Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 2 >

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 redirect to Limoncello, as it is a plausible typo. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Lemon cellow

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

Non-notable misspelling for Limoncello. Only two Google results, seemingly unrelated to the drink, and the question "Did you mean Lemon chellow?" Lemon cellow is yet another misspelling with only seven Google results. Anton Mravcek 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European

List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Page is badly written, all content on this page will become outdated in a very short period of time. List is **VERY** incomplete. Up-to-date information can be found here, on the official website. - ARC Gritt TALK 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States

List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This list covers a non-notable subject, expands Wikipedia toward being an indiscriminate collection of information, and seems to have been created "just for the sake of having such a list" — in short, this list is listcruft. BassoProfundo 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ernest Easton

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

Blatant hoax. A search for "Ernest Easton line dancing" comes up with 3 hits, one of which is this article RedRollerskate 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Uzhavoor

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

No assertion of notability in this article of an Indian village. There's no references, and the style is very subjective Gilliam 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for utter failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: all settlements are notable. The article should be trimmed down, not deleted. They have a minimal website. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep aside from what Pavel says, it was (if the article isn't lying) the birthplace of a president of India. Nyttend 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If it was an American town where an American President was born, that alone would be enough to establish notability. There would be placards and signs saying, "Birthplace of" all over the place. Thus, this village has to be kept as it is the home of a head of state of a major country. Balloonman 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For pity's sake, almost all "census-designated places" in the US have articles, and there are some in my densely populated home state with fewer than a thousand residents (cf. Millers Falls, Massachusetts). This isn't a terrificly well written article, but that isn't the point.  RGTraynor  20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Villages are notable. Besides, this is an Assembly Constituency (one of the ten in the Kottayam district), and there are eight Gram panchayats in the Uzhavoor block [1]. Plus, this is birthplace of President of India [2]. utcursch | talk 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there is not sufficient consensus to delete JodyB talk 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Baby Be Mine

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

Another Michael Jackson song that was an album track only. EliminatorJR Talk 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or slight merge to Thriller.-- JForget 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I am improving all of these disputed articles. Look at the " Just Good Friends article to see what I mean. I am adding references and expanding to save these. Please don't cut me short by a swift and brutal AFD which doesn't give me time to fix this. Give me a chance. I'm asking only for a little bit of time to do this. Paaerduag 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing particularly notable about this song. GassyGuy 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I had to think about this one, but it is a clear keep in my book. While there is no official policy on SONG notability, it does fit criteria 2 of the proposed criteria---released by a notable individual. This policy is consistent with other notability requirements on WP. A group is notable if it has or had a member who was independently famous. A composer is notable if they wrote the music for a notable group. Regardless of what we may think of him, Michael Jackson is one of the most influencial musicians of the 20th century. His songs are thus notable. Balloonman 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Er, no. It might be worth reading WP:MUSIC again. A group is notable if it has or had a notable member. An album is generally notable if released by a notable artist. Individual songs, however, are generally not notable unless they were charting singles or have some other claim of notability (this is quite rare, though). EliminatorJR Talk 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • It's also worth considering that every track on Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road has an article. Superior1 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Er, yes. Look at the proposed criteria for songs number 2... which explicitly reads, "...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." Few artist are as notable as Michael Jackson. While I would argue that criteria might not be strict enough, I do believe that M.J.'s songs are notable enough based on his name alone. But I would argue that any song on a Gold or Platinum album would be notable. This is one of the Jackson's most famous albums. Balloonman 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)NOTE: It was pointed out that this wasn't a single... but I still believe that any song on a multiplatinum album is by definition notable. It's relationship to the album makes it notable, even if its relationship to the singer doesn't. Balloonman 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Notability is not inherited. Being associated with a notable topic does not make another one notable. Rather than bandy about assertions of "I think it's notable," the best idea would be to prove it by finding multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, sources where the particular song is the primary topic. Otherwise the song is not notable by Wikipedia standards. GassyGuy 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • According to WP:MUSIC, notability is inherent and has IMHO fairly low threshold:
  • Composers: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that is notable
  • Composers: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who is notable.
  • Composers: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a notable artist.
  • Group/band: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable
These criteria are, IMHO, much less notable than being part of a platinum album---and each of them the notability is derived via relationship to something else that is notable! Plus, most songs on platinum albums are better documented/discussed than the composer who happened to write a song for a non-notable group. Balloonman 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jid'ya

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

This has all the hallmarks of a bored student's hoax: no (on-topic) references, no Google hits, silly content. Sandstein 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • I like how he took the time to look up a real website the second time... haha. Anyway, I Googled the main terms and theories and nothing came up. The first reference link he posted was obviously made up in a hurry. Terukiyo 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Duh! Shalom Hello 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as yet more WP:Complete Bollocks...did'ya Jid'ya? Eddie.willers 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I used altavista to look up the theories and the terms... nadda... Balloonman 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Michael Savage (actor)

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

as an unsigned poster said on the article's talk page, this is the most poorly designed page they've seen. It borders on incoherent. I suspect it is written by the subject of the article, their publicist or mom - who else would say some of this stuff? Besides that, I suspect extreme nn here and they are compensating by trying to make this guy seem more important than he really is. Also, it has been orphaned for a while - if this guy was notable, someone would have linked him/mentioned him in an article on things he has acted in or said something like "Actor A appeared in film B with Michael Savage" but that hasn't happened. So, his roles in these productions must be too minor to be listed. Postcard Cathy 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

PS The article states that this guy's original name is Ron Jacobson. If you check the author's talk page, you will see that the he wrote an article on someone named Ron Jacobson and it was deleted. He wrote this article the same day that article was speedy deleted. Want to take bets that it is the same guy?  :) :) :) Postcard Cathy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

PPS It is an autobiography. The author's name is SirTony13 which also the domain name of the actor's personal website.

  • Delete Actor does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. This can't have been put up by a publicist - what publicist would create a page so incoherent and so amateur-looking that it makes his client look bad? -- Charlene 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Horribly written page about nn person. Edward321 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete under patent nonsense and WP:SNOW, since not only is it unreadable to high heaven, the guy depicted here is clearly non-notable. Good God what an eyesore of an article. TheLetterM 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete [3] reads "Michael Salvage aka SirTony" in other words---this is clearly and autobio. Doesn't meet notability. Balloonman 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, technically speedily as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no arguments to delete. -- Core desat 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of entomology journals

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

Contested prod. The article is simply a list of links to largely non-existent articles - it's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research. The article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content, so there's no reason to think it can or will be improved. "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links" (especially redlinks!) andy 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn - the article has been significantly improved with further improvements to follow. andy 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments / Request for further details

"list of links to largely non-existent articles."

The fact that the articles don't (yet) exist shouldn't be a reason to delete the list, it should instead be a reason to create those articles, where they are appropriate. If some entries do not deserve an article, then they should be trimmed from the list.

"Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content"

What usable content you would expect a list like this to contain that it does not contain? Addition of that info would be an alternative to deletion, but we need to know what you have in mind.

"It's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."

To say something is impossible requires an enormously high standard of proof ... is that really what you meant to say?

SP-KP 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. This is well covered at WP:NOT. The essential question for any encyclopedia article is what useful information it conveys. This article lists the names of many journals but gives no information whatsoever about them, not even how to find them. Does this article actually tell anyone anything useful? If the name of one of these journals was replaced with The Beano would it alter the information content of the article? Compare with List of scientific journals in chemistry which has a ranked list of external links together with references to analyses of citations. andy 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not aware of anything at WP:NOT which suggests that this kind of list is deletionworthy - which specific section do you mean? You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:List guideline which gives more specific guidelines on lists. It contains links to lists which do not differ greatly in character from this one. It appears that the authors of the entomology articles have chosen to add websites directly to the article pages, rather than to this list, so readers can find them, with one extra mouse click. There's no reason why they couldn't be added here too though. If that was done, would that be enough to retain the article? If not, what else would you like to see? SP-KP 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the items in the list were verifiable (an issue raised at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_content). In practise the best way to do this is to provide external links where there is no WP article, and this would also enable the article to be used as a research tool. The recent comment about classification on the article's Talk page would make it even more useful. List of chess periodicals, mentioned below, is an excellent example. But right now, if I was to add a totally spurious journal to the list or move some of the entries to different countries there would be no proper basis to challenge my edit because there are no verifiable references. My word against yours. Give me one good reason backed up by references why The Beano should not be included in the list! This is a basic requirement of all WP articles. andy 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThis is a less developed article than chemistry, there being probably more chemists around here. The science people in general are writing articles about important journals as fast as they can, but there are many hundreds to go. The list provides more than title information--it contains the dates and the name changes and the country of publication. All 3 of these are very important and necessary parts of information about journals, and will be in the future articles as well. Lists give information about what the journals are--its the articles that need to give information about them. DGG 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just disagree with the nominator; it's hard to say it any other way. I believe that lists of subject-specific journals are useful, and if some of the journals are notable than the list is notable. That's why I wrote List of chess periodicals, which is more informative but essentially similar in style and scope. Shalom Hello 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Useful list. I just learnt that it has many local entomology works, applied journals and annual reviews missed ! Needs more work but is potentially just as encyclopaedic as List of scientific journals in chemistry which nom as pointed out as encylopaedic. Shyamal 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If kept, the redlinks in this article should be severed. It makes it look bad to have such a sea of red. They can be re-wikilinked as articles about each publication are created. Also, it would be nice to have some sources confirming that these publications actually exist, so we don't have any non-existent entomology publications such as The Beano in this list. ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LIST explicitly encourages the use of lists for purposes of development. It is the third criteria. Also, this is explicitly one of the goals of WP:MISSING. The fact that nobody has developed parts of this region of wikipedia yet is not valid grounds for deletion. If you can't verify the existence of specific journals on the list, that's a matter for the article talk page, but not a valid reason to delete the entire list. Further setting a precedent for deleting lists of academic journals seems to me like a poor idea. This is definitely an area that needs improvement, and definitely an area that should not be abandoned. The future credibility of wikipedia depends on better coverage of academia perhaps as much as anything else! -- JayHenry 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I hate to be awkward but while WP:LIST does indeed encourage the use of lists for purposes of development it states very clearly that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space." What could be more clear? So what's the problem - someone who wants to keep it should fix the article! andy 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's a fair point Andy and perhaps I should've been clearer. This list still is an informational list as well, which is criteria #1. This is an accurate list of entomology journals and someone looking for the name of entomology journals, or entomology journals by country or when journals were started would be well-served by the list. It's not just a random list of red links. And the fact that it contains many redlinks is not, by itself, a valid reason for deletion. There's a big difference between links that are red because there should not be an article (i.e. List of Jefferson Elementary School Principals) and links that are red because a well-needed and perfectly valid article has not yet been written. -- JayHenry 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Andy, the list doesn't exist "primarily for development or maintenance purposes". SP-KP 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That was JayHenry's view, not mine. Yet it clearly isn't fully developed, is it? Have a look at the edits I just made to the UK section of the article - isn't that an improvement? andy 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That's a difficult one - I'm not sure of my opinion as I feel the changes are an improvement in some respects, but not in others. But ... if the references were in one of the standard formats at WP:CITE I would definitely agree that this section is better. SP-KP 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have no strong views on the format of the references - it's the existence of the references that's essential in a hypertext such as Wikipedia, and indeed in any academic text. JayHenry's recent edits are probably better than mine because they leave open the option for articles on each journal as well as external references. Whatever - anything is better than nothing. andy 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. I've standardised the referencing format for both the US and UK sections (or what should be sections ... we need to convert those bold text pretend headings to real section headings). I've also added external refs for those that only had internal wikilinks. Just the remaining countries to go - that should keep someone busy!! SP-KP 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (Meow Wars (second nomination) nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ck lostsword• T• C 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

OpenDBA

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

Orphan, no explanation of why this software product is notable, no reliable third-party sources are given that refer to this product. — Bkell ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ladybirds Can Fly

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

Band's notability is in question. Dudesleeper · Talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete fails wp:music Balloonman 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria listed here, despite what is being claimed on the article's talk page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This band isn't notable in any way and the talk page shows bad-faith editing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Dansereau

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

Non Notable indy wrestler. Darrenhusted 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Halo DS

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

Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and clean up ck lostsword• T• C 10:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vasily Gryaznov

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

Incoherent translated article about a marginal individual. Speedy tag was declined by admin Wafulz. Shalom Hello 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: this is about a local saint recognized in 1999 (the monastery needs something to attract visitors). The version on ru: is equally lousy as the one here, it originally comes (with permission) from another website (warning: that website may be infected, it was trying to break into my computer).
Both the monastery and the saint are IMHO notable. Whether anything from the current text is salvageable is a question. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. It's a badly written article, but saints are in my opinion always notable. He's mentioned on many Church sites ( [4] and [5], for instance) so verifiability is not a problem. Note: I moved an apology off the main page onto the talk page - such things shouldn't be on the main page. -- Charlene 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that there's nothing in the article to start from. Some information about the person is on the page of the town Pavlovsky Posad. Pavel Vozenilek 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and start over, as it appears unsalvageable and as noted above, contains infected text. Bearian 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and stubify - The subject is notable, and as a saint, I'd expect reliable sources could be found. The article contents, as they stand, are completely incoherent, and so removing it all and turing it into a stub would be appropriate. -- Whpq 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - subject also appears to have been the subject of a 1924 film Elder Vasily Gryaznov as per the page at http://www.inter-film.org/pdf/Databank_Ron_Hollway.pdf. Article clearly needs cleanup and referencing, though. John Carter 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I had a go at changing a bit to make it more readable, but there's still heaps missing Guycalledryan 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems better. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. -- MaNeMeBasat 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agiletext

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

Possible conflict of interest by author on a product of questionable notability. I don't have a strong opinion because I didn't actually read the article (sorry, folks.) Shalom Hello 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. Qst 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersey All Pro Wrestling

Jersey All Pro Wrestling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Small time indy fed, seems to fail company for a start. Not enough third party credible refs. Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nitrogen deposition in California

Looks like someone dumped their research paper onto us. No pages link here and I'm not sure it's a reasonable encyclopedic topic. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Satyagraha (quarterly)

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

Non-notable publication of the Ghandi Information Center ( recently deleted along with a bio of the author). Can find no significant and notable mentions of the publication online and given the failed effort to find notability for the publishing organization and author, I believe this article should also be deleted. SiobhanHansa 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This will be absolutely alright from my side, Siobhan Hansa, this article can be deleted at once (actually it was not my idea), because our members' information is not for the public (so not a "publication"), with two exceptions from the rule according to special permission (that is why you find the two issues on the internet). Do not worry! Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

  • Speedy Delete - the original author, Chrbartolf is supporting the deletion. -- Whpq 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Eddie Kingston

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

Non notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. — Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Extremely major player in CZW and Chikara, which are more then notable. He is also a former CZW Champion. Kris 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Eddy Kingston is a well known indy wrestler. He's wrestled all over the world, but mostly on the east coast. CMAngle33 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Note (no !vote), although this user has only made two edits both of which are to AfD's (including this one) consensus is still in favour of keep. Closing as non admin. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of films about school

List of films about school (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete - arbitrary indiscriminate list, also a directory of loosely associated topics and a repository of internal links. There is no objective standard as to how much of the film needs to involve "students" or "teachers" or "classrooms" or "school" to be "about school." The list tells us nothing about teachers, students, school, education, how these topics are addressed in film or the real world. Otto4711 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - yes it has organizational problems, but I don't see that as a reason for throwing it out. It can be a useful list. StudierMalMarburg 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I believe that's where WP:USEFUL is drawn from. The point still remains, to spell it out, that the possibility that an article is "useful" or, as you say, "can be useful" does not excuse this or any other article from meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply saying that the list is or might possibly be useful does not counter the arguments presented in the nomination, which is that the list is arbitrary, indiscriminate, subjective and vague. Otto4711 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, this isn't so much an article as a list -- something like a table, which, as WP:USEFUL points out, justifies its existence by being useful, not by being encyclopedic. Noroton 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The reason for deletion is WP:NOT#DIR, #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Thse films have in common only that they refer to school or education in some way; but "film about school" is not an encyclopedic topic, at least the list does not give any hint why it should be. -- B. Wolterding 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because it fails to include the classic that is Carry On Teacher. Lugnuts 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my usual spiel regarding "films about" lists: OR, POV, subjective, and how "about" school does it have to be? The introductory paragraph does nothing to narrow the scope or address these concerns but does lead to such an overinclusiveness that these things have little in common. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIR; most of these "Films about..." lists should be deleted for the same reasons. Masaruemoto 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Purpose probably already covered by the coming-of-age film category. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and ors. It's a loose list and doesn't meet the relevant criteria. Thewinchester (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because I find the argument in WP:USEFUL quite compelling in justifying the existence of a list such as this because it's useful. Noroton 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Gordon Kit Thorne

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

An unencyclopedic article on a subject who fails WP:BIO. Entirely unverifiable, the only references provided are unpublished interviews with the subject's son, the owner of the the subject's copyrights, a geneologist and "Gordon Kit Thorne's Diaries" (also unpublished). Victoriagirl 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. NN (165 Google hits, nothing in Google Books, 1 hit in News Archives) plus nearly zero proper sourcing (a short paragraph on a site selling his works isn't enough). Gordonofcartoon 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. I add that "ARCA (Associate Royal Canadian Artist)", said to be one of Thorne's titles, appears not to exist outside this article. In fact, the only trace of this distinction on the web is found within a current ebay listing which quotes this very article. Victoriagirl 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's the Royal Canadian Academy, but no "Royal Canadian Artists" that I can find. I checked the RCA database to be sure; no Gordon Kit Thorne listed since 1880. Freshacconci 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead wrestlers

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

Nom - previously speedied and restored. Partially redundant to Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes. Rklawton 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There seems little point in having this page. Paul20070 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete isn't this a recreation of a previously deleted page? Lugnuts 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt - we've deleted articles, lists and categories numerous times for dead wrestlers. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a tribute site or an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. Eventually all wrestlers will be dead wrestlers. Otto4711 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and Salt It. Not needed. Darrenhusted 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no provision for this article to be speedily deleted, since it hasn't been through AfD before, nor does it meet any of the other criteria. That said, it's an arbitrary list that's better covered by a category. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Playboy Playmates. Shalom Hello 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Whiteness and the creation of the united states

Whiteness and the creation of the united states (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced essay Gilliam 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Gremlins Adventure

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

Contested prod. This is a non-notable amusement park ride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Stuart Semple

Stuart Semple (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)This WP entry reads like pure sockpuppetry. Semple has had only a couple of gallery shows, and his importance as a living artist is negligible. Apparently his only claims to fame were the notoriety of being associated with Uri Geller (itself hardly a notable thing) and of having stolen some materials from the Momart fire, which he "recontextualized" into "artworks". The fact that this WP entry was created from an anonymous IP address in Britain, and that same anonymous user has only contributed to this WP entry and the entry on the Momart fire, suggests that Semple himself created it. WP isn't a vanity press. I move for deletion on the grounds of him not being a notable living person. Bricology 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
And if I might add, to refresh ones memory, the WP "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists): the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." A 26 year-old with just one verified solo Gallery show has definitely not met the WP:Notability criteria as a living artist. Bricology 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply


  • Strong keep. Per WP:BIO he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are two specific events which gained national media coverage in the UK. The first was a project concerning the Momart fire.( Daily Telegraph) The other was an art intervention in the Saatchi Gallery.( BBC, Daily Telegraph, The Times) He continues to receive media coverage in numerous outlets (go to stuartsemple.com and click "press"). The nom has rather misunderstood sockpuppets, of which there is no evidence or relevance here. Even if Semple created it (and we have no evidence of that), it is not a reason for deletion. Nor do we penalise anon editors per se. It was created in December 2004 and has been edited by a number of different users since (including myself). This easily meets the criteria for inclusion. Tyrenius 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm quite disappointed with what you consider logic in this case, but perhaps your involvement with editing Semple's entry is telling. Semple's alleged noteworthiness for his WP entry is as an artist, not as a provocateur (to wit -- "Stuart Semple (born 1980) is an English artist"). If merely being the subject of two incidents of notoriety in the press (only one of which is a live link, BTW) counts as "notability" by WP's standards, then surely there are thousands of amateur and mediocre artists who might as well do something (get arrested, whatever) that gets them mentioned in the media, and thus their own WP entry. Do any of the published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually speak to Semple's relative merits as an artist? Not a one. They merely say that he sneaked a painting into one of Saatchi's shows (a stunt done many times before by other artists), and that he stole some debris from the Momart fire site and repackaged it into his own "artwork". The fact that this work wasn't exhibited in any gallery or museum makes the notoriety all the more minor. And the fact that Uri Geller calls Semple his "protoge" ought to make it clear that Semple's main goal is publicity, rather than stature as an artist. Sad to see WP become party to that goal. Bricology 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My editing of it is indeed telling, because it means I have already assessed it as worth keeping. I trust you are not implying anything other. All the links given are "live". There is one in The Times where the full article doesn't appear, which I think is one of the many glitches in the redesign of the paper's web site: I have emailed them about it. There is a fallacy in your reasoning, where you are concerned with "Semple's relative merits as an artist". Wikipedia has no interest in this whatsoever. We only care about his relative merits for notability, namely whether or not he has been the subject of reliable secondary sources, which he clearly has. Nor is it in the slightest relevant, in this respect, what his goal is, or whether he is "amateur and mediocre" - an implication which is anyway forbidden by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless you have appropriate sources to substantiate it: Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion on matters. I realise you are a relatively new editor, and you may not be familiar with all of these policies; and I am sure that you have acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Tyrenius 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Am I implying anything? Only that you, a fellow Britain, who has edited Semple’s WP entry are the the only person saying "strong keep", which wouldn’t exactly dispel suspicions of a conflict of interest in a court of law. Indeed, I believe I am acting with the best interests of WP in mind, to try to help prevent it from becoming turned into a PR vanity outlet on the level of MySpace. The fact that you assessed Semple’s entry as worth keeping has not convinced me one whit that it is worth keeping, merely that you believe it to be. Of course, I have no idea what qualifications you have to make that judgment, but I can tell you this -- as an artist who has had over a dozen solo shows in 4 different countries, been in many group shows in museums and other contemporary art events, been written up favorably in national art magazines (not merely websites or web-news), and sold many works, I’m perhaps in a better position to assess Semple’s merit as an artist than you. As for “amateur or mediocre” -- the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim otherwise. Does Semple make his living from his artwork? If not, then he’s an “amateur” by definition. Is his work praised by a considerable number of acknowledged experts as being of a high standard of quality? Then it may well be “mediocre”. And even though I would certainly more qualify by your criteria for my own WP entry, I don’t believe that I warrant one! If the issue is, as you claim, notability, then are you actually claiming that two mentions on web-news sites qualifies anyone as “notable” for ones own WP entry?! If so, millions of otherwise unknown people mentioned in two news or opinion articles should get in line, ready to dilute the whole idea of any “encyclopedia”. No, the fact is that Semple’s entire WP entry specifically deals with him AS AN ARTIST, not as merely some individual who appeared in two web news stories. You're trying to have it both ways: a WP entry about an artist, predicated upon non-artistic merit. Again, I draw your attention to WP’s "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists):The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Semple has not met even ONE of those criteria. Semple is an artist, he has a WP entry that deals 100% with him AS AN ARTIST, but he fails WP:Notability Living People (artists). QED. Finally, you claim that “all the links (on Semple’s entry) are live”. Apparently you didn’t bother to click on the second of his three links (to The Telegraph's story), which is quite dead . Bricology 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Link mended. Gordonofcartoon 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I presume you mean "Briton", as I am not a country. However, it is prohibited on wikipedia to make negative personal comments on other editors, including their (presumed) nationality. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please comment on issues, not editors. You have not understood wiki's criteria: valuations of artistic worth such as "mediocre" or "amateur" are irrelevant, as I've already pointed out. You are also confusing the notability guidelines. There is a general guideline as in WP:N and the top of WP:BIO. The specific profession guidelines do not supercede this, but can also be considered. These are all guidelines and not set in stone (see WP:LAWYER). Wikipedia has more space than paper encyclopedias and a lower threshold. What you say about yourself would seem to be enough to meet wikipedia's standards. I was referring to links in my post above, not the ones in the article, though I've now put them in the article anyway. The mentions are not mere "web-news sites". They are the online versions of UK national papers: i.e. the same stories that have appeared in print. The stories also deal specifically with events that he has undertaken as an artist. Tyrenius 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Tyrenius. meets WP:BIO Johnbod 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but wikify it, good grief!! -- Attilios 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - NewsBank finds more than enough independent press coverage to rate him as notable. Gordonofcartoon 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above as stated, can use some help, Modernist 11:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mary Rhys-Jones

Mary Rhys-Jones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is the mother of Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, daughter-in-law of the Queen. There is no indication of any notability of this person beyond her daughter being a member of the Royal family. NoSeptember 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for being utter, non-notable fatuousness. Eddie.willers 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete - or else run the risk of having everybody's parents get an entry. Kripto 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remain - as the mother of the daughter-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II and grandmother to the 8th and 9th (later in the year) persons in line to the throne, she is of great importance to genealogists. Providing valuable correct information is my understood purpose of Wikipedia. ShadowOZ 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)— ShadowOZ ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete per nom; nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is of some interest: she shared a grandchild with The Queen. But the article should remain short; it should not go into any biographical detail. Viewfinder 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable and provides no references that assert that she is. Tdmg 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of famous smokers

