schools can have their own articles, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. I can see how you feel because I went to the school for two years myself and lived in Pasco, but the school is nothing special. I also believe you written the history of the school but please keep it in the school's website. Thank you. -- EvaGears 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So, now we see the bias of the nominator in creating this AfD. WP:NOT is the poor man's excuse for deleting an article, resorted to by those who can't appeal to a relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline. A reading of the clearly worded WP:NOT#DIR states that the definition of "Wikipedia is not a directory" as "1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." No, "2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Not Close, or "3) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." Not a Prayer. I understand that you have a bias, after all familiarity breeds contempt, but please recognize that the article is a complete and thorough description of the school, and that the article makes explicit claims of notability in compliance with WP:SCHOOL, contrary to your assertion in the AfD nomination. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 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 Martin Smith (songwriter), Merge the rest. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Timothy Jupp

    Timothy Jupp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    Martin Smith (songwriter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Stuart Garrard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Stewart Smith (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Timothy Jupp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Five articles on members of the Christian band Delirious?. The band gets external coverage so is notable, but I can find no evidence that the individual members have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and the only source for the bio data seems to be the band's own website. Guy ( Help!) 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak delete. WP:MUSIC doesn't appear to say that being a member of a notable band is enough on its own to confer notability. Since their articles have (at most) some extra trivia about these people, I'd say delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete all - not notable enough for their own articles (per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC). Jayden54 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Merge and Redirect to Delirious? Catchpole 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep One of these articles was already nominated for deletion, and it survived then. Why delete it now when it's only developed more? — D. Wo. 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per my understanding of Wiki:Music and the fact one of the articles already survived AFD Jcuk 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep, I guess that they marginally meet WP:MUSIC, which as written does not leave space to interpretation ... on the other hand, do we need an article about every "famous" band member ? Alf photoman 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep: I've worked on most of these articles... independent, reliable sources include Martin Smith [29] [30] (I'm sure that there are others somewhere; I've definitely seen more from other reliable sources). Meh; if members of a notable band (I would say possibly the most influential Christian band of the 90s, given that they and Matt Redman kick-started the modern worship movement) aren't necessarily notable themselves, go ahead and delete; I cast Keep for Martin at least, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatheMezzaMorphis163 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC). reply
      • Edit & Comment: Oops; I forgot to sign the above. Anyway, I would actually say that it's much harder for British Christian bands to meet the criteria. In America, there's a massive CCM industry willing to report on bands, etc.; in Britain, there's literally no CCM subculture... and a lot of music magazines, channels, etc. refuse to consider Christian bands (and hence especially their by-definition less-notable members) as being worthy of attention. Oh, well... I still would say Keep for Martin and Weak Keep for the rest. -- 3M163// Complete Geek 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Include any verifiable and pertinent info in the band article and redirect the pages there. GassyGuy 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Delerious is one of the most important bands in contemporary Christian circles, especially in the UK. and has influenced worship in 1000s of churches. Martin Smith and Stu Garrard in particular have written songs that are used regularly in worship and are Christian hymnwriters in their own right. It might be best to keep their articles seperate and combine the others into Delerious' article. There are other sources of information about them. MMcCaghrey 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Delirious and the song writing partnership of Smith/Garrand have been a major worldwide influence on christian worship music over the last decade, penning some of the most sung songs in churches throughout the world - these are modern hymmns - do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.93.196 ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC). reply
    • Keep Martin Smith, merge others into Delirious?. I happen to be quite a fan of Delirious, but I don't think any of the band members, save Martin (who's written a lot of very popular songs) is notable in and of themselves. - Patstuart talk| edits 21:36, 10 January 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. — Cryptic 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Glasnost (band)

    Glasnost (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:V - Nv8200p talk 12:52, 5 January 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. MER-C 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Omendil

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

    Mis-spelt article, correct entry is Ornendil Thu 13:17, 5 January 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. No sourced information to merge. — Centrx→ talk • 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Berwick High School

    Berwick High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    not notable Monotonehell 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    keep and expand - their are numerous high schools that are listed. this one does have some notability CarmenBryan 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • This was the high school of Jimmy Spencer, and I remember hearing that Berwick won several statewide football championships. However, unless someone locates sufficient sources, this is just a directory listing. Unless sourced and claims of notability added, merge and redirect to Berwick, Pennsylvania (or to its public school district if there's a valid article for it). The competing schools notability guidelines agree on handling unsourced stubs. Barno 18:52, 8 January 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. Reasons given for keeping are poor (i.e. "he's on Google" and "the article is new"). — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Davey Andrews

    Davey Andrews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Does not meet notability requirements. ↪ Lakes ( Talk) 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Comment Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Afd etiquette before making any further comments? Secondly, OWW is a fansite and not reliable. Example [31] states "Khosrow Vaziri started out as an amature wrestler and even won a medel at the 1968 Olympic Games, representing Iran". Ignoring that your "reliable source" can't even spell medal or amateur, it is incorrect. Khosrow Vaziri states "Although he was billed as having been a 1968 Olympic medalist, this is untrue", which is confirmed by the relevant results from the 1968 Olympics. OWW is nothing more than a fansite, and should not be considering a reliable source. One Night In Hackney 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Maybe we should remove OWW as a source from all wrestling bios, as if you look at any of them, they are there.
      • Then why not remove IGN and GameSpot from all video game articles just because they have made errors? I'm not arguing for or againat OWW, jut pointing out they aren't the only ones to have errors. TJ Spyke 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. OWW is a glorified fan site for wrestling fans. I doubt every wrestler listed on the site is notable. The fact OWW links are listed in many wrestling articles means very little: seeing as how there isn't alot of other major wrestling sites out there (besides the official ones for WWE, TNA, etc, along with news sites and fan sites such as OWW). RobJ1981 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work but i think he has worked with major independent promotions and has worked internationally and thats enough to make him notable -- Paulley
    Comment Reliable source for the international work please. One Night In Hackney 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    My mistake, it's Davey Richards who is schedualed to compete in the KOE cup. --- Paulley
    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 - in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, articles are not deleted articles simply because they are philosophically displeasing - otherwise, Christians would disallow Gnosticism, Jews Messianic Judaism, etc. If they are notable and sourced, the article ought to remain. Patstuart talk| edits 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Takwin

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

    non-existent,no sources or whatsoever,a muslim will never ever say "takwin refers to the artificial creation of life in the laboratory",this is clearly false information. Alnokta 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The problem is that, there is a conflict; you cannot be a muslim and at the same time believe that you can create life in a laboratory. Jabir was an experimental chemist, also alchemy in Islam differs from alchemy at large. so there is no point of keeping the article, because if we remove the line about Jabir and the other irrelevant paragraph; there will be no article hence I'm adding it for deletion.
    Comment - I think you do wrong assumptions. The article talk about research of about 1300 year ago. Islamic theology was not very developed, as also communications. Do you think that in a century the traditions and local believes can be erased? And in all the people? I think "Islamic" it should be interpreted more in an historical way, about environment, not in a very strict way. Cate | Talk 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Nah, there is no such thing called takwin or not takwin, also that is not a proof of verifiability, I don't care if it from pennsylvania or else..there is a possibility of being a fake research or something.. the article is a false assumption and no need to keep it..btw, that don't happen in Islam and even if it happens, it will not happen in the golden era.. you don't just say need that or that..you don't know Islam and you keep in talking convincing other fellows of false information...I don't like to appear as bashing every keep statement but it is necessary to explain.. again, the article's subject is non-existent and needs to be deleted!.-- Alnokta 05:12, 8 January 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. Joe 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The High Society

    The High Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    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. — Cryptic 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Carlomar Arcangel Daoana

    Carlomar Arcangel Daoana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Spammy article riddled with weblinks but subject may be notable. CReated by a WP:SPA and edited since exclusively by a single IP (probably the same person). Won a prize from a redlinked press, that sort of thing. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 5 January 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 Robdurbar 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Sean Cody

    Sean Cody (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable amateur pornography company, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 14:34, 5 January 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. Agent 86 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Cowley Club

    Cowley Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notyable music venue in Brighton. Spamtastic. Guy ( Help!) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep The article doesn't mention being a music venue at all, because that's a tiny part of what goes on there, the main activities being those actually detailed in the article. It's an important venue for anarchist and other left wing and community groups in the area. Regarding notability, please see the article's talk page for links to other sources concerning the centre. The article is linked to by UK Social Centre Network and Social Centre Wikipedia articles, and I don't really understand why those articles are fine but an article about the Cowley Club isn't. -- Bobbob94 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - article asserts notability in many fields. Eludium-q36 09:58, 6 January 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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H

    List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    None notable, poorly sourced and could easily be classed as cruft Computerjoe 's talk 14:23, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Life of Eddie

    The Life of Eddie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Crystal Ball - crz crztalk 15:02, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Shrammed

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

    Dictionary definition, pure and simple. Emeraude 15:39, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Coppi's (2nd nomination)

    Coppi's (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    I was surprised to see that a previous AFD was judged to have no consensus on this article. I've eaten in this restaurant (decent food, if anyone's interested) and can think of nothing that makes it more notable than a dozen other restaurants within a block radius. Banyan Tree 15:41, 5 January 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 g1, obvious hoax (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Tyler Ford

    Tyler Ford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Most likely a hoax. Prod contested and notability is claimed but there seem to be no credible source to back this up. I highly doubt that anyone would buy his way out of prison after a triple murder (in a foreign country to boot). Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 5 January 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. Proto:: ► 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    International trade of India

    International trade of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This is a very brief and confused page which could easily be cleaned up, but the subject is covered comprehensively and clearly in the India and Economy of India articles so I see no point in keeping this. Emeraude 16:11, 5 January 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. Reliable sources are a necessity. Proto:: ► 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Lost Colony (game)

    Lost Colony (game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    An online game. Nothingon Google News, nothing on Factiva, "Version 0.71 is due to be out on Friday, January 4." No sources outside the game's own website ( WP:OR?). Guy ( Help!) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep: The game is classified as "in development". The Game's website is a primary source, why should it be up for deletion? 24.136.249.147 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: The game is listed on Gameshout.com http://www.gameshout.com/news/pc_games_gameshout_announces_lost_colony_video_game/article8617.htm however, as Red Planet LLC seems to belong to gameshout...... I would argue that the controvesy surrounding the game is enough to merit a Wiki entry not to mention the staffs tactics in dealing with anyone who criticises it. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 0534GMT 6/1/07.
    • Keep: OMaHTLD is correct in the site he provided, however I do disagree with his reasoning for wanting the article not deleted. The article HAS had the problem of edit wars by people who seem to have a vindetta against the game on multiple sites, and the user StateofShock, who is a developer of the game. While Im not sure it is nessaraly approperiate for a developer to be editing out things in place of info that essentially plugs the game, on the same token it has also been a problem for the article being vandalised and constantly putting up things of speculative nature as fact. Though peoples opinions and speculation have been put in a community reaction section, which is where I think it is approperiate imho. But I digress, the game is still under development and the game's site is a primary source. The link OMaHTLD provided, albiet a sister company, is a seperate source that the game exists, again Under Development. Simply because the company has not had a great amount of advertising or is not prevelent in the news, it should have merit for an entry in wikipedia because of thoes sources, or at least as much right as other games being developed that have articles. Thanks. TheSittingDuck 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Yes you are quite correct in that some people have made some fairly vitriolic comments about the game/devs, and some unsubstantiated comments, mainly relating to the licensing of the Torque Engine, something of which they would have no way of knowing either way.
    There is also speculation over the actual existence of the full game the devs have claimed is completed after a years development, of which they are unwilling to release any screenshots etc before asking for cash. This has led to speculation that they intend to begin production on the money gained by pre orders and delay the game due to ‘bugs’ as the only in game screenshots are from their testbed version of the game which has drawn criticism as being a simply modified version of the Torque demo included with the engine.
    Just as the Wikipedia entry should contain information about the gameplay, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in adding, it should also contain information on the controversy surrounding the games inception, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in removing. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1210GMT 7/1/07.
    • Comment: Should we delete every article for every game that isn't out yet? Following Lost Colony there are many people who want to see it fail, including a rival company. A base for deletion needs more then the fact that the game isn't out yet and that people don't like it (or want it to succeed). The only merit in deletion that there is, is that this is a hot topic. But on the same coin, why let an article die because its controversial? Zanduar 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    What rival company would that be? Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1244GMT 8/1/07.
    • Comment: I am here as OMaHTLD's advocate and will not be making a keep or delete recommendation of my own, although I may present some arguments in OMaHTLD's favor. I've tried to reformat everyone's comments to make clear who thinks the article should be kept, and to make clear who has been saying what. If I've gotten anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: As a representative for the game itself, Lost Colony, I am all for deletion of this Wiki article. There's no way we can fairly provide information about the game while both Vashner and OMaHTLD are running this speculative crusade. All they have done at Wikipedia, according to their logs, is to pick on this game and to stir up more controversy. Yes, there was a thread posted on GarageGames which was CLOSED because of the speculative nature. Lost Colony is VERY much involved with the community, you can see that from our website. We also have involved community members in the game using some of the faction logos they created. We have done a lot of development for this game, using Torque's Shader Engine early adopter, which the "early adopter" doesn't even provide a running game engine. Thus, we had to make several development changes to make it work for Lost Colony. By default, TSE (TGEA) early adopter is not a runable game engine.We have argued these truths, but both Vashner and OMaHTLD keep coming back with "you're running the Torque Demo". This comes from the same 2 people who originally thought we were using "Torque", which we are not. We are using a different engine made by Torque known as "Shader Engine", or TGEA. All of this fuss is a waste of time, and the only reason Vashner and OMaHTLD want this article to remain, is so they can further confuse the public about our video game. Enough already. I say get it off Wiki if this is the way it's going to be. We've had enough of this nonsense. Stateofshock 22:05, 9 January 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 you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bootstrapped-Brain

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

    Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 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. GRBerry 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Internet cesspool

    Internet cesspool (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ollie Silva

    Ollie Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable semi-pro driver, POV obituaryesque entry Drdisque 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete, non-notable driver. Budgiekiller 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and cleanup. Needs sources but Silva received primary coverage in a STOCK CAR RACING magazine feature article from the 1970s for certain, and also in other reliable sources. I don't have the SCR issue and the mag's past content isn't online, so we need someone to find it and cite it. Silva also was headlined for winning local and regional special races in many newspapers and racing trade papers. Article needs NPOV cleanup and fleshing out, but topic can certainly be the basis for an encyclopedic article. I will try to round up sources. Barno 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I rewrote the article essentially from scratch. He should be kept just on the basis of him being inducted in the New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame if nothing else. I'm sure that Barno will come up with more resources. I will continue enhancing and citing the article. Royalbroil  T :  C 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Keep the new version. I'm glad the article went through this process to bring it up to wikistandards. - Drdisque 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Me too. He deserved much better. Sounds like we have a withdrawl of the nomination! Royalbroil  T :  C 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I was hoping to setup a WikiProject for notable U.S. or North American racers like Silva who fall through cracks of the other racing WikiProjects. Barno has expressed interest. Anyone else interested should contact me. Royalbroil  T :  C 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: The guy is notable enough to have multiple articles written about him in both specialist and non-specialist press. Alexj2002 10:28, 6 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    12 parsecks to freedom

    12 parsecks to freedom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Not notable. Group just started in 2005. Poorly written page. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 03:07, 5 January 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. Raw totals, disregarding one likely puppet, are 4-2 Delete. Keep arguments are not strong: one indicates that having a single book published by a non-vanity press is sufficient for an article on the author (rather than the book), which seems dubious to me. The other points to a review in the online edition of the Guardian, but it is after all of the "briefly noted" variety, two paragraphs. And that is the only thread on which to hang the article - one brief notice. These arguments do not to me seem sufficiently convincing. Herostratus 04:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    David Llewellyn (author)

    David Llewellyn (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non notable author, page used to promote non-notable book... also the page is a clear vanity addition.