AfDs for this article:
List of famous smokers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is a list page. Some lists are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The majority of the entries are unsourced, which also leads to possible WP:BLP violations. Many of those with sources are rather unreliable. Unclear what constitutes a smoker - e.g., Bill Clinton is listed because he 'tried it but "never inhaled"'! (By that logic, I'm a smoker, however I would object strongly to being labelled a smoker.) Mdwh 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Also see overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-harmers (yes, I appreciate I opposed deletion there, but that was based on existing lists such as this one; I think the response in that debate makes it clear that we need to start cleaning up "List of people" type articles, and this article has far more unsourced/dubious entries). Also suggested was that we can't take claims by the person in question as a reliable source, and a large number of the sources for this article fall into this category. Mdwh 16:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Smoke it (i.e. DELETE) - First of all, this article, like many "List of famous X" articles, has the issue of the fact that "fame" is subjective. Also, the page contradicts itself; it says at the top that the people on this list all have smoking as part of their public image somehow (i.e. Groucho's cigar, FDR's cigarette holder, Sherlock's pipe, etc.), and yet the list has pretty much every celebrity who has ever smoked anything. Furthermore, we've got serious WP:BLP issues here, especially since this article includes "cannabis smokers." -- Hnsampat 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. Otto4711 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I voted in the 2nd nomination, and I still think this is an indiscriminate list whose time has come. Shalom Hello 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of smokers which begat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers resulting in latest 3 AfDs. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pardon the pun, but I see some Merit in this one. The title sucks, practically a magnet for deletion, but it's well-reasearched; and it's a good example of how attitudes towards smoking have changed over the years, from the era when celebrities took pride in what brand they smoked, to now, when smoking is considered, once again, a nasty habit. The additional information about which of these icons developed lung cancer, emphysema, etc. is useful (yeah, I know folks here hate "useful") as a deterrent to smokers. This will probably get crushed out on its second go-round, but I urge the author(s) to light another one. Mandsford 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Slight chance it could work as "List of iconic smokers", which would include Churchill, Groucho, Sherlock Holmes and maybe Audrey Hepburn, but right now it is just an indiscriminate list of famous people who also happen to smoke. Clarityfiend 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Attempts following the first AfD to keep the list reasonably pruned were resisted. Watching this page, it appears to be a dumping ground for a random collection of individuals, some famous, some not so famous, who smoke or smoked (as who among us has not) and who it occurs to someone to add. For instance: someone decided to add all the members of The Donnas. If the criteria is to be "as famous as the bass player for The Donnas", (and "smokes or smoked"), the list could be expanded to hundreds of thousands of entries. Herostratus 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not useful information, not deserving of its own page. There are millions of smokers around the world and to create a list that everyday grows and shrinks even if they are "famous" does not seem relevant. If anything this list could be used for propaganda purposes which is not the intent of the wiki project.-- 70.179.173.149 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom., and above comments in agreement.-- JayJasper 12:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ando Tammik

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

An anon tagged it for speedy deletion, but he worked on a lot of movies and there are some external links so A7 does not really apply. However, I can find no evidence that he is notable, just a few sites (Yahoo, New York Times, IMDB) that give lists of movies he worked on. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Velvet D’Amour

Velvet D’Amour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This was originally speedy-deleted as an A7. DRV overturned finding a claim to notability in the modeling work and film role. Weak delete, pending other opinions, given uncertainty over notability. Xoloz 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, I just can't find anything of substance about her. Most sources which mention her do so only incidentally or in passing, and are substantially about something else (a fashion show, a movie). The vast majority of material is also on blogs or otherwise unreliable. I just don't see that there's enough information out there to write a biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems that lots of newspapers wrote about her. Yes we are struggling to get info to write a full biography-but that is no reason to delete. According to this [7] there were multiple newspapers writing about her. I think she is notable by wikipedia definition. Obina 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to title role in Avida. -- Groggy Dice T | C 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, within the topic of plus-size models' she is very notable, and given the very real and widespread international media attention this woman continues to receive after her catwalk appearances she definitely has merit. Respondants to this AfD who do not regularly monitor fashion media will likely discount her impact on the fashion industry but it cannot be denied; D'Amour is the largest woman to have ever appeared during a Paris fashion showing, and this at the height of the 'model health debate'. Prevalence of blogs talking about this woman and reposting existing media interviews and television appearances implies that she has high impact in current popular culture AntiVanity 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete - insufficient reliable sources. I suspect she may gain notability in the future if her career continues, but not right now. -- Whpq 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Seems to be notable.

¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of morris dance sides

List of morris dance sides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I speedied this as A3, then changed my mind. It's got a very long edit history, can anything be done with it? EliminatorJR Talk 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of external links. Otto4711 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very useful. Some one should put this on a web site. But not here. This is an encylopedia not a web directory. Obina 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:NOT a web directory, and it looks like all this info is on the morris dance wiki linked to at the top of the list page. -- Allen 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into morris dancing. Don't know what that is, apparently popular for some, but I agree with Obina and Amobride. Did the author mean "sites"?
  • Delete. If most of these Morris dancing sides (Yes, they are called sides) were notable enough to have an article on them, a list as well as category might be valuable. This is clearly not the case. Morris dance sides are not notable, so the list is not encyclopedic. I think the list is too long to merge into morris dancing. -- Bduke 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Articles with virtually just links are unnecessary as stated by Otto. Maybe the links (or some of them) can go to the parent article.-- JForget 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied. -- Golbez 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mrazon Republic

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

This is most likely a hoax, or somebody's private joke. No Google hits, and the article even claims it is an imaginary country. Depending on what exactly it is, it probably violates WP:HOAX, WP:OR, and/or WP:NOTABILITY, at least. J. Spencer 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I know the guy who made this. He actually meant that to be a serious page, because he believes that it is a real country. It isn't a hoax and it really doesn't deserve to be put in WP:BJAODN. Just speedy deletion like last time. This page has been made before.
  • Delete - A terribly sad bit of fun. Deliberate vandalism of Wikipedia. Get rid of it as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. However, I know the guy who made this page, and can guess at whoever added part to it, and I agree fully with the facts section :)
  • Delete - clearly a hoax. The republic "only has a population of one - one of the world's saddest people." -- Javits2000 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as it appears to be hoax, a good one though and perhaps qualifies for WP:BJAODN. It is also a sad commentary on our processes. -- Bhadani ( talk) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Of course this is a hoax, no need to debate about it. Pretty funny though so sending it over to WP:BJAODN may not be a bad idea.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, needless to say, but bravo to Lord Mrazon for all of his hard work in creating something that will only stay up for a few days. Maybe you'll find a Lady Mrazon. You've got a future in advertising... Mandsford 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • BJAODN, pretty well done hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:HOAX.-- JForget 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have seen much better hoaxes here. Pavel Vozenilek 12:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not an especially convincing hoax. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

ISaiah Moore

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Evil1987 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

HD DASH DANCE2

HD DASH DANCE2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable radio station. Fails to assert reasons for notability, reads like an advert. the only refernce is its own website. Greatestrowerever 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ra'virr

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

This is a minor character in a notable video game. It was recommended for a merge to that video game, but the name (or its variants) are not even mentioned in that article, which is featured, so I doubt that it's notable enough even for a passing mention. Shalom Hello 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable to the extreme. It's a shopkeeper NPC in an eye-wateringly large RPG game with umpteen named characters who populate the world but really don't need coverage. Consists of a couple of lines of text such as a heading titled Appearance with this (er.. inspiring?) nugget of info: "Ra'virr is a male Khajiit, and thus looks like one". There's nothing to merge. QuagmireDog 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (and would probably be a speedy if A7 applied to fictional characters). No need to merge this anywhere, as the game has a massive number of characters and this one isn't among the more notable of those. JavaTenor 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I invite the original editor to expand on the Ra'Virr article present at the Elder Scrolls wiki. Marasmusine 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and possibly merge if necessary. Andre ( talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as much as I loved Morrowind, this guy is just a shopkeeper. -- Whpq 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Electrobeat Crew

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

Fails WP:BAND easily. Author bulldozed the PROD tag. :) Shalom Hello 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Disarm (band)

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

Some claim of notability through touring and supporting other bands, but no album yet, so I doubt if they pass WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Redirected to Proctology. NawlinWiki 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Rectology

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

I am unable to confirm that 'rectology' is a legitimate scientific term; my googling reveals the word used only in a slang sense. Prod removed without comment. FisherQueen ( Talk) 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The medical specialty is called Proctology, to which Rectology should be redirected. — AldeBaer ( c) 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per Aldebaer. Shalom Hello 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Delete unless legitimate medical usage of the term can be shown; no need for a redirect. I've removed two paragraphs of copyvio from the article, so there's not much left. Deor 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • What the sh*t? Thank you for saving the image of the rectum.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any usable content and redirect. Not a medical word to my knowledge -- no hits on Medline & no entry in Mosby's Medical Dictionary tend to support that view. However, if it is a slang usage, a simple redirect to proctology wouldn't seem unreasonable. Espresso Addict 08:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Only 275 Google hits so it's not widely used even as slang, but it's just about possible that someone who doesn't know the correct medical term might search for it anyway. Iain99 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect misspelling ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Faust manifesto

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

Listed as a work by Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov, which looks like a hoax to me. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov

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

Looks like a hoax. It doesn't sound like a Belarusian name: Karimov is Central Asian last name and Boskonovitch is a name of a Tekken character. Can't find him on Google. Prose looks suspiciously like something from the Postmodernism Generator. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Manny Elefthriou

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

Non notable wrestler, poorly written article with no refs. Darrenhusted 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Arsenal

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

Non notable wrestler working for non notable fed. Darrenhusted 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator

AfDs for this article:
I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Much better I'm withdrawing my nom due to the great work of Brighterorange feel free to close the AfD. Whispe ring 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom. No notabiltiy, no references. / Blaxthos 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The story about the video game's creation is cute, but the game itself is otherwise not notable. Shalom Hello 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge relevant information into Jack Thompson (attorney) Will ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Had a whole page to itself in the UK version of PC Zone last year as their 'Free web game of the month.' DarkSaber2k 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there's actually a lot more about this, it's not the subject's fault no one's fixed it. There was a pile of stuff involving Penny Arcade also covering the $10k that I can find, and Child's Play came about as a result of it, too. It needs citing, not deletion; I'll work on it after I get my signpost article done. -- Thespian 08:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Needs the sources to establish the notability, but I'm pretty certain those can be found if one goes looking. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; notable in the computer gaming community. *Dan T.* 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep Could use more of this integrated into the article, but there is loads of media coverage surrounding this game (naturally, since it is a media stunt) and plenty of real world context to fill an encyclopedia entry. —  brighterorange ( talk) 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is notable, and there have been many mentions in magazines, etc. Andre ( talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment On sources added to the article, the first two are from blogs and the third only gives passing mention to the game. We need better sources than that is there anyway to get a scan or a webpage for the UK PC Zone? Whispe ring 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I added a couple that I found on Lexis-Nexis. Of course we don't need the sources to be online for them to be reliable (although it makes them more useful, naturally)... —  brighterorange ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Highwire Daze

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

Magazine that apparently fails WP:CORP. No secondary sources given; article created in an obvious COI by User:Highwiredaze; large parts of the text violate WP:NOT#DIR. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Older Parthenon

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

This article, originally created by me as a sub-section on the Parthenon article, is a redundant split from that article. It was created without consensus or discussion and defeats the purpose of my original work, which was to give historical context to the building of the Parthenon. The sub-section has now been restored, this article should be deleted. Twospoonfuls 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This should be a sub-article of Parthenon, in accordance with summary style. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note Arguably, if the nominator is factually correct, the article qualifies under CSD G6. However, I agree with Akhilleus that we have a valid content fork here. Shalom Hello 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Parthenon. The original article is not so huge as to require splitting off this amount of information. Otto4711 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If Parthenon is properly written, it will be much larger and this article will need to be split off again. As the article is now, I don't really think that the (old) dispute between Dorpfeld and Dinsmoor whether there were one or two proto-Parthenons belongs in the main article anyway--a full reporting of this dispute, going up to present theories about the proto/pre/Older Parthenon(s) and its/their influence on the building we see now will be far more detailed than the present "Older Parthenon" article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and even if the content is redundant, it can serve as a kernel of a more thorough discussion. -- Javits2000 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't dispute for a monent that there is considerably more to be said about the pre-Parthenon(s). However, my understanding is that Dorpfeld is the consensus view amongst archaeologists and Dinsmoor is the heterodox opinion, but it is not an "old" dispute in the sense of having been definitively decided. As always in classical archaeology there is a modest tray of evidence and a substantial slagheap of conjecture, so to suggest, as the truncated main article sub-section does, that the issue is settled would be actively misleading. Context is essential here, which is why I tried to sketch the main physical evidence for the thing and the principal theories about it. For this reason I cannot agree to abbreviating the sub-section, and if the sub-section remains as I wrote it what is the point of this daughter page? Now if anyone were willing to do some research into the subject and significantly expand this page (I am not) then I'd agree I would be worth keeping. Twospoonfuls 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I cannot be objective as the creator of this article per WP:SS (based on the work of Twospoonfuls), but I do believe that it is a notable encyclopedic topic that can easily support a separate article.-- Yannismarou 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bill Foster (candidate for Congress)

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

This article seems to be a about a fellow who intends to run in his local Democratic primary for the party's nomination for his district. It is supported by a news report in a local newspaper, and the content of our article seems to be primarily some kind of promotional piece--the kind of flier that a candidate might be expected to hand out to prospective voters. I suggest that this isn't really what Wikipedia is for--specifically it isn't a soap box. Let's cover this chap if he ever makes it to the House of Representatives, certainly, but then there will be something to write about him. -- Tony Sidaway 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it could be userfied in case he is successful. -- Tony Sidaway 13:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Clearly would fail WP:BIO if his candidacy were the only matter, but he may be notable as a physicist. The man won the Rossi Prize, although he won it as part of a group and I'm not sure if it's notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of his work could advise as to whether he is considered notable by his peers. -- Charlene 13:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that it should be deleted presently, and then if he is successful; re-create the page. Just my opinion. Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that being a candidate does not make one notable, but running for office doesn't actually take away from notability either. If someone's otherwise notable, a run for Congress doesn't make that person non-notable. I don't know whether his accomplishments as a scientist are notable enough, but I have a suspicion they might be. -- Charlene 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- As it stands now, the article doesn't primarily address notability of the subject as a physicist. Until that notabiltiy is established, the article shouldn't exist as a campaigning stump. / Blaxthos 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup: assuming that all information in the article is correct, it should be kept for his actions as a physicist. Nyttend 14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Rename, as well, since being the candidate isn't the reason for notability. Nyttend 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep actually for that company of his. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete It's obvious from the title that this is not about his achievements as a physicist or a businessman, and it never was. Tony Sidaway is right on point. This is blatant advertising. If he gets elected, I'm sure his press secretary will write a very nice article. Nice that he's starting early, what with the Democratic primary just 11 months away. Mandsford 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep rewritten as an article on the obviously notable scientist. --with a small paragraph about his political ambitions, along with other hobbies--unless it develops further. I dont want to change the title during the AfD, but it should be "Bill Foster (physicist)"
    I'm all for keeping articles on physicists, but do we have anything verifiable on this chap as a physicist? I see that he worked at Fermilab and was associated with nice stuff, but it's really all very vague about what he actually did. On the other hand his company has a good article and perhaps it might be a good idea to redirect this article to the article on that company. -- Tony Sidaway 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure & won't be until it gets worked on--it is very difficult to deal with those whose career is in government or industrial labs; academia is a good deal more open. DGG 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I did some work: it turns out he is G. William Foster, but at Fermilab he uses it interchangeably with Bill and William. I have enough references now that I've figured out the name. He is primarily a scientific administrator, not a scientist, but he led several of their largest development groups. I think it is sufficiently shown by the awards mentioned in the first section (though some of them were shared) & head of some major projects--but I of course there must be independent verification since I do not trust a campaign biography, especially one that never mentions his full name. Tony, what way should we go: I suggest an article on G. William Foster, with a redirect for Bill Foster, until his political career overshadows his scientific career. should I simply start over again at the correct name? DGG 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I would suggest the G. William Foster article, if indeed he is notable. I would redirect from this article after it is renamed without the political line. JodyB talk 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete - this is the second 2008 state senate election candidiate bio I've seen, and this is only the slow trickle before the flood. Kripto 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete his company is not notable by WP standards - if 500 employees sets the bar, then many a busy restaurant, hotel, grocery store location would fit the bill - we are in the process of deleting Hyatt Regency Phoenix and Hyatt Regency Birmingham, and, gosh, not one editor has mentioned that these places may have the magical 500 employees needed to establish inherent notability and save the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It depends on the business. His company made electronic theater controls, as was the 2nd largest in the country. That's not much a compared to , say, GE, but its one of the two major ones in the industry. DGG 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that the business is important one. We already have an article on the business, so really we're asking whether this fellow should in addition have his own article. -- Tony Sidaway 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator after 5 days, and no other "delete" opinions. -- Tony Sidaway 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bill Shannon

AfDs for this article:
Bill Shannon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article was created in one draft on 11 June, but had no further content edits by a human being until I saw it on June 24. The article was tagged as "Uncategorized people" and moved from "Bill shannon" to "Bill Shannon". That's it.

The article is orphaned and unsourced. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 24th. There were no further edits until June 30th when someone removed the tag with the edit summary "(I dunno; seems arguably notable; take this to WP:AFD if you wish".

The concern here is not "notability", but verifiability. Unless this article is sourced in the next few days, I suggest that we delete it as a violation of our core Verifiability policy. Those who think it can be made verifiable, please do so. -- Tony Sidaway 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Based on the Google hits, it looks like we can fulfill Tony's request for sources. I'm in no rush to do it right now, but that's why AFDs are given five days. Shalom Hello 13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the awards and grants listed, he is clearly notable, Just needs some refs. DGG 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There may well be sources, but the article as currently written appears to be a copyright violation of this≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as copyright problem with no prejudice against creating a new article if can meet the inclusion criteria. Jay32183 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Copyright problems gone. Jay32183 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, copyvio fixed; lead sentence now sourced. John Vandenberg 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Your edit summary says keep, but you just wrote delete here. Your reasoning also seems to suggest keep. I'm pretty sure the "Delete" is a typo. Jay32183 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an expired prod. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure

AfDs for this article:
Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Hoax template already up for 5 days; and not notable article Gammondog 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's not a hoax, just a non-notable TV series. Just google, it's even on IMDB. The main Blinky Bill article does not have any of his TV series listed though, and considering this article is mostly unsalvagable, delete with no merge. -- Breno talk 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Tribe of Mic-O-Say (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:
Tribe of Mic-O-Say (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Second nomination. This article appears to fail the verifiability criteria in its current form. Interestingly, an ISBN search suggests that cited references seem not to exist in the ISBN database under those ISBN numbers, suggesting that some or all of this article may be a hoax.

Although the previous AfD voted "keep", this was entirely based on voting by respondents to the AfD, rather than by providing sources.

Suggest deletion unless mainstream sources can be provided.

Please note: Since this AfD nomination regards the verifiability criteria, please provide verifiable third party sources, rather than just voting "keep". Karada 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete -- Unverifiable, dubious sources, and non-notable. This is coming from an Eagle Scout and OA member. / Blaxthos 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, plus: the article seems to be an attack page against OA. Nyttend 14:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article you are wanting to delete is one that has been badly vandalized by an anon user, who had been warned earlier at User talk:24.41.62.216 on June 5 about edits to this article. This accounts for the attack stuff about the BSA. I have reverted all the edits of July 1 back to the version 12:17, 26 June 2007 by Canjth. Please use that to determine notability. If I missed something valuable added by User:Marmotboy666, I apologise. Please add it back. -- Bduke 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep - article needs more references, but Mic-O-Say is mildly notable as it is a major aspect in a several councils of the BSA as an alternative to the Order of the Arrow. I personally don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it non-encyclopedic. Justinm1978 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep per justinm1978 Rlevse 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BDuke. -- evrik ( talk) 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep-this is a historically notable, recognized component of the BSA program, and recent vandalisms should not make it worthy of deletion. Chris 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment - historically notable, yes, but not a recognized component of the "BSA program". It is a recognized component of the Boy Scout program in a few councils, but is vastly unknown in the rest of the Boy Scout program. The AfD nomination isn't about the notability though, it's about the verifiability. It's very tough to find anything that isn't self-published regarding the subject, and that's what needs to be addressed to avoid deletion, I think. Justinm1978 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup the non vandalized article - too much peripheral info like who attended the 75th anniversary... -- Trödel 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I won't argue or discuss the existence of the cited reference books. However, I strongly disagree with the statements about the article being "an elaborate hoax". Try doing a Google search on "Mic-O-Say". There are lots of web sites referencing it. Plus, for verifiability, try going to the camp. It is quite easy to see that it is real. I started in the program almost 40 years ago, and I can attest to the accuracy of the bulk of the article. While there are flaws and mistakes within any article in Wikipedia, this one seems very accurate. RSStockdale 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This article NEEDS to be kept. Tons of people, including me, still use it. It's just like any other important article. 642Mystery 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. For future reference, please note that arguments based solely in notability by association have no basis in policy and may be (in this case, were) discounted. Though the nomination saw participation from relatively few editors, I do not believe that relisting will help to achieve a consensus, particularly given the length and depth of the discussion. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete - WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries and, as with the recently deleted Quint and Nola article, this is a character-specific plot summary for this so-called "supercouple." Otto4711 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I am currently working on improving all of the soap couple articles. I need time. This isn't a so-called supercouple. This is a supercouple. I don't see how plot summaries are that big of an issue, when articles such as Anakin Skywalker exist.

I have stated this three times now...two of those times were with both the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article...and the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, both in which were judged keep, because they are now re-written and now provide real-world impact from reliable sources. I was going to get around to improving this article, had this funny feeling that I should check on it, and, well, it's now nominated for deletion before I have even got around to fixing it up. While I, of course, understand the fact that articles on Wikipedia shouldn't only provide plot summaries, all of these soap opera couple articles will be worked on and formatted to fit Wikipedia policy, which is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas exists, and is why I ask other editors to hold off on nominating these soap opera couple articles for deletion. As for the Quint and Nola article, I was disappointed to see that deleted, because I could have fixed that article up before it was deleted. And while I'm not a fan of most of these soap opera supercouples, I may re-create that article and fix it up anyway. Going around and deleting these soap opera popular and or supercouple articles is not the answer. Clean-up is. Flyer22 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • This article has been updated
  • I have updated this article, to where the plot summary is now re-worded in present tense, it's been cut down in length, and a Cultural impact section is now provided in this article, with real-world impact, and reliable sources.

I must point out that not too many soap opera couples are noted by Chicago Sun-Times, and this couple is. This couple is also noted as a supercouple by the soap opera media, the first telling factor of a soap opera supercouple. I ask that the closing administrator take all of this into account when closing this deletion debate, which I'm certain that the closing administrator of this debate will. This is truly a notable supercouple in soap opera history. And this article is in accordance with what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states of supercouples or other notable couples being featured on Wikipedia. Flyer22 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The one-sentence mention in the Sun-Times is trivial. The one-sentence mention in Soap Opera Digest is trivial. Soapdom.com is an "official" soap opera site so it's not an independent source and its mentions of the couple are trivial. The Victory Gardens Theatre website does not mention Taylor Miller in the context of the couple, only a brief mention of her character Nina and nothing about Cliff. The biography of American Speakers Bureau speaker Peter Bergman at the American Speakers Bureau website is not an independent source. These trivial and non-independent sources do not establish the notability of the couple nor do they establish that the couple has had any lasting cultural impact. The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass. Otto4711 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it. Give 'em a chance to do so! -- 140.254.225.30 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Otto4711, I greatly disagree with your opinion of this article. No mention in Chicago Sun-Times is trivial, especially if it's a soap opera couple. A fact is that Chicago Sun-Times pointed out that Cliff and Nina are a notable couple, and by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples, that is notability. Heck, by any standards, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera supercouple. The mention of Cliff and Nina being a supercouple by Soap Opera Digest is also not trivial. Soap Opera Digest doesn't just call any soap opera couple a supercouple. A couple has to be a supercouple first. And Soap Opera Digest calls Cliff and Nina a supercouple on more than one occasion. Soapdom.com is just more proof that Cliff and Nina are a highly notable couple, just as Bennifer once were, and they still are, because of the impact that they had. So are Cliff and Nina, because of the impact that they had as one of the world's most popular soap opera supercouples.

Victory Gardens Theatre not mentioning Taylor Miller in the context of the couple? The whole reason that Taylor Miller's character of Nina is even considered popular, and the bigger reason that people stop her on a street, screaming in giddy anticipation about meeting her is because of her character's romance with Cliff Warner. I see no such trivial matters in this couple obviously being notable, and I don't see how it can be disputed that this couple is a notable soap opera couple, a supercouple, in fact. And as for what you stated with this sentence..."The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass"... People here are obviously smart enough to make up their own minds and won't be confused by any sort of manipulation that I am doing, because there is no manipulation on my part to confuse them. This article is not trivial; it's not a trivia section, and fans and the soap opera media determine which couples are supercouples. They determined that Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a supercouple, and Chicago Sun-Times took notice of this couple's popularity, even if it is just one sentence. This couple was also pointed out as being notable by Hollywood.com, which is an independent source. There is nothing huge in being wrong with this article's plot summary any longer, since it's the length or close to the length of some good articles in which have storyline plots on Wikipedia. There isn't much more to add to an article about a soap opera couple, but plot and Cultural impact, and a History section before the Storyline section, in which the History section discusses the creation of the characters, what the producers were going for upon creating the characters or romance, or both, and if I find such details from great sites in which discuss this, I'll make sure to add them to this article. Flyer22 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Noatability guidelines require that an article topic be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is in no way "significant coverage" even if the article is in the Sun-Times. Programs for regional theatre companies that mention one character but not the other or the couple do not constitute "significant coverage." An article on a decade in soap operas that mentions the couple does not constitute "significant coverage." Fans declaring a couple to be a "supercouple" does not constitute "significant coverage." The article remains a plot summary despite your attempts to tack on insignificant mentions as reliable sources. Come up with some sources which are specifically about the couple and their supposed cultural impact, otherwise this is plot plus trivia. Otto4711 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I know what Noatability guidelines states, which is clearly why this article... Victor Newman and Nikki Reed...was judged a keep, and isn't classified as just plot, plus trivia, they are a significant couple. I also know what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states, and the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt article fits what they ask. This is a soap opera couple, and being so-called reported by multiple outside sources such as CNN News is usually not going to happen with a soap opera couple or soap opera supercouple, unless that couple is Luke and Laura, but that doesn't make them any less notable. A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is significant coverage...when that couple is a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times. Fans declaring a couple to being a "supercouple" does constitute "significant coverage" when Soap Opera Digest also notes the couple's popularity and states that the couple is a supercouple, multiple times. Regardless, this couple is mentioned as a supercouple in more than one article, whether we state which article as reliable or not, but with mention of this couple being notable by Chicago Sun-Times, Hollywood.com (both independent sources), plus Soap Opera Digest proves this couple's notability, and it proves that this couple is not some ordinary soap opera couple, whether you feel that their Cultural impact section is trivia or not, which I state that it isn't. Flyer22 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, sorry, a single sentence out of a larger article is not "significant coverage." Fans calling a couple a supercouple does not constitute "significant coverage." A soap opera magazine mentioning the couple in passing, even if they mention the couple in passing more than once, does not constitute "significant coverage." The Wiki soap opera project may have its own internal criteria but those criteria do not trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Otto4711 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm sorry, but when it comes to a soap opera couple being mentioned in two independent sources, both outside of soap opera, Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera couple. Wiki Soap Opera Project has a certain criteria because it's only logical that soap opera characters aren't going to be featured in some heavy news article or celebrity magazine that often, if at all for most of them, thus when a couple is, it is certainly notable, which is why not all soap opera couples can have their own articles on Wikipedia.

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed didn't have to have extensive and or significant coverage on their love story in the mentions that were given to them by more than one independent reliable source. Just the fact that they were mentioned in more than one outside reliable source, The News & Advance, EW.com, Variety Magazine (and I'm sure many more), in what you call "in passsing" was enough to prove that couple's notability, thus I certainly don't see any extensive and or "significant coverage" needed as to having an article discussing that couple in its entirety.

In any case, Soap Opera Digest doesn't just mention Cliff and Nina in passing. They discuss the couple in more detail regardless.

Trivia sections mainly mention silly things, such as "This fictional character's favorite color is red"... Cultural impact sections more so cover a person, thing, character or couple's real-world impact, fictional or real, and that's what this article does. And if it's kept, it will certainly be improved further, at least with attempts. If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then.

Anyway, I need to go and fix up other soap opera couple articles, and some soap opera character articles, some of which like I did with the Bianca Montgomery character, which now provides a lot of real-world impact within her article, and will be further worked on as I edit articles here at Wikipedia. The Josh Madden article as well, both of these are certainly two highly notable characters, and I will have fun editing their articles for quite a while. It was/is interesting debating with you, Otto4711. Flyer22 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Look, I realize that you're trying desperately to save this article, but your desperation doesn't change the simple fact that the mere appearance of the names of the couple in an article does not constitute significant coverage, even if that article is in the Sun-Times. It may very well be that the Sun-Times doesn't mention soap opera characters very often, but that does mean that simply putting their names in a sentence means that the S-T has devoted significant coverage to them. I've been mentioned in articles in the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and any number of other papers. But I wasn't the subject of the articles in which I was mentioned and my being mentioned in them does not make them significant coverage of me or serve to establish me as notable by Wikipedia standards. The passing mentions in non-reliable sources don't constitute "cultural impact" no matter how hard you try to manufacture it. The Soap Opera Digest devotes one sentence to the couple out of a longer profile of the actor and doesn't even mention their last names. The soap opera project's standards do not under any circumstances supercede Wikipedia's so continuing to cite them is meaningless. And threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content is very inappropriate. Otto4711 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Otto4711, I'm not desperate to save any article as of now, and your accusation that I'm threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by re-creating deleted material is totally off, almost if I were to accuse you of having a serious need to delete any and every soap opera article on Wikipedia, when most can be improved. Don't treat me as though I'm some vandal. I'm not. And Wikipedia editors are allowed to re-create deleted articles, if they better format the deleted articles upon re-creation. That's not a threat or disruption of any kind to Wikipedia. And your opinion that this couple is not notable, even though they've been cited by reliable outside sources, such as Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, even if it is in what you call as "passing" is something I obviously disagree with. A person being mentioned in passing in one of those sources is quite different than a soap opera couple being mentioned in one of those sources. And Soap Opera Digest doesn't have to have an entire article on a couple to mention that that couple is a supercouple. The fact remains that Soap Opera Digest calls them a supercouple, and Soap Opera Digest only calls soap opera couples who are supercouples...supercouples. But I certainly can provide a reference from Soap Opera Digest where they have an article on this couple. Either way, we don't agree on this article, as it is now, and I see no reason to keep debating this issue with you. Flyer22 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, you're the one who said "If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later". Your words. And it's clear you're completely missing the point. The point is not whether or not Soap Opera Digest refers to them as a supercouple. The point is that the article is nothing more than a plot summary which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The sources you cite do not establish the notability of the subject of the article. They do not establish any supposed "cultural impact" of the subject. Try actually reading WP:N and WP:RS. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A single sentence out of an article does not constitute "significant coverage." The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not "independent." This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it. Otto4711 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, my exact words, were "If it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then"... And that is not a threat of any kind, and is also no different than well-respected Wikipedian editors stating such a statement in deletion debates that maybe they will re-create an article later in the hopes of improving it then or that the article can be re-created later by another editor, hopefully better. As for your comment of ..."The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not independent. This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it"...don't talk down to me in a condescending way. I NEVER called the speakers bureau in which Peter Bergman works for independent. If we're going to condescend, I honestly don't know why you can't grasp the fact that a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times or Hollywood.com is most certainly notable for a soap opera couple.

Honestly, what you claim as needing to be "significant coverage" for a soap opera couple was not brought up by two excellent Wikipedian editors in the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion debate, in which the fact was/is that Victor and Nikki were cited as a highly notable couple by extremely valid independent sources outside of the soap opera media, with none of those sources referenced in their article having provided an entire article on the couple. And I'm positive that those editors in that deletion debate knew what they were doing. Your solution to deleting an article because it has plot summary is off in my opinion. Wikipedia has nothing against plot summaries, it states that an article shouldn't just be about plot; that's what it's against. And this article isn't just about plot. And this article can always be improved. Again, we don't agree on this article as of now, and if you want to continue this back-and-forth between you and I, then so be it, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether some other article exists or whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD. It is this article under discussion and the point has been brought up in this AFD. And, again, as much as you might wish it, the passing mentions of one or the other of the actors or of the couple do not establish notability. One sentence in a newspaper article is not notability. Two sentences on a website is not notability. Sorry if you feel like you're being talked down to here, but clearly no matter how it's explained to you you're not getting that passing mentions do not make notability. Notability requires that the source be about the subject, not that it just mention the subject. Again, notability requires that sources be about the subject. Absent the unsupported and frankly phony "cultural impact" section that is fabricated out of whole cloth, the article is plot, plot and more plot. Otto4711 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Stop pointing me to policies such as other stuff exists. I'm quite aware of that policy. And it does matter whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD, because your "point" is off, Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited in more than one independent reliable source, and as User: EliminatorJR pointed out in that deletion debate upon his nomination of that article...."I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion"...that was the point, Victor and Nikki were proven notable, outside of the soap opera media even, and no article addressing the couple in its entirety is needed. In the same way that when an editor makes a statement such as Katie Holmes' favorite color is red, they have to find a reliable citation to validate that claim, not an entire article on Katie Holmes' favorite color being red.

Sorry, but it's not just a feeling that you were being condescending in this debate. You were and are being condescending in this so-called deletion debate. And if an article is about the impact soap opera couples had on the world, or about storylines in which had an impact on the world, and a couple is noted in that article, such as Victor Newman and Nikki Reed, then that is an article about that couple, that's what you're not geting. "Notability requires that the source be 'about' the couple"...and, yes, when an article is discussing storylines that changed the world and it mentions that fictional couple, then that is that article being about that fictional couple. Seriously, I don't need to debate this issue with you any longer. I don't need to be told that I'm not getting something or told to believe something in which you believe is what notability is, or pointed to some policy that I'm aware of, whether you believe that I'm aware of it or not. This debate between you and I is no longer as civil as it's supposed to be, and I do not wish to continue this tiresome round-whatever. Flyer22 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • You keep saying that you don't feel the need to continue this, yet here you continue to be, letting fly paragraph after paragraph. Once again, it does not matter what anyone said about Victor and Nikki or any other couple. Victor and Nikki are not under discussion here. They're not, They're just not. And once again, a sentence in an article that mentions X does not make the article about X. It just doesn't. I agree that if this article were sourced to show real-world notability then it should stay, but it is not so sourced. Otto4711 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is sourced, just not extensively, which can always be further improved. And I keep showing up here because you keep responding. A sentence in an article that mentions X does make that article about X if that article is discussing storylines that impacted the world or soap opera coupes that impacted the world, which can be added to this article. And telling me what is not sourced, or not notable, from checking your edit history, it seems that you were pointed to the same policy as to an article deemed not notable by most Wikipedian editors. Of course, not that that is the point of this article, as you'd point out, but obviously pointing me to policies when you yourself are pointed out as not taking them into account on occasion, is fruitless in my opinion, even more so because regardless of your opinion of this article, they are mentioned in three independent reliable sources as notable, passing or not. Again, we disagree as to this article as of now. Obviously. Flyer22 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)\ reply

No it doesn't. A single sentence in an article does not and can not and never will make the article about that subject. A one sentence mention in an article is trivial. It is a passing mention. If even a single one of these had a section that discussed the couple that would be a different issue but none of these discuss the couple. Mentioning the couple is not the same as discussing the couple and it can only be your painfully obvious bias that prevents you from acknowledging that. This article is not sourced. It does not have a single source in it that meets WP:RS and that is about the subject of the couple, let alone three. The words "Cliff and Nina" in an article don't make the article about Cliff and Nina. An article about "storylines that impacted the world" (which none of the links in this article are, by the way) does not suddenly become about every storyline listed off in it. Otto4711 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Did I say that the mentions of this couple by Chicago Sun-Times, and Hollywood.com, and Associated Content were an article about this couple? No. Although, the Associated Content article referenced in this article is specifically about the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera, and notes Cliff and Nina, which makes that article about Cliff and Nina as well. And, yes, Associated Content, the second source in this article, has been cited as a reliable independent source in many great articles on Wikipedia. A single sentence in an article does, and can, and will make that article about that couple, if it's a topic of storylines that impacted the world or couples that impacted the world, and mentions that couple, which I was speaking of the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article. I stated that the Cliff and Nina article could be improved. I have no painfully obvious bias that is preventing me from acknowledging anything that you claim. This is not some favorite and or even slightly favorite couple of mine. I'm 24 years old, and was not at all interested in the soap opera "All My Children" as a very young child. Not until at least age 10, with the villainous character of Todd Manning, did I become interested in soap operas, as I didn't even consider him just a soap opera character, and that character was definitely created some time after the Cliff and Nina mania. I could easily state that your bias of soap opera articles is what brought you to nominate this article for deletion, besides plot, and especially when it's obvious that regardless of what you think, this couple is a supercouple.

Anyway, I try to maintain good faith in what you claim as to this article, and we just are not on the same side when it comes to this article. No need for us to linger on our thoughts as to this article. Flyer22 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • You have yet to provide a source that indicates that this storyline "impacted the world." And no, as hard as you might wish it, mentioning a thing in passing is not enough to make a source about that thing. Notability requires non-trivial coverage, and the mere mention of the couple's names is trivial. Otto4711 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have provided more than one source that proves that this couple is notable. And, as hard as you might wish that this couple is not notable, they are. The mere mention of this couple's name in a matter such as the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera is not trivial. It proves that this couple is a supercouple. In fact, just this couple being called a supercouple in more than one instance proves that this couple is a supercouple, regardless of what you consider trivial or not. Not every soap opera couple is called a supercouple by the soap opera media, or is noted outside of it just for the heck of it. In the same way that the mere mention of Angelina Jolie's name on more than one top ten most beautiful women and or people in the world lists proves that she is notable as one of the most beautiful women and or people in the world, besides her other notable aspects. Flyer22 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Angelina Jolie may very well be a notably beautiful woman but her name on a published list of beautiful women does not in and of itself establish her notability. Sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Once again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. "Passing mentions" does not equal "substantial coverage." A source which mentions this couple in one sentence is not substantial coverage. Otto4711 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Stop twisting my words, Otto4711. I didn't state that Angelina Jolie's name on published lists of beautiful women in and of itself establishes her notability (although I feel that does, beside her other notable aspects). I stated that it establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or beautiful people.

And, all sources on Wikipedia do not have to provide substantial coverage, and plenty of sources on Wikipedia in great articles do not. A source which mentions this couple in one sentence may not be substantial coverage, but it is notable when they are mentioned as a supercouple or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source. In the same way that Angelina Jolie being mentioned in more than one most beautiful women and or people lists establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or people, Cliff and Nina being listed as a supercouple and or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source establishes that this couple is a supercouple. Also, the characters Cliff and Nina were merged into this article, thus deleting this article would be doing away with two notable characters as well, apart from being a part of this couple, in the show All My Children. Although, an editor here at Wikipedia could always re-create an article on the Cliff Warner character, as well as an article on the Nina Cortlandt character, it's a bit redundant, considering that most of their character history revolves around each other. Flyer22 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • That you think a single source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on the list merely further demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of notability guidelines. Otto4711 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Again twisting my words. I never stated that a source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on that list. I stated that a woman (Angelina Jolie) being listed on several lists as a beautiful woman establishes her notability as a beautiful woman and or person. And the fact of being listed on so many lists as a beautiful woman and or person is quite notable of that person. The fact that you keep twisting my words proves your lack of understanding of how not to twist words. Flyer22 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, we don't need to circle in this tiresome debate any longer. We don't need to condescend to each other. We've basically stated everything that we can state, more than once. That is just over, basically, at this point, even if this debate is still open at this very moment. You've stated your feelings, I've stated mine. We really don't have any reason to state the same things over and over again, whether it's a condescending remark of how the other doesn't understand a Wikipedia guideline and that we want that other one to know it or not. I suggest we stop this back-and-forth between you and I in this debate. We know where each other stand. Flyer22 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appeared in a notable program, thus are notable Giggy U C P 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no consensus to delete JodyB talk 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Norse mythology in popular culture

Norse mythology in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Not indiscriminate, not mere trivia, and more than just a vanilla list. This is good information for anyone looking into Norse mythology. There could be a lot more info here (especially the language section, I may add to that myself), and for some things independent sources need to be referenced, but overall the article is valuable and appropriate. Capmango 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A potentially good article with some good content, but poorly arranged and in need of purging. Items like "such-and-such was inspired by Norse mythology" without particular examples vitiate the usefulness of the page. Still, deletion seems like overkill. RandomCritic 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Named precedents describe the influence on popular culture of single pieces of art; how the cultural heritage of an entire civilisation impacts popular culture is another matter entirely. That being said, this article needs some serious overhaul, because as a long list, it isn't that useful. More article, less list. But deletion is overkill. Cayafas 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A problem with ___IPC articles is that the authors want to include everything. If it had been limited to the days of the week, a few references to Thor and... whoever the other Norse gods were, it might have been passable. However, this inclusion is illustrative: "In the 20th episode of the first season of the show Metalocalypse, Skwisgaar Skwigelf referred to the name of Odin with the sentence 'What in the fucking names of Odin?!'. Skwigelf also references Valhalla in the sentence 'I will sees you in Valhalska.'" For that, I say, let's get rid of this Frigg-in' article. Mandsford 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Article simply needs work. :bloodofox: 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per many similar other noms with maybe some info to be transferred into the parent article.-- JForget 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Capmango and Cayafas... Ranma9617 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep this is a closer call than most. There is more here than a list of cross-references; there seems to be some claim as to how the mythology was "reintroduced" - I've heard other versions mostly in the context of LOTR, but nothing pinned to WP:RSes. So I'm inclined to accept the topic as encyclopedic. However, what are needed are WP:RSes to back the facts. The standard for deletion based on lack of sources is that after some search, sources cannot be found. This AfD is the clarion call to the editors, find sources! Carlossuarez46 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Entirely unsourced and violates WP:NOT#INFO. Every small mention of any Norse god, myth, or story is indiscriminate as well as unencyclopedic. I think it is also important to point out that many of the keep reasonings above utilize WP:USEFUL. There is no reason to keep this article based on Wikipedia policy and/or guideline. María ( críticame) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Take it away, take it away, the awful thing. Entirely unsourced. It consists only of current advertising ephemera in list format. There are no unifying themes. This is not the yellow pages here. The articles should cover the mythology and if anyone sees a passing reference in a game or comic book they can look up the mythology. There must be hundreds of thousands of passing references. I don't know why these few were selected out for inclusion. Advertising opportunity? Dave 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is already a category for this topic, which itself needs to be cleaned up. This list provides nothing that the category cannot do better. CaveatLector Talk 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep not indiscriminate ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Notable subject which covers a large part of popular culture ranging from Tolkien to Marvel comics. I'd really like the nominator to explain more in detail how he reasons in this case.-- Berig 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but trim down the modern stuff. It's just a laundry list -- only the first two sections, which resemble an actual article, save this in my mind. -- Haemo 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Like most "X in popular culture" articles, it's recentist and contains horrid trivia lists, but a legitimate article can be written on this topic. I'd be very surprised if there aren't academic books on the topic. But cut most of the "modern popular culture" section, and consider renaming something like Reception of Norse mythology. EALacey 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Valkyries in popular culture

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

Yet another insufficiently sourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture

Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to recreation by users independent of the subject. -- Core desat 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article has a bit of history. It used to be a user page ( User:Aabaig) I speedy deleted. The deletion was contested by the user on his talk page, asserting his company did meet the WP:CORP criteria. Since we both disagreed, I moved the page to the article space and I am bringing it to AfD. My opinion is that despite the fact that this company is on a list of accredited companies (with ~30 other companies from Pakistan), it does not make it notable, and its small size (30 employees) doesn't help. Delete -- lucasbfr talk 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Note - Article is also under discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WP:COI_http:.2F.2Fspam.aabaig.com
  • Delete per nominator; non-notable. Riana (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. multi article linkspaming for aabaig.com by 124.29.203.33 also presents a problem. see WikiProject Spam case -- Hu12 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Request not to be Deleted. You guys may rather advise me to make necessary changes within the article to make it more appropriate and acceptable as per your regulations. I would also appreciate if you consider the following facts: a) This firm has around 100 employees if you include the employees which are hired by the firm but outsourced to various local and multinational organizations all over the country. The concept is known as Staff Leasing or HR Outsourcing. Since, such employees are hired purely for specific clients and are used there dedicatedly for long periods, such employees are not included by the firm in its manpower strength. b) Pakistan has more than 500 Accountancy Practicing Firms all working under license from the profession's regulatory body - the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, however, only around 90 odd firms have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. This firm is one of them. c) This firm was one of the first few professional firms / companies to have been given the status of ACCA Accredited Employer by ACCA even before companies such as Unilever Pakistan, Proctor & Gamble Pakistan, etc were given the same status. d) This firm's IS/IT Division's main clientele is UK based and the IS/IT Division's offices are also located in Leicestershire as well as in Newcastle - UK. Having offshore offices is a rarity among Accountancy / Consulting Firms in Pakistan. e)The firm's growth rate during the last financial year has been more than 100%. f)Keeping in view the fact that in Pakistan, there are only 5004 Chartered Accountants with 20% of them (around 1000) overseas, so from the point of view of Pakistanis and several other South Asians, this firm might justify a place at Wikipedia. g)You must note that Pakistan's economy is a growing one with one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world during the last consecutive three financial years. The economy is booming and so are professional service providers. This firm has grown from a relatively small sole practice into a medium size practice within a very short span of time (within five years). This too is an achievement for this firm. h)If you look at this firm's clientele, you will see that there are several top financial institutions which shows this firm's credibility. i) I will also appreciate if you look at the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzacott "Buzzacott is a mid-sized London Accountancy firm based in a single office in the City. Buzzacott Lillywhite began trading in the City of London in 1919, by the late 1960’s the firm was working for a number of religious and charitable clients. Indeed, not-for-profit remains one of the firm's seven specialist teams together with corporate, private client, expatriate, VAT, IT & consulting and financial services. Buzzacott is a growing firm with around 200 employees and 18 partners and was ranked 30th in 2007 (with an income of £15m) in the Accountancy Age list of the top 50 accountancy firms." My reservation is that if a single office, single city firm which comes at number '30' in UK can justify a space at wikipedia, why cannot a multi office international firm like AAB justify a space at wikipedia. You may also visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergroup and you will understand my point more clearly. Please reconsider. Thankyou -- Ahson Tariq— Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral Response: Maybe if you were to have put that information in the article, rather than your list of services, representative clients and alliances, this wouldn't be so quick to be deleted. I'm well aware that firms such as yours pay of listings in directories, just as law firms list such information in "Martindale-Hubbell". I'll concede that articles like the one on accounting giant [PricewaterhouseCoopers]] have a list of their clientele, which may be considered "informational", but Wikipedia should NOT be advertising. A small firm that is striving to become a larger one is, essentially, advertising. If you want to see an example of a professional firm description that lists its offices, see Greenberg Traurig. Bear in mind, however, that the large firms built their notability before there was a World Wide Web. Mandsford 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Spammy goodness ( SPA/ COI diatribe not withstanding). / Blaxthos 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Spamming Unintentional, not SPA and COI not relevant The spamming was not intentional and Hu cleared it to me earlier and I understood and noted his point. The issue of COI is not relevant here since the same info may be posted by tens of thousands of other people who know of this firm and they would more or less post the same facts about the firm. Lastly, the issue of SPA. Since this account has been created just today, you cannot classify it as SPA and you should wait for a while to see what range of topics is the particular user interested in. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Ashon, thank you for bringing Buzzacott and Intergroup to our attention - they should be deleted as well, and the appropriate procedures have been started. Tevildo 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CORP I have read WP:CORP and I do not see how the article under discussion violates any of the regulations / requirements mentioned in WP:CORP. It would be more fruitful if you explain the specific area where this article is in conflict. Maybe your'e right and that particular conflict can be removed from this article instead of deleting it altogether. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
    • From WP:CORP - "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The only secondary sources currently listed on the page are the various professional regulatory bodies and associations that your firm is a member of, none of which count as non-trivial. We'll need an article that's specifically about your firm, not just its inclusion in a list of similar, non-notable, firms. Tevildo 14:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Ref | WP:CORP - ACCA is the world's largest accountancy body and has been around for over a hundred (yes over 100) years and has members in over 170 countries - Calling such an organization "TRIVIAL" is an absurdity. Moreover, we are not just a member of this International Accountancy Body, we are its "Accredited Employers" and there are not many in Pakistan who have this status. Coming to the second Accountancy Regulatory Body - Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan - then again, we are not only just a member of this Regulatory Body, we are one of the few firms in Pakistan who have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. In my 'professional' opinion, comparison of a newspaper or magazine article, especially from those of local Pakistani print media WITH listing on the official websites of these prominent Accountancy Bodies is not appropriate. Nonetheless, here's an independent source from where you can check about our firm on the web media http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 . Feel free to make further queries. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
      • Ref | WP:CORP - One more thing. Here's the wiki link of Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder which is without a doubt one of the top most Accountancy Firms in Pakistan and represents Ernst & Young (Big 4) in the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Rhodes_Sidat_Hyder As you will see, its entry is also not supported by any 'article that's specifically about the firm', even though it is indeed one of the top firms of the country. Still its entry is there at Wikipedia. Why do the rules not apply to everyone? I can give u several other entries here which although are not backed by news articles but still the organizations are such that they merit a place at Wikipedia. I will appreciate if after looking at the independent link http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 , this article is not subjected to further open scrutiny for deletion. Regards and thanks. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
  • Guys, I think this discussion can go on and on forever, so I'll throw in the towel. You guys do what you feel is appropriate. However, I must commend the moderation team here who are very vigilant. Lastly, I propose that you guys may consider waiting a bit and see whether any visitor (apart from moderating team) has any objection to this article. If it is reported, then the moderating team can consider deleting the article, while in the meantime, it may consider ending this deliberation on removing the article and remove the box on the top of the article for the time being which says that the article's deletion is being considered. Regards and thanks. Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination as well as the fact that the article is mostly made up of external links. (consider me outside the "moderation team", although one doesn't really exist...) Nat Tang ta | co | em 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. The external links were for authenticity. Moreover, The article could have contained thousands of words, but it was deliberately kept the way it is to ensure that it served an information purpose rather than commercial purpose. And the endless debate goes on..... Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • We all are missing one important point here. Accountancy Firms are grooming / training grounds for Finance Professionals all over the world. Tens of thousands (if not in hundreds of thousands) of Students of ACCA, CA, CIMA, et al look for recruitment in Accountancy Firms all the time. Do a random search of the web and you'll see that information regarding Accountancy Firms is easily available for US/UK/Canada/Australian Accountancy Firms. But when it comes to Accountancy Firms in Asia, there is no organized information available for these students. Wikipedia's Accountancy Firms page can help fill that gap with country-wise information about various Accountancy Firms. However, the theme should be informative rather than commercial. Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • Keep, because of references and client list in article shows notability. Add more description/history kind of stuff, maybe images, though, but in summary, keep and improve, seems notable enough for such a large encyclopedia. -- 24.154.173.243 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination (but allow for independent recreation). Article contains no information whatsoever, let alone its assertion as notable. Please put the article on WP:RA. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable. Narson 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Coredesat non admin close. Whispe ring 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