    The article was created by Tidal Wave ( talk · contribs), who also recently edited the Donny Tourette article (punk rock frontman and current Big Brother contestant.) adding his non-notable opinion, with " David Llewellyn, in his Myspace blog, described Tourette's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as "another trustafarian wanker" [35]

    The address of the mentioned MySpace profile? MySpace.com/tidalwave1978, thus proving the article is a vanity addition by Llewellyn himself in an attempt to sell a book. - Deathrocker 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - Author is very recent and does not much if any notability. Original edit to his first book listed it published in 2003 and with the current edit 2006. Publishing a book, especially your first one should be an unforgetable date (from article's history of edits) Ronbo76 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well done in finding that review! I searched for the other one referenced in the book article, but couldn't locate it online. If an actual citation for that review could be dredged up, I could support keeping a merged article as having multiple nontrivial sources. Short of that, WP is not a crystal ball, so we don't know if the article would meet the guidelines in the future. If you are confident, you could always preserve the contents in user space, pending further career developments.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:15, 10 January 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 I really hope this is not recreated. Proto:: ► 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of celebrity cocaine addicts

    List of celebrity cocaine addicts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    If Brad Patrick were to see this he'd have a fit. Most of the sources are far from reliable, the list seems to ignore the difference between consumption and addiction, and someone will eventually sneak in a name that will make his/her lawyer's day. A liability. yandman 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I'll list it once this one is zapped (linking to this !vote to make things go faster). yandman 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Just no.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuron ( talk • contribs)

    • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Move to List of known cocaine users and keep. Nothing here makes out a case for deletion, although "celebrity" and "addict" probably should be rephrased to something more neutral. Quite a number of people, from Marion Barry to Sigmund Freud, are known for having used cocaine, and there is no good reason not to have a list of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep with less POV name change. All are sourced and with a random walk through the sources, they look reliable. Perhaps "Known cocaine users" may be a better name. And remind people that an entry must have a Wikipedia article already. People sipping in names should not be an excuse for deletion, people already do that for every other acceptable "vice" category. This is less subjective than the "alcoholic" list, everyone has a drink, but not everyone uses cocaine and then mentions it in an interview, is arrested for possession, or dies from an overdose. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Too much potential for abuse. (No pun intended) Also "celebrity" seems like a debatable concept.-- T. Anthony 23:31, 8 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of minor Babylon 5 characters

    List of minor Babylon 5 characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Subset of the fabled List of non-notable people. A list of non-notables is not made notable by including a lot of them. Article is entirely unreferenced (for months), and I can find no non-trivial secondary source mentions in reliable sources regarding any of these characters. Seraphimblade 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment "I saw the episode and observed that..." is the same as "I did an experiment and observed that..."- original research. Of course, if a secondary source has written up the character, that'd be a source. Seraphimblade 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Um...if that was true, we could never cite TV shows. Or books. I think what Manticore is saying is that the episodes themselves are references. -- Masamage 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Would agree, TV shows shouldn't be cited. Of course, for plot summaries and the like, there's usually the tv.com's and such of the world which offer plot summaries-that would be a secondary source, but in that case, you're not posting your interpretation, you're posting theirs. That's the definition of source research vs. original research-basically, with proper sourcing, someone who has never seen the show should be able to verify everything in the article. Seraphimblade 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    But isn't that like...I mean, if I'm talking about the character of Hamlet, shouldn't I make references to William Shakespeare? Commentators are great, but they don't completely preclude ever using the original as a source, do they? -- Masamage 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh of course not! However, primary sources should be used in conjunction with secondary sources, not in place of them. I don't think anyone would be hard-up to find reliable third-party analyses of Hamlet. There'd be nothing wrong with citing the part of Hamlet the critic cites in addition to citing the criticism-just not instead of the criticism. However, per WP:NOR, we still shouldn't be offering our own interpretations of Hamlet, only reporting on others' evaluations. Seraphimblade 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Right. So it seems like "TV shows shouldn't be cited" is a little stronger a statement than what you meant--oftentimes the best commentary on any work of fiction will be in the work itself, like when a character talks about himself. I think the real issue is that TV shows need to be cited very exactly, which is to say, without any extra commentary, unless that commentary is coming from somewhere else. -- Masamage 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Right. I think direct quotes from the characters would be perfect candidates for direct sourcing. However, interpretations (such as plot summaries) should be secondarily sourced. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Hmm, no, I think I'm quite comfortable with relating simple facts from television shows and other fictional media as quite acceptable. Why? Because anybody else can also observe the thing. It is not an experiment, it is not a theory. It is reporting directly from the media. It is really no different from saying "And Author So-and-So says this about that" . Basically, I don't need some third-party book to tell me Hamlet is about a Danish prince who returned home from England to find his father dead, and his uncle married to his mother. Analysis beyond that, yes, that would need further sources, but to say that we can't report what occurs in a television show (or other fictional work) unless we can find some other source that says it? Far too strict an interpretation of NOR. Sure, if there's some dispute or disagreement as to what happened on a show, or to some specific detail behind it, that'd mean checking other sources, but even then, given that the episodes were named here, I would say a link to a book on B5 or a website would be quite feasible if you desired to do it. Might even be references in the Wikipedia articles on those episodes already. Anyway, the real point is, I don't see that objection as possessing much merit. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I still disagree, but I'd suggest moving this to user talk-I don't think an individual AfD would be the place for such a discussion. I'm also not sure how it's "too strict" an interpretation of WP:NOR-the policy is no original research, not "Only a little bit of original research." Anyone can get hold of a lemon and make a battery out of it, but to say "I did this and it works" is OR, regardless of "anyone can do it"-and even regardless of the fact that it's dead-on correct. On the other hand, reporting on a reliable source stating that this can be done is sourced and verifiable to anyone. Also remember that Wikipedia is worldwide-while probably most anyone can get hold of Hamlet, some of our readers in various parts of the world might find it difficult or impossible to obtain a Babylon 5 episode, at least legally. Using reliable sources would mean that any reader, anywhere in the world, can verify the information. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I would say that Template:Cite_video and Template:Cite_episode covers all your citation needs. The Babylon 5 DVDs constitute published, verifiable, commercially available primary sources. Static Universe 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    "Primary source" is the problem-if some part of a TV series/movie/etc. has not been covered in secondary sources in some form, it isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Seraphimblade 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Regarding notability - I think the main thing we need to establish is that the work of fiction is notable. If the work, as a whole, is truly notable, then by extension, so are its characters. Minor characters, however, don't earn their own articles - that's why, according to WP:FICTION, it's best to combine them in a list. I made this minor chars list to address that exact concern - I don't really care what list these character bios end up on, but they shouldn't be split up.
    Now, regarding the use of primary sources, I think this is the most relevant quote from WP:OR:
    anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.
    If the plot summary says "Bob shot Greg", this is verifiable by anyone who watches the show. We don't need a movie reviewer to say "Bob shot Greg" before we're allowed to say it. The key question here is, when does a plot summary turn into original research? I wrote up a " thought experiment" on this a while ago - it's not really finished, but given that it's relevant here, I'd appreciate any feedback. I'd just like to re-emphasise the disclaimer at the very top of the page that most of it is shite in its current state - it's just a scratchpad. Still, if you've got any comments, feel free to start up a discussion page there and speak your piece. Hell, if you folks just want to discuss this further on a user talk page, I'm happy to host the party there :-p Quack 688 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    If you've already got a proposal going, I'm all for moving it there, no use crapping up the AfD (any further). Seraphimblade 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Actually, WP:NOR is much more verbose than just "No original research" even the nutshell statement is far longer: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." As these episodes were unquestionably published, the data from them is not a problem. Access to Babylon 5 episodes is not an especially big issue, there are plenty of books used as references I could not easily obtain. And if you really want to do so, there are plenty of books and other material on Babylon 5 you could review and use as a reference. So basically, as a deletion reason, OR is not especially applicable in this case. Feel free to edit some of the content though. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - if this article is not a clear-cut poster child for violations of WP:OR, I don't know what is. Actually, I do, but that's another matter. CyberAnth 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Reply Even if it does have some OR in it, that's got nothing to do with the inherent concept of the page, which is about characters in a television show. Easily verifiable, doesn't have to advocate a position. Not a real problem. So as a poster-child, no, I'm afraid it's not a good one, except for the value of clean-up over deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I'm also still concerned about notability here-earlier, you suggested "notability by association", if the show is notable so by definition are all its characters, with which I (and WP:FICT) strongly disagree. McDonald's is notable. That doesn't mean each one of its workers is, or even each one of its stores. Notability has a purpose-if no or very little secondary-source material exists on something, it would be impossible to write a thing but a very short article without OR. Seraphimblade 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I think the relevant part of WP:FICT is:
    Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." (emphasis in original)
    I agree that shouldn't be extended to truly insignificant characters (e.g. the guy who opens the door for someone, then is never seen again). However, all the characters listed here have a significant effect on the the plot of at least one episode or novel. Quack 688 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    There already is a perfectly good List of Babylon 5 characters. You do bring up another point though-who determines what a "minor character" is? If these characters had major plot impact, they may not have been minor. As an example, take Q out of Star Trek-he only appeared in a pretty small minority of episodes. But was he minor? I really don't know you could say he was. By placing anyone on this list, we're editorializing. (On the other hand, placing Q on a "List of Star Trek characters" would not be an editorial, there's no doubt he certainly was that.) But let's not have cruft. Seraphimblade 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Considering there are quite a lot of Lists of minor characters on OP, this probably opens yet another discussion we really shouldn't get into on AFD. There have been several merge votes, however, which seems like a solid approach. I've even changed my vote to reflect my support. -- Masamage 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well, on minor vs major, WP:FICT says "the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.", but it's intentionally vague on the matter. However, I take your point about editorializing - I'd be happy to see this merged into the main B5 list. In my mind, the only real reason to have separate lists is size (like the Star Wars lists), and that's not applicable in this case. Quack 688 23:41, 9 January 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. — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)

    second nomination - fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. — Swpb talk contribs 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    And I always thought the burden of proof was with the arguement that an article did pass notability. — Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 5 January 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. Robdurbar 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Rafi Sharif Bey

    Rafi Sharif Bey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The subject of this hagiography is a non-notable person — WP:BIO failure. ➥the Epopt 17:36, 5 January 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Pedophobia

    Pedophobia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
      ATTENTION!

    If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

    You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

    Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

    {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

    Dicdef Keith D. Tyler ( AMA) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep. I think it goes very slightly beyond the dicdef by including the adultism thing, and it certainly has the potential to expand into a good encyclopedia article. Why not add an expand tag instead of deleting? Plus, it is referenced to an article by an anti-ageism group. If others do choose to delete, I'd suggest considering a redirect to ageism. delldot | talk 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to merge to Ephebiphobia per KeithTyler's comment below: Ephebiphobia already has a short bit about Pedophobia, so the merge should be really easy anyway. Switching back to keep per KPalicz (am I wishy washy, or what?) delldot | talk 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Also, a well-known example: Jean-Luc Picard's "character flaw" seemed to be some form of Pedophobia, although he overcame it as the series progressed. Yes, that was nerdy, but it had to be said. - Scharb 02:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete The key is the source of the name. Some web sites have created lists of many hundreds of phobias. (Spartaphobia is fear of Sparta, etc). What are the sources that say this is a psycological fear? The fact that this word exists on the net and a web article discussing ageism puts the word in a box is not enough for me. Is the word used other than on web lists? With no better sources I think no article and redirect to Ageism is fine. Obina 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The topic of pedophobia is explored in several academic circles, and there is substantial evidence to support its maintenance as an article. See updates. Freechild 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • By way of critical thinking, I've gotta ask why the articles about child and youth related oppression continually run up against this type of resistance within the Wikipedia community. I look up terms like gynarchy and androcracy and manx cat, and all of them lack citations of any kind - yet their validity is undoubted. However, ephebiphobia, adultism, and student voice, have all been extremely scrutized - and now this. How biased is the Wikipedia community against young people and the realities they face every single day? Unfortunately, with the call to delete this article I am afraid the answer is coming clearer. Freechild 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Per KeithTyler's comment above: The two words mean two different things, sourced in their roots. Academic literature supports the differentiation between them. Is it Wikipedia's place to negate what the academy has proven? Freechild 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: 8 google scholar hits, the word appears in the title of a 1995 book. Opinion of an expert may be better than the voting. Pavel Vozenilek 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep While it is similar to ephebiphobia, they talk about two different groups of people (teens vs. children) and some people may fear children but be ok with youth and vice versa. They are distinct enough to warrant individual pages I believe. KPalicz 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. The entire article is nonsense. It is original research and special pleading. It's highly questionable whether there ought to be an article on "pedophibia", and if there should it would probably be better to delete this one and start from scratch. We have had the same problem over at Ephebiphobia... the technique used is the same: establish (or try to) the existance of an obscure medical condition and then use that for leverage to write a social advocacy essay. OK, first: as to the medical condition "pedophobia": there's no question that the number of people who are subject to actual phobic reactions (panic, shortness of breath, sweating, etc.) brought on by the idea or presence of children is not zero. The number of people who have phobic reactions brought on by the idea or presence of spiced ham, Bob Hope, slotted spoons, or most anything is usually not zero, either. We don't have articles for each of these; I think we have one article where obscure phobias are given a one-line listing. I think that "pedophobia" rates a line in this list and no more. Second: as to the social phenomena "pedophobia", I'm not at all convinced that fear/scorn/hatred of children is sufficiently well established by verifiable neutral respected authority that the assertion of its notability is not original research. (Unlike Ephebiphobia, which article deserves existence because Ephebiphobia (fear/scorn/hatred of teens) is a real enough phenomena.) Yes, some people think that children are ridiculous or despicable. That does not in any way require this article's existence. Lots of people think that mullets are ridiculous or despicable; lots of people hate cheese; lots of people think frogs are slimy and disgusting; and so forth. We don't have separate articles for these. The article looks on the surface to be scholarly. Closer examination shows that it is not, and ought to be deleted. And I don't say that lightly. Herostratus 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Since when is it the domain of Wikipedia editors to decide the relevance or veritability of established scientific study? Is this discussion really about the legitimacy of this article, or individual editors' opinions about the subject at hand? Are those two things synonomous, or does meeting the encyclopedic premise of Wikipedia supercede personal perspectives? Also, Herostratus, it would be good to see where your "closer examination" shows that the citations are not scholarly - and I don't say that lightly, either. Freechild 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Uh, we judge the relevance and verifiability of sources and material all the time; that's what we do here. The discussion of is about the legitimacy of the article, the point being that, basically, there is no such term as pedophobia. Wikipedia is not the place for articles about terms that you yourself have made up. It is also not your personal soapbox. Get yourself published in sociological journals, establish the term "pedophobia" as an actual term in the literature, and we'd be happy to have the article. Not til then. However, I doubt that anyone will publish your work until you use more rigrorous reasoning. Your essay (and this is what it is, not an encyclopedia article) transparently attempts to conflate medical and sociological terminolgy for advocacy purposes. Scholarly journals don't fall for that. Sorry to be harsh, but there it is. Herostratus 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You have not directly addressed your concerns about the illegitimacy of the references, nor have you shown that any of the publications or other sources cited here is illegitimate. I don't understand your charges of me "making up" a term when the article references academic journals, publishers, organizations, psychotherapists, social scientists, critical pedagogues, and even a few other advocates who have used the term - dating back into the 1980s, when I was probably the subject of the said non-existant phobia. Can you please explain how this term doesn't make your grade, and what gives you more authority than the articles referenced? Does anyone else support that concern? And for the sake of being pithy, can you compare and contrast why soapbox has an article of its own, but pedophobia should not? Freechild 07:02, 8 January 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. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 and Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

    List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Nothing encyclopaedic about these incredibly long lists, and heaven forbid if every attendance list of every political party convention receives the same treatment. Fails most of the criteria of the first of the Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. It is not a soapbox or means of self-promotion, a directory, convention list, or party database. We also do not need the voting record for every leadership convention. Agent 86 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Delete as a pointlessly long and unneeded list. Darth griz 98 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Delete I honestly do not see the purpose of this article. It is basically just excessively detailed electioncruft. Some of the table showing the province by province breakdowns could be merged into Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, but this is really too much. Resolute 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Keep - First, the content is historically relevant. Second, the Wikipedia list was actually significant in the process of this election; it was by far the most comprehensive account of ex-officio delegates and was cited extensively among commentators and in the mainstream media. I honestly think this page is a Wikipedia success story. - Joshuapaquin 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Keep - I agree with Joshuapaquin. Also better cited than most articles. -- Falcorian  (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Keep per Joshuapaquin. - Jord 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete I would be interested in seeing the sources for the mainstream media using this information. If sources can be referenced to create the list, they can be referenced to substantiate the claim that the list was actually cited by the media. I agree with Resolute that it looks like electioncruft; remember that usefulness for a particular group of people is not a criterion for inclusion. Leebo 86 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sure. Here are some mentions of the ex-officio list.
    • Liberal candidates court 'prestige' delegates; Ex-officio voters could influence convention Camps mount campaigns to woo big-name support; [ONT Edition]. Les Whittington. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 18, 2006. pg. F.2. Breaks down ex-officio delegate counts according to Wikipedia.
    • 'Super Weekend' will show who has a chance:; [All But Toronto Edition]. Graeme Hamilton. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Sep 29, 2006. pg. A.5. Mentions ex-officios and uses Wikipedia numbers to indicate how the candidates are doing.
    • Website shows five-way Liberal race:; [Early Edition] Joan Bryden. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Jul 31, 2006. pg. A.6. As you might guess from the headline, this article is entirely about Wikipedia's numbers.
    • Liberal hopefuls watch Wikis. Jane Taber. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jul 29, 2006. pg. F.2. This article isn't about the Wikipedia numbers - it's an MSM article about the Wikipedia articles themselves, specifically the two listed for deletion.
    I won't post full texts here because of copyright concerns - but if anyone here has ProQuest (Canada Newsstand Major Dailies) access, it can be verified there. - Joshuapaquin 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Only because we all know a similar American article would never be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I wish we had equivalent articles for earlier Canadian leadership races. Cas510 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. This is obviously worth maintaining as a record. CJCurrie 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I don't know how the insinuation of what the result would be for a similar American article or "wouldn't it be nice" addresses the inherent problems with these "articles" and their failure to meet the basic core policies. As for maintaining this as a "record", maybe some other wiki-project would be suitable if the intent is to create some sort of primary record, but this is not the place. This is not a web-host for an organization's data. Finally, regarding the media use of these articles, the citation of the articles by the press doesn't make them encyclopedic. If anything, it supports the assertion that the articles were successful for the purposes of self-promotion. Agent 86 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I don't quite understand what you're saying about self-promotion in your nomination and last comment. Are you accusing the Liberal Party of Canada of being the primary editors of these articles? Cas510 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - articles can be seen as extensions of the main convention article. Eludium-q36 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete — I agree that these pages are useful, historically relevant and that they serve what might be a vital and unique purpose within the Canadian political communications process. However, as WP:NOT suggests, Wikipedia is not meant to be a host for websites that would otherwise not exist; in this case, the appropriate home would be a website associated with the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically subpages of http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx. An article relating the salient points of 2006 events within the Liberal Party of Canada, including the Leadership Convention, would be quite appropriate; but the extensive content included in these pages should have a home on the Liberal Party's website; if that is not possible due to technical, human resource, political or financial reasons, that is unfortunate but it would not be a reason for using Wikipedia as a replacement website. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. There was an entire article in Canada's most prominent newspaper on this page. - SimonP 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - A lot of it is incorrect and it's misleading as many ex-officios changed allegiances as the voting rounds progressed. 1130130 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per Joshuapaquin. —  coelacan talk — 02:43, 12 January 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 Bruce Cole, delete duplicate page Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman. — Centrx→ talk • 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman, Bruce Cole

    Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
    Bruce Cole (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Appears to be a dump of some NEH press release, not remotely resembling an encyclopedic article. As it's from a .gov site, it's not a copyvio, but it's certainly not an article either. Author's only response to {{ cleanup}} and {{ wikify}} tags is to repeatedly remove the tags and format it further away from Wiki standards. I don't know if there's anything salvageable here or not. My recommendation is Delete. Fan-1967 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Its not a simple cut and paste. Its proper content and it should stay.
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly ( talk • contribs)
    • There are some useres who like to make up stories, and user Fan is one. Why make problems User Fan ? Standards are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly ( talk • contribs)
    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 Attila the Hun. — Wknight94 ( talk) 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Scourge of Europe

    Scourge of Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Delete - states right in the article that it's a neologism and that there's no consensus as to when or how the term is used or to whom it can refer. No ghits I can find using the term to refer to the character grouping outside of Wikipedia and the occasional bit of fanfic. Nothing in the article that can't be appropriately housed in one of the many other articles dealing with one or another of the four characters. Otto4711 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Don't Delete - the article provides some information that I can not see being placed on the character's individual page. In addition, the page provides a way for readers to see gathered and summerized information about the four vampires all on the same page. Further more, the title of the page can be changed to something that is not a fan neologism. In conclusion, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and my opinion is to keep the article. -- Meraculas 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Specifically what information do you believe can't be placed in one of the character pages? What alternate name do you suggest for the article? Otto4711 17:16, 6 January 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 multiple independent published reliable sources about the subject could not be found, so notability to WP:WEB standards was not demonstrated. GRBerry 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Sore Thumbs

    Sore Thumbs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT. Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment - So we should keep the article because of who wrote it? AFAIK that's not how we measure notability. Honestly, all the articles you listed seem to serve the same purpose (self promotion). FWIW I've also AfD'd the other articles you mentioned. See WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I believe Johan meant the strip is written by Crosby, not the article. And works of a notable author are often themselves notable primarily for that reason. Powers T 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Existance of external links does not satisfy WP:WEB. / Blaxthos 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment The Comics Buyers Guide review (reference supplied in External Links) satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB, as do the print collections themselves. 66.35.99.183 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Clear Delete, fails pretty much all our content policies as Wikipedia is not an internet guide and this is original research with no third-party reliable sources, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. This also fails the WP:WEB guideline, not that we could keep an article that meets a notability guideline but fails multiple content policies. The idea that "The Comics Buyers Guide review ... satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB as do the print collections themselves" is incorrect. First, The Buyers Guide article doesn't even mention this webcomic. Second, the single brief mention on that web page of this comic is in a press release, and a single mention in a press release is not independent of the site, or non-trivial, or for that matter multiple non-trivial and independent. Third, the self-published book (with the Amazon sales rank of "none") is not an independent source either. My searches for non-trivial reliable third-party sources at my library have turned up nothing, let alone anything that suggests notability. -- Dragonfiend 07:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - You misunderstood the Comics Buyers Guide review I referred to. What I referred to was this index of Comics Buyers Guide reviews that lists Sore Thumbs Election Special 2004 as a previously reviewed title in said print magazine (the review itself does not appear to be available for viewing on the internet). Secondly, the Sore Thumbs book you link to is not yet published (despite Amazon's incorrect publication date), and to call it "self-published" is (arguably) somewhat of a misnomer, as its publisher (Keenspot) is only partially owned and run by Crosby. Past events indicate that he is in far from full control of what Keenspot publishes, such as his failed attempt to get his brother's comic "Pumpkin" accepted by Keenspot's board of directors, among other comics. 66.35.99.183 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    That would still be far from meeting the WP:WEB guideline, let alone our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 14:34, 12 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    2007 Monday Night Raw results

    2007 Monday Night Raw results (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Pages like this are just cruft, Wikipedia isn't a guide to every Raw episode and it's results. As a note: previous pages like this (for 2006 and other years) have been deleted in the past. RobJ1981 18:32, 5 January 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 Transwiki and delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results

    2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Wikipedia isn't a guide to every ECW show and it's results. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki RobJ1981 18:35, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Carpet Football

    Carpet Football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Per WP:NEO, it seems this article is describing a neologism and it should be deleted -- search reveals no notable hits and the article has no sources provided. // Laughing Man 18:48, 5 January 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. Which I think is unfortunate, but there it is. First of all, a goodly number of editors were kind enough to comment. The raw vote total by my count is 13-7 Delete. That's not counting a "Keep only if expanded and modified" - since there's no guarantee that this will happen, that's probably more a Delete than A Keep, but I didn't count it either way. Two of the Keeps were Weak, as was one of the Deletes. Granting that AfD is not a vote, when 20+ editors comment with 2/3 in one camp, that has to be taken into account.

    A couple of notes: first, the fact this this person was a crank counts against him, for this reason: his work is not and cannot be the basis for any later research. He's a complete dead end. Thus he's never going to gain any more notability than he already has. So that's a point against him. Second, the article as it stands is mostly copyvio and must go. (You can use short passages for illustrative purposes, not glom whole paragraphs to create the body of an article. This doesn't really bear on this AfD either way, though.

    Now on to the arguments. A synopsis of each Keep editor's comments:

    • '"Seems to pass WP:BIO" (but not further elucidated)
    • "probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor" (but it is not clear if he has, although it's not clear that he hasn't)
    • "co-author of a ... noted theory"
    • "Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky." (but de Grazia at least appears to have many other accomplishments, and the notability of the subject of one's work is not really germane)
    • "[Arguments] that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship" (but this does not really address the issue at hand (notability), nor does this editor's later comments)
    • "somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair".
    • "If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful."

    As to the Keep arguments, I'll just note that failure to meed WP:BIO does not require an article to be deleted. And WP:PROF is mostly cited for articles about someone's professor. Here's a guy dead 30 years and someone wanted to write a highly researched article about him. He's around halfway to meeting the 100-year test right there.

    Basically, it seems that this article hangs on Juergen's co-authorship of The Velikovsky Affair. There's no question in my mind that The Velikovsky Affair is notable. Is Juergens's 1/3 authorship of that book sufficient for his inclusion?

    No, not as I see it. The 13-7 supermajority clinches it. (A shame, because I think we ought to have the article, but there you have it.) Herostratus 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ralph Juergens

    Ralph Juergens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This article fails the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular this claimed "researcher" is only published by vanity presses and the author has tried to establish notability with non-notable journals such as Kronos. -- ScienceApologist 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Can you point to why it passes WP:BIO? By the way the electric universe "theory" as you term it is up for deletion too. -- ScienceApologist 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I would say that verifiability is a bigger issue. -- Philosophus T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete without prejudice. The article as it stands consists essentially of a quote by one individual, whom I've never heard of, whose importance is never asserted and is without a Wikipedia article himself. — BillC talk 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- non-notable as per nomination. The article is also verging on a copyright violation; if the article is kept, then that big quote and the related footnotes definitely want to be removed. Mike Peel 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep only if expanded and modified I think this is not terrible, but it has almost no content. It definitely should be labelled as pseudoscience and obscure. Perhaps too obscure to even have its own article. From what I can see here, there is not enough from an article. If it can be reasonably expanded, it is worth keeping, but if not, it has to go.-- Filll 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      As I just reminded someone at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (science), obscurity is never a problem at Wikipedia, but notability may be an issue. -- ScienceApologist 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist. There are no sources that are not from vanity publishers. -- Philosophus T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - While this guy is (most likely) a crackpot, he probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor. Tarinth 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      Hold the phone! This guy has published far less than most college professors and he hasn't "published" in the normal sense of peer review. This is a total misapplication of WP:PROF. -- ScienceApologist 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      Looking through Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests nothing in the 6 criteria or 10 examples there to support a claim of notability here. — BillC talk 20:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I'm willing to reconsider, but it brings up an interesting point: just how much does the average college professor publish? Thus far, the professor test is somewhat subjective since it is defended on the basis of someone's subjective opinion of whether someone publishes more or less. Some concrete information on this would be helpful! Incidentally, WP:BIO does not state that the professor test is based only upon publications made only in peer-reviewed journals, although I can see why one might wish to interpret it that way. Tarinth 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • comment It depends on subject, but one can attain tenure & Associate professor rank in most colleges with 3 or 4 articles, if at least 1 is in a major journal. At Ph.D. -granting research universities the requirement is much higher, depending on the university--but the difference is quality, not quantity. In most fields, top universities do not go by quantity. But the test says merely an academic.