AfDs for this article:
A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This page doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines and might be used as an advertisment. The images on the page are dead and most of it's content seems to be exteranal links. This article should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was The result was speedy delete per criterion G11. -- Evilclown93 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Shou Records

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

NN label, spam, fails WP:CORP and the intro reads like some fanboy listing! Lugnuts 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need, since it was blanked it sould no longer be a problem. Try to bypass your cache (pressing Ctrl+F5 on any Wikipedia page, usually) if you still have problems.. -- lucasbfr talk 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js

AfDs for this article:
User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js (  | [[Talk:User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Aditya Kabir 10:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: On preview, this page appears to import a script called twinkle.js. -- Charlene 10:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Help, please. And, this twinkle is screwing up with my monobook. Damn. I hope my account isn't compromised yet. Aditya Kabir 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Neocommunism

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

This neologism can not possibly be identifyed and attributed to reliable sources, 'couse it has no tangible content. Carn 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: After searching around the internet, I see that this term is mostly used to describe the corrupt, autocratic post-Soviet régimes like that in Belarus, which rely heavily on the dismantling of basic freedoms and the establishment of a self-perpetuating personality cult. These staples of post-Soviet autocratic régimes are far removed from Communism in its ideological form. Although the subject is rather interesting, it might more faithfully described as being closer to a diluted form of second-wave Stalinism.. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of meaningful content without prejudice to recreation under a better style. Shalom Hello 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. The entire article: "Neocommunism can refer to any recent development in Communist or Marxist thought." I suppose it can. Mandsford 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless editors can expand this significantly with reliable sources, otherwise that will only go into the parent and appropriate articles.-- JForget 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I suspect that it is a valid term...unfortunately it fails just about ... everything ... in its present form. (No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, etc.) -- Tim4christ17  talk 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sameh almadhon

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

No Google hits for either the spelling of the name in the article or the spelling in the title, other than those sourced directly or indirectly from this Wikipedia article. Unless verifiable evidence from third-party reliable sources can be provided for the existence of this person, the article should be deleted. Arthur Frayn 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep There are 300,000 Google hits for the Arabic spelling. I found that the standard English spelling is Samih Madhoun (standard vowelization and dropping the "al" prefix). That spelling has 12,500 Google hits, including this news story. Shalom Hello 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A person doesn't qualify as "notable" if the reliable third-party coverage is short-lived. Since he's now dead, I suspect there will not be any further coverage. The claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that he was recently killed. I don't see how that makes him notable. ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, sources found and article tidied up. John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • What other claims to notability does he have, other than having been "a senior leader" in a militant terrorist organization, and that he was recently killed in a clash with a rival militant terrorist organization? ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Generational secret

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

Contested prod... I think! Originally prodded as a neologism. An attempt to conflate different vernacular uses of the phrase in order to create a new concept. No references and no relevant ghits beyond everyday usage, nothing to support this as a distinct concept that's in general use. When I prodded it the author vandalised it and left a strange message implying she was done forever with WP. Not quite nonsensical enough for speedying, hence this AfD.

I am also nominating a related page from this author:

Tatee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's an unreferenced dictionary definition, now transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has not been expanded beyond a dictionary definition and there's no evidence or assertion of notability (the article even says it's not a term in wide use). Again, when I prodded this the author vandalised it.

andy 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both neologism/dictdef. / Blaxthos 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice for a different generational secret article. The term is used in counselling, but that's a different use than what appears in this strange article. Capmango 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Save

My dear learned ones. Yes my self deletion had some unusual content. There are items unwritten that you are of the blessed few, not to have experienced. I attended a family reunion last year of which upon introduction, I found my status."Oh I didn't know Claude Derrill had a son". The man mentioned was my father, I at one time was his son. Being "unique" to the point of becoming a Generational secret, made me aware of it's implications and the energy needed with in a family to keep such persons unknown. I suffered through electric shock, chemical shock and solitary confinement for 30 days at a time, just for being different. Now as I am becoming a most wonderful Transformed Woman, I find the need to remain in the shadows, sub notes, whispered entries a total waste of energy I may be speaking from another culture, that is unfamiliar to my judicial board, but am willing to dialog with any and all in my justification. For at one time was not the world considered flat, and all who believed otherwise burnt at the stake? I ask for even a subcategory of unexplored words, even if needed a category of undesirable word notation. I do appreciate being considered unique, if curiosity is of effect please to venture to my space countess_estelle. Thank you for consideration of my entries, and I do wish to have the option of self deletion, if that may be afforded.

Ms. Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II

  • Delete - no reliable sources and no indication it can be extended beyond a dicdef. -- Whpq 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete especially the second one as a slightly expanded dicdef. theProject 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mitch Modeleski

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

This is another of those hated WP:BLP messes. (We can thank Jimbo for starting a terrible precedent with Alan Dershowitz, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.) The article used to look like this, but in the face of edit warring, an administrator was forced to protect the page and convert it into a stub. Now there's a debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul Andrew Mitchell (the same person), and someone said, take the article to AFD, it's only one sentence long anyway, and then the talk page will fall automatically. I thought, great idea! The only complication is that this wasn't always one sentence long. Regardless, I believe that keeping the BLP in any form may cause more trouble than it's worth.

To be clear: I make no judgment about the fellow's notability. I just think that with certain articles - the Bogdanov affair comes to mind - it may be better to have no article than a controversial article. I'm willing to get a "speedy keep" thrown at this if only to make sure it's been considered. Shalom Hello 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Looking back on the article's history, there don't appear to be any references that confirm the subject's notability. If all he's done is to file a frivolous lawsuit against AOL, I don't think that makes him notable. If he's done anything else to make him notable, the article should say what that is. Even if we revert to one of the non-stub versions, that information isn't there. Tevildo 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think that the nominator (Shalom) should state explicitly whether or not they support deletion of this article; it's not clear from the nomination. Tevildo 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Response Great question, Tevildo. I Googled the fellow's name, and the first hit (ahead of Wikipedia!) was Wikitruth.info's archive of the "uncensored" version. Let's use that as a starting point if we decide to restore the article. I would want to rewrite the last two paragraphs to soften the tone. Looking at the references, it's clear that this fellow has earned an underground following, but just about everyone knows he's a crazy idiot. Here we enter the intersection of notability and neutral point of view. I think notability, as an independent baseline, is satisfied in the Wikitruth version - there are multiple, nontrivial sources, including a full article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, describing this fellow's activity. However, when you analyze what he is advocating, you realize that his theories are cultic conspiracy bollocks accepted by nobody with a brain inside his skull. So I'd suggest that the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV overrides the bare minimum of notability. In the sea of human knowledge, this guy barely qualifies as a twig of seaweed. Shalom Hello 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I checked that reference from our history; I'm still not convinced that it makes him notable (as opposed to his lawsuit being verifiable). There are many ways that self-published authors attempt to gain publicity - this may be one of the more original methods, but, unless it's propelled his book into regions where it can pass WP:BK, he doesn't deserve an article here. Tevildo 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a "weak" delete. I edit fairly heavily in the tax protester-related articles in Wikipedia. The subject of this article is indeed a promoter of Tax protester arguments, and I have been following his "career" (if you will) for some time. On balance, I would say he is somewhat notable, but arguably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That of course could always change later. Yours, Famspear 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just to follow up, I opine that tax protesters are a dime a dozen. The main reason I categorize this fellow as not yet notable enough is that he has had, as far as I know, no criminal legal problems. Any fool can file frivolous civil lawsuits. My unofficial main criterion for judging the notability of a U.S. tax protester is: Has this person been prosecuted criminally? Very, very few people are actually prosecuted for Federal tax crimes in the United States. As far as we know, the subject of the article has not been prosecuted criminally. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No assertion of notability; being described as a "tax protestor" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion per WP:BIO, as not all tax protestors are inherently notable. The article needs evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Walton talk 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The edit which show at least something is [8] Except for the final sentence, I see no reason why the article in that form would violate BLP, provided a source were found for some of the legal resolutions; and I'm sure a source could be found saying something like that as well. DGG 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. NawlinWiki 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Won-Joon Yoon

Won-Joon Yoon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable victim of a spree shooting Richard 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep I can't really explain why; I just don't think any one person is nonnotable in the context of a spree shooting. This problem has arisen in connection with the Virginia Tech Massacre and other incidents. Shalom Hello 09:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly mege these 2 vic pages into a central (not yet created) 1999 Illinois shooting spree (etc). Most of the event's details are covered in the shooter's article Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. We've had a number VT and 9/11 victim articles come though AfD recently, and WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E make good points. -- Breno talk 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Breno. I'd be careful, though, about extrapolating WP:BLP1E to dead people, since some dead people are notable for doing one thing - Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, for instance. -- Charlene 13:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah I asked over on BLP if that was correct.. turns out BLP1E should not be used for the deceased. Still, MEMORIAL does apply. -- Breno talk 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the shooter's page. JJL 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the shooter's page. - Agree with JJL. Redirect is probably the best approach. -- Richard 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith;, this article doesn't contain any biographical facts that cant be summarised on the shooters page. John Vandenberg 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • merge as per John. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the arguments to keep aren't based in policy or guidelines; whether Wikipedia is or isn't becoming too restrictive isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. -- Core desat 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Themes and motifs in Harry Potter

AfDs for this article:
Themes and motifs in Harry Potter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

It is largely unsourced and consists almost entirely of original research. It has been up for months and no serious action has been taken to revise it Serendipodous 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is an excellent example to illustrate my opinion that an attributed article can contain original research. At best, this article falls under the synthesis clause. There is no way to write a neutral encyclopedic article under this title. Shalom Hello 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rewrite: there have been enough books written on this subject that we surely could have an article that discusses various authors' views of these themes. Nyttend 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To avoid being original research, and belong in an encyclopedia, this article would probably have to not only be completely rewritten, it would have to have a different title. I can see an article on critical reaction to Harry Potter being appropriate, but "Themes and Motifs" just feels more like something you'd find on a fansite. Skittle 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article uses attributable facts to create new analysis, fails WP:NOR. Jay32183 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete origional research-- Sefringle Talk 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I personally don't have a problem with the article; we should just keep it... but that's just my opinion. DarthSidious 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious reply
  • Keep The article may need to be revised, but with appropriate tags and warnings eventually someone will take an interest. The article does seem to be active, just no interest in cleaning up...yet. Libertycookies 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:SYNTH violation, unnecessary fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep & Rewrite - whereas the article as it currently stands seems to fail WP:SYNTH I'm not convinced that it should be removed. I think the idea of such an article is valid but it must be completely rewritten into an encyclopaedic tone and cite the many books dealing with literary analysis of the series as primary sources. However, I am hovering towards ambivalence on this one and will gladly welcome any attempts to convince me in either direction! Aula TPN 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is an example of how not to write an article in Wikipedia. If the article is to be kept, it needs a complete deletion of all the text, removing all SYNTH and staying close to the sources. Better to delete and re-create, if someone has the inclination to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Which is basically what I suggested. ;-) Aula TPN 13:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The "powers that be" among wikipedians are becoming too restrictive in their judgements as to what should or should not be in wikipedia. Every other article is festooned with tags about references and originality and the like. Where did the spirit of anarchy go? If the article doesn't meet with your satisfaction, improve it, don't call for its elimination! Agricolaplenus 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's original research. Elimination is the only way to deal with it. Jay32183 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per no original research. Whispe ring 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a synthesis of information forming original research. -- Whpq 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus to delete. I personally think the title should be changed to Women in Iran, but I'll leave that for further discussion on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iranian women

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

Having grappled with this article from time to time, I have decided that the reason this article is difficult to work with is because it is not a real encyclopedia topic. Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" (notice that the definition itself lacks a source here) a wide variety of information pertaining to females from Iranian cultures, past and present, is arbitrarily selected to be added to this article. The association of these random facts under a supposed common term/phenomenon, "Iranian women," smells like a very strange form of OR by synthesis.

Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic, but if the topic itself has no certain definition, how can information be posted here as relevant? As this is not a real topic there can be no real content aside from synthesis relying upon the OR definition held by the editor. This kind of purposeless OR has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 08:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. At minimum we may need a name change. Shalom Hello 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My understanding is that actual women's issues in Iran are already covered at articles with real topics such as Persian women's movement. While the latter article is also in pretty bad shape, it is possible that it has the benefit of possessing a concrete definition according to reliable sources, as any topic should have. The Behnam 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. None of the reasons mentioned above are convincing:
  • It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article.
  • Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
  • Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
  • OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
  • A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
  • I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".

User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.

I vote for keep. Thanks. Sangak Talk 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There is currently no other article that addreses the issue of women in Iran in its entirety. and such topics are essential, if not critical. e.g. similaer articles Women in Japan, women in India, etc.-- Zereshk 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Persian women's movement covers the issue of women in Iran. But how is the topic "essential" or "critical" even as it lacks definition and scope? As for the others you mentioned, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Behnam 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So tell me, how do topics like women's health in Iran, Iranian women's fashion, motherhood in Iran, Iranian women etiquette, and cultural issues of Iranian women relate to Persian women's movement? Or are they not "well defined" either?-- Zereshk 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Right now I am not addressing the other articles as I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a bad argument. Don't you? The Behnam 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • You still havent answered the question. How does Persian women's movement cover all those mentioned topics that Iranian women does (or is intended to)?-- Zereshk 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not going to make recommendations about that other article here as here is not the place for it. However you bring up what I said about the article lacking definition and scope. Without a real definition it is hard to describe the scope of the article, a.k.a. what it is "intended to" cover. The Behnam 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
              • So you agree that Persian women's movement is not able to cover all issues of women in Iran, which Iranian women does by being a more general article. Lack of scope is hardly a reason for deletion. I dont buy that argument.-- Zereshk 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I didn't agree or disagree with anything. BTW, there is much more to my deletion than simply the "scope" aspect. I strongly encourage you to read this page, as knowing what else has been written can help you better express your own views on the deletion debate. Thanks. The Behnam 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to "Women in Iran" and reorganize to be more focused on present day conditions. RandomCritic 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My understanding is that the Iranian women's movement article covers present-day issues and there is no need to repeat them in the article for this pseudo-topic. The Behnam 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep - seems a perfectly valid topic although the article needs some work. Hard to say its not notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Please explain how this topic is "perfectly valid." For some time I've tried to see this supposed validity but found no real encyclopedic definition for the topic "Iranian women," as I have discussed in detail here. I feel like saying it is "perfectly valid" without responding to any of my concerns seems more like a "vote" and less like a debate. The Behnam 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, an article that presents information about the female persons of the region that is now modern-day Iran is valuable insofar as this information differs from that of the population as a whole - regardless of sex. This article purports to show that this is indeed the case. Thus, I consider it valuable. Information that cannot be sourced or that is OR should be excised, that doesnt mean; however, that the article itself is of no value. I apologise for not stating my reasons before due to laziness - I know its annoying to have people merely assert something is notable/encyclopedic without reason in these debates and shouldve known better. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation, but the concern I have is about the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedia topic, and I've yet to see how the definition that this article relies upon is anything but OR. I even had to recently remove what seemed to me an absurdity ( [9]), but who are we to dictate the definition of this supposed topic? Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article does, and the collection of facts attached to it is based upon this assumed definition. The Behnam 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think I can see some flaws in this article that may or may not be the ones you share. As far as I can see, the article defines Iranian women as those with an Iranian culture, speaking Farsi and living in the greater Iran region - I can see a problem arising as one can easily have women who are members of the first one or two groups that are not members of the second or third (for instance ethnically Persian women in the USA or UK who may not speak Farsi) - for that reason this definition may be a poor one. Additionally, the women described in the pre-Islamic section may well deviate from this definition. The author describes prehistoric burials without showing that these were of women of a Persian culture. I think I have to change my view to a relucatant (as I consider it would be valuable to have an article on the history of women of Persian culture) weak delete unless these problems can be fixed. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Well. I think the definition is pretty clear. The two articles are covering "History of women in Persia/Iran". That's pretty clear. Iran is a multi-ethnic country. It size reduced over the last centuries. The word, Iran and Iranian in its modern usage only refers to nationals of current Iran. But for instance 200 years ago Iran was bigger. So we needed to explain that issue. We also needed to explain that Persian women means women of Persia (former name of Iran). The word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity which accounts for the majority of people of Persian and Iran. But this article is not limited to those. In summary this article is the History of women in Persia/Greater Iran. The article Iranian women's movement was meant to cover the history of women in modern Iran (starting from Persian constitutional revolution). I think the definition is pretty clear. Please note that when we say German women (wome of Germany), we have to make it clear that they are not all ethnicly German. The same story is true for Turkish people and Turkey. There many Kurds who are nationals of Turkey. ... Thanks. Sangak Talk 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm not so sure that the definition you offer above is the same as that of the article which defines Iranian women by stating "{t}he term refers to women who practice Iranian culture, speak Iranian languages and live mainly throughout the Iranian cultural continent." To me this clearly excludes non-culturally Persian natives of what is now modern day Iran (the pre-Islamic portion of the article) as well as any non Farsi-speaking or non-Persian women of Iran (Arabs, Azeris etc). Perhaps the article can be repaired along the lines that you suggect above? The topic - women of Iran - is an interesting and valuable one, however, the definition used is, imo, a problem. If steps could be taken to improve the definition I think a keep would be best for the wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • @Sangak: Thanks for the extensive response. I'll response to each one:
    • It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article. "
      • While I don't recall requiring expertise to work on Wikipedia, I'm not really questioning the individual facts stated in the article as much as I am questioning its basis for existence. I'm sure that an editor could add even more random facts somehow related to this concept "Iranian women" using Persian sources but this does not resolve the apparent lack of encyclopedic definition for the topic.
    • Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
      • How isn't there a problem with the definition? Throughout all of these months we have no RS defining this term, much less doing so in a manner that gives the article scope and direction to prevent it from being a collection of random facts that editors selected to associate to the topic. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument; in fact I'm thinking about nominating some of the other non-topic articles for deletion as well. I even thought about tacking Kurdish women to this deletion debate.
    • Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
      • How do you determine relevance without a concrete and focused definition of the topic based upon reliable sources?
    • OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
      • OR is definitely relevant. A "topic" lacking a concrete definition cannot be written about without using a definition and scope not rooted in reliable sources. The personal perception of the topic's definition & scope is combined with a raw fact taken from a source to advance an association, but as this association itself is unsupported by RS it is OR.
  • In WP:OR, one of the examples of original research that should not be included in Wikipedia is anything that "defines new terms." The definition used in this article does not rely upon reliable sources and is essentially the opinion of an editor. As the article's definition and scope is OR, the article is fundamentally flawed.
    • A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
      • While it wasn't my point (it was Shalom's), I think it should be clarified that Shalom seemed to be suggesting a name change at the minimum. Anyway, as I've said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify an article's existence; I am actively considering nominating others (such as Women in Arab societies) for deletion as well.
    • I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".
      • I don't claim that they are equivalent and I think that Iranian women's movement probably has a concrete definition somewhere that provides direction and basis for the article. And while it isn't relevant, generally empires shrink as conquered lands break away or are taken by others. What article would you like to suggest for merge?
    • User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.
      • Again I'm not concerned about the sources for the facts (though I was back before cais-soas was blacklisted), but rather the source for the definition that should guide the entire article. And obviously I'm still not convinced that this is a real topic. BTW, "smelling" was not meant literally :)
  • Anyway, thanks again for your extensive response as I appreciate real discussion of the article's merits (rather than simple voting). Hope to hear back from you. The Behnam 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi Behnam! Thanks for your feedback. I think your major point is about the scope of the pages. Do you see any problem with "History of women in Persia/Iran"? When we are discussing women in old times we have no choice but discussing their appreance in literature, paintings and so on. "Iranian women's movement" is also very familiar to any Iranian. The persian translation is Jonbeshe Zanan e Iran. It was initiated in 19th century by a group of women who wanted to participate in politics, to have education for women, sport for women, music for women and so on. There are now several organizations and journals persuing those projects. Perhaps Iranian women were among pioneers of women activism in central Asia and western Asia.

If there is any ambiguities, that's not in the nature of the subject. That's due to the ambiguities in the name Iran/Persia. The same problem exists when you want to talk about German nationals or Turkish nationals etc. When one says A is a Turkish parliament member, people may automatically consider him/her from Turkish ethnicity. But we know that one third of the population of Turkey are Kurds. I know that politicians do not care about terminology. But wikipedia is a democracy and for that reason we explained these issues at the begining of "Iranian woman" page. Please note that this ambiguity does not exist in Persian language where the name of the land has been always "Iran". In English language the name Iran, was not in use until 20th century.