    But read it again--WP:Prof is a guideline, not policy, and the test as it stands makes no reference to number of papers written, no matter of how high their quality. It requires that they be written about, that is, cited. The frequency again depends on field. The average article gets 1 cite, and there is no WP specification for how many more are needed, but I think a tenurable person at a college would have at least a few articles with more than 5 or 10 cites--in most science fields, including this one. Below that is definitely not notable. There's an active discussion on the criteria, and no consensus whatsoever.

    In this case RJ has published no papers whatsoever in the mainstream literature. Therefore he is not a scientist, notable or otherwise, and should not be judged under this test. Zero is certainly not notable, and non peer-reviewed papers are simply not considered RS in this context--especially when ALL of them are not even mainstream non-peer-reviewed. (and no evidence that his work, whatever it may be thought to be, has been written about except in self published souces.)

    He has no graduate degree either, only a BS. A BS by itself does not make someone a scientist.-there is no requirement for conventional graduate education, and a BS and notable published peer-reviewed work would certainly count. But he has zero peer-reviewed work in physics or astonomy journals. He is simply not a scientist. If he is to be notable, it must be on other grounds.

    The electric universe article was judged non-notable, so he must be judged on the basis of the first paragraph alone, whether he is a notable supporter of Velikovsky. He does not seem to be, having written only one non self-published article on the subject. Therefore a
    Strong delete DGG 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Other comments: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html contains an excerpt from SKEPTIC for an article entitled "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" which mentions him quite a bit, and a quick search via google also turns up numerous other skeptic sites (as well as the run of the usual ZOMG ACADEMIC CONSPIRACY sites, but I'll discount those). I think it would be hard to argue against his inclusion purely on the basis of WP:BIO. While I think the goal of educating the public about pseudoscience is admirable, erradicating people from the historical record doesn't seem like a good idea to me--I'd rather simply have an accurate portrayal of their lives, including the fact that they are considered pseudoscientists. Tarinth 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    How is the theory "noted"? -- ScienceApologist 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It was mentioned in several non-trivial publications, in several books and been laughed at by several hundred professors IMO that is noted. Same thing happened to Zeppelin when he tried to sell his dirigible to the French sciences academy Alf photoman 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You have any evidence of this? I will note that the argument that it has "received criticism" is one specifically rejected in WP:SCI. I think your rationale is bordering dangerously on WP:ILIKEIT. -- ScienceApologist 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The standards for WP:BIO are considerably lower, and widespread criticism would probably account for notability. Tarinth 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I see your point, but I don't see how Mr. Jurgens passes WP:BIO either. The relevant criteria is
    The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
    This is much more restictive than just being mentioned in published works. In addition, without the citations it cannot be determined if these works are "independent of the person". -- EMS | Talk 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment in my firm opinion, he's not a scientist, and is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean that he's not notable. We have articles on many notable crackpots. Judging crackpots on the notability criteria for academics is inappropriate. I've heard of this guy and his theories, and he does seem to have a bit of a cult following, which might make him notable. On the other hand, I'm far too lazy and uninterested to research this further, so I'll leave it up to those who care to either salvage or toss this article. Xtifr tälk 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky. Juergens' own theory is verifiable in several journals, and while it may be bogus, he deserves them to be explained reliably -- Iantresman 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: User Science Apologist's contention that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship.-- feline1 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Where did I make that contention exactly? -- ScienceApologist 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    In your proposal for deletion. It looks a bit ridiculous when rephrased in a less weasling fashion, doesn't it? :) -- feline1 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps you should re-read the nomination with an eye toward WP:SCI. The rationale is not "delete this article because the guy doesn't publish in conventional journals". The rationale is that the guy is non-notable, and his only publications are in journals that do not qualify him as notable under WP:SCI. -- ScienceApologist 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    But you don't regard him as a valid scientist in the first place, so obviously by definition he won't meet the criterea of WP:SCI. You might as well demand that articles about Genesis P-Orridge, Pol Pot or Mickey Mouse measure up to WP:SCI-- feline1 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The whole point of notability criteria is that articles are subject to all of them simultaneously not just individual ones. If you think WP:SCI isn't the best standard to use for this article, then perhaps you think one of the other notability criteria that this article fulfills. I'll point out that Juergens also fails the WP:PROF test and other ideas listed at WP:BIO. However, the articles you listed are all notable according the relevant notability guidelines. -- ScienceApologist 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, but you regard Juergens' ideas as pseudoscience, and you do not accept notability for pseudoscience: you don't think pseudoscience should be in an encyclopedia, "period", as they say in America. That's your bottom line, isn't it? Whereas, to me that would be censorship, and I think wikipedia should have have a concise mention of the idea in question, and explain that mainstream science rejects it. Otherwise, if some high school student in Alabama tries to look it up in wikipedia, he won't find it and will have to go somewhere that's potentially a lot less objective for his answer.-- feline1 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Pseudoscience definitely belongs in any good encyclopedia. For example, astrology, modern geocentrism, creation science, perpetual motion machines, time cube, and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations all belong in Wikipedia. What doesn't belong are non-notable subjects. By attempting to change the subject as to whether pseudoscience belongs in Wikipedia or not, you are missing the whold point of this AfD. Whether this subject relates to pseudoscience or not is not the issue. In fact, if you read the last point in WP:SCI about arguments not to use you'll see that pseudoscience is not a rationale to be used for deleting an article. I also would thank you not to make false declarations about my agenda. Disabuse yourself of the notion immediately that I am here to excise pseudoscience from this encyclopedia. -- ScienceApologist 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    But Jeurgens and the Electic Universe idea (which I was quite flabberghasted to see had been deleted from wikipedia) are a part of the ongoing legacy of Immanuel Velikovsky, who is certainly a notable pseudoscientist.-- feline1 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The idea that Velikovsky has an "ongoing legacy" is fairly contentious. He does not receive the media attention he once enjoyed when Sagan was all the rage. Certainly the electric universe and Ralph Jeurgens do not seem to rise to the level of notability in popular culture which is all that is left since (I think) we agree that these subjects defy scientific notability. It may be that Ralph Jeurgens can be mentioned at the Immanuel Velikovsky#"The Velikovsky Affair" section but to insist that he be a biographical subject in his own right or that the Electric Sun/Electric Universe articles be subjects in their own right doesn't seem to have any justification. They just don't seem to be notable enough. -- ScienceApologist 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, scientific articles need to have sources in the conventional literature. As this topic does not have sources in conventional literature, and as it does not have enough sources to be presented as a media phenomenon, it should be deleted. -- Philosophus T 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, yes, Kronos seems to be more crackpot than vanity. When Egyptologists are reviewing supposedly scientific contributions, it's hard to call the journal something else. In any case, a handfull of fringe publications does not notability make. Sdedeo ( tips) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Do you think that when Nature reviews and article for publication, that it asks the chemists on the staff to referee the articles on astronomy, and the astronomers to referee articles on biology? -- Iantresman 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep or make dab page linking to "The Velikovsky Affair". Juergens is not notable as a scientist but he is somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair". He contributed some 20,000 words - see e.g. here. This means the article needs to be pruned quite a bit: nearly all Juergens' nn pseudoscience info has to go. One line should be sufficient. AvB ÷  talk 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or turn into a redirect to The Velikovsky Affair. If his alleged notability stems from his contribution to The Velikovsky Affair, then he should be mentioned there first (he is not), certainly before warranting his own separate article. The "electric sun" crap is non-notable, as was well established in that article's recent AfD (not to mention that it consists of an enormous copyvio quote). HEL 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep with a note ... Can this article, or something like it, be kept, with a note that the Electric sun hypothesis is not accepted as mainstream science? If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful. (Maybe the sections could be merged with other articles, except that the Electric Universe article is now deleted.) Deletion makes me think of a witch-hunt. Do we really have to drown this stuff entirely, so in the future it will seem not to have existed? Can't we just hang a sign around its neck to indicate that mainstream science either ignores it or holds it in low regard? I am not suggesting that those arguing for deletion have bad intentions, because, as far as I know, those who pursued "witches" had perfectly good intentions. Its just that deletion seems over-the-top - it is less informative and more destructive than keeping the article in some form with some notes to guard against a naive reader thinking the theory is more highly regarded than it actually is. Also, perhaps, a note that Kronos does not meet WP's criteria for scientific notability because it is not a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Robin Whittle 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • We nominate these sorts of articles for deletion not because we want to blot them out, but because we can't make them both comply with Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and no original research while also complying with the equally fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Most respectable scientists don't have time to write a critique of pseudotheories like this one, and then publish it in a reputable scientific source. Most reputable scientific sources don't have room for rebuttals of the thousands of individuals who each have their own miraculous theory of everything. On the other hand, most of the individuals in question have copious amounts of time in which to sing the praise of their ideas, and rebuke the unfaithful with yet more praise and misunderstanding. If we were to have acceptable sources for all of these ideas, then we should keep them without hesitation, but as we do not, and are thus unable to craft an article that would not be a disgrace to Wikipedia, we have no choice but to delete them. -- Philosophus T 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You don't have to write a critique of an article to make it conform to NPOV. We don't critique "Jewish beliefs" with "Christian beliefs" to make it NPOV, and we don't critique Stephen Hawkins latest theory on black holes, to make it NPOV. -- Iantresman 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh what a load of waffle, and from a self-professed sock puppet too! From time to time, people will go to wikipedia and type in "Electric universe" or maybe even "Ralph Jeurgens" (most likely led there by summat on Immanuel Velikovsky). If the wiping-pseudoscience-off-the-face-of-the-interweb brigade get there way, wikipedia will just say "No article with that name exists", when it could quite easily have one or two paragraphs summarizing what the theory is and calmly noting how it is rejected by current mainstream science, all in compliance with the various necessary policies. It just makes for a less informative and useful encyclopedia.-- feline1 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • That's just the problem. We do not believe that we can have an article like that in compliance with policies, as I have described. If you would like to show that we are incorrect, then I would suggest that you create an article like the one you describe, and put it here. It is quite probable that if it were to be respectable while complying with policy, a significant number of these votes would change. That has happened before in these cases. Furthermore, please note that, as I said, I am a sock puppet only on a technicality, since the definition of the term in policy is very different from the meaning that most people understand and expect. With the policy definition, for example, many administrators are sock puppeteers (all bots are sock puppets). -- Philosophus T 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well, a cynic might note that since the eradicate-pseudoscience-from-wikipedia brigade seem so deeply versed in what does and doesn't constitute compliance with wikipolicies, they should find it relatively easy to lobotomize any article into compliance... conversely, having checked out the behaviour of some of these characters on wikipedia in recent times (I note Science Apologist was before the arbitration committee not so long ago...), I'd be reluctant to spend the time editing something only to have it all just erased by that lot. This is why their conduct can be disruptive: notwithstanding their desire to censor certain types of information, it puts people off contributing, cos they don't want to become involved in edit wars with zealots /sighs/-- feline1 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    User:Feline1's comments are bordering very close on getting too personal and he seems to be accusing me of forming a cabal. I suggest he try to resolve his issues at dispute resolution rather than trying to defame the messengers. -- ScienceApologist 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Auch look, I really have no desire to get into a personal confrontation about this. To be honest though: I feel that you yourself make things personal, because of your self-professed antipathy to what you deem "pseudoscience". When other editors read your comments, despite them being packed full of diligent references to various wikipolicies, it is all too easy to think "here is a guy with an agenda". It tends to undermine your credibility - all those careful wiki policy references begin to come across like carefully-researched excuses for you to be able to get your own way: i.e. eradicating pseudoscience. -- feline1 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You seem to be accusing me now of wikilawyering. And I am not too fond of you ascribing an agenda to me. As I've said before, I have no problem with verifiable articles on notable pseudoscience being included in Wikipedia. However, when articles are written that are unverifiable or not notable, I don't think they belong here. In the future, please assume good faith about those whom you oppose. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    LOL wikilawyering, you know all the tricks don't you! LOL Anyways but I *did* assume good faith, until I started reading your user/talk pages, your edit history and your arbitration history! That's when I got suspicious :-D LOL. Please also see my reply to your comment above^^ Best wishes-- feline1 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me that your laughter is belying a bit of discomfort with being called out for doing shoddy research into my edit history and arbitration history. Vague ideas and suspicions are never a good thing to base community relations on. You could have asked me about what my opinions were instead of arrogantly assuming that you obviously knew. -- ScienceApologist 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It is my opinion that nearly all of these articles are neither verifiable or notable. I don't consider notability to be an important point of Wikipedia policy, and instead think that verifiability and neutral point of view obviate the need for notability restrictions in most cases, including these. For a response to your reply to my last comment, I will agree that we are deeply versed in Wikipedia policy, and know enough to understand that we cannot create articles of this sort that comply with the policy. There have been attempts by some of us to change the policy in the past to allow for proper coverage of topics like these, but they haven't been accepted, in part because they would require changes in the non-negotiable fundamentals of Wikipedia. As for ScienceApologist being before the Arbitration committee recently, that is of little detriment to his character: requests for arbitration against decent editors are often created by pseudoscientist supporters, who often then find that the process backfires. I am currently a party in arbitration as well, for example, by my own choice. Finally, there is no cabal (though there are the Einstein's Witnesses). -- Philosophus T 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    "Actually, I'm back now, since it seems that dispute resolution has changed enough that it is possible to defeat pseudoscientific points of view, thanks especially to the recent work of the Arbitration Committee" - you crack me up, you do! Can't you go and do something more useful with your time, like go down to the Grand Canyon and tell them how old it is? :)-- feline1 11:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete, without prejudice. Not notable as a scientist, and much of the article seems to be a copyright violation. Involvement in the Velikovsky Affair seems to come close to notability. Cardamon 09:52, 13 January 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 and no further comments other than keep. Note: I am NOT an admin. I am closing this discussion as permitted by Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Bwithh 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Hell and High Water

    Hell and High Water (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Reads like an advertisement; no attempt at critical analysis or encyclopedic content. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Comment. Not necessarily a good reason to delete, but to fix. OTOH I don't look forward to another round of Exploded Consensus or whatever it was. Are there notability criteria for books? William M. Connolley 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I added the article on this book, and I certainly welcome contributions by other editors who are more experienced at writing book reviews than me. The book relies on the same science as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (except that Romm's book is almost a year newer than Gore's). It has only been out for a month, and I have only seen one major media review of the book so far (from the Toronto Star). As soon as more reviews come out, we can add those. The book has quotes from California's energy commissioner, among others, but I did not quote these, since they are being used by Morrow to market the book. -- Ssilvers 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    If you can edit the article so that it doesn't seem so promotional it would go a long way toward satisfying my concerns. Starting out by describing the author as a "physics and technology expert" is awfully generic and has echoes of puffery. Additionally, the author's views are seemingly taken at face value. Can you tweak the article towards a more neutral and objective tone? Raymond Arritt 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    You misqote the article. The author is described as a " Physicist and energy technology expert". As described in detail at Joseph J. Romm, he's an MIT PhD. physicist, and a well-published energy expert, who served as the head of Energy efficiency and renewable energy at the US Dept of Energy. What details do you think are most appropriate? I've tried to tweak the article for NPOV as you suggest, but the article needs some more editors to contribute. It was only created an hour ago. -- Ssilvers 20:13, 5 January 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. - Docg 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Veronica Afflerbach

    Veronica Afflerbach (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The subject of the article is a young actress who has so far only appeared in one movie where she is a minor named character; this does not sufficiently pass WP:BIO for an actor/actress. Internet searchs provide nothing reliable besides mention of her minor role in School of Rock. The page has also been subject to extraneous and trivial information added by IPs. If reliable, third party sources can be provided that further her notability, this shouldn't be a problem. I have not problem with there being a page if and/or when she takes part in more movies, or at least a larger role in a notable one. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • I think it should stay, for various reasons. Firstly, she has more than a few lines in these films, and I'm sure people would like to search up on her! As well as this, she is likely to be in films more in the future, meaning that her popularity is only going to improve, and then this will already be here, like it should anyway with her being an actress. And she isn't that minor at all really. I can't really explain it too well, so I'm not making it sound as good as it really is, but it should really stay here though, and a lot of people do actually like her also!
    • MAZITO - Friday, 5 January, 2007; 21:53 (GMT)
      • Comment in cases like this the deletion is generally without prejudice, that is, with more notability and sources the article may be recreated at a future date (for example, with a starring role in a major motion picture). -- Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom SUBWAYguy 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete although I love the movie and love the character, she really doesn't meet WP's notability criteria (yet). Possible smerge to School of Rock. Xtifr tälk 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I think it should stay. Wikipedias goal is to have as much knowlege as possible correct? Well by deleting this it would limit the knowlege and show decreases. Plus if you look back on any actors or actresses career a lot of them do one commericial when they are 11 then stay out of Hollywood until they are 22 (finished University) then they work there way up to the top with smaller roles than this. She had around 20 somelines which is pretty big, plus she had to act without roles constinatnly. For example; when she Was listening to Zach's song, or when she was with Franky when he told Miss Mullens "your the man", or how she had to act enthusiastic at the end. She may not have been the star of the scenes but imagine Zach singing to nobody "that would be weird". Ok, directors will also most likely use her as tributes to Schoool of Rock. This can boost her popularity tremendously and thus make her the next Star. And wouldn't want you to have her a site on WP when that happens? "From Middle School Students for preserving Afflerbach" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.247.179 ( talk • contribs)
      • No, Wikipedia's goal is not to have "as much knowledge as possible". That's why we have a policy about verifiability, guidelines about notability and reliable sources, and a whole list of things (policy again) that Wikipedia is not. We don't (for example) want articles about things made up in school one day, even though that is, technically, knowledge. Anyway, the verifiability policy means that we're not "limiting knowledge", because everything in Wikipedia has to be traceable to other sources, which means the information is still available. If you want to create a fan page, there are plenty of free hosting services out there that will allow you to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. As I said, I loved the movie, and thought Ms. Afflerbach did a fine job in it, but until she actually becomes "the next Star", she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. But she can certainly have as many fan pages elsewhere as the traffic will bear. Xtifr tälk 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I say we keep the page and merge it with other the Other School of Rock Groupie to make a "school of Rock groupie page" or you give her or her fan base several days to create a fan hosting page which when created will be given 2 days on wikipedia saying this site has been moved away from wikipedia to a new website. Then after the 2 days delete the site. Again the merge is preferable but creating a free hosted site is quiet easy. And me and my collegues would be willing to help create and run it. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.247.179 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 Jan 2007 (UTC)
          • I rekon this page should be kept. I agree that in the future, and even now, she will get bigger as a star, and therefore it would be better if the article was kept, and a lot of people seem to like her in SOR, where her part is definitely what I wouldn't call small! It's important, and really, quite big, it just ain't one of the main ones, but they're not just the big ones, and more importantly, they're not just the important ones. Veronica is an important one, and an important person. I reckon it should be kept on Wikipedia like it is now. I know she ain't the biggest of stars (yet, at least), but that can, and probably will, change as the time continues; Wikipedia is good for finding things out, and I actually am very surprised it's up for possible deletion. Something like this must surely be here. I say keep, for sure! And although this is just one entry, it's the opinion of many of us, here at the college. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.189.55 ( talk • contribs)
    • Weak Delete - i think it is on the line of NN, but nonethess, NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I propose that wikipedia sets up a moviepedia and has both major and minor stars in it including afflerbach and her friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDeer ( talk • contribs)

    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. - Docg 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Ouzounian Productions, Inc

    Ouzounian Productions, Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable production company and vanity page, based on article creator name. Google searches on major terms from article ("Ouzounian Productions, Inc", "Ouzounian Productions" and "Ouzoun Productions") bring back no returns at all. Search on "Sniperz Gone Wild" brings back only 6 unique on 131 total, all inconsequential. Delete TheRealFennShysa 19:16, 5 January 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. GRBerry 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Omar Al Eryan

    Omar Al Eryan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This article is about the son of Tarek Al Eryan. Tarek, being a famous director, is notable but his son is not. The only contributer is User:Omar Alarian. There is another deleted article named Omar Alarian which is a variant of the same Arabic name: عمر العريان. Please see User talk:Omar Alarian#Omar Alarian. Meno25 19:19, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Carla Brown

    Carla Brown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Non-notable model, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    You could say the same with most of the pages on here!!!

    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. - Docg 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jan Klerks

    Jan Klerks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    NonNotable architect. Does not have recognation, therefore unarticle worthy. - User:BushCheney2004 19:31 UTC

    COMMENT: But the focus of the article is less upon his occupation as an architect and more upon skyscapercity.com, the notability of which has been explained in the article. - Erebus555 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Question How many cases can you think of where someone's status as leader of a web forum has been considered sufficient notability to merit an article? Fan-1967 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Reply: I am not a regular visitor to the AfD pages so I would not know. But when this web forum has such a large number of members and was created by this person who has developed an internet celebrity status among architecture webforums, just like people on youtube have (not on architectural webforums though), then this could warrant as notable. - Erebus555 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Delete upon request by article's subject - Erebus555 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Potentially move to SkyscraperCity. Alexa rank around 5,000 is highish for a specialty forum, and there are a handful of Google News Archive citations. If WP:RS cannot be found, though, delete. Delete per Erebus555 (although that bulletin post is not viewable without registration). -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Sorry, I did not realise this was the case. It says "I'd rather not. I asked it to be deleted." upon a reply to a general discussion on the article. - Erebus555 20:29, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Active game

    Active game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Almost certain neologism; we're the number one result on Google and only one peripheral manufacturer seems to use anything approximating this meaning for the term. Sockatume 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep. I have heard this term in news outlets and such. It requires a cleanup and frankly, "active game" is not a genre of game rather, a typr of gaming. SYSS Mouse 04:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Regardless of how widely it has been used, it needs to be shown that there is enough reliable material out there that is specifically about the term and its particular usage, per WP:NEO. I feel that plenty of time has been given to address those concerns. It's been nearly two months since I originally tagged the article. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This doesn't seem to be even a neologism, but a protologism. Any traction the term may have gained is probably because the Wikipedia article was allowed to stay up for a while. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - I had never heard this term before today, despite being an avid gamer, and a regular magazine/website reader. It is undeniable that there are games that do require active user input (especially with the release of the Wii), but I have not heard this term previously - I certainly wouldn't say it's widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia. -- Dreaded Walrus 23:50, 12 January 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.

    User: Acalamari

    The result was speedy keep, AFD is the wrong place to discuss userpages. In addition, the page was PROD'ded [36] instead of putting {{ subst:afd1}}. MaxSem 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    User: Acalamari (  | [[Talk:User: Acalamari|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    No sources or anything. pointless user page. Opronc-oB 19:45, 5 January 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. - Docg 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    TSIT

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

    Contested PROD, but no change since PROD tag. Non-notable organization, non-standard page title (should be actual org name not a generic-looking abbreviation). If anything, would be a one- or two-sentence note in the parent organization's page. DMacks 19:46, 5 January 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 WP:OR (!votes without reasons, saying only "cruft", or keep because the nominator hasn't a reason were discounted. But of the rest there was a consensus that this was OR. - Docg 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore

    Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Although slightly sourced very crufty article. Computerjoe 's talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    But the sources do not suggest the argument put forward, only the information used by the writer. Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep no valid nomination reason given. crufty is no different than "I don't like this" and as such is very inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: While the nomination reason isn't valid, that doesn't mean the article itself is fine. Please do not make the same mistake as the nominator and discuss the article rather than the nomination. -- Scottie theNerd 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I am sorry, but a bad nomination reason is still a bad nomination reason. If an article is going to be nominated, there should be a high responsibility to make sure you have a proper reason. If you can't articulate it, then ask someone else for help. At the least, picking insulting and demeaning language is highly inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It is the nominator's responsibility to outline the reason for deletion, but the nominator's phrasing is not definitive nor is it final. The whole point of the deletion debate process is to gather more opinions on the value of an article, and in most cases the resulting debate expands on the original nomination, as is the case here. A bad nomination reason does not automatically make the article a good one. What you're doing is disagreeing with the nomination using a deletion debate version of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you don't like the nomination doesn't mean the debate isn't valid. -- Scottie theNerd 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
            • It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, it's a matter of not accepting the nomination when done so poorly. I'm not saying anything about the article per se (I actually think it would best be a sub-section of some large Warcraft article), but I do find myself forced to reject the initial action. And while fostering discussion may be important, it's less likely to happen when you start it off poorly. I see at least two opinions expressed that don't even have an iota of reasoning behind them. Maybe you should say something about that? FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
              • What's there to say? The nominator put forward an argument you don't like, we put forward arguments that are more relevant. Just because the nomination doesn't refer to any policy doesn't mean the whole process is invalid. Why don't you put forward your own valid argument instead of "I don't like the nominator's argument"? -- Scottie theNerd 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I have offered my rebuttal to comments that this is OR. You even replied to me. What more do you want me to do? If you want a stronger argument, I don't much care. My initial concern was that the process was tainted by a poor nomination. That remains a problem. So are the bad arguments spoken by others. I can accept that people who think this is OR have a valid (if mistaken concern). That includes you. Other people? not so much. Do I really care about this article? Not so much. I think it would be better done in the articles on the subjects in question, rather than one base article. Still doesn't mean I can't speak out against bad nomination reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • Your responses to our OR concerns are fair enough. I'm pointing out that your initial post was a Keep because you didn't like the nomination rather than the article's merits. If you had intended otherwise, it certainly was not conveyed in that contribution. -- Scottie theNerd 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, that implies I have some interest in the page, a more accurate description is I don't like the nomination reasons given. This would apply regardless of the subject. I suppose I could have been more verbose, so I'm sorry if that confused you. Whether the article should be kept or not, well, I don't have the opinion that there's anything sufficiently wrong with this article that warrants deletion. Clean-up yes, diffusion elsewhere? Maybe. But deletion? Nope, don't see it. And like it or not, I'm not going to look for reasons to delete an article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. It even cites WoWWiki! Axem Titanium 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. Maybe WoWWiki will take it? -- Alan Au 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. In order not to be OR, there would have to be a citation for each claim, not from the warcraft history, but from a source that's pointing out that claim. Otherwise you're drawing these conclusions in the article. delldot | talk 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: violates WP:OR and uses unreliable sources (WoWWiki, of all things). This article would be better on WoWWiki than on Wikipedia. As noted above, being a "crufty" article doesn't mean automatically mean it should be deleted. -- Scottie theNerd 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You may object to WOWWIKI as a unreliable source, but the existence of it does mean there is a source. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible source, so naturally other Wikis would also be considered the same. No one here has argued against sourcing, but arguments have been put forward over the misuse of sources. -- Scottie theNerd 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • If you can demonstrate where the source given is wrong on this thing, then that would be something, but just saying "NOR!" when it's another site doing the research? Doesn't make sense. Say poor sources, that might be something, though in this case, it's not too convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. I do personally find it a pretty interesting read, but a lot of these claims aren't backed by the correct sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom, very crufty -- Selmo ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I started the article and I must admit that it could definately be classified as original research. However, my dictionary doesn't contain the word "crufty" or even "cruft," so I'm not entirely sure what that means. :) RobertM525 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete Even though I'm usually a vigilante when it comes to helping and working on Warcraft articles, I've been extremely skeptical to this article since it was first created. Whereas I tried to get people to source everything. But, as it stands now, it breaks WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If people can clean it up before the AfD is over, I'll change my vote to Keep, but as it stands I give a weak delete. I would also like to point out that the AfD reason is not the reason I voted what I did, as "cruft" if not a good reason to delete anything. Havok (T/ C/ e/ c) 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Give it a little bit, then relist I know this isn't a real vote, but I say give it a bit to see if anybody will source it (I may give it a shot if I have time) and if they don't, relist and let the inevitable do its thing. - Ryanbomber 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Trivia. Combination 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:OR The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Fails WP:N. The game itself is notable, but its plot holes are not. Also fails WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNT. Determining whether something constitutes a conflict in a creative work inherently involves advancing a new position.-- Trystan 23:55, 8 January 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. I've redirected, merging can be done from the history. Sandstein 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Claire Kiriakis

    Claire Kiriakis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Nominate for WP:HOLE. Wiki is Freaakky. 20:29, 5 January 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. - Docg 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    All-Star Lists

    All-Star Near Misses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star All-Stars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Accomplishments (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Families (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Hall of Famers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie MVPs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Cy-Youngs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    All-Star Rookie Managers of the Year (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    rather trivial info about a minor award wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate collection of information, also violates WP:NOR, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    I added 2 more articles to the list Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    And add also All-Star Rookie Families, All-Star Rookie Records (that could be rename to List of Major League Rookie Records though, All-Star Hall of Famers, All-Star Rookie MVPs, All-Star Rookie Cy-Youngs and All-Star Rookie Managers of the Year Jaranda wat's sup 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Heinen's Fine Foods

    Heinen's Fine Foods (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Commercial, advertising content Haans42 20:54, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Abolitionist Generation

    Abolitionist Generation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This is one of a large series of interlinked articles devoted to extolling the view of American history put forward by historians/lifestyle gurus Strauss and Howe in their book Generations. They think that American history (and English history before America) can be divided into distinct generations, each of which has a distinct archetype, be it 'Hero', 'Artist', 'Nomad', or 'Prophet'. It sounds like cobblers, and most of the articles are wholly uncritical.