I do think this article has the potential to become a great article in future and I do not see any reason for deletion of the article. As I mentioned above the French version has a high quality and it reached FA status in the past. There are master programs in several Iranian Universities on "Iranian women studies". So the subject is very well-established. Sangak Talk 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not concerned about Iran/Persia ambiguities here, nor do I doubt the existence of the Iranian women's movement or its appropriateness in an encyclopedia. My problem is that this article is written based on a definition made up by editors based upon their personal ideas about what comprises the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women." Until this problem is entirely resolved I support deletion. And don't worry about the other stuff - I am getting tired of artificial topics elsewhere on Wikipedia too; I'm not trying to pick on Iran or something like that. BTW Wikipedia is not a democracy though it sometimes acts like one :( The Behnam 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If you are unhappy with the content, you may want to post a translation request to French wikipedia and have the FA version translated into English. Or you may want to contact an expert to step in. Or perhaps you may want to search in the web and find sources like Women's live in ancient Persia and The Women's Movement in Iran and improve the article. Alternatively, one can think of merging the two articles. I think deletion does not make sense. Sangak Talk 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Citations to research, encyclopedic value, and the author handles the topics with objectivity. The objection appears to be to the title. The status of women around the world is of interest to more than 50% of the globe's population, not just to our "better half". Mandsford 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The objection is to the complete lack of definition and scope for this article. Some others have objected to the title but I object to the article itself as fundamentally flawed per WP:OR: "It defines new terms." The Behnam 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep" as an excellent effort at writing a NPOV article. The material is encyclopedic, and the editors can think about a better title. a good case has been made for other similar articles--saying they aren't there is not an argument against this one. DGG 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Please validate the article's topic. I've raised a number of concerns about the existence of this term as a topic and have pointed out the OR basis for this article. BTW, I've never used those other articles as a reason for this one to be deleted; I have only reminded others that the existence of those articles does not justify the existence of this article. Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article is doing, and the entirety of this article relies upon this OR definition. The Behnam 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not an article about a phrase. Its an article about a subject. The qy. of the best name for the subject is an editing question. It should be a neutral descriptive phrase. I myself cant think of anything much more neutral than this, but perhaps somebody will when the discussion returns to the article talk p. DGG 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It claims to define a certain encyclopedia, "Iranian women", and without basis associates a variety of different facts with this supposed idea. The definition provided in the article is and has always been OR. There may be a simple dictionary-type definition that can be accepted as obvious, such as "women from Iran," though you don't find this explicitly defined either. But to claim that there is a detailed definition, a topic with a specific and meaningful scope of relevance, is completely unfounded, and the article is not acceptable until this foundation can be established, and this established definition can redefine the content of the article. Right now it is just a collection of facts and pictures included because of the definition made-up in the lead or because of the personal notions of editors. This AFD has been disappointing from a debate perspective. So far I've mostly run into unsubstantiated claims (see the below "vote"), various distractions unrelated to my reasons for nomination (mostly along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and begging the question (such as yours - "its an article about a subject", despite the fact that the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedic subject is one of the very things that I am questioning in this AFD).
  • Keep definently encyclopediac topic and material is encyclopediac. Also seems to be pretty well sourced.-- Sefringle Talk 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Should I just take your word for it? Your response doesn't address any of the problems I have brought up here. Dude, this is a debate. The Behnam 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep encyclopedic article on topic rarely found in an English language encyclopedia. Serves to strengthen Wikipedia by countering systemic bias. Promotes understanding of women's issues and contribution of women to Iranian culture in an objective manner. One editor argued that the article has a complete lack of definition and scope, but I disagree. IMHO once the title is changed to something like "Women in Iranian Society" the scope and definition are no longer an issue. -- Chicaneo 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Strike through on -- Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Upon further reflection, and after working on the article, I now tend to agree with Sangak regarding keeping the article's name. Sangak has made very strong arguments in support of the title, in spite of many suggestions to change it. The contents of this article are unique and do not fit in with existing articles. Sangak's argument that the word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity is what convinced me. I think a good comparison would probably be Hispanic women. Hispanic is a term that encompasses people from many nationalities while describing a commonality of Spanish ancestry. -- Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: I’m not quite sure I understand the OR argument. WP:OR refers to unpublished facts, and unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position or historical interpretation that is novel. The article is well sourced so it obviously does not rely on unpublished facts, analysis or synthesis. So then those who are taking the OR position must be arguing that the authors of the article are trying to push a certain POV, novel idea, or novel historical perspective. Please clarify for me what is novel about the existence of Iranian women in Iran and their contributions to their own society? Also, the argument that this article "defines new terms." has really got me confused. What new terms are defined? Could you list them? Surely you don‘t mean “Iranian women”. I think that term has been around as long as there have been women in Iran. Now I’m no expert on Iran, but I believe that would be since about 3200 B.C.. So what’s new about that? It’s possible that I have misunderstood these two arguments. If so, could you please provide clarification. Thanks.-- Chicaneo 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An 'unpublished definition' is just as much OR as the other unpublished variants, and in fact could be considered more severe, as it is equivalent to "made up." The new definition is that used for the encyclopedia itself. Have you read the lead or looked at prior versions? The concept of this the article has no sourced definition & scope and as such there cannot possibly be an encyclopedic article about it. There is no anchor for the definition of the topic, and this definition determines the material included in the rest of the article. I don't think that most of the facts included are necessarily OR - they look good overall, though I haven't checked each of them. I won't say that there is a specific POV pushed as the article is just a jumble of facts tacked to a page; perhaps some of them try to 'make a point' but that is aside from the point. Perhaps the sourced information should simply be relegated/kept elsewhere instead of pooled under this artificial article topic. BTW 3,200 BC sounds a tad too early - by about 3000 years. The concept of "Iran" before Parthian (I think) & Sassanian times remains unattested (the expected form would be *Aryanam but as the asterisk indicates, this is unattested). The cultural ancestors discussed at Iran are listed as starting 3200 BC - perhaps the coverage there is misleading so as to portray the nation of Iran as existing that far back. I'll think about some possible adjustments there. The Behnam 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all, prior versions are irrelevant. The AfD is to determine the fate of the article that is shown in real time. What I hear you saying is that the intro section needs work. So what? Is that a reason to delete the entire article? No. The solution is simple. Just fix the intro to match the article. You said the article “defines new terms”. Again, what new terms??? Can you please list them? Surely you don’t mean “Iranian Women”? Now that you’ve clarified the timeline for me, that term has been around since about 200BC. I hope the terms you list are newer than this. -- Chicaneo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Zereshk although rename Women in Iran if that is the naming precedent for these kinds of articles. -- Joshdboz 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It would be quite a stretch to keep "Iran" in any case as this assumes that really ancient stuff counts as Iran. Perhaps for some nationalists this is the case but in reality the national concept of "Iran" is not attested to in Achaemenian times. I've had to remove anything suggesting otherwise from the main article ( Iran). This is part of the vagueness. Does the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women" include women from all Iranian groups or just the nation of Iran? How much history is considered relevant? What aspects are considered relevant? We can't just have random facts tacked onto a page. The definition used in the article is OR. It amazes me that despite all of these 'keep' votes nobody has even moved to help out the article to address any of these problems. The Behnam 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Have you? As fas as I see, all you ever do is go around unreasonably tagging articles, deleting or decimating articles, engaging in editorial combat with everyone involved and throwing accusations at them, and reporting them to admins. Tell me one Iranian related article you have fully created and authored? Even one?-- Zereshk 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll take you up on your offer to help out. But since "these problems" are your problems really, it seems reasonable that you should bring them up on the talk page, if you haven't already, and then you should accept the consensus whatever that is. -- Chicaneo 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep RS'ed ,encyclopedic, objective and certainly noteable. Dman727 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - This is supposed to be more than a Wiktionary article. Perhaps in Wiktionary you can define "Iranian women" as "women from Iran" without incident (though there is no source for that definition yet), but encyclopedia articles need to have focus, definition, scope rather than just being a collection of somewhat-related facts. And throughout this debate this hasn't happened. And I doubt it will happen even after this debate closes. Do know, however, that just as Zereshk so despises, I will relentlessly remove anything inappropriate from this article. I haven't much interest in 'creating' articles for this "encyclopedia," but rather removing crap from what exists already. Maybe after the crap is removed I'll try to make a full article on my own, but right I'm not interested. Zereshk's comment bringing up the question of my authorship of articles was inappropriate anyway. Like many Iran-related articles, this one also has issues. Considering that the problem is quite fundamental (with OR defining the topic & its scope), I suspected that this isn't a real encyclopedia topic (no, don't build the strawman that I don't believe Iranian women exist or similar BS misinterpretation of my arguments), and hence felt that deletion was best. However, since I failed to communicate my case against the article persuasively, it seems that this is heading for a "Keep," so I will simply cut the crap directly from the article upon the debate's closure.

Chicaneo, thanks for making some edits to the article, but as you don't seem to think that this article has any problems with definition & scope, can you please provide sources for the lead that explicitly back up every claim? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep per above, specially Chicaneo. Where's the OR? What are the new terms being defined? 'Iranian women'? Article may need more work, but it definitely is encyclopedic. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Can you define the ideas in the lead and those ideas used in directing the article's development? So far there have been so many 'keep' votes and yet nobody has actually tried to address the fundamental issue here. All of the facts used in the page are loosely associated by pertaining to "Iranian women," but the definition of that term in the encyclopedic sense is not clear (and apparently nonexistent). Maybe, just maybe, you can try wiktionary for "Iranian women" but to present it as a unified subject suitable for an encyclopedia is preposterous. There just isn't anything to define what is relevant other than loose association to the undefined "Iranian women," and this is against WP:NOT (no loosely associated collections). The Behnam 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Peacent 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Wombination

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

Do we really need to have this...? LamentIndex 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've nominated this for speedy deletion as nonsense. Should work. :-) The Behnam 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to the school district article. -- Core desat 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School

I'm also nominating the following schools because they're all elementary schools in the same school district.

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arndt Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barbara Fasken Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonnie L. Garcia Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Borchers Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Centeno Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clark Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colonel Santos Benavides Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cuellar Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
De Llano Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finley Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judith Zaffirini Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Juarez-Lincoln Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazen Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kennedy-Zapata Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malakoff Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muller Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newman Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nye Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prada Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roosevelt Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruiz Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salinas Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trautmann Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United D.D. Hachar Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

1) Elementary schools are not inherently notable and 2) All these articles are clones of each other and there's no content in any of them. Delete and Redirect to the school district page Corpx 08:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: inherently non-notable duplicates... -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all because they are hopelessly redundant. In addition, redirect all to the article about the local school district, and remove the link coding for those schools in the target article in order to discourage recreation. Shalom Hello 13:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all of them, failing WP:ORG. Some have actually been expanded from the template, e.g. Nye Elementary School, but notability is not established. This is something like "mass-schoolcruft". -- B. Wolterding 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge all to the school district as Elementary school unless historical facts are generally nn.-- JForget 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. — Tim4christ17  talk 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hopeless romantics

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

This article has been here for months with nothing been done to make it into an encyclopedia article. I can't really see how it can ever be an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. Dazz (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "In love with love" indeed... -- Charlene 08:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Delete this foolishness. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; ah, but a hopeless romantic would know that this would happen, and would move on elsewhere... c'est la vie. Mandsford 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not in love with this article. Cedars 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Thriller (album), without prejudice to recreating an article if someone can add content showing that the song in particular has notability (like, for example, Beat It). NawlinWiki 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Lady In My Life

The Lady In My Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Another non-notable Michael Jackson album track which User:Superior1 refuses to leave as a redirect to the album page. Corvus cornix 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Dazz (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Is this on the right article? I'm not sure that a Michael Jackson song belongs on Urban Dictionary. -- Charlene 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. Paaerduag 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • What references would ever do anything to this article to make it more than a run of the mill non-notable album track? Corvus cornix 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album track. GassyGuy 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect back to the album. It might be on one of the best-selling albums of all time, but it's still an album track. EliminatorJR Talk 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Does the same go for all the album tracks on the Beatles albums and stuff like The Dark Side of the Moon? Superior1 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, for The Wall, another Pink Floyd album with all of the album tracks having their own articles, six of the tracks were released as singles. Are you saying the other twenty should be merged? Superior1 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:POKEMON for reasons why these arguments, while they may be valid (I have not examined the articles in question to see if they are), do not impact the keeping or deletion of this particular article. GassyGuy 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am in danger of repeating myself to the point of being a broken record, but I am asking for time. Look at what I've done to the Just Good Friends article for those of you who think I've simply been talking myself up and actually doing nothing. That is not an article worthy of deletion. A stub, maybe, but not worthy of deletion. I need time to do this. Just a little bit. But if all of these AFDs are concluded swiftly then you will cut me short, and that will be extremely unfair. Please give me just a bit of time. What's the harm in that? I ask you again, what is the harm in giving me a little bit of time to expand and add references to these articles? There is no harm. Paaerduag 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is that there's still no evidence of notability. To prove that this album track is notable, it needs to have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources in which it is the primary topic. It has coverage in user-submitted reviews on sputnikmusic and amazon.com, which are not reliable sources. It has trivial coverage in album reviews. It has been performed on tour, but that alone is not a notability criterion. The problem, therefore, is not with the sourcing of these articles, but that the subjects themselves are unfit. GassyGuy 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major one Balloonman 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have told Superior1 that I am not going to be expanding or referencing either of the Thriller songs because I simply do not have the time. I don't care what you do, but my keep vote remains simply because this is a notable song, and Rolling Stone, which you conveniently forgot to mention, is indeed a reliable source, as is sputnikmusic and amazon IMO. Paaerduag 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The Amazon and Sputnikmusic reviews are user-submitted. That is the same as a forum post or blog review, and therefore are not reliable. The Rolling Stone review is about the album, which proves that the album is notable. The song is not the primary topic, which is why that source does not demonstrate the notability of the song per WP:NOTE. GassyGuy 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:MUSIC establishes some guidlines on the notability of songs and this song doesnt meet any of the requirements there. The song itself is notcovered in sufficient independent works, it is not ranked on a national or significant music chart, it has not recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire, it has not won a significant award or honor (all per the article). I couldnt find out whether this one was released as a single, but even then due to the lack of a chart apperance I'd stick with my delete vote. Corpx 10:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Thriller. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to assert any semblance of notability aside from being connected to a notable album. Trusilver 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unlike The Lady In My Life (above), this article has substantive content discussing this specific song and why it is notable, and has specific references. NawlinWiki 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Just Good Friends (song)

Just Good Friends (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable album track, not a single. Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track spree". I tried redirecting, but the originator refused to leave it that way. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed Demon (song). Corvus cornix 06:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. -- Paaerduag 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • References about what? References which say this is other than a non-notable album track? Such references will not exist, because it isn't anything other than a non-notable album track, no matter how many references you stick onto the article. Corvus cornix 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If it has references, it would lead one to the conclusion that it isn't entirely non-notable. Paaerduag 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This song is a non-notable album track. References that prove otherwise should be produced now for the article kept, not vaguely promised for some future time. See Talk:HIStory for other problems related to this editor, where I proposed the merging of several of these non-notable tracks to their parent album (using the proper Proposed Mergers page etc.) and had the proposal closed by this editor in less than a week after a 2-1 vote by 2 members of WikiProject Michael Jackson. GassyGuy 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Obviously you have entirely misread what I have said. If a song has references, that means that it isn't totally, 100% non-notable as some would have you believe. Also, I'm not promising references for some future time; don't put words in my mouth. Also, GassyGuy, were you planning to actually rebut the HIStory merging issue at the time, or where you going to keep your opinion quiet until some future time, such as now, when you could use the issue to your advantage? I'm getting references, whether you like it or not. -- Paaerduag 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Expanded and referenced - shallow promises eh? I've added references, and am continuing to do so. Also, please don't quickly shut the other Afd's (as many of you would like) as I am going to improve them as well. Paaerduag 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • LOOK - I'd call it a lot better than it was. Sure, it ain't a long article, but it's referenced, and therefore it isn't as obscure as you might like. It no longer deserves to be deleted. Paaerduag 03:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Song reviews do not make a non-notable album track notable. Corvus cornix 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the proposed notability guidelines for songs includes "2: is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." This guideline is consistent with other notability guidelines that gives implied notability to a number of groups/writers/etc based upon affiliation to famous people (just look at WP:MUSIC and you'll see how this criteria is consistent with other notability guidelines there.) Balloonman 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Except it wasn't a single, so that guideline doesn't apply. EliminatorJR Talk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I missed the phrase single... but I would still argue that any song on a platinum album is noteworthy. This album is 8x platinum. Balloonman 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Fine, but then where does that level of notability stop? That's why the guideline is there. EliminatorJR Talk 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Notability is just a guideline... I am not a music person... I couldn't identify 10 songs that reached the top 100 in the past year. I'm more into sports. But I have more respect for any song on a platinum album than I do for that backup linebacker who gained notability via a single game... or the book that nobody has heard about, but was written by somebody famous. The guidelines are broken, but if the potential exists for these non-notables to be considered notable, then you would be hard pressed to convince me that a song on a platinum album is any less notable. Balloonman 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Speed Demon (song) - ARC Gritt TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • And yet it still fails the primary notability criterion. That one trumps all other guidelines, including WP:MUSIC, which does leave grey area, although it does not explicitly pass any of those criteria either. Basically, this amounts to "keep because I think being on a notable album is good enough," but there is no policy which backs that up. GassyGuy 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - funny how the concert image has mysteriously stopped working in the infobox. I don't know why, but I'm still puttin' it in as a thumbnail. If anyone knows why it doesn't work in the infobox, please tell. If anyone subterfugely removed it, sorry but it ain't going nowhere.-- Paaerduag 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete by WP:MUSIC. Every Jackson album is notable, and most sold very well. However, that does not mean that every song on all those albums deserves an article. The song has to assert its own notability, either through cultural influence or popularity (did it chart well?). Tdmg 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bad. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to Bad. I don't like the trend of "every song for every notable albume deserves an article". While I did feel that Speed Demon had enough notability due to how prominently it was featured in Moonwalker, this one has no such secondary claim to notability beside simply being on a notable album. Trusilver 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure of orphan AfD Hut 8.5 09:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

X-o.g

X-o.g (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable DJ. Claims of notability, so can't be speedied. Corvus cornix 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, similar to Just Good Friends (song). NawlinWiki 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Speed Demon (song)

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

Non-notable album track. Every track on every album doesn't need an article. Corvus cornix 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to the album ( Bad (album)). All info here is in the album article. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track" spree. Corvus cornix 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment I was only planning to do HIStory, Thriller, Bad and maybe Dangerous. Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible are unnotable. Superior1 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I tried redirecting Just Good Friends (song) to the album article, but Superior1 refuses to leave it that way. Therefore I have been compelled to nominate Just Good Friends (song) for deletion as well. Corvus cornix 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. -- Paaerduag 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Adding references doesn't make this anything more than what it is, a non-notable album track. Corvus cornix 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Dazz |Talk 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete just being part of a notable album by a notable artist does not grant notability to a song. Unless the song made the charts/win notable awards etc, its not notable. I dont see any references to those in the artilce Corpx 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the album. This song does not pass WP:SONG. -- Charlene 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album track. Viable as a redirect, not as an article. GassyGuy 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge per Charlene and Saberwyn.-- JForget 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have repeated myself over and over again, but I hope not onto deaf ears. Look at the Just Good Friends (song) article if you don't believe me. That is what I intend to do to all four of these disputed articles. If you cut me short then I cannot. I ask for one thing, and one thing only: time. Give me a little bit of time to improve and cite these articles. That is all I am asking. Look at the Just Good Friends article if you think I am just talking. I am not. I am DOING. Paaerduag 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Notability of subject - I do not think that this is an entirely obscure, non-notable song anyway. It was, after all, featured on the film Moonwalker by Michael, and there is a music video that accompanies this. That makes it notable, after all. Paaerduag 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Just because a movie used it and a music video was made does not make this notable. I'd guess that thousands of songs fit this criteria Corpx 04:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well I still think it does make it notable. Paaerduag 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major one Balloonman 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Just Good Friends (song) - ARC Gritt TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There are references, but there are not references which demonstrate notability. WP:NOTE establishes that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources either are not reliable sources or deal not primarily with the song, but with its parent album. That is a strong case for discussing the song within the article for its album, but not for keeping this one as its own independent article. GassyGuy 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is Michael Jackson. This is a notable song by Michael Jackson. Can we leave the bureaucracy at home on this one? It's obviously notable, if not for its interesting usage/subversion of a negative slang word normally reserved for Hispanics alone. In short the article has potential. -- Manboobies 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The point is that there's yet to be any reliable source presented that shows it does indeed meet the guidelines set out by WP:NOTE. Notability is not subjective. I've seen nowhere that says "It must meet the criteria except if it's associated with Michael Jackson, in which case we can ignore them." GassyGuy 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Rolling Stone magazine IS notable. Why do you keep ignoring that one? Also, why must it be about the song itself? I don't see why comments within a larger framework are wrong? And if you start quoting WikiProjects, I'll simply direct you to WP:SONG, which states that "there are currently no guidelines for the notability of songs."-- Paaerduag 09:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not ignoring Rolling Stone. If you read me, I already said that this is not non-trivial coverage of the song, as the primary topic of the article is the album, proving the notability of the album, not the song. Also, I don't see why you're linking to WP:SONG when it is not the WikiProject's unofficial notability guidelines I am invoking, but rather the primary notability guideline. I am starting to feel like a broken record and apologize to whoever closes this. GassyGuy 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Amil Imani

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

As has been discussed on the article's talk page, this guy isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE applies here, as his views definitely qualify as fringe views, and it is definitely undue weight to give him an article. I have to do this through AFD because the proposed deletion, which was seconded by another user, was invalid because the page's author, User:Patchouli, removed the 'prod' tag earlier, and no exception was made to allow the prod go through even after 5 days. Anyway the guy is still not notable and hence the article should be deleted. The Behnam 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:Fringe or not, this guy fails WP:Notability by a wide margin. VanTucky 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. Dazz |Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I dunno... I see 90K Ghits for him... A lot of people seem to be listening to what he has to say. -- Groggy Dice T | C 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This was discussed already on the talk page. Fringe, hate sites and bloggish stuff, mainly. He also appears on some sites where people can submit their writing for posting. But I don't see much mainstream RS about him to make him notable, and we are also not supposed to place undue weight on fringe views & activists. If the fact that he features prominently on anti-Islamic fringe sites doesn't convince you that he is fringe, I suggest that you read this rant. It doesn't even come close to being mainstream. The Behnam 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't need "much," just enough, & our definition is enough=2. DGG 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Should I say "any" instead? I don't like pretending to know everything so I don't say "any" just in case there is something really big that I have missed. The Behnam 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Fillmore 4th of July Festival

Fillmore 4th of July Festival (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable fourth of july festival whose only claim to fame is the sale of fireworks. Corvus cornix 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Its a Fourth of July festival. Is there anywhere in the United States of America that does not have a Fourth of July festival? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankstown Christmas Carols for my reasoning why a location's festival does not need an article when every location in the same nation/continent has the same festival. -- saberwyn 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. Dazz |Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's nothing unique about this festival that vastly sets it about other 4th July celebrations! Corpx 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If festival is significant to the town and the surrounding area, I think it then deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia.
  • Delete non notable firework show Balloonman 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no references that establish its notability among fireworks shows. We do not take the authors word for the article's notability, he needs to provide evidence for that. Tdmg 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Josh Appell

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. No indication that he's played yet in the majors. Corvus cornix 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete due to no claim of notability aside from minor league baseball. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most notable award is the Honorable punter. Honorable ____ is awarded to any player who has received at least one vote in the poll Corpx 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability of MLB players which requires a game in the Majors. Balloonman 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments still appear to be mostly valid even after the reversion. -- Core desat 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

hopelessly POV, doesn't seem to be notable Makerowner 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete without prejudice that someone else could write a completely different article on this subject that we could keep. no comment on notability; can't tell from article. But extremely unencyclopedic article, and lacking context as well. Capmango 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice due to bias issues. -- Metropolitan90 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a possibly WP:Fringe topic (at least from the Yankee perspective) that is POV in addition to being totally unreadable. VanTucky 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't think it's a fringe article (this isn't the American Wikipedia; an article about a notable British phenomenon is just as notable as one about an American phenomenon), but it's hopelessly POV. I think a good article could be made out of the topic, but this is not the article. In fact, it reads like an essay someone did in school one day. -- Charlene 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete reads like a POV essay. It might be possible to write a decent article on this, but as we'd have to start from scratch we might as well delete it. Hut 8.5 09:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no encyclopedic material not included in the article about the parent body, the Free Church of England. That this article doesn't even link to that one demonstrates its uselessness in its present form.. DGG 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete when I was earning my history degree, I used to say that History should be a B.S. degree because we BS'ed around that which we didn't know... this article seems like one where in a person BS'ed around the fact that s/he didn't know. Balloonman 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have reverted to this article to an older edit. Some of the above criticisms are less valid when considering the older text (e.g. less POV). If there is going to be a vote on keeping the article or not, perhaps it should be re-done, based on the older version, before un-encyclopedic edits were made. -- BenStevenson 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without images. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Fergie videography

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

Spam, nonsense. It is not an appropriate encyclopedia article for Wikipedia and it will confuse most users. A Raider Like Indiana 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into Fergie article. It's not spam and it's not nonsense; if someone is interested in Fergie (which I don't happen to be), a videography is just as useful as a discography. It's small enough that it doesn't need its own article, though. Capmango 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge whatever passes WP:N into Fergie Rackabello 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, the entire thing is an egregious copyright violation. Those images cannot be in this article. Nor can they be in the Fergie article. Corvus cornix 05:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into main article, then delete Corpx 05:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge without images and redirect to an article on this artist's discography or this artist's released singles. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the Fergie article, it doesn't deserve a separate article.-- JForget 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Fergie ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of music videos by Fergie, and remove images as copyvios (per WP:MUSTARD) Giggy U C P 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaults to keep. I am very disappointed in the number of one hit wonder votes from redlinked and anon editors (most only have thier edits to this AfD in thier contrib history). But even taking this into consideration, there were enough established editors suggesting this subject be kept. There are still outstanding concerns for this article. I'm going to tag it as needing clean up and sourced. I believe John Vandenberg makes the best case for notability, but I'm shocked that none of that made it into the actual article. This article has major issues, so I'm asking those who were in favor of keeping this article to please try your best to bring it up to wikipedia standards. Andrew c  [talk] 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

HR-XML

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

Non-notable organization. Most of this article is not in fact about the organization, but about document formats developed by it. Valrith 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Good reference information. Capmango 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Corvus cornix 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and separate. Document schemas and the actual HR-XML Consortium/certifications are two different things. -- Breno talk 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone else has written about it. Dazz |Talk 07:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:COI WP:SPAM. Author was one Chuckhr-xml ( talk · contribs). MER-C 11:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did not create this page, but I did recently update it. Certainly HR-XML is as notable as similar specifications. Consider XBRL, ACORD, Interactive Financial Exchange, RosettaNet, Association for Retail Technology Standards the Data-Interchange-Standards-Association, Health Level 7, eLML, WS-I, hResume and ANSI ASC X12. If we delete HR-XML, I suggest we next turn our attention to deleting each of these others. While the HR-XML page may benefit from additional work, it is more complete and substantive than most of the aforementioned pages concerning organizations/formats that are peers to HR-XML. Per Breno's suggestion, I have clarified the distinction between "HR-XML" -- a term used commonly to refer to a library of XML specifications published by the HR-XML Consortium -- and the Consortium itself. I wouldn't suggest that the two be broken out on separate pages. The same issue of "specification(s)" vs "source organization" applies in the case of the other entries I've cited and is handled in a similar manner. Please review the current page and the the entries for the other consortia I cite.

I made the suggestion in jest that Health Level 7 be deleted -- but I see that this has been suggested before. Perhaps consortia deserve a bit of special handling in terms of establishing "notability". I'd say that the notability of a consortium or standards organization rests on the notability of its members and documented adoption within the particular market the organization is intended to serve. If you don't apply this type of standard, you may well end up deleting many of the entries I cite above. However, if you do, I don't believe you will be serving the best interests of the wikipedia community. -- Chuckhr-xml 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Content has recently been added that is valuable to the wikipedia community, particularly anyone in the human resource community. -- kimhrxml 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same comment as previous ones. Many consortia and organizations should be deleted if following the same rules, including major ones such as the Object Management Group or even the World Wide Web Consortium. Pages for tehse organizations merely describe the specifications they created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.74.15 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2007
  • Comment the following comment was mistakenly left on the talk page by an anonymous IP.
Please do not delete this entry. The HR-XML Consortium should be part of Wikipedia for sure. Pascal.Tesson 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you have a diff for that? John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a global standard in the Human Resources space for exchange of HR related data BillKerrOracleCorp 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, this is crazy. This article is about the standards, and covers the XML-HR consortium only due to its important role in the standards; is this Afd requesting that the consortium has its article? 232 scholar and 62 book results say this is notable. John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite to make it readable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The HR-XML Consortium is a global standards development organization in the Human Resources space. Its standards are used for the exchange of HR related data. If this is deleted, then information about other similar organizations should be deleted as well. JFritzADP 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michaelas 10 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Copticflag

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

This looks like some kind of POV fork. There is already an article at Coptic flag, this article has been deleted twice, and yet it keeps getting recreated. At best, if there are references to indicate that anything in this article needs to be merged into the other, pre-existing article, then a merge may be in order. I have suggested this before, but the original creator seems more on making a point with this spinoff article. Corvus cornix 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vibantena Brahana

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

There is only one Google hit for this term. I was going to tag it for moving to wiktionary, but it seems more like an ad. And where is Dhusmeka? Corvus cornix 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and WP:NEO, perhaps CSD A1. Shalom Hello 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. LowdownDazz 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's the name of an apparently non-notable church gathering for youth who belong to something called the "Unity Movement". There are about 25 different Unity Movements in the religious world per a recent Google search: which one this pertains to I haven't a clue and neither this article nor the Unity Youth page says. -- Charlene 08:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ad ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as author request. gadfium 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sansiri

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

Appears to be blanked test page created by new user. Antidespotic 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cosmonaut (Angels and Airwaves song)

Cosmonaut (Angels and Airwaves song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in this article appears to be hearsay, and I cannot find evidence of notability. Gracenotes T § 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation (g12); also see the site's copyright notice here. Chaser - T 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Al Gore's Seven Point Pledge

Al Gore's Seven Point Pledge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is either a copyright violation, or it needs to go to Wikisource. No sources, no context, nothing to indicate what makes this an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete G11 and G12. The text is a political advertisement from Gore's presidential campaign. The text can be found here. Shalom Hello 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Exists at Live Earth Pledge, it's part of the Live Earth campaign spearheaded by Gore, and as of now he is not an announced candidate, Shalom. I think Wikisourcing is likely possible the same as a public statement or speech. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LowdownDazz 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Blatant copyvio, see [10], also spam and no assertion of notability (G11 and A7) Rackabello 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bryant S. Hinckley

Bryant S. Hinckley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

WP:BIO notability concerns. Main feature of "notability" appears to be that he is the father of the current president of the LDS Church. Otherwise he was, as the article acknowledges, a run-of-the-mill "mid-level" leader in the LDS Church. There have been thousands and probably tens of thousands of stake presidents and mission presidents, which appear to have been his highest callings in the hierarchy. In any case, no sources are referenced. SESmith 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Inadequate assertion of notability, no sources. Caknuck 04:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. I see no attribution and no reliable third-party independent sources that are talking about him specifically (and not just in relationship to his notable son). -- Charlene 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. LowdownDazz 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There are several notations of him for his role as a speaker and writter. It should be born in mind some references mention his son more to place him than because that is why he is important. There are also several places where quotes can be found by him that do not mention he is the father of Gordon B. Hinckley.
  • Keep there are two articles on him in the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia written by Andrew jenson. This was published in four volumes from 1900-1936, so his son's latter notability did not influence Jenson to include him.

The following link has another quote from Bryant S. Hinckley. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6944

Here is another one where they have a short poem by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.clayfieldcounselling.com.au/newsletter/newsletter_2005_07.html

In this document on page 111 there is mention of Bryant S. Hinckley's renowned style of speaking. http://avp.byu.edu/documents/pdf/shakespearesaints.pdf

The fact that there is a quote from Bryant S. Hinckley at this site is not particularly notable, but I think it does demonstrate that he is widely quoted. http://www.christysclipart.com/bedience_quotes.html

This link mentions Bryant S. Hinckley organizing the Lansing Michigan District in 1936. http://www.mission.net/michigan/lansing/page.php?pg_id=2739

Here are some people quoting Bryant S. Hinckley who do not particularly like him. http://www.tbaptist.com/pbc/2005/pbc0508.html

Here is a quote that mentions Bryant S. Hinckley's role as an author. "In the late 1890s, Roberts also helped establish the Improvement Era. He raised money, selected the journal's name, and framed an editorial policy that featured history (during its seventy-three-year history, the Improvement Era printed over eight hundred history-related articles). As its longtime, de facto editor, Roberts used some of the best local talent available: Edward H. Anderson, Joseph J. Cannon, John Henry Evans, Susa Young Gates, Preston Nibley, Joseph Fielding Smith, Junius F. Wells, and John A. Widtsoe. Later such important writers as Juanita Brooks, Richard L. Evans, Bryant S. Hinckley, and William Mulder joined the Improvement Era ranks. No one was more prolific than Roberts himself, however. During his thirty-five-year association with the periodical, he averaged three articles a year." I found it at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/walker/02.html. This is a book published by the University of illinois press.

In 1969 there was a Bryant S. Hinckley church history group that G. Homer Durham was involved in. They were named such because Bryant S. Hinckley had written so many biographies of Mormon leaders.

Here is a reference to another book by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/gaq/020216.shtml

Here is a link to a talk given by Bryant S. Hinckley at General Conference. http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/207775

Comment : the article had none of this information at the time of nomination. These efforts should go towards improving the article and not just dragged out during a AFD to save an article. – SESmith 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Here is a reference to Bryant S. Hinckley as stake president in BYU Professor Thomas G. Alexander's book "Mormonism in Transition". http://books.google.com/books?id=u9jkQnDJExYC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22bryant+s+hinckley%22&source=web&ots=mvEyYd2xp-&sig=PQ7Ka-RqN_PQUj1MkLhM5aJVTiM#PPA155,M1

  • Comment any time they go in improves the article, as long as they do go in. Many articles are improved during an AfD. It would have been better had they gone in before, but at least we have them now. I added the missing line of code so refs would display in a separate section they way they are supposed to. DGG 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (from nominator) : in light of the recent edits, I am more than willing to withdraw this nomination. I think notability has been established. – SESmith 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. — David Eppstein 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was all merged into Area (LDS Church). The Evil Spartan 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Asia Area (LDS Church)

Asia Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

The world is divided into 29 administrative "areas" by the LDS Church. This article is about one of the 29 areas, and this one does not seem to be in any way notable as compared to the other 28. Rather than having an article for each of the 29 areas, it would probably be more helpful to have one article about the jurisdiction of "area" within the LDS Church. This is the approach that has been taken with the ~350 missions of the LDS Church. Rather than an article for each mission, there is one article at Mission (LDS Church). However, currently no such general article about LDS Church areas exist for these to be merged into. – SESmith 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages which are articles about other "areas" in the LDS Church:

Utah Salt Lake City Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Utah South Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America Central Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America Southwest Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America West Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Merge them all into Area (LDS Church). On its own, each article could never grow beyond a stub. Capmango 04:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge them all, but into something such as "Area (Latter-day Saints)" or whatever the proper capitalisation is. It seems like most LDS-related articles, when they have the LDS included in the title, spell it out rather than using the LDS abbreviation. Nyttend 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If it's a topic that only applies to the LDS Church, the correct appellation is -(LDS Church). If it applies to all or most denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, the appelation is -(Latter Day Saints). I think here you would be suggesting -(LDS Church), since these areas are only used by the LDS Church and not by other Latter Day Saint denominations. - SESmith 04:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Aha, I see, thanks. As a Presbyterian, I'm never sure what things are specific to the largest Latter Day Saint denomination and which things are used by multiple denominations. Nyttend 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into Area (LDS Church) per nom. -- Metropolitan90 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all with no prejudice against against expansion when there is something to say, in additional to the geographic boundaries. There probably is material to be found for good articles. DGG 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

There is also the possibility of studying the membership statistics. Also there is the fact that the areas have area presidents, some of whom are notable. For example, it was when John H. Groberg was president of the North America West Area that the first Tongan Speaking stake in the US was organized in that areas boundaries. I think this was more than coincidence considering how connected to Tonga Elder Groberg is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2007

  • Very little of the information on the nominated articles is found in the article Seventy (Latter Day Saints), which is already large enough. Why dont these regional chapters of the LDS church merit there own article? John Vandenberg 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I didn't say the material about Areas is at Seventy (Latter Day Saints). I said the material on Area Seventies is there. An Area Seventy is a position held by a person; an Area is a geographic division. I also never said Area (LDS Church) shouldn't have an article, I just don't see the need for an individual one for each of the 29 areas. You may disagree, of course. – SESmith 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a suggestion to disband the article. Three competing views are present in the discussion. The first is that the page ought to be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The second is that the page ought to be kept in order to divert unwanted additions away from the main B-52 Stratofortress article. Though this argument does not have any direct basis in policy, it is in this particular case supported by a consensus reached through discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Triva, features. Thus, I do not feel that it can simply be discounted. The third view is that the content of the page should be retained (in part or in whole) in some form, though not necessarily in this article, mostly based on the argument that much of the content is not trivial.

All things considered, there is consensus to not delete the article. However, based on the comments made, I feel that there is support for "disbanding" the article. By "disbanding", I mean scattering the individual parts of the page and converting it into a redirect. There is no consensus for any specific course of action, so I will list some of the suggestions made in the discussion. Which one or ones is/are eventually chosen is up to editors' discretion.

(Note: The suggestions are listed in decreasing order based of the extent of modifications required; however, keep in mind that less significant changes do less to satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion.) -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

B-52 Stratofortress trivia

B-52 Stratofortress trivia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

just a page full of trivia, which shouldn't be anywhere in the first place, violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Dannycali 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Merge what can be merged with the main article, and move the list to List of surviving B-52's. That said, there are a lot of {{citation needed}} templates on the article. It will be hard to save very much. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into main article, and take out bullet-point format. Most of the information in 'trivia' is actually non-trivial information and should be part of the main article. Capmango 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - main article it too long as it is. Editors should have the option of splitting of info if necessary, even if it contains the word "Trivia". - BillCJ 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Just because the main article is too long is not a reason to keep this article. Trivia articles are discouraged here, several have been deleted as of late, including one on John Lennon. Dannycali 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - main aritcle too long... similar problem with the B-29. Suggest remaining aritcle to "List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses", like in the List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses and move the Pop culture section below the main list section, move all "uncited" to the Talk page for further research, and have a Trivia section for all cited trivia. LanceBarber 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and cleanup. Except for the Popular Culture section, most of it is not trivia. Clarityfiend 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • merge/delete - content is non-notable, already in main article, or belongs elsewhere. and some phrases are lifted straight from military.com [11]. user:GraemeLeggett 1/7/2007
  • Split and clean-up. This could be split into two separate articles - a popular culture article - which the B52 probably warrants - particularly films like Gathering of Eagles - which was almost an advert for the B52, and Dr Strangelove, where the appearance of the B52 is Notable - and described much better in the main article, and a list of survivors article similar to the B29 one. Bringing these two parts back into the main article would make it unmanageable in length. Nigel Ish 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please don't suggest that this trivia fork is kept or split even further. Most popular culture articles are deleted, and the Dr. Stranglove one was. Dannycali 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Things like "Big Ugly Fat Fucker" shouldn't stay in the main article :). -- Eurocopter tigre 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename Everyone seems to like this article. It's too big to merge back into the original B-52 article... in fact, it's too big in this form too, since a list of B-52s on display should be its own list or part of an article about bomber exhibits. However, it's a mistake to use the word "trivia" to describe the information, only a little of which seems to be trivial. I'm not sure what synonym you could use to incorporate this, other than "B-52 Stratofortress in History" (which is different than "History of the B-52").
  • Keep - split off from the main article to minimize pollution of an otherwise evolving and sourced article with constant additions of unsourced trivia. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Should note that this user created the article, and spilting off crap/trivia from an article into another is not a reason to keep this. Dannycali 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Until Wiki starts to appreciate editors who do honest work and makes an effort to protect their contributions from swarms of idiot children, creating crap magnets is an effective strategy. Members of WP:Air are interested in creating the best possible aircraft coverage on Wikipedia, thus I fail to see how that creates a "conflict of interest." Finally, merging the uncited and anecdotal information in would significantly degrade the quality of the main article. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - split off the lists into their own articles and possibly rename the article something like "B-52 achievements and milestones" or something like that. Other than that, this info is certainly relevant and worth keeping and doesn't really fit in the main article very well. — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By looking at most of the voters profiles, a majority appear to be part of the aviation wikiproject, which shows somewhat of a conflict of interest in the discussion. I put the article for AFD as it is just a page full of trivia. This is not what WP is about. Look through WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, as this article fails both of these standards, and more. Trivia has no place on WP, and many pages full and based on trivia have been deleted in the past and will continue to be deleted. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this "article". Dannycali 05:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back with the main B-52 page and change the format a bit. Much of the information here is indeed valid, information about preserved specimens is valid for aviation history coverage (there exist books about aviation museums), information about the crew accomodations are valid, and some of the technical aspects are clearly relevant to covering the aircraft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this info is certainly worth keeping and doesn't fit in the main article very well. Piotr Mikołajski 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but with a proviso that significant details should be reincorporated into the main article. FWIW Bzuk 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Keep but reorganize somewhat (that display list to the end) and maybe rename - not all the information is trivial Johnbod 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete by WP:NOT#INFO. Subject alone is not notable. Keeping it because the main article is too long is not a legit reason. Calling it something other than "trivia" is just covering up what it really is. Sure, some of it could be formed into a "in Pop Culture" article, but a lot of it would need to be cut. "Achievements and Milestones" would just be a euphemism for "trivia". The information might be interesting, I'm not a nut about planes and it is still interesting, but that does not make any of it notable or worthy of an article. If any of these factoids were important to the B52 then it would be incorporated into the main article. Tdmg 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there is a clue in the name. Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia. ALR 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there was a good reason to split this off. There's a lot valuable information here but too much to fit in the already very large B-52 article. -- Denniss 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Just because a portion of an article has overgrown should not mean it can violate the rules and guidelines. Delete per WP:TRIVIA Corpx 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nitin Sahrawat

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

Contested Prod, non-referenced article of an "emerging" actor, notability not proven SkierRMH 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not notable yet. Might have done bit roles in TV commercials, but there are no references for even those. The PROD was removed saying that "nitin sahrawat is one of the most popular actors and his commercials can be accessed on you tube". Searching YouTube for "Nitin Sahrawat" fetches no results. If he is indeed "one of the most popular actors", I am sure a Google search should return more than two unrelated results. utcursch | talk 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only true assertion of notability is the controversy about the music videos, and even this is rather tenuous. Nothing in the article is sourced. Caknuck 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided Not clear to me yet that this actor has not had a major role in a feature film or TV show. Page creator is new to wikipedia, and should be given a chance and some coaching on what info needs to be provided and how to provide it (I've put some on author's talk page). May be that all the really good sources are in hindi and wouldn't be found on google search. I will see if this can be addressed before weighing in; from the info I have so far, I'm leaning toward delete. Capmango 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Searching in Hindi doesn't give any results either. Besides, English is quite common in India -- if this actor is "one of the most popular" ones, it's really surprising that it's so hard to find any sources. utcursch | talk 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Emerging actor", as in non-notable actor. No major roles except a few commercials (per article) Corpx 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • With ref to my article on 'Nitin Sahrawat' kindly search Youtube again. some friends have managed to upload some of Mr Sahrawat's commercials. The reason for Nitin Sahrawat's relative obscurity is his almost reclusive nature.Inspite of him being an actor he has a policy of letting his work speak for itself- he has never given any interview. Thats what makes him even more endearing.

Do let me know if any more proofs wd be required. thanks. Karan Singhania 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment It is not proof of existence that is needed; it is proof of notability. Are there any newspaper or magazine articles in major independent publications that are specifically about him and him alone? Does he have any non-trivial independent third party notice from reviewers? Actors who appear only in commercials are almost always non-notable because nobody cares who is in an ad, and no independent, non-trivial third party is talking about them specifically (in other words, not just mentioning them as an aside). -- Charlene 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deletion Corpx 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Intellectual Edge

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

These forums are not notable in any way. HeavenGames, Kongming.net, and Physics Forums, all far more active forums than this, have all been deleted. Simfish 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It seems to be just another online forum, and the article reads like an advertisement. Shalom Hello 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Nominated for CSD Corpx 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of video game developers

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

Malformed nom was created by User:Kesh; his nom can be found here. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Nom - Indiscriminate list. Do we really need to list every game development company that ever existed? A category would suffice to cover the notable companies. There is no reason to have a list like this to cover companies that were never well-known enough to be verifiably notable. -- Kesh 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(Thanks to Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) for fixing this.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

James Simmons (baseball player)

James Simmons (baseball player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Also nominated:

Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Does not pass WP:BIO or consensus that baseball players must have played in the major leagues to be considered notable. -- Charlene 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom as well as per the precedent recently set with deletions of minor-leagues or those who have not yet signed contracts. Montco 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all of them except Aaron Poreda, who was a finalist for the Roger Clemens Award. Capmango 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as they have all just reached the Major Leagues, or at least wait until they sign or don't sign; you wouldn't delete the article of a recently elected congressman just because he hadn't voted on anything yet. IMHO, simply going that high in the MLB draft should be a firm basis for notability, especially with Ross. Per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Such coverage exists, especially given their draft numbers. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Being drafted doesn't mean you've reached the major leagues. The consensus at WP:BASEBALL has been that you need to play in a major league game (like Moonlight Graham) in order to be notable. Most of these players are playing rookie league ball right now, and will need to go thru A, AA, and AAA before they reach the majors (which most of them never will). Personally, I think playing in AAA should be enough, but in order to be consistent, playing in a major league game is the only automatic in. There are ways that a minor leaguer can become notable (e.g. throw a perfect game), but just being drafted doesn't count. Everyone who ever even played college ball will be covered by independent sources. Capmango 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Temporary Delete until they do indeed play in one game in the MLB.-- JForget 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as failing WP:BIO, non-notable minor league draft picks Jaranda wat's sup 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None assert their notability. Clemens Award does not make you a notable (unlike the Cy Young award), it is of little consequence. Also, the baseball draft does not make them notable. Many first round picks never make the Major Leagues, even some #1 picks never make it to the Majors. Tdmg 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Naruto - "Shinobi Action" Figure Line

AfDs for this article:
Naruto - "Shinobi Action" Figure Line (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article about a non-notable toy based on a popular animated series. No reliable sources, fails WP:V. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Jay32183 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I suppose this is a spam. H irohisat Talk Page 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn´t seem notable enough. We could as well make own articles about any other merchandising. Would be fine in an overview about all more notable merchandising in the main article. ~ Felcis 03:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. It lacks verifiable sources to justify its inclusion. Tyrenius 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Secret wall tattoo

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

I tagged this article as unencyclopedic, and those who have discussed the article on the talk page seem to agree. Basically, this article is about graffiti behind pictures in hotel rooms and similar. To me, this seems like a semi-notable concept. Didn't JK Rowling do something similar after writing the last Harry Potter novel? I can't remember exactly. Anyway, the main problem with this article is that it seems to be a vehicle for an idea started by Josh Homme of the bands Kyuss and QOTSA, and the references are inadequate, not fully addressing the concept. The references may not meet WP:RS. 333 ghits for the exact phrase minus Wikipedia and mirrors. Non-notable neologism? I think the concept should be notable, but it's problematic. I'll let you decide.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete see nom Tdxz 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I sorted through all those internet hits. The google-hits include a couple of articles in acceptable secondary sources. Secret wall tattoos are also the topic of a lot of blog entries. That's not surprising, as it's an 'underground art' kind of thing. Most convincing, is that there are entries in multiple languages: English, German, Spanish and Italian (I think it was Italian, but maybe just more Spanish entries). The coverage is spread among sites about hotels, music, visual arts, as well as general blog-space. Both those factors seem to indicate that this topic is of interest to a wider audience. ColtsScore 05:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment, Can you add the "articles in acceptable secondary sources" you found to the article? It would help confirm any notability, which is lacking here. I've checked Google but can only find trivial references. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As for the 'discussion' on this article's talk page, I only see 2 comments there, speculating as to whether this is a hoax or not. I found enough sources to convince me that it's not. ColtsScore 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) DES (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I feel like there ought to be a better name for it, though. I left a message under my hardwood floor just recently ("Why are you tearing up the floor? That was a lot of work!"), so I know it's not a hoax. - Richfife 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per above -- the concept is real, and I'm hoping User:ColtsScore will add said refs to the article (hint, hint). Funny comment to put down there, too, User:Richfife... Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appears to be a notable enough phenomenon. Article isn't bad. Capmango 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are about this topic. About half of the ghits for "secret wall tattoo" are Wikipedia or mirrors and vast numbers of the rest of them are blogs, message boards, myspace and other non-reliable sources, and even if those are accepted as reliable, they are not about this topic, they merely mention the words. Otto4711 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As it lacks multiple independent and reliable sources and fails WP:N. Edison 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless ColtsScore adds those "articles in acceptable secondary sources" they found. I've tried to find sources. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nude Bowl

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

Article is about a non-notable, now destroyed skateboarding park. There is zero true notability and looks like complete bollocks to me. Reywas92 Talk 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • This might be notable, if it is accurate. Being the site of videos by a group notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the site of a three way confrontation between skateboarders, skinheads, and cops might be notable. But there are no sources. There is no way to tell even if these statements are true, much less if they were reported in such a way as to imply notability. Delete unless reliable sources are added to the article that would establish or at else pretty clearly imply notability. DES (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • With the added sourcing keep. Sources are not ideal, but ther are quite ample to establish notability, the question now isn't deletion but article quality. DES (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was not a "non-notable" skateboarding park. It was considered one of the most notable skateboarding sites of the 80's. It was featured in multiple skateboarding videos in the 80's, many magazine shoots, and was famous enough to have a replica of it put in the Palm Springs skate park. The issue with references is that it was popular during the 80's - long before the web. The Bones Brigade videos are not on the Internet, so they cannot be used as references. The many magazines of the 80's (ie: Transworld) have not been transcribed to the Internet, so they cannot be used as references. My hope is that someone will find resources online for article referencing. -- Kainaw (what?) 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment There is no requirement at all that sources be on the web. Give title, author, page number, and date (for a newspaper) or date and issue (for a magazine) or ISBN (for a book) Use {{ citation}} or {{ cite news}} or just but them in anyhow and someone else will do the formatting, but supply the sources. Then anyone who cares can go to the library and confirm. If there are sources on the net, great! but if not, give details on off-line sources. Read WP:CITE. DES (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not have any of my old videos or magazines anymore. That was a long (LONG) time ago. I've been grabbing up online resources, but I wouldn't claim they are dependable by themselves. However, I think that having multiple unrelated sources that make the same claim sort of makes up for the lack of newsworthiness of the source. Of course, I wouldn't mind if they'd put the Bones Brigade videos back out on DVD. I'd buy the box set. -- Kainaw (what?) 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Well, it does seem to be well known among skateboarders, and it disappeared before the Internet was mainstream, so if anything, I'd tag it {{ expert-subject}}. Print sources are needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per above. JJL 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Someone added references. I think the article is fine now. Capmango 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to be verifiable and notable (there does appear to be a song written about it). Cedars 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Guided arrow

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

Not notable, game guide, violates WP:NOT#INFO. east. 718 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom, or if not deleted, merge into article about game. DES (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nonnotable minor game element. NawlinWiki 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. JJL 02:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge info into Diablo II article if someone thinks it is important enough. Capmango 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete spells aren't covered in Diablo II article I'd say it's just a nn part of gameplay. -- Breno talk 12:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Each of the Diablo 2 characters (of which there are 5, 7 with the expansion pack) has @ 20 or 25 of these skills to be unlocked. I wouldn't expect each of the skills to be covered in the main article or anywhere else on WP but on gamefaqs, a fansite or a Diablo wiki, let alone a seperate article for one. QuagmireDog 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The claims of notability in the article are not supported by reliable sources. The subject's book is self-published by iUniverse, making the Amazon and B&N listings useless, and the two sources cited in the article do not support the point they are cited for. Note also the multiple "Keep" votes by User:216.80.113.228, a single-purpose account. NawlinWiki 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Paul M. Banks