    I'm nominating this particular article for deletion principally because it's a non-notable neologism, confined to the books of Strauss and Howe. It does not appear to be a widely used historical term, and giving it a separate article undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Nydas (Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Undue weight given to the views of two historians. A lack of sources doesn't help much either. -- Folantin 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The William Strauss and Neil Howe books are influential, published by mainstream publishers, and the names they use for each generation are in some use outside of the context of just Strauss and Howe fans. At worst this is comparable to having articles on each Star Trek or South Park episode, what some might consider "fancruft". That and the characterization of the authors as "lifestyle gurus" doesn't reflect well on this nomination. The article does need some work and expansion, starting with an explanation of where the term originated and who coined it. Dragomiloff 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Interesting, googling turns up that this is not a Strauss and Howe term. Strauss and Howe use the name Gilded Generation for this generation. "Abolitionist Generation" does appear to be in some use though. For example: [37] [38]. I still say keep and expand. Dragomiloff 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Not all the terms they use are in popular usage, Compromise Generation for one. I don't see the problem with describing them as lifestyle gurus, given their website is named Life Course Associates. In any case, since this is not a Strauss and Howe term, it is even less notable than before. One of those sources is a collection of literature essays with no strong connection to the term as defined here, the other is a passing mention.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Nydas, I think you are right that there are serious issues with this whole series of articles. All the "names" for generations are or were neologisms, though some have clearly become sufficiently notable for articles (e.g. Greatest generation). Some of the names are basically Strauss and Howe inventions, others are more widely used, and still others are somewhere in between. This one appears to be somewhere in between - I found more mentions of the term in respected sources - [39] [40]. It seems to me that the whole panorama of generation name related articles needs to be cleaned up, perhaps centered around an improved List of generations article. Some of the content from this article could be merged there. It's a can of worms that may be better resolved through a process other than AfD.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Those two sources just use the term in passing, though. It's also unlikely that they refer to 'abolitionist generation' as defined in this article, with a strict start and end date. ' Thatcher generation' gets almost as many Ghits, and includes plenty of respected sources using the term. They're both just a stock phrases, like Red armchair or Second hand car, and not worth including in Wikipedia.
    As for the Strauss and Howe generations, I'm concerned that articles on commonly used terms like Generation X are dominated by their perspective. I agree that a list might be more appropriate than a series of articles.-- Nydas (Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I don't disagree with you, and I have no heartburn about seeing this article deleted. My larger point is that deleting this one article will do little towards cleaning up the larger morass of the generations articles. If you are using this as a first step towards a larger cleanup, then you have my wholehearted support. It seems to me that the article on the Strauss and Howe book should be expanded a bit to include a little info on each of "their" generational definitions - there's no need to have separate articles for each.-- Kubigula ( talk) 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I've nominated Generation X for the article improvement drive. That should help a bit.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Re-reading the above discussion, I recalled that "abolitionist generation" is not even the Straus and Howe name for this generation. Therefore, I agree that this needs to be deleted as an insufficiently sourced and notable neologism. At most, it could be listed as one name on the "List of generations". I still hope that some bold editor(s) will tackle the current generations scheme and template.-- Kubigula ( talk) 16:53, 9 January 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 G11. Naconkantari 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bioinformatics Solutions Inc.

    Bioinformatics Solutions Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Advertising Jvhertum 21:00, 5 January 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 G11. Naconkantari 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Mateusse

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

    Advertising. Jvhertum 21:04, 5 January 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. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The New Way Forward

    The New Way Forward (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Propaganda term, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation. User:Zoe

    I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation. It's an undeniable, sourceable fact that five high level posts related to the Iraq war are being changed, that the press is reporting on a "surge" and that in the many NOTABLE sources cited above ALL sources use the words "new way forward" to describe this series of initiatives. Whether or not a speech happens, it is clear that the Bush administration is leading the press to use the words "New Way Forward" or "The New Way Forward" with respect to these changes. Please reread the article and reconsider. MPS 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    That's the second time that you have asked me to reconsider, and for a second time, I will say Delete. So, it is confirmed that this is going to be the title for Bush's speech. But the contents of the speech are only speculation, as I said above. Wait until Bush does his speech, and THEN write the article. You said above "I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation.", when it's the speculation that we are trying to avoid. Wait until Bush makes his speech, and THEN make the article. P TO 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    but what about the contents of the stragegy change? It is abundantly clear (to the media-- i.e., independent citeable sources) that these changes are already taking place... the series of initiatives listed in the article. If you are suggeesting a name changes that is one thing, but to delete the article is to delete perfectly good (and sourced)content. What are you trying to hide? MPS 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Clearly a bad faith comment, MPS, and I expect you to retract it. This has nothing to do with "trying to hide" anything, and completely with trying to keep propaganda and speculation out of an encyclopedia. If you want to write your or other people's speculations on a blog somewhere, that is certainly your right, but we expect encyclopedia articles, not somebody's expectations. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Not a bad faith comment; just frustration coming out, and for acting on this frustration I do apologize. Re: the topic, I have two responses....(1) These opinions aren't just opinions (the annouced personnel changes aren't opinions... the term "new way forward" is not some opinion I made up or the media made up -- it was introduced used by Bush to describe his coming changes, and reinforced by his subsequent press secretary statements at whitehouse.gov) the media is reporting on this set of changes with more than speculations, more than just opinions. (2) The WSJ, Time magazine, reuters, USA Today, and CBS News are not just "some people" as you suggest. This is a significant chunk of the mainstream news establishment reporting on "NWF" I'm not citing bloggers, I am citing The media MPS 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Its not simply a speech so much as it is a policy change. You dont like the name? You think its a propaganda term? Doesnt matter one bit, take one look at the Great Leap Forward article and you will see that even when a program is named to make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread we can still have articles on it. There are reliable sources talking about it, waiting for the speech to happen before making an article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The sources cited are most certainly reliable sources. Let me put this into terms similar to the earlier football analogy. Lets say experts predict that Eagles will win. We cannot state that the Eagles will win as a matter of fact, but we can state that experts predict the Eagles will win the Superbowl in the Super Bowl XLI. Thats what is being done in regards to the commentary. But not all of the information is speculation, neither in this article or in Super Bowl XLI. For instance, the date has been officially announced, the logo has been officially announced, the location has been officially announced. The fact that Super Bowl XLI has not yet happened does not keep us from having an article on it, does not keep us from stating the information we know, and does not keep us from stating information that is being speculated in reliable sources. The situation for the New Way Forward, or any other subject matter, is no different. Again, the entire premise behind this deletion appears to be a misunderstanding of guidelines and rules. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • (to Rangeley): This doesn't have anything to do with the name. My comment was drawing a similarity between The New Way Forward and the Great Leap Forward. P TO 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I was responding to the argument that because this was a propaganda term, it could not have an article. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oh, ok. Never mind. P TO 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, as of right now, it is only an informal term. It would be different if it were something like the New Deal or the Great Society where it is used often enough that it actually becomes a proper term. Currently, it's just a short phrase that the media has fixated on just as a way to give it a name (despite the supposed speech not even taken place). Axem Titanium 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Axem... this is what I don't understand... we all recognize that there is something here... we all recognize that the news media and the Bush administration is "informally" calling this whatever, this foo, this topic, is called "NWF" ... but it could just as well be called Bush Administration's reaction to the Iraq study group report and all the crap they are taking over bungling the Iraq war. Why should we delete it if we can't think of a clever title for it? The media and the Bush administration have a clever title. Finish the thought for me here, please. MPS 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    From my perspective, the problem with this article is that it's just people's opinions, and we won't know if they're right or not till the speech is given. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Well Zoe, your stance has moved from thing to thing and reached a point where its merely your perspective and not actually an argument meant to change peoples minds. The simple fact is that a lot of people are talking about it, its a speech thats going to happen, its a policy thats going to be implemented. We can only create articles for future events when we are quite certain that this said event will occur - and we are quite certain this event will occur. Please read the guideline again where it clarifies this. As for what will be said, what changes will occur, all we have are breif statements and things that the media expects. We can, and most certainly should represent these things as they are, expected announcements. We wont know if they are right or wrong till it happens, so we wont say they are right or wrong, we will just say that these are what the experts are expecting, or what the government has said thus far. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The Iraq War article is pretty big already, all I would really want to see there is a breif overview. The more in depth info deserves a place to be at, and in this case that warrants a new article. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I find 1,020,000 Ghits for Bush "Way Forward" compared to 1,060,000 for Roosevelt "New Deal" 417,000 for Johnson "Great Society" 217,000 for Kennedy "New Frontier" and 210,000 for Mao "Great leap forward" . The term has been repeatedly used as a coined term for a new Iraq strategy by White House spokesmen and the President [42] and has been widely discussed in the press. It is not crystal ball that he and his spokesmen have already been using the term. Edison 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep as a stub (for now) that links to an article at Wikinews. -- JWSchmidt 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep useful article. Too much content to merge into any other article proposed so far as they are already lengthy. Johntex\ talk 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: The name of the article is a term documented as used by President Bush to refer to the article's content. It is the most correct title to use, compare to 'New Deal', 'Great Society' etc. -- Joffeloff 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Delete Neutral I'm going to have to agree with the nominator here. No matter how notable the term is, I just don't see how we could write an article about what news organizations think the content of a future speech might be. Lets wait until after the speech before we create this article. Since the speech in question has now actually occured my concerns are null.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment Please see latest additions here that show the (heretofore not understood by me) links to the Heritage Foundation's "New Way Forward" conference November 9 as well as the American Enterprise Institute's December 14 "Choosing Victory" document. It is clear from media references that media is looking to and critiquing Bush's "New Way Forward" policies by examining the content of these other think tank reports. This is a significant revelation for this AFD Discussion in that it points to the fact that the media isn't just speculating willy nilly (crystal ball predictions), but they are critiquing actual published proposed policies. MPS 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Additional Comment - The research I've done on google and other sites reveals precious little about this "New Way Forward": see the search results for "The New Way Forward" (CNN) and FOX News, MSNBC, and the New York Times, and Google. Note that two of the first four sites that come up are blogs. There are only a few relevant articles within these searches, and the few that are relevant refer to Bush's upcoming speech. If this article is becoming a definition of the term "New Way Forward" based on the way the media uses the phrase, then this fails most of WP:NEO and possibly (?) WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If this article is becoming a summary of Bush's speech, then you would have to rely on media speculation which I have mentioned before as not being a good idea. <wink>Unless, of couse, you wait for Bush to make his speech before re-making the article.</wink> That way, you can use some genuine facts to build this article. P TO 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I think your method is wrong. First, you should search on "new way forward"... second... CNN website search comes up with blogs, but that seems to be a failure of the way news websites do searches. When I do a " google news search" of CNN, this turns up many articles, as seen here. Ok, now I will do the same for MSNBC, NYT, Fox News. It seems that there are plenty of articles about NWF by each of these news organzations. It's not a neologism ( WP:NEO) article in the sense that the topic of the article article isn't intended to be the words "New Way Forward"... but rather the topic is the political reponse/initiative. In the same way, six party talks and Road map for peace and Quartet on the Middle East are neologisms, but their articles are not about words but are coherent references to th complex of political initiatives associated with those words. The speech is the capstone, but the article is about the Bush initiative that has been going on for at least a month in response to public rejection of the way the war is going. MPS 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    My bad. But in all seriousness, I'd like to end this debate in a way that makes everybody happy. To do that, I think there are a couple things that need to be said: what you want in the article, what I want in the article (along with anybody else), and a way that we can incorporate those two (or more) things in the article. The only problem I have with this article is the abundance of media crap, to put it bluntly. Even the better links you provided above are plauged with speculation (to quote one, "...House has refused to talk publicly about any of the decisions that Mr. Bush has made about his plan, which is tentatively entitled “A New Way Forward"..."). I would support not doing anything with this article until the speech is done, and then write the article, as I have said a couple times before above. Comments? Concerns? Let's work together here, not against each other. P TO 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    PTO... let me first start my comment with a degree of wikilove...by saying that I have absolutely no ill will towards you or anyone else leaning towards a delete vote. My wiki-stress level is now set to copacetic, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. The reason we call these Article for Deletion instead of Vote For Deletion is because this is not just a vote but a discussion... among equals. Viva Wikipedia!!! Group Hug!!! Secondly I want to respond to the content of your post by saying that the subject of discussion is whether there is notable content here. The discussion over how to frame and present the notable content is better left to Talk:the New Way Forward, a page that is at present red-linked. If you agree that there is subject matter here worth writing about, then change your opinion to Keep IMHO, we can mercilessly edit the media links as better ones emerge. If you think there is grounds for deletion, you need to be clear about why... I think I have shown that the article documents the verifiable political machinations and intimations that have occurred prior to the speech, and the natural starting point for this narrative is the Nov 2006 Democratic Takeover, followed by the progressively higher profile meetings that the president has held leading up to his often-promised speech. The section on "the Speech" was deliberately left empty because we don't know what he is going to say, only that many of his actual recent speeches have alluded to an upcoming "new way forward" plan to change the situation in Iraq. In short, believe I have made the case for preservation of the article, and I agree that the links and references should be mercilessly edited (per WP:OWN) as further information emerges. WikiPeace, MPS 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I changed my vote to conditional keep. Doing some homework and reading the links you posted has revealed to me that the term is more of a blanket term than I thought...originally, I believed that the article was only going to be on the speech. Therefore, I've found that the article does have redeeming value, and I am willing to keep it if we don't use any media sources to speculate on what Bush's speech will be on. Cheers, P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    PTO and MPS – Thank you both for your most recent posts. I think they’re certainly moving this discussion in the right direction. I wanted to return to a question raised earlier by JWSchmidt that seems to me to be a threshold issue in the deletion debate. That is, does this topic merit a stub? Would you two (or anyone else reading this page) be willing to agree that the New Way Forward is a media title for potential changes to Bush’s Iraq strategy? If the answer is no, then there should not be a stub, let alone an article. Only if the answer is yes should we shift the discussion to the content of the article – and, as MPS suggests, that discussion might be better conducted in the Talk forum. Thoughts? Sean Kass 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Wikipedians are omniscient :D. We have had a few threads on you all at WP:ANI. Back on topic, though, after thinking this one through and doing a little homework, I've found that this warrants at least a stub discribing Bush's opposition about his Iraq policy and his promise to deliver a new plan. However, I still feel that the media garbage about Bush's speech should be left out until they can produce something that isn't just an educated guess. P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    We can state it as mass media speculation, we just cant pass it out as truth. There is wide speculation that there will be surge, for instance, in troop numbers. This warrants noting. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sean, it's a wikipedia:stub only because the content is partially there, not because the article is only partially merited. I think the many (NYT, Fox NEws, CNN, Time magazine) google citations I gave to PTO above establish that the media lumps Bush's strategy change under the rubric of "New Way Forward." In short, yes, I believe the content is there to merit an article. IMHO It's a stub for now because we all recognize there's still more research to be done. MPS 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Do others agree with MPS’ claim that there is enough consensus to merit an article? Keep in mind that stubs are supposed to be limited to three to ten sentences. If we cannot agree on any more than that, a stub may be all that is merited until we learn more about the New Way Forward (i.e. until the speech or some other announcement of policy). Sean Kass 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply


    • Comment - What is this encyclopedia article supposed to be about? A speech that hasn't been written that might be written and if it does then must be at least partly in response to Democratic actions in Congress that haven't even taken place? A newly coined phrase spinning that the President actually has a plan that is new and will be in a forward direction but with no clear specific meaning except to try to spin public opinion in the face of the public rejection and military failure of "stay the course"? (Now that's an idea. Move this to Stay the course?) Or about various and sundry recent unencyclopedic pundit reports filling commercial infotainment media containing teasing vague conjectures about what happens next between the between the commercials that the teases exist to provide eyeballs for? WAS 4.250 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Your comment seems to be phrased as if you don't expect a clear topic to be identified. This article is about the very public Bush response to the Iraq Study Group that he has repeatedly referred to as a "new way forward in iraq". Bush has consulted several conservative think tanks and high level officials and promised a speech that most of the mainstream press reports indicate will propose a troop "surge." I mean we could call it proposed troop surge of 2007 but that's a matter for talk:The New Way Forward to sort out, not AFD. MPS 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
      • Even though it is a speculation, the speculation has congealed as a thing of its own. Don't we want wikipedia to include famous media speculations (e.g. predictions of who will run for president)? In other words, a significant speculation can be viewed as a news event in itself. If it turns out to be wrong, that update should also be added to the page.
      • This page is useful for people who hear the term on the news and don't know what it is. Is there any rule about including pages that are useful? Bobrudin 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep – Even if there is currently uncertainty about the scope of this topic, there does seem to be a foundation of cited material and factual developments to justify the stub. More importantly, if Bush delivers this speech soon there may be many more people looking to read and edit this article. Abgb23 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, but with reservations. I think it's silly to have an article about what some people think a not-yet happened speech will be about, but it does not seem to violate the crystal ball rule because it is sufficiently documented in the press and it seems that the speech will happen in some form or another. As more details become clearer the article can be updated accordingly (but perhaps some of the sections, such as the personnel changes that may or may not be attributable to the New Way Forward speech/doctrine, are still to speculative for inclusion even if the article as a whole is sufficiently nonspeculative). I don't find any glaring neutrality issues, at least none that can't be cleaned up. And the bottom line to me is that by the time this debate settles on whether or not to delete the article the speech will have happened and then there will definitely be enough material for an article. But if, on the other hand, a couple weeks go by and it becomes clear that the New Way Forward speech will in fact not go forward, then there is certainly a strong argument to delete the article (as opposed to keeping it, and having the article be about the media speculation of a speech that never was). Bsiatadshmia 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Change to keep, since it's used on the president's website. Axem Titanium 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Proposed Compromise

    Reading the comments above, it sounds to me like the arguments for deletion are two fold:

    • 1) Neutrality: The positive phrase "The New Way Forward" seems to endorse the Bush Administrations policies and is therefore not neutral.
    • 2) Speculation: The speech "The New Way Forward" is in the future and not certain to happen.

    What do you all think about trying to address these concerns by making some changes to the article? To make the article more neutral, perhaps the article could include a small section describing--but not endorsing--criticism (by opposition politicians, people in the media, etc.) of the new strategy and/or the phrase itself? To make the article less speculative, perhaps the focus of the article could be on "The New Way Forward" as a policy or strategy rather than a speech. As others have pointed out, parts of the strategy associated with "The New Way Forward" have already been implemented, and are therefore no longer speculative. The article could still mention that the President is expected to lay out the details of this new policy in a speech. -- 3L Senioritis 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Hmmm... How do I say this... I appreciate your proposal, 3L. But ... there is already an expectation at wikipedia that this article is going to improve over time (become more WP:NPOV) as editors weigh in with new sourced content. Any wikipedia article becomes more neutral over time. The AFD page is a discussion of whether the article should exist at all. This article stub is less than 72 hours old. If you want to suggest neutrality improvements and title changess, I will start this discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward. In the mean time, be bold and feel free to update the content as you see fit. As for the discussion on wikipedia:speculation and the merits of this article even existing (IOW, this AFD), I really believe that the article currently documents quality information on Bush's publicly advertised Iraq strategy change (nicknamed "new way forward" ). IMHO, it's solidly referenced content about actually occurring historical events ... and for that reason I think it's not WP:CRYSTAL. We shouldn't delete an article stub that covers a legitimate topic that has been documented by the mainstream press for over a month. MPS 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The White house just announced to day that a "way forward" speech will occur Wednesday with details to follow Thursday at Fort Benning. [43] I have added this to the article. Are there any major objections left to ending this AFD? MPS 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - After hearing and reading the speech and reading and hearing comments about the speech, I find the article to be an unfocused mess that misinforms and is unencyclopedic. WAS 4.250 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep for now - At this present time, this is a really hot topic, and seems to be talked about widly in American media right now. I suggest that more time be given to see whether it really survives the test of long tern notability. Avador 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep but why not rename it? If it sounds like Wikipedia would be endorsing Bush policy by using the White House's name for his policy change, try to think of a more neutral article title. But don't delete it while there's a link to it on the Current Events page. But surely we have articles on anti-Bush (or Democratic Party initiatives) which have similar titles. We need a policy for describing government initiatives whose offical titles have a positive spin. -- Uncle Ed 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - I personally hate GWB and everything he says or does, but this is a good article on a valid subject. yalbik 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep- For the reasons stated by user edison LCpl 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The White House explains the new strategy with "Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq " [44]. That argues for keeping the article, and referring to it from Iraq War. Edison 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • comment 15 keep, two delete... I call the question. Will somebody please call the admins? MPS 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • keep It sounds like Newspeak, but even though Bush is doubleplusungood, imho, the article was enclopaedic from the beginning. Agree with rename to The New Way Forward in Iraq as per White House usage and above. Also, it would seem that this article should have had a breaking news template and that it still should.-- Hjal 15:52, 12 January 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. Advertising. -- Fang Aili talk 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Red-onions.com

    Red-onions.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Advertising, does not meet notability guidelines Jvhertum 21:10, 5 January 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. He's already listed at List of Countdown octochamps. Sandstein 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Steven Briers

    Steven Briers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Typical Countdown octochamp that has not seemed to transcend the boundaries of the show in terms of receiving major press coverage, nor has he broken a major record on the show. He also does not seem to be notable for any non-Countdown endeavors. As Countdown champions are not automatically notable as per previous AfDs on the subject, I am nominating the article for deletion. Andy Saund e rs 21:13, 5 January 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. -- Steel 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Bickel

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

    Meaningless vandalism, of no purpose or value to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjbfour ( talk • contribs)

    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. - Docg 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    List of video game music

    List of video game music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Well, this is actually for List of video game music and List of video game music A to List of video game music Z - forgive me if I haven't the time to do everything to the other 26 pages. It seems to be trying to be a list of every single game soundtrack CD etc. ever released. It's just a huge, pretty much impossible to maintain list of mostly unnotable CDs (etc.). FredOrAlive 21:22, 5 January 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. — Centrx→ talk • 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    M-2 (Michigan highway)

    M-2 (Michigan highway) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    There is no conclusive proof that there's ever been a highway numbered M-2, except for one (stated in the article as unreliable) map. Thus, M-2 is just a placeholder designation, and there's no need to have an article on it.— Scott5114 ↗ 19:05, 5 January 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 TURNIP... er, mean KEEP. - Docg 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    (third nom)

    Completely unencyclopediac. Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles controlled by a cabal of trolls and POV pushers. Previously a POV fork from main article. Improperly kept on previous articles in violation of truth. Article exists only to allow Truthers to earn a buck and serves as an advertisement for their cause. TheOnlyChoice 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Turnip Will not be deleted currently. I vote turnip to avoid drama. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Um. There is a big, huge, titanic, enormous problem with this article: the hypothesis has zero basis in peer-reviewed research. 100% of the sources are conspiracy theory websites, whose reliability is slightly below that of an alcoholic crack addict. Why are there no rebuttals in the professional journals? Because the professional journals, without exception, treat the theory as the twaddle it clearly is and won't give it house room. But it has got a lot of coverage in the popular press, albeit again mostly borderline incredulity. I'd say it needs drastic pruning and the lead needs to eb rewritten to reflect the fact that nobody who had not already made their mind up has lent any support to this nonsense. Guy ( Help!) 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I couldn't have said it better than TheOnlyChoice -- rogerd 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep The article documents a social phenomenon - that of the facts of the hypothesis and the existence of the hypothesis. It does not argue for the hypothesis, nor does it argue against it. It simply, correctly and competently documents it as a hypothesis that exists. The topic is suitable for encyclopaedic coverage and the article simply gives it that. There was a certain inevitability that, as soon as a WP:Peer Review was asked for, someone would take the opportunity to propose it for deletion. There is no issue with that since an AfD is, in many ways, a review process. However it is important to make the distinction between the article which documents the demolitionists' hypothesis, which this handles correctly, and the hypothesis itself. A correct and encyclopaedic article, which this strives to be, documents that citable facts of the existence of the hypothesis without either validating or invalidating that hypothesis. The article needs to be judged on the merits of how it handles the topic - a notable, well reported topic - not on the merits of the various opinions people have about the truth or otherwise behind the destruction of the buildings. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The comment "POV Fork" in the nomination is incorrect. The article was created as a content fork, which is a valid, recommended and documented procedure when the parent article has grown too long, and the content which formed it was deleted from the parent article. As for trolls and POV pushers, as someone who has been working on the article itself while absolutely not supporting any thoughts about controlled demolition being respinsible for the destruction of the buildings, I do find that comment rather hard to swallow. You don't need to believe a thing is true when working on making a decent article about it. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong keep, once again this article is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, a page which violates several policies. [45] This article has been put up for deletion twice before, and everytime the article is kept (first time keep, second time no consensus).
      In addition, User:TheOnlyChoice who nominated this article has few or no other edits, Just over 20 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds. This is a bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. User:Hemlock Martinis, User:Nyp and User:Bouke in the last AfD [46] this "user" nominated all called that nomination a bad faith nomination. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Travb: Your argument here has nothing to do with the question of whether the article should be deleted. 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF ( talk • contribs)
    Okay, here is my argument why it should be kept. I keep repeating myself on all of these AfDs, sorry GabrielF that I didn't repeat myself here again. Even though this hypothesis is kooky and, in my opinion, total bullshit, that doesn't mean that it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. I would not support this hypothesis on the 9/11 page, but there is a small fringe group which support this theory, and which have written a lot of articles supporting the theory.
    See: Flat Earth Society Apollo moon landing hoax accusations Kennedy assassination theories for others group that believes kooky theories. The first two pages have never been put up for deletion, and the JFK page was closed early because of overwhelming consensus to keep.
    I think these editors who disagree with this theory should spend there time adding condemnations about this theory on the wikipage, instead of attempting to silence these conspiracy theorists. This takes work and research though. It is much easier to simply delete ideas you disagree with, then researching why those ideas are fallacious and have no merit. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The hypothesis is complete nonsense, but the fact that a lot of people believe it is unfortunately notable. The article does a good job of describing that notability. -- Bduke 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Bored Keep This is the 3rd nomination for this article! Have you nothing better to do? The article is in fact encyclopedic, and wikipedia if full of balanced articles on kooky theories. Seen the Flat Earth Society article? Just because there's an article doesn't mean that wikipedia endorses the concept. If the public want to find out what all the fuss is about, where better to go than a balanced article on wikipedia? Deleting the article will make wikipedia a poorer place and a less useful encyclopedia.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. 107 references. I love the name-calling in the nomination – very persuasive. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy keep and speedy close We've been through this many times now. Same circumstances, same result.-- Hús ö nd 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, I've just read about this entrepreneur from UK who is making furniture from human hair. Lovelight 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    I wonder what could be made from recycled AfDs? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - This nomination was unnecessary and tendentious, especially in light of previous discussion and consensus. Please find a more productive manner of contributing to Wikipedia, thank you. Badagnani 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Nonsense, yes, but encyclopedic nonsense none the less. GabrielF 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - valid encylopedic entry for people looking for information. -- RedHillian 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep - Yes, the subject is a conspiracy theory not grounded in reality. However, it's very notable, easily verified as notable and currently undergoing Peer Review to improve the article's quality. The AfD is premature, and worded in a rather uncivil manner. - Kesh 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep per Fiddle Faddle, Travb, Seabhcan. SalvNaut 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Hoax, and a fairly silly one, but notable nonetheless, with multiple verifiable reliable sources. I worked in a similar building at that time, and I would have made serious inquiries if explosives had been installed around the structural columns. The plane crashes were a sufficient cause to bring down the flimsy buildings which lacked good fireproofing of structural members. But if this many sources said people believed the moon was made of green cheese, we should have an article noting the fact, which can also be a good debunking page. Edison 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Fantastic article. Maybe this is a GA nom put in the wrong place? ;) --- RockMFR 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I can't imagine an article could be deleted based on the argument offered in this nomination. An article can't be deleted on the basis of unsubstantiated claims about its editors' motives, can it? Even substantiated claims about such motives would be irrelevant if the article ultimately met WP standards (e.g., by the efforts of other editors). No specific criticism of the article's content has been offered.-- Thomas Basboll 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Turnips, per above. I still think this page is original research by synthesis, and will be until enough social scientists write papers about a Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center - and even if they ever do, I bet the papers are called something like Jewish Lightning -- Conspiracy theories about Building 7. But per Hipocrite, deletion is unlikely. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - While the subject matter itself is unlikely to ever have a valid peer review, it's pretty well established as a notable conspiracy theory. And if you want a more scientifically grounded view of the conspiracist's claims, try this book. As soon as I can scrape together the cash, I'm going to get a copy and use it to help improve the article. -- Kesh 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment:The mainstrem editor has spoken. ;) SalvNaut 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Cannot agree with any sentence in the nomination. Notable conspiracy theory. The Pet Goat says so. William Avery 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep On part because it seems like the deletion is being pushed by a cabal of POV pushers themselves. I disagree with the CD hypothesis myself, but I don't think it should be deleted, because it is a notable social phenomenon. I mean blink 182's Mark Hoppus and Charline Sheen believe this theory. South Park based an entire episode off of this, parodying the wingnuts. Plus... THERE'S A THING CALLED A CRITICISM SECTION. Which, is not based off sources from wingnut websites. -- Saint-Paddy 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep Highly notable, definitely encyclopedic. .V. 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • strong keep notable and important to wikipedia. Free expression is absolute. Wiki ian 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep The article expresses an issue with a portion of the population of the USA and other countries in the world. I agree with Saint-Paddy and others. (BTW: A view of the contributions by the nominator shows an entry onto the Conspiracy Noticeboard [47] and an FYI notice sent to other members.) Lmcelhiney 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Very Noteable, Very Idiotic. However, even idiotic theorys can become notable, and sane people can find out on wiki what the nitwits are blathering about. 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Personally biased about this page, because I was there. I did not sense or suspect any controlled demolition during or after the attack. Abe Froman 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment That you were present and saw no evidence of controlled demoliton may, if citable, be a useful part of the article. Additionally, the fact that you saw no evidence for it neither makes the article suitable for deletion nor for keeping. It is a valid personal statement but not a valid reason to "vote" either way. The article is not about whether the destructon had any elements of controlled demolition in it. The article is about a hypothesis that some people have proposed to explain the demolition. As one of the editors who have worked on the article I can state that I think the hypothesis is WP:BALLS, but that does not prevent it from being notable. The article is about a notable piece of what appears to be ludicrous folklore. It does not express any opinions or conclusions about this hypothesis, it simply documents that it exists. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Very reluctant keep - This is notable because there are sufficient numbers of 9/11 conspiracists who believe this. It's clearly WRONG, but enough wrong people are notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Dogpile Keep. Article satisfies all inclusion criteria. Is someone trying to make a WP:POINT? —  coelacan talk — 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep seems notable and fairly neutral to me. Atlantis Hawk 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The fact that some organizations have published material specifically to discredit this theory only adds to its notability. Also, the article doesn't say "The WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition." The article is about the hypothesis itself. What we have to do is provide NPOV coverage of the hypothesis (even if it's crap). A truly NPOV coverage requires outlining both sides of the argument. Quack 688 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If I may, I'd like to remind the nominator of WP:AGF. I think the name-calling in the nomination is entirely uncalled for (but then again, I think name-calling is always uncalled for.) .V. 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per unencyclopedic consipiracy cruft material and WP:NOR. -- Strothra 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete of course. The only reason for this article is so the conspiracy theory people can have a place to promote their zany ideas.-- Beguiled 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Neutral problemed article which does not appear to have improved much since I last looked. Does have notability, but that isn't the sole requirement for existence of an article. Most likely should still be just inculded in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and not have a seperate article. The current article is mostly a technical explanation rather than a summary of the idea, and therefore is unencyclopedic. The article is also written much like a paper trying to justify a thesis rather than an encylopedia, which falls under the previously mentioned "unencyclopedic. This all can be improved, though I have serious doubts as to whether or not that will ever happen. -- Wildnox (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    It can't be reincluded in the root article because that is 112 kilobytes long when the maximum should be 30kb. This article itself is 70kb, rather than being deleted, it should be split in two. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I agree that your theory is as likely to be true as the one this article is about. However, we have no veriable sources that anyone actually supports your theory, while we do have verifiable sources that people support the boloney in this article. That is the difference and why your arguments for deletion are not valid. -- Bduke 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Exactly. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of a single known truth - it operates on the basis of reporting verifyable facts. It is easily verifyable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists include people who hold this opinion of what happened, and that they've written extensively about it. It's notable because enough people believe them. It would be neglegent of us not to report that people believe this, even if every single reasonable rational human being thinks that only crazy people think that way. We should (and do) report on the fringe opinions that we don't agree with; this is no exception. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Question In what ways does the article fail WP:NOR and WP:NOT? One cannot just throw things like that into the pot. That is like saying "The sky is green" and not justifying it. If it fails these then I think the closing admin needs to know what you are referring to. Equally those editing the article deserve the chance to put that right. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 January 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 RESULT. Agent 86 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Covered Hall

    The Covered Hall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    The article does not state any reason for notability Meno25 22:11, 5 January 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 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Plastic Paddy

    Plastic Paddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    AfD nominated by Taramoon. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Keep - It's referenced and notable. :bloodofox: 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Sociological phenomena are notable if verifiable. Caknuck 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete - The references included don't seem to verify that the term is in general usage. The existence of one song doesn't make it a real slang term any more than "Polythene Pam" or "Mean Mr. Mustard". It is possible that a bit more work could remedy this, however. I found a couple other examples with a simple search, definitely better than footnote 5 (which is really stretching it). ANY reference from a slang dictionary would be welcome, whether general or specific to the U.K. I'm also not sure it means what the article says it means in most cases: it seems to be used as an adjective mostly, not a noun. (But who knows; maybe it will BECOME a term in use one day, like "Truthiness".) Rosencomet 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as original research. I see a number of references to usage have been added, but has anybody written about the term in an academic context with respect to cultural appropriation. That is, this appears to be the first article to try to draw all these facts together and draw conclusions from them. That falls under the definition of "original research" on Wikipedia. Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Perhaps you haven't looked at the article recently but there are citations in academic journals. -- Pigman talk •  contribs 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Academic journals cited for the use of "plastic paddy" in terms of cultural appropriation include The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Irish Studies Review and Irish University Review. That's more citations than found on the majority of WP articles that *do* require academic-level cites. For an article of this type, popular culture cites would be sufficient. This article goes beyond that and includes citations of usage in both popular culture and academia. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    — 86.42.159.149 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    1. Does Wikipedia need an article on "people whose claim to be Irish is disputed or derided by many Irish people"
    2. If so, what is an appropriate name for such an article?
    I believe the answer to (1) is no. The phenomenon is real but not very well-defined or autonomous. The references seem more to prove the term exists than to define what precisely it means, who it is applied to, and by whom. The content and references belong in Irish diaspora, Republic of Ireland national football team, Immigration to Ireland, Irish American, cultural appropriation, cultural cringe, etc. If (the answer to (1) is yes, then I don't think "Plastic Paddy" is a POV answer to (2), but there may not be any neutral term to describe the alleged phenomenon (cf Neoliberalism). "Plastic Paddy" is a genuine term, and certainly merits a place in Wiktionary, but nothing more. jnestorius( talk) 18:29, 10 January 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. - Docg 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Edeals

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

    This is a definition and not suitable for Wikipedia. This kind of definition isn't suitable for Wiktionary, either. -- Адам12901 Talk 22:38, 5 January 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 Tubezone 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jeremy Ruffin

    Jeremy Ruffin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Not verifiable. He's a 14-year-old billionaire with no relevant Google hits. I'd prod it, but he removed the "not verified" tag, so I assume he'd contest the deletion. NickelShoe ( Talk) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The Delete arguments do not win the day here -- quite. Herostratus 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    VGMix

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

    First nomination here

    Looking at the old nomination, it looks like most of the "keep" arguments were based on content, rather than notability. Its Alexa ranking has actually decreased since the last nom. I saw a couple of keeps based on its supposed connection with " The Shizz" which has since been deleted. VGMix once enjoyed a hopelessly passing mention in a Salon.com article but still manages to fail the "multiple nontrivial publications" requirement of WP:WEB. One user mentioned that OCRemix would have to be removed too if this article were deleted but fails to realize that OCRemix has a bazillion publications about it and has even gained notoriety per WP:MUSIC through its music album releases. One final thing, VGMix's ability to "help less-established remixers get critiques on their work" will not be impaired by not having an article on Wikipedia (ie don't even try a WP:ILIKEIT argument). Axem Titanium 22:44, 5 January 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 as an unverifiable group without reliable sources to back up any claims. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    The Dark Chamber

    The Dark Chamber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Previous prod candidate deprodded by an anon. This article is totally unverifiable, and is not notable anyway. NatusRoma | Talk 22:56, 5 January 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 any reliably sourced information to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). — Centrx→ talk • 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Jack Tweed

    Jack Tweed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    Only claimed notability is as the boyfriend of Jade Goody and as a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). Individual game show contestants are, I think, not notable in themselves. The other Celebrity Big Brother contestants are celebrities, and so are notable already. Sam Blacketer 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    • The number of hits isn't relevant. The question is whether he's the subject of multiple reliable sources. He could have two google hits and as long as they're independent multiple sources he meets the threshold. Otto4711 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The UK tabloid press have substantially lower standards of notability than an encyclopedia. Reality TV stars are generally not notable by encyclopedic standards, this has been established in many previous Afds. One Night In Hackney 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Jack Tweedy is a vapid non entity but to ignore his noteriety in todays Z list celebrity creating society would be snobbish and elitist (traits that I feel sometime prevent Wikipedia fulfilling its real promise)
    Reply - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, either, if you'd bother to read the link I posted. Nor is Wikipedia a reflection of popular culture. The person is not notable. You said this yourself. That's where the line is drawn, article deserves a swift deletion. -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Jack Tweed is famous as he is a model and a football agent in training. Also he has made lots of publicity. The article has been undated substantially, and is much larger than before. P e ter will 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment - References? Not every minor model or football hopeful has an article. Please provide some press sources or web-based RS that justify your claim of "famous"ness.
    Comment - Doesn't him entering Celebrity Big Brother give a sort of idea? P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Keep- probably more famous than some of the other contestants. he is also fairly attractive. Astrotrain 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The guy is relatively well known on the Z list circuit and has appeared in many gossip coloums and magazines with Jade and is now in CBB 2007 which is probably enough in its own right -- Vintagekits 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Merge - his entire biographical information could be put into Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with no disruption. There's no guarantee anyone will be interested in him after he leaves the show, especially if he splits up with Goody. Surely he does not merit a separate entry until such time as he does something noteworthy in his own right. 81.159.14.140 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I might add that his surname is Tweed, not Tweedy as above, he's not even notable enough for us to get his name right! reply
    • Comment - Well I have been getting his name right, and I changed the page. Many tabloids also get his name wrong. He is well known, its just a thing that happens. Many people say Tescos or Lidls, however these don't have an s on the end. That doesn't prove anything. P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply It doesn't prove anything, but it's suggestive in this case. The examples you cite can't really compare, 'Tescos' and 'Lidls' are examples of a well known brand names acquiring a colloquial variant. That clearly doesn't apply here. A more appropriate example might be Jimmy Savile/Saville - but he has the excuse of having an unusual variant of the name. Clearly Tweed hasn't yet entered the public consciousness enough for people (even newspapers, as you say) to realise he's not a Tweedy. I never heard of him before today, and I'm not completely ignorant of pop culture. It may yet transpire that this guy forges a genuine celebrity career for himself in the future thanks to Big Brother, but until that time he does not merit encyclopaedic recognition outside a Big Brother/Jade Goody article. 81.159.14.140 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    DELETE - hardly notable - did we know him before CBB?

    Comment - I knew him. I don't read national newspapers or girl magazines, but I have still heard of him. Normally through TV adverts, so he is wellknown to some extent. I'm not say he is A list, but he deserves some articles. I have seen some articles, for example Toby Cockerell, Mandy Dingle or Peggy Skillbeck. These are all one line articles. If they can have a topic he can. I bet they'll all be shut now. P e ter will 18:11, 9 January 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 deleted, as per WP:SNOWBALL

    Visible canadian moon

    Visible canadian moon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)

    This is probably a silly hoax, I'm pretty sure that the Moon can be seen in northern Canada. Speedy delete tag removed. Hopefully this shall be speedied per WP:SNOW, as hoaxes aren't a WP:CSD. Unless, of course, this fraxis lunas is an actual phenomenon. Hús ö nd 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

    Comment, I guess it is partially true for some of the year. The Orbit of the Moon of the moon is close to the Ecliptic, so as the Sun is not visiable during winter in the far north, it might be that the full-moon will be below the horizion in the summer. Still not canadian specific, could be worth including something in Orbit of the Moon. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    The article, though, implies that the moon is never visible in those locations and any photographs showing it are forged, which is clearly untrue. I suppose the article could be rewritten to say that as opposed to flat deleted, but it's an unlikely search term in any event. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    If anyones interested I found a nice little program [48] which can show when the moon is above/below the equator and the corresponding phase. This confirms my guess about not being able to see a full moon in mid summer at high latitudes. -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, unlikely search term even if temporarily true (but the Moon goes below the horizon at all latitudes). See also midnight sun & polar night. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I've been as far north in Canada as the 55th parallel, and I had no problems seeing the Moon (although, it was summer). No ghits for fraxis lunas. If it smells hoaxy... Caknuck 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: "This is due to a scientific phenomenon called fraxis lunas." Balderdash. Fan-1967 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Deleteper WP:BALLS. Grutness... wha? 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I'm in Oulu (65° North), and the Moon is clearly visible (at least often enough when I've actually had any chance to go out of this home of mine at dark when the moon is not new). I spent my childhood in Muonio (67°57' North) and I have hazy recollections of seeing moon there too-oo. I don't have photographic proof because the Moon is so difficult to photograph, regrettably, we wolves think it's so-oo beauuutiful. My hazy knowledge of geography and astronomy notwithstanding, I can't see why moon visibility in Canada would be any different because this planet tends to kind of rotate or something. Yeah, obviously you can't take just my word for it in a deletion debate, but let's just blatantly assume that this is a hoax that has to justify its truthfulness, let alone existence, via reliable sources. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 13:07, 6 January 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.
    1. ^ Sherman, Robert B. Walt's Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.page 109
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5&oldid=1081099743"

    Videos

    Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

    Websites

    Google | Yahoo | Bing

    Encyclopedia

    Google | Yahoo | Bing

    Facebook




    Top Of Page

    Home • Search • Translate

    © CSE