Paul M. Banks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Subject is not notable. KenWalker | Talk 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Fulbright fellowship; has appeared on Comcast Sports Net, ESPN Radio and the Sporting News Radio; work has appeared in FOX, CBS, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, 670 The Score, and Midwest Book Review; runs a webzine. Sounds pretty notable to me. Passes WP:BIO -- except there are very few sources. Better sources are needed here, and must be out there if this list is accurate. Also there is lots of trivia and unencyclopedic writing here, but that is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. DES (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with serious sources and clean-up. -- Stormbay 03:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable. Capmango 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • First, I have to disagree with DES that this person even sounds notable. Having a Fulbright fellowhip, having appeared on those networks, having submitted work to those media outlets, and running a webzine (anyone can found one, and this one claims to have an editorial staff of seven) are not necessarily indicators that the person is the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources that we can use to write a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article. And when claims like these are part of an autobiographical-sounding article like this, one has to wonder if the claims to notability are even verifiable. For example, I can find no evidence that his book Resume was "received favorably by both the University of Illinois and Loyola media as well as being the focal point of a feature article in his hometown newspaper." [12] [13] [14]. His webzine (with its editorial staff of seven) has been non-trivially noted by no one. [15] The article doesn't specify what kind of work he submitted to those media outlets, but anyway most anyone who submits work to media outlets will not be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. And there is no sign from the rest of the article that M. Banks is the subject of such sources, because the claims to notability appear not to be independently verifiable. The article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. Pan Dan 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with Pan Dan here. Although someone has gone to a lot of effort to bring together what's been written about him, the results are extraordinarily thin. (I wonder whether there shouldn't be WP:Not a scrapbook for minor figures' press clippings.) semper fictilis 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • FYI I've WP:PRODed Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Subject is notable and sounds very accomplished. I have to strongly disagree with the user who wrote that this entry sounds autobiographical. Also, so few people are actually awarded Fulbright fellowships and/or appear on ESPN, that the rarity of those accomplishments warrants keeping it. Especially considering that the subject has done both. I also agree that this article needs cleanup and sourcing. I'd say keep and significantly clean up this entry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • keep but edit/delete the unencyclopedic parts of this entry. the non-professional and personal sounding information should be cut— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • keep found a source. subjects appearance on ESPN Radio Milwaukee can be foudn and downloaded here http://sportsandpopculturebank.com/aboutthewebsite.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • FYI #2, Sports and Pop Culture Bank has been deprodded. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep As the writer of the article, I can tell you that Paul did not write it I did. I am one of the staff of seven on the growing website. Paul is a published author, Fullbright scholar, and a multimedia journalist in the 3rd largest media market in the U.S. I can clean things up and post more of his bylines as sources if necessary, but to say that Paul is not notable is ridiculous. Anderspc 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The great thing about judging notability on Wikipedia is that we've got a standard that is simple and objective. We don't have to argue about whether all the attributes you list (which remain unverified by the way) make a person notable. We just have to check whether there are any non-trivial, reliable, 3rd party sources about him. If you know of any such sources, please provide them. Pan Dan 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless sources are found. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Keep it, but delete the stuff about his interests, hobbies, and crushes. keep the media stuff, which is verified with two sources at the end of the page, but get rid of the personal material— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
    • The two sources at the bottom of the page don't verify any of the content of the article. Pan Dan 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep here's the subject of the article's book listed for sale on amazon as well as barnes and noble entry. both pages list reviews which match up with the information listed in the entry. Under accreditation on the Barnes and Noble Page, you'll see pretty much the same information about the subject's media appearances that is listed in this entry

http://www.amazon.com/Resume-Paul-Max-Banks/dp/0595320872/ref=sr_1_1/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0595320872/sr=8-1/qid=1184024353/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595320875&z=y

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595664771&z=y#ACC

  • Keep per 4 sources above me Giggy U C P 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delone Catholic High School

Delone Catholic High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

As Schoolcruft. School does not meet the notability criteria. A unique fund-raising activity for a notable event does not qualify for notability by association, and community consensus at AfD has determined that state level inter-school competitions are not considered notable (See the Girls Sport Victoria, PSA, etc AfD's). The school's mission statement is just pure cruft. After you remove the fund raising, the marketing cruft, and the sports from the article, you have nothing left but an almost empty article which isn't even stub worthy and falls foul of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Thewinchester (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — Thewinchester (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yet another AfD that clearly fails WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles. Nominator mentions other AfDs to demonstrate that there is some sort of precedent, but had provided no sources to support his baseless claim. The argument that once you ignore everything there's nothing left is a circular logic not even worth addressing. Alansohn 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You're making a keep nomination on the basis that the reasons for deletion disagree with an essay you created? And you're the one saying others are using circular logic! The article in question does not meet notability, as clearly outlined and dissected in the nominator's opening explanation. Additionally, you once again fail to assume good faith and accuse another user of having undertaking a concerted campaign of deleting school articles, and you do so with no basis or justification. As for the other AfD's in question, anyone who's anyone who keeps an eye on the Schools deletion sorting list will know these so there's simply no point linking to them. Next time Alan, challenge the reasons provided for deletion, instead of launching into another tirade against a user on the sole basis that the nomination simply disagrees with your narrow way of thinking. Thewinchester (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Using WP:SCHOOLCRUFT as the primary excuse to delete an article, as is the case here, is a cardinal example of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. I will restate my reasons for retention: "Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles." The article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for the school's achievements to demonstrate notability, in full compliance with WP:N. At no time have I accused you of a concerted anti-school campaign, and your insistence that I am making this accusation is once again a blatant failure to assume good faith and part of a continued pattern of WP:CIVIL violations. My comment that started "In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days" was directed at the fact that there have been more than a dozen AfDs in the past few days (see Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for details), among which are AfDs were participants weighed success in sports competition as a critical factor in establishing notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesleyan Christian Academy for an excellent example), contrary to your entirely unsupported assertion. If you believe that the specific AfDs you mentioned establish any sort of precedent, you will need to cite them (as I have), as I have no idea what you're referring to. Alansohn 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment At this point, I would feel it appropriate to point out for others who may encounter this AfD that Alansohn is the subject of a active Request for Comment case for issues of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, and his continued comments here are prime example why five different users have seen fit to certify the dispute against him. His comments are another of ad hominem attacks which IMHO have become his trademark of late, and once again fail to address the well documented reasons for this AfD. The article is an example of Schoolcruft which infests wikipedia, and if the user in question had taken the time to read beyond the first full stop, they would have seen that there is a fully and clearly justified opinion in respect to policy issues associated with the article and the reasons for it being brought to AfD (Being that it does in no way meet WP:N and if all non-notable information was removed from the article it would become encyclopaedic and removed anyway). As is often the case, editors will often use various essays as a shorthand reason for an XfD nomination, which nowhere in WP policy, procedures, or guidelines is considered unacceptable or frowned upon. This has the benefit of saving reasonable and considered users valuable time when looking at the issues brought to hand, particularly if they know the essay. In the case of this AfD, an essay has been accompanied with a reasonable, detailed and considered explanation for those who wish to dig further into the deletion argument. Your use of this essay for the purpose of labelling an editor and their actions is an egregious breach of WP:AGF, a point made by WP Administrator Orderinchaos when you were issued a AGF3 Warning for these comments. You have also stated in your comments on Orderinchaos' talk page that he is my buddy. OIC and myself do go back quite a way, but both of us as demonstrated from our histories here act independently of friendships or relationships, and act simply on the issues at hand in the spirit and manner which WP intends, and not in a collusive manner which you have ceaselessly alleged without basis or merit, again an egregious breach of WP:AGF and an example of why users have seen fit to open an RFC regarding your actions. You have continued to extrapolate minor and meaningless points for your own benefit, and I will again repeat my previous advice - comment on the AfD and not your issues or viewpoints with users, essays, consensus, or other matters. Instead of the countless hours you spend commenting ad nausem regarding these issues, you'd be much better off devoting that time back to improving articles. Thewinchester (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Important Note The above comments were restored after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Important Note The above comments were restored for a second time after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have tried to remove your blatant personal attack on three occasions only to have you reinsert them and add further attacks. Your choices to make a personal attacks are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL and will be addressed with appropriate sanctions if you refuse to remove all of your attacks. Alansohn 07:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly an interesting way of admitting you almost breached WP:3RR over, of all things, an AfD. Wholesale removal of editors' comments is unacceptable, what I see is a heated discussion, and someone who doesn't like being disagreed with. There is a reason the Wikipedia powers-that-be invented 3RR as a rule, and this kind of case seems to speak to it. Zivko85 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • As you have admitted, there is no WP:3RR violation, nor would there be for removing personal attacks made in violation of WP:NPA. Alansohn 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system, a Wikipedia behavioural guideline which reads as follows: Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption, such as obstinately reverting an edit exactly three times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated.. I think this says all that needs to be said here regarding your actions. Thewinchester (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You all seem to be forgetting that this is a deletion discussion for an article, not a discussion of any individual editor's behavior. Let's get back to the subject shall we? VanTucky 07:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In order for this school to pass WP:N, it needs independent sources which have been written about the subject. This does not appear to be the case - any references cited thus far, and any I can find, do not address this and lead the article towards WP:NOT#IINFO territory. My personal opinion is that many schools are notable, some highly so - I've written and assisted with the writing of articles about several. However, this one isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 04:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:Notability. Sports news and trivial fundraising (how many thousands of institutions raised funds for Katrina?) does not equal "significant coverage". Any journalist who has worked at even the rural local level knows that sports sections and columns are functionally obligated to cover this material to fill their pages every day. Coverage of sports does not equal a reliable news organization making the independent choice to cover a school for its newsworthy attributes. Hence, no notability is proven by sports coverage. VanTucky 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If a local paper decides to cover a school or event, then that is objectively notable. Papers exist to sell things, and if including school items sells newspapers because people want to read about them, then makes it a significant coverage. Surely a commercial newspaper isn't going to waste a page on something that doesn't sell things. I would suggest that Rupert Murdoch would be upset otherwise. Assize 13:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO. I am broadly in support of VanTucky's and OIC's comments here. Zivko85 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete School that is not notable, and I agree with VanTuckey's point above. The attempt to establish notability through the sports record and fundraising activities is ridiculous. Eusebeus 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is the perfect example to question the "ridiculous" claim (see User:Eusebeus/School Notability) that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school", specifically excluding accomplishments such as notable alumni, sports achievements, and awards, despite the extremely broad consensus (as shown here, among many others) that these are precisely the characteristics that prove a school's notability. For every other category of article, notability is established precisely by the distinction that comes through their normal operation and function; politicians are notable for passing laws, athletes for scoring goals and hitting home runs, roads for being covered with concrete or asphalt, bridges for spanning rivers, doctors for curing diseases. An athlete does not have to cure cancer and a doctor doesn't have to be covered in asphalt to be considered notable. 99.9% of Wikipedia operates under the principle that it is precisely those accomplishments that occur in their normal operations that establish notability. This high school has been recognized not for its operation as a school, but for its accomplishments that distinguish itself from other schools. Even disregarding the disconnect that rules applied as a matter of course to other entities don't apply to schools, this article makes a specific claim of notability that goes beyond "its normal operation as a school". I'm no fan of Hanson, and other schools have had fundraisers, but this particular fundraiser received national attention from the CBS Early Show, MTV News and Rolling Stone, a distinction which goes far above and beyond other fundraisers, none of which are part of a school's normal operation, and all of which for this school is backed up by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. The circumlocutions in the essay are a major step forward from "no school is notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources", as previously advocated. But what we are left with is that schools are not notable either because their accomplishments are related in any way to their function as schools or even if their claim of notability is unrelated to their primary educational role. Is any school notable? Or is that a "ridiculous" question? Alansohn 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep High Schools in general are recognised as being sufficiently notable as they have a greater input/affect within the community, where as articles on a high school sporting event(s), its buildings, and staff isnt that's what schoolcruft deals with. Since the school did attract media attention only reinforces its notability beyond the local community. Gnan garra 09:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This school meets established standards for claims of notability and references... -- W.marsh 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A well referenced article. High schools should be inherently notable, and even without this, this is well referenced. Why would "sports news" and "fund raising" be non-notable? If its notable enough to be recognized by independent media, its notable for Wikipedia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep just over the bar. One notable alumnus, a few championships.Both of these are accepted factors in notability. The article is sourced. Personal comments in afds can & should be ignored in the decision. DGG 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep High schools have generally been found in AFDs to be notable. WP:SCFT is nominated for deletion just an essay, and thus not a convincing reason to delete a high school article. Has several reliable and independent sources. Edison 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An essay is never a reason to delete *anything*. That's why almost everyone here has been citing specific policies/guidelines. Orderinchaos 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Edison, DGG and W.marsh.-- JForget 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are tens of thousands of Catholic schools worldwide. Playing Hanson through the loud speakers doesn't make this one special. Cedars 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment How does 10,000 schools suddenly make this school less notable? There were 11,000 competitors at the Athens Olympics and each is notable under WP:BIO. By the same argument, all Olympians shouldn't be notable. Assize 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per W.marsh. -- DS1953 talk 05:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notability clearly stated. Why is it so important for some wikipedians to remove school articles? If you are not interested in them, don't read them... EagleFan 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't some attack on school articles in general (and BTW, your little quip about just not reading bad articles is the most infantile argument I have ever read in an AFD. We shouldn't delete NN articles, we should just ignore them? What a crock) nor is this an I don't like it deletion. The school does not meet the notability guidelines, plain and simple. As I stated above, coverage of sports wins is something that newspapers, especially local/regional ones, are basically forced to cover to fill their sports section everyday. It's worthless in terms of notability, bc it isn't an independent choice to cover the school because of it's notable and newsworthy status. And Katrine funding? please. hundreds of thousands of completely non-notable schools and organizations raised funds for this and other national disasters. it's not unique or notable. Neither of these two kinds of coverage, which comprise all of the schools news coverage referenced, meet the definition of "significant coverage". VanTucky 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the feeback. :) EagleFan 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep. I like the rediculous school articles generally, but even my tiny catholic HS was more notable than this one. I'll not be sad if the consensus is to delete. -- Rocksanddirt 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A cute fundraiser and some success in sports does not a notable school make. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - notability comes from multiple reliable sources per WP:N and this article has plenty of them together with notable achievements. TerriersFan 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per TerriersFan's arguments and can we please avoid ad hominem attacks even when irritated. Thank you. Noroton 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Almost every high school in my state (Massachusetts) has won some sports championship and has put on a fundraiser, but merely citing them does not make this high school notable. As for WP:SCHOOL, I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", mentioned, but not the focus; 2. "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction", it's seems to have instruction similar to every Catholic school; 3. "The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history", nope, nothing on such mentioned. Tdmg 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In addition to dozens of articles and extensive mentions in Rolling Stone and MTV News, the fundraiser was covered by a segment on The Early Show that focused entirely on the school and the fundraiser ( Click here for a CBS News article on the event). You may not think its notable, but CBS News decided that this was a story that they wanted to air nationally. People magazine also decided to do a story exclusively on the school and its fundraiser, describing it as a "clever twist" ( Click here for their article). I'm sure that there are other schools that have won sports championships, but this article makes a specific claim of notability for winning three consecutive state championships, each of which is supported by an article from a major newspaper. You or I don't decide to put these things in newspapers, magazines or on television. Each media outlet decided on its own that the school and its achievements were sufficiently notable to share with their audience. I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", a resounding YES as the focus of each of these achievements. Notability has been established. Alansohn 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The fact that a school has won a competition doesn't make it notable. The fact it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in an independent newspaper does make it notable. Assize 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • If the only thing vaguely notable about the school is some fundraiser, Redirect this to Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. The school qua school is unnotable, per above. It is important not to conflate verifiability with notability. True, multiple, non-trivial sources usually provide clear indications of notability. But this is a good instance where a strong argument can be made that media coverage does not raise the subject above the trivial. So they held a fundraiser. So it received national attention. So what. One of thousands. Are we going to have an article on every fundraiser across the world that manages some national attention? We are not unthinking automatons and no good faith reading of the notability guideline obliges any editor to concede that the sources adduced lead inevitably to an assertion of notability. I am in complete disagreement with what I read as the spirit of Alan's argument. This is a community-driven, consensus-seeking debate. Alan's view above seems to suggest that every time different media organisations make an editorial decision to give something coverage, Wikipedia editors no longer enjoy the license to exercise their own judgment. That's not on. Eusebeus 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Comment Could not have said it any better myself, particually on the issues of notability in the context of media coverage. Those comments go to the core of cruft issues with wikipedia, and the existance alone of news reporting no matter the quality or the context is often used as a justification for a keep vote. This is something I have always disagreed with, and make a point of looking at every article posted where possible to see if it really establishes notability, or is just the usual non-trivial coverage. A great example of these issues can be found in this AfD for a marketing company targeting those in same sex relationships. The closing admin made the following specific point in relation to the sources that were being used to justify the article being kept, "While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability." Thewinchester (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
            • These are all interesting interpretations of the rather clear standards established by Wikipedia:Notability, the bedrock standard by which notability is established for any article on Wikipedia. WP:N states that: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a standard that is clearly met by this article. WP:N definitions for "Significant coverage" (sources that address the subject directly in detail), "Reliable" (sources with editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability), "Sources," (secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability) and "Independent of the subject" (excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject) are all satisfied in their entirety by this article. The utterly irrelevant AfD cited addresses issues of WP:CORP and concerns with WP:COI and WP:SOAP that even this AfDs nominator didn't bother to cite. The userfied essay User:Eusebeus/School Notability, in a section aptly named "Schools & Inherent Lack of Notability" makes the claim that one should make the argument to delete a school article as "Delete, nn school", rather than "Delete, nn school", carefully choosing to ignore the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in Wikipedia. While this essay contains a lot of text, all it basically says is "Delete as nn school since schools are inherently unnotable" ( see here). As each and every one of the standards of Wikipedia:Notability have been met, the clear presumption is that the school and this article are notable. The strong burden of proof is on those who believe that this school is non-notable to explain why this presumption should be ignored. Alansohn 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So was the topic covered the school? Or the school's fundraiser? As I say, create the article Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. Your reading of the notability guideline is tendentious as is your characterisation of my views about School Notability. Disagree, but don't distort. Eusebeus 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your presumption that notability has been met is not that same as a patent meeting of Notability requirements. You seem to simply ignore the fact that what we are saying is obviously trivial mentions of playing MMM-Bop for a Katrina fundraiser and sports coverage do not in any way qualify as "significant coverage" which "address the subject directly in detail". The coverage is not about the educational institution in any of the articles sourced. Do they profile the school's academic status, history or extracurricular activities in the MTV bit? No, they just connect it to their main point of coverage, which is pop music. Patently trivial, as the fact that this is Delone Catholic High School (and no other school) plays no role in the connection to a notable band. Does the coverage about the sports wins comprehensively profile the school? No, it is more about the season and the teams than the actual educational institutions. If you doubt that any of this coverage is trivial, just think about what would happen if each was all the school had...speedy deletion, that's what. VanTucky (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You may rightfully believe that the fundraiser itself was trivial. However, the articles about the program clearly meet the "significant coverage" qualifier and all address the school directly and in detail per each an every clause of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The term "trivial" refers to the nature of the mention within an article, not subjective perception of the importance of the event. Consensus is clear here that Wikipedia:Notability is satisfied. Alansohn 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not talking about the events at all, I'm talking about the coverage. I think the fundraiser itself is a far from trivial in the real world, but the coverage of it most definitely was. Significant coverage means the subject is covered "in detail". A school is, simply put, a place where students learn from teachers. If the coverage cited only speaks of a sports event or a fundraiser, it is not covering in detail what that subject is and how it operates. VanTucky (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Alansohn - Are you incapable of seeing the logic and meaning in the arguments of others? I would have expected a greater level of intellegance from yourself, but my hopes once again seem dashed. Go back, re-read the AfD I refered to in it's entirety, the comments of the closing admin, then come back to this AfD (Because it seems that everyone else managed to understand the connection between this AfD and the one I mentioned). The lesson in the quotation of the closing administator's remarks was that sources are often used that are only incidential or trivial references to an articles subject (which is the point VanTucky and many others have been at pains to point out), and make no offering of information that leads to the establishment of Notability. The closing remarks of the admin regarding other policies were in relation to that specific AfD and I haven't seen anyone try and use them here as apart of the deletion reference. Playing sport does not make one school more notable than another, because every school plays sport. If that sporting competition was a long standing competition of a national level organised by a crediable organisation then you might be able to bend for the article (And that's only if that organisation and competition have articles which meet relevant criteria). Many schools organise fundraising activities on a daily basis, and just because one school has one which is for a notable event which uses a notable band as part of the activity does not notability grant by association. Just because it has one known notable alumnis does not grant it notability by association either. A logical exception to this would be if for example the school ran a significantly regonised regional or national academy for a specific sport or academic pursuit where there had been significant notable alumni from it. The userfied essay you cited in your recent comments has not been mentioned by anyone here other than yourself, nor was it used in the nominators statement for deletion, nor has it been cited by anyone else. Your attempt to introduce that into the discussion is irrilivent and of no bearing to this AfD. If you want to start essay wars, then I suggest you look at your own essay and the total lack of anything useful to deal with perceived problems you claim exist. The fact is that regardless of what you think the relevant policies say in your view, consensus at AfD has generally disagreed with you. The sooner you learn to take a leaf from Willie Nelson, then the better off WP might be for it. Thewinchester (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The WP:NPA violations need to stop. An additional warning has been placed on your user talk page. Alansohn 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; this Afd is built on the premise that the essay WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is even a real problem. (that was predictable). The school appears to have been established in 1939 [16] [17] and a student is mentioned as graduating in 1941 [18]. Spread over 60 odd years, Google News has 7,830 results, and Google Books has 20; plenty of room for expansion. John Vandenberg 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-referenced, notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:CRUFTCRUFT are not official policies and are red herrings in this debate. The subject of this article is the primary object of several non-trival references in independent secondary sources. It clearly meets WP:N as a result. The size or quality of the article are not grounds for deletion. The discussion about notablity is revolving around fame, which is not notability. WP:N states that notability is "distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It is an objective test, and if the fundraiser was a simple raffle which received national coverage, then that is notable because of the national coverage. Assize 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:N. Also, there is enough reliable sources coverage to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about the school. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Kudrat Terrii Merrii

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

Non-notable TV series. Article claims it's a "popular serial", yet it has only 5 (or 8) Google hits. It is also not included in {{ SP Shows}} as a Star Plus show. Anas talk? 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Is that so? Very well then. Delete per nom. - WarthogDemon 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Claims unverified Rackabello 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ja'afar Touqan

AfDs for this article:
Ja'afar Touqan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article fails WP:BIO. I found nothing from the 130 Google Search results. I even tried searching using Arabic and, while there were considerably more results, all I found were two news articles just mentioning his name. Anas talk? 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep if assertions in article are true, then the subject does not fail WP:BIO at all, so this is a WP:V question, not a WP:NN question. No reason to think this is a hoax, and article has never been tagged with verify, so just tag it for verification. Capmango 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is definitely not a hoax; he was mentioned in two newspapers. The issue is that he doesn't meet any criteria of WP:BIO, IMO, and those that he might seem to, he doesn't. The award he received is not a "significant recognized" award, for example. — Anas talk? 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep If there is documentation of the design of the buildings, he would be notable. So add it,. don;t just talk about it. DGG 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep tagged with verification template. No need to delete, per Capmango Giggy U C P 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Looks like he meets WP:BIO - I tried a few different spelling combinations and came up with three online references in English [19], [20] and [21] which I have also added to the article. I think the problem is that this guys name has been transliterated into English in several different ways - I tried Ja'afar, Ja afar, Jaafar and Jafar - with varying results. However, all the sites I saw (not including wikimirrors) report that he is the bee's knees of Jordanian architects so he deserves an article just like Frank Lloyd Wright :) Paxse 10:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there's not a snowball in hell's chance this is going to have a consensus to Keep or to Merge, it can never be neutral and at the moment, it's a personal essay from an upset and confused editor. Nick 11:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Red Army crimes

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

A pretty clear case of POV-pushing. This article is completely unsourced, yet makes claims of unspecified "crimes" and "inhuman activities" of the Red Army. I have no doubt that such things did occur, but this isn't the right way to go about writing about it. See author's other Red Army articles nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Estonia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Ukraine. eaolson 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POW Ttturbo 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Those articles where nominated for deleting by the same Belorus wiki user Mikalaj working under finish nick name Miikka, who was supported by ther other slavians. Mikalaj didn't made any posting at war crime discussion but started immediately deleting process of knowledge. According to wiki rules this seems to be some specific kind of vandalism becouse of knowledge deleting! Red Army SMERSH murdered my grandmother in March 1945 and millions of the other citizens. Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete efectively unsourced, PoV, gives no specifcs anyway. DES (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is {{ stub}}, so everyone has possibility to add something usefull. The war crimes must be described, the murders must be persecuted! Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that some nasty shit went down at the hands of the Red Army, but unless there was some sort of conviction in a court of law (esp. a war crimes tribunal), the article is opinion. - Richfife 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I would like to ask - isn't every military crime described by historicians not military crime till there is no some tribunal decision? If the country is occupated or having dictator regime (like Lukashenko's Belorus) is there possible such tribunal and we must wait calmly ? Ttturbo 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
On Wikipedia, yes. That's exactly correct. On your own website, do anything you want. This website has rules that need to be followed no matter how strongly you feel about the subject matter. In fact, the stronger you feel about what you're writing about, the more strongly the rules must be followed. - Richfife 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that justice is the great authority, but sometimes well known historicians, politicians, religion leaders are too! Was there court process on Katyn massacre? I don't know exactly, but Putin appologised for this, like for Budapest and Prague anyway. Were there courts on those criminal invasions? Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Poorly-worded, poorly-sourced article with vague references to war crimes. Nowhere close to passing WP:NPOV. Caknuck 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Make better your own!! i agree that it is poor enough now, but in future... Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV-pushing, already seen on the subsidiary pages already in AfD. We can see where this editor's heading now, at least, and can look forward to seeing the redlinks soon. No question terrible things happened, but such issues belong in a well-sourced, well-written NPOV article. This one isn't it. I'm not sure that the Defense of the Motherland in WWII would get approval from this author. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It was the defence of his homeland (yard) by lots of russians and people of the other nations, but it was the defence of their criminal politics by Kremlin leaders! How to make this article well-written and using which statesments I showed some NPOW? Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe my point was just illustrated above. "Kremlin leaders" in WWII mean Stalin, and we know who and what he was. The editor also focuses on the Red Army. Many of the crimes the editor discusses were instigated by the Cheka and their successsors, whose targets for liquidation included elements of the Red Army. The GRU and its counterintelligence arm SMERSH were nominally part of the General Staff, but effectively acted autonomously, and were feared by everybody of lesser stature than Stalin. To ignore the very complex politics of terror in the Soviet Union is simplistic and dilutes the credibility of the article. This is akin to writing an article on Wehrmacht crimes without mentioning the SS, SD or Gestapo, and blaming the whole spectrum of Nazi crimes on the army. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree about sharing of responsibility. But first I stressed, that The total of comunism victims was aproximately evaluated to be 100 million and a large part of this is the result of aggressive confrontating politics of communist party realised by Red Army, which supported the other repressive structures of Soviet union And secondly, if I write about Soviet union responsibility for military crimes I must describe criminal activities of party and gobernment. then of it's repressive structures - police, secret police and intelligence, and Red army. I think this is to many for the article and enough for category. This is why I study single Army, but including it's inteligence too ( who made not only crimes but rescoed thousands of poor jewish, for example). Ttturbo 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
By the way, I sympathize strongly with the author. If my grandmother had been killed by SMERSH (which was not part of the Red Army, by the way), I'd be angry too. I also wouldn't have any business writing the article on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the point made about other editors by the article's author, but it that doesn't mean the deletion nomination is improper. I would not have the same objection to a well-written, well-researched, NPOV article on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete for POV that borderlines on attack pages. I agree with Acroterion, something should be written about Red Army Crimes, but respecting neutrality and well researched sources Rackabello 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
How to make this article well-written and using which statements I showed some NPOW? Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not delete, but add more information and sources. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!

Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no way this will ever be NPOV. The subject can easily be dealt with within a larger NPOV context. Your comparison with Holocaust denial is distasteful to say the least. To use the fact that the nominator of the other related articles is Belarusian against him is a clear personal attack that we do not tolerate. Anyone is free to edit and nomiate articles for deletion no matter where they come from without you running around and comparing them to Holocaust deniers. MartinDK 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Mr.Martin -I've got a great experience during these days. But I would like to stres -I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enuogh to stay in the limits of neutral POW! Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if I should intrepret what you are saying literally or just attribute it to your English skills but it is not our job to analyze what happened. No one is saying that these crimes that did indeed occur should not be mentioned/dealt with on Wikipedia. On the contrary. What we are saying is basically that it should be dealt with in a larger context without the original research that you call analysis. We already have a suitable article for this - one that the nominator did not nominate for deletion. Why don't you try to collaborate with the authors of that article instead if you believe that you have something to add to it. Being Danish I can tell you that I fully understand the horror of the situation on both the German side as well as the Soviet side during WW2 but these things need to be dealt with constructively and from a NPOV point of view. By that I mean we need to deal with them within the appropriate context and without any personal analysis of the situation. The deportations of civillians to Russify the Baltic states and the crimes comitted by both the German soldiers as well as the Soviet soldiers during the war on the Eastern front certainly should be dealt with and if you read the appropriate articles here you will see that this is already being done. MartinDK 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep I highly doubt the never NPOV statement. If we deleted things on that basis alone, we'd have to cut out a lot of articles related to Nazism. It's very hard to make an article like that and write it from a NPOV. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Martintg. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As I alluded to above, the articles on Nazism could provide a model for the construction of an article entitled "State oppression in the Soviet era" or something along those lines. A focus on the Red Army, or, worse, a confusion of the Army with other State Organs, as the Soviets liked to say, has the cart before the horse. I think this topic needs to be started over from the beginning. However, the author's comparison of objections to this article with Holocaust denial indicates that he can never provide the necessary detachment. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks - I've seen this problem of "cart" placing and made a small remark on it to Mikalaj. Few minutes ago I've placed the chapter RESPONSIBILITY adding this text - Responsibility for the commited military crimes of Soviet Union belongs to leading party and government together with executor - military forces and single officers, soldiers. Sometimes it is possible to accuse single officers if it was spontanic crime, not planned directly by politicians. For example, more than 20 thousand Polish people and officers massacre in spring 1940 in Katyn and other places of Belarus, Ukraine was planned by polit-bureo of comunist party in Kremlin, but there was single crimes against Polish people commited only under general line of comunist party. Do you agree with such position? I see, another problem is, if we accuse all the time only politicians the soldiers never will start to think independently. The very important example it was when Russian soldiers supported Boris Jelcin during Moscow coup in August 1991. Horrible situation we had in Kosovo. Ttturbo 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is personal attack!!Have you ever read any esays at cultural weeklies? Some part of this article is theoretical abstract, becouse this is the general article. No emotions and evaluations, but only logic and facts.But the article is not perfect written and sourced enough still. Ttturbo 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor quality attack page lacking in every departement. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It is incoherent, only "a list of" which does not call itself "a list of". Since the author cannot be expected to collaborate fruitfully with others on articles like this (he recently accused someone whom he himself canvassed on wiki:help of hacking his talk page to hide Red army war crimes [26]) this will never be of any use. -- Pan Gerwazy 23:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to the Red Army article, POV-filled article JForget 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Any sourced and neutral information deserves its place on Wikipedia, but poorly sourced POV-pushing agendas do not. IgorSF 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

American Singles

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

no evidence of notability here. Creator claimed improvements coming, but that was 6 months ago, I think that should have been sufficient time if something was to come of this. Crossmr 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Appears to be non-notable with no attribution to reliable sources. The ubiquity of term "American singles" with respect to cheese and other items makes a google search unhelpful. -- Charlene 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. H irohisat Talk Page 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable company, looks like it's been sold since anyhow. Capmango 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, numerous articles in WP:RS found via Google News Archive (using terms like "dating" or the site's owner "MatchNet" helps considerably). notoriety, even. One of four major dating sites chosen for a study by Cornell. [27] Claims that the organization (not the website per se?) is the "largest" in the US. [28] MatchNet almost went IPO in 2004, with AS one of its two important properties. [29] In 2004, AS along with JDate ranked 2nd in the dating market. [30] [31] -- Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The first article is about a beating that happened to involve someone met on the site, the website isn't the focus of the article. The second its mentioned in passing, a trivial mention. Again not the focus of the article. The third is about the founder, not the website. The fourth is about the parent company at the time, not the website, the usa today link doesn't indicate whether AS was 2nd or 3rd, but given the order and match.com being listed first it would be second. However, again not the focus of the article. The last link shows that combined the two sites were second. Its individual performance isn't listed. The coverage is minor at best, and what dating site large or small hasn't had a few creeps on it? That hardly makes it notorious.-- Crossmr 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Close Please STAY AWAY from subjects that you don't know anything about. Some background: Back in 1942, the U.S. was involved in World War II. During the war years 1942-44, college football players who went into the military often played on "service teams" before being sent overseas. Iowa Pre-Flight, Great Lakes Naval Training Station, etc., played college football teams. A college football fan would recognize the significance of a team that played against Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame. A "non-notable historical local football team". Please.

I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.

  • Strong Keep. Appears to have equal notability to many university football teams, and also appears to have many reliable sources. To the nom - did you google this and assume due to lack of Google hits that it's non-notable? Because Google hits, although a pretty good standard for 21st century United States pop culture items, is less useful for subjects that existed long before the advent of the Net. -- Charlene 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Service teams during World War II were generally more popular than the major university teams with whom they shared facilities, and generally performed better as well. About 15 to 20 service teams played Division 1-A football during the war, and only one or two suffered losing seasons, while nearly half were ranked in the top twenty. I'm guessing your Google hunch is correct. The teams do have some acclaim on the Internet, but it is difficult to find. Several of the online sources I have provided should be enough for anyone doubting the teams' prominence. Also, I should note that, contrary to popular stereotypes, the Iowa Pre-Flight teams played mostly non-service teams, including the 1941 national champion Minnesota, the 1942 national champion Ohio State, the 1943 national champion Notre Dame, and many other powerhouse programs of the day, and beat most of them.

  • Speedy close and strong keep looks like these were all nominated in error, maybe nom will withdraw? Capmango 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • "Speedy Close" as listed above. As Iowa13 points out IOWA PRE-FLIGHT was #2 in the nation in the 1943 College Football AP Poll, second only to Notre Dame. Read this www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present_b.html Mandsford 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.
  • Strong Keep per my argument above. The No. 2 university football team in the US in any year is notable. Don't know about the individual athletes, but the team itself has proven notability due to its rank. (Edited because bold is beautiful, but not that much.) -- Charlene 02:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical football team. See also 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Again Speedy Close. #6 in the nation in 1944. Don't nominate what you don't understand. Mandsford 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.

  • Strong Keep per my argument above. The No. 6 university football team in the US in any year is notable. Don't know about the individual athletes, but the team itself has proven notability due to its rank. (Edited.) -- Charlene 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is completely original research, so nothing is to be gained by merging. The "Other crap exists" arguments aren't enough to keep this article I'm afraid. A plain redirect to Fan translation seems to be the best way forward. Majorly ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

RPGe

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

DeJap Tranlations is more notable then RPGe (they translated four high profile games - Dragon Quest 3, Tales of Phantasia, Star Ocean, and Bahamut Lagoon [32], whereas RPGe has only ever done one - Final Fantasy V) and RPGe was redirected. Misterdiscreet 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If I am correct that you want the All your base are belong to us article deleted you will need to create a seperate AFD since this is for RPGe and not that. If I misunderstood I appolige for any confusion. -- 67.71.77.220 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep How could a non-notable subject get an article created about it ten years after the fact? FWIW, I also disagree with the outcome of the DeJap AfD. 209.209.214.5 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, you'd be surprised at what articles some people create. -- WikiSlasher 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reference does not assert its notability. Just because an individual chose to write about a non-notable subject ten years later does not make it notable. A guy was hit by a drunk driver on my street ten years ago, and we all still remember him, but that does make him notable, same goes for ROM translators. Tdmg 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • the guy who was hit by a drunk driver on your street probably wouldn't have Final Fantasy V linking to him, Fan translation, or Console emulator. these aren't bogus linkages, either - they're quite justified. unless, of course, you care to explain to me how they're not 209.209.214.5 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • If I wrote an article on myself I could link to many Wikipedia article (including a few FA's), but that does not make me notable. tdmg 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • if you did that, your edits would be reverted very quickly as they are not on topic - as they would be unjustified links. as i said - and as you have ignored - the RPGe links are justified. take a look at how long they've been there. the Final Fantasy V link was there more then two years ago. look at the history. no one's deleted it. no one's disputed it's relevance. click on any arbitrary edit made after the one i just linked to. you'll see RPGe mentioned. do you seriously think any link you made to an article you created about yourself would stay around that long? conversely, do you seriously think that if you removed all material discussing RPGe that it wouldn't be readded and that your edit wouldn't constitute vandalism? go ahead and try it. see how long the material you removed stays removed. 209.209.214.5 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
i see on your talk page that "faulty logic irks you so bad". you must really be pissed off at yourself, now, because you've been committing red herrings. you can't counter my points so you introduce a half-baked analogy under the guise of being relevant and instead counter it. 209.209.214.5 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not disrespect your opinion, I just disagree. You simply said "the guy who was hit by a drunk driver on your street probably wouldn't have Final Fantasy V linked to him." I don't know if the guy played Final Fantasy V, so you are probably right. I was merely pointing out that he could probably have notable articles linked to on his page. That was my only point. I called it "faulty logic" because you tried to rebuff my statement, with what I saw as a ridiculous claim (that he would have no notable articles linked to him). Now, you did point out that my analogy was bad, and I agree that it isn't a great analogy, because people aren't companies and their criteria for notability are different. However, I still don't believe that any of the references establish RPGe as a notable. This is my opinion. As for the points that I "can't counter". I believe I gave a counter to you 10-year argument above (that just because some individual or small group remembers it does not make it notable). I will retract the analogy (it was 4:30AM and I made a bad choice of subjects, no red herring was intended), but I think that my point holds true (I will not attempt a more accurate analogy because it is late again). Now I guess "faulty logic irks me so bad" has a more apt meaning pertaining to me :D tdmg 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It appears to me there is a misunderstanding going on here. tdmg is talking about RPGe linking to various high-profile pages, while 209.209.214.5 is talking about RPGe being linked from various high-profile pages. Anomie 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Even if their translations are linked from the game articles, I do not think that is appropriate. If someone else linked to them other than the author, then the RPGe might be notable. However, there is no documentation of their notability other than their body of work (which I do not think is notable enough in itself to support their notability). Thank you for clearing that up Anomie :) tdmg 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
the original author did not link Final Fantasy V to RPGe. here are his edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/219.237.248.2
also, i think einstein's notability is due, almost exclusively, to his body of work. in fact most peoples notability is probably going to be derived from their work. one exception i can think of is prince henry of wales. the most notable thing he's doneis be born. 209.209.214.5 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I never said that notability can't be derived from the person's body of work. I just don't think that RPGe's body of work is substantial enough to make them notable. That's just my opinion though, and I don't think it unreasonable to think otherwise. tdmg 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then redirect into fan translation. This may require someone to restructure fan translation to include an appropriate section for the merge. Do not try "redirect then merge", that's likely to end up the same as just "redirect". Anomie 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment RPGe is mainly notable for the translation of Final Fantasy V, which was the first RPG to be fan-translated and reportedly inspired a number of later translations. [33] I can find no evidence that there is enough information available to satisfy WP:N for an entire article on RPGe, however that guideline clearly states "If possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context". It's possible, and therefore this AfD should not be closed as delete. I think some who frequent these AfD discussions are too quick to vote "delete!" rather than consider how relevant material may be kept from an article that does not rise to the high standard of notability. Anomie 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into fan translation. RPGe does have some notability, but not enough to warrant a separate article; a mention in Fan translation (and Final Fantasy V) would be appropriate. Kariteh 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per above ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per above. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if indeed they did work on those games, they are notable and therefore deserve an article. It doens't matter if someone else is "more notable", that's like deleting Shannon Noll in favour of Bill Gates Giggy U C P 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    They didn't work on the games. They made fan translations. Granted, RPGe MIGHT be noteworthy because they were they first to complete an RPG, but probably not beyond the scope of the base article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question - how could this be artfully merged into Fan translation? The Evil Spartan 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Since the whole article is original research, nothing can sensibly be merged. Majorly ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 serial. Redirects are cheap, and there's no compelling case for deleting a "possibly relevant" redirect. Cheers, Wily D 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Live novel

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

The term has been dreamed up. I can't find any evidence that people actually use it from a Google search [34]. There are also hardly any articles that link to this one, suggesting that no notable "live novel" has been produced - a fact that makes one question whether or not the term, itself, is even notable Misterdiscreet 06:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to serial, and if that page gets split into sub-articles, redirect to serial novel. The concept of a "live novel" is an old medium in new clothing. Shalom Hello 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete falls into WP:MADEUP. No evidence of notability for the term given. All three references do not even mention the term, let alone assert its notability. Tdmg 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to serial. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to serial and merge anything useful. NawlinWiki 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Since there are no reliable sources, and per WP:NEO there are clearly no references that discuss the use of the term 'live novel', I think there's not even a case for a redirect. There's no way to tell if any of the info in the article is true. Some people write novels; in turn some of them decide to publish on the internet. What else can be reliably said? None of the three web sites mentioned seems to use the term 'live novel,' which was also noticed by a commenter above. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. EdJohnston 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge useful information to serial novel, redirect article Giggy U C P 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mother Teresa C.S.

Mother Teresa C.S. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school; article completely unsourced, with very trivial content that does not fit with an encyclopedia. Angelo 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Waterfront

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

This article should be deleted because I feel this is not very notable. There are many other places called "The Waterfront" which may be more notable than the one in Pittsburgh. Perhaps this article should be deleted also because it is mainly a listing showing the stores in the mall, qualifying this as spam or advertisement for this mall. Also, this article failed to cite any sources. HoustonWeHaveAProblem 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - putting my vote in. When I think of "Waterfront", this place is probably not on my mind as I live in the Philly area. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 14:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, I can't even find an official website or anything. Non-notable strip mall. Also, you don't have to vote after making your nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Mall still has no official website, which is telling, but its historical location might make it notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per rewrite, notability is asserted now. Sorry for changing my vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete even tho nominating user's only contribs are to Pittsburgh mall AfD's, this is just a plaza. No plaza needs an article, there are probably 300,000+ in PA alone.-- trey 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep -- the site of this open-air shopping mall (it's not a plaza) is on the historical grounds of US Steel's Homestead works plant. It carries with it much history to the region. The mall is also an important aspect of the town of Homestead. It certainly needs some work, though. I'll say here what I said elsewhere, rather than offer something for deletion, search the Web for information on it. Newspaper sources are acceptable and I know many have been written on this locale.-- Write On 1983 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Take a gander at what I found. It's certainly worth a keep. -- Write On 1983 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Good job. I nuked the directory, since we don't need that. Now where the heck were all those references when I googled this mall?! Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm a journalist. I dig through the Internet for fun!! I'd like to add more about the steel mill that once sat there but all I know about is the Homestead strikes. It might not be a heck of a lot, but the land certainly carries a lot of history. -- Write On 1983 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm leaning toward keep because of what Write On 1983 mentioned about the district's history, though I'm not sure if the mall itself is notable. Obviously there's some history in the steel works that used to be there, and there's a Homestead Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places that's listed as, "Eighth Ave. area roughly bounded by Mesta, Sixth, Andrew, 11th and Walnuts Sts. and Doyle and Seventh Aves." On Google Maps, that looks like the intersection of several parallel streets, so I can't tell if the area covered by The Waterfront is part of the historic district. I'll see if I can find any more about this being part of the National Register or any other district. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Northway Mall

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

This article fails to show the notability of this mall as it says "insignificant". Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website and a blog. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am quite skeptical about mall articles, but this qualifies in its present form. Has notability, references. As with other topics, historical malls are no less notable than active ones, if there is enough information. DGG 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Meh. Size is less than a regional mall, but some claim to historicity as first enclosed mall in a large state. Edison 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Good history section with references.-- JForget 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Grove City Outlets

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

This article fails to show the notability of this mall as there is almost no content to the article. Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Just because it's short and poorly referenced doesn't mean that it should be deleted. It's a major location; last year, it even created a ten-mile-long traffic jam in the middle of the night! [35] Nyttend 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete still recommend deletion. (If there is an article on that 10 mile jam, maybe keep then. Can you cite that source?) -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Yes, that external link in my comment is a link to that story. It's now been added to the article. Nyttend 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment (to Houston): You can't vote again after nominating an article for deletion (unless you change your mind and withdraw). Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Some notability is established per the link Nyttend added; however, I don't know if it's enough. I've been trying to add more but it may not be sufficient yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, even more information has been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Rather than offer the entry for deletion, surf the Web for information pertaining to its history and some notable facts about the place. -- Write On 1983 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I've tried, there ain't much out there. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Malls are notable, every mall has its own article.-- trey 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominating user has less than 50 contribs, mostly to the mall AfD's he has opened.-- trey 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not all malls have their own articles on Wikipedia. Malls aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As suburbs continue to grow, the shopping mall is the new downtown, so I tend to think that malls are notable and very important to a region's economy. My personal thoughts on malls differ, but in today's economy they're important.-- Write On 1983 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Waterworks Mall

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

I don't see the significance of this mall.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 July 2007

  • Delete - article fails to cite sources and assert notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I added several references to this article. I would say that it's definitely notable, given the kidnapping incident. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Malls are generally notable, nominating users only contribs are nominating Pittsburgh malls for deletion. Anyone smell socks?-- trey 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That would be me -- I guess I forgot to change my socks again... Er, seriously though, I think that this user's nomination was truly in good faith, as the article made no assertion of notability at the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think the baby raping or whatever makes it notable, also, it is notable in the Pittsburgh Metro and beyond. (I live in Erie, PA and have herd of it.-- trey 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.| -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cranberry Mall

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

Article has nothing except the mall's website and a list of stores in that mall. Not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( 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 Redirected to Truco#Truco in Brazil, virtually all the nontrivial content from this article is already there. NawlinWiki 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Truco mineiro

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

Wikipedia is not a card game guide. Will ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Is this another name for this Truco? perhaps we can redirect, or make a section.If not, then perhaps we fix to tell about the game, and the history etc, as this article does. Net I'm thinking more merge or clean up. Obina 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. Any relevant info can be apportioned in truco. the_undertow talk 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide and there are no references to attest to the game's notability. Articles aren't kept just because their subject might be legit. The article can always be recreated when the article is written appropriately. Right now everything would have to be deleted and Wikipedia does not keep empty pages, they get speedily deleted. Tdmg 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Truco. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any notable information to Truco. Remove the rest, then redirect Giggy U C P 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn - I have nothing against the "one-hit wonder" title, just the "with only one pop hit" title. Will ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States

List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

listcruftinfinity Will ( talk) 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Untitled Raven-Symoné 4th Album

Untitled Raven-Symoné 4th Album (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Most of the information in this article appears to be completely made up or derived exclusively from fansite reports and message board posts. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only reliable source in the article contains a very brief mention of one of the producers on Raven-Symoné's next album, and that's not enough to justify the existence of a separate article independent of the main Raven-Symoné article. Also nominating:

Got It Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extraordinary Machine 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The album may not be notable in the end. - Nv8200p talk 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per no RS. 2 refs are the same and do not address the subject, and rest require log-in. the_undertow talk 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Maryam Hashemi

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

Fails WP:BIO. No major media coverage or her art. No references in article to establish notablility. Nv8200p talk 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No sources except the artist's own site. Delete until some notability or media coverage is established. Oregongirl0407 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Reference does not assert notability (it being a personal website is "fine", but it does not distinguish them in their field). Tdmg 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Peel away ads

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

self-promotion, and not quite true. Google finds lots of "peel-away ads", but they seem to have existed long before "June 27, 2007". (E.g. http://www.batchconverter.com/PeelAwayAds-download-49386.shtml has a 2006 copyright line.) The very model of a minor general 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, advertising. -- Allen 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per using the phrase 'time will only tell.' This article is entirely OR and must go. the_undertow talk 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a11 advertisement. Only reference is a broken link (and therefore not capable of asserting notability). Too new to be notable. Tdmg 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scien tizzle 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ippimail

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

Non-notable. Average PR [36], no Alexa rank [37]. Misterdiscreet 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Assertion of notability lies within it being free and charitable. the_undertow talk 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Free as an assertion of notability? Every open source project is free but wikipedia is not a directory of every single open source project ever made. Nor is it a directory of every single free email service provider out there.
And being charitable as an assertion of notability? Does that mean if I donate money to wikipedia, I get to get a wikipedia article, too? After all, I'm being charitable, aren't I?
Maybe if their charity, itself, becomes notable, a WP article would be prudent. Or if the website, itself, becomes notable. Right now however they're not notable and neither charity nor free service, by themselves, are sufficient. Misterdiscreet 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I sense sarcasm when there really isn't any reason for it. Try not to take 'your' AfD personally. Your anecdote about donating to wiki is off-base. This software was designed, unlike most email, to directly put money in the hands of non-profits, thus giving it notability. You donating to wikipedia quite a poor analogy. An Alexa ranking is not a criteria used for keeping an article, so it really does no good. You asserted that ippimail is NN. However, I disagree. The sources I added to the article say that it is unique in the fact that many charities benefit from the use of this email. I provided sources, the article asserts its notability, and the content is verifiable and cited. 'Average PR and no Alexa rank' mean nothing in this process. the_undertow talk 09:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
High PR and high Alexa rank (past a certain point) certainly do mean something per WP:WEP. Average PR and no Alexa rank, I concede, doesn't necessarily mean much however uniqueness doesnt mean much, either. Most open source projects are probably unique in their own way. Same with most webcomics. None of that justifies having a wikipedia article for each one. Content by itself doesn't mean anything in this process either yet for this article you think it does? Misterdiscreet 12:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not that content is what I am looking at. It appears to me that the article asserts why it is notable, and has reliable sources to back up that assertion. As much as you see this as an easy 'delete,' I see it as an easy keep. You should re-list this so we can get a better consensus. I think you and I are on different sides of the fence, which is fine, but I rather dislike when articles stay due to lack of consensus. I'd rather get snowed. the_undertow talk 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Get snowed?
Anyways, if more people vote, there may be a clear consensus to keep - a consensus you contributed to. I may disagree with you but I don't think your opinions should be ignored, which is what a re-listing would basically do.. :\ Misterdiscreet 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A Sorrowful Dream

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

The subject of the article fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, no hit singles or awards. No third party media coverage. Nv8200p talk 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete to date they have made 4 demos---enough said Balloonman 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete does not have notability, no albums or singles have charted, no notable musicians Tdmg 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete coverage I was able to find was trivial in nature, of the form "A Sorrowful Dream has a new lineup" which looks like press release journalism [38]. 4 demos and no albums in 11 years tends to support a lack of notability. - Fordan ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_1&oldid=1116877837"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 2 >

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 redirect to Limoncello, as it is a plausible typo. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Lemon cellow

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

Non-notable misspelling for Limoncello. Only two Google results, seemingly unrelated to the drink, and the question "Did you mean Lemon chellow?" Lemon cellow is yet another misspelling with only seven Google results. Anton Mravcek 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European

List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Page is badly written, all content on this page will become outdated in a very short period of time. List is **VERY** incomplete. Up-to-date information can be found here, on the official website. - ARC Gritt TALK 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States

List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This list covers a non-notable subject, expands Wikipedia toward being an indiscriminate collection of information, and seems to have been created "just for the sake of having such a list" — in short, this list is listcruft. BassoProfundo 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ernest Easton

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

Blatant hoax. A search for "Ernest Easton line dancing" comes up with 3 hits, one of which is this article RedRollerskate 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Uzhavoor

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

No assertion of notability in this article of an Indian village. There's no references, and the style is very subjective Gilliam 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for utter failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: all settlements are notable. The article should be trimmed down, not deleted. They have a minimal website. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep aside from what Pavel says, it was (if the article isn't lying) the birthplace of a president of India. Nyttend 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If it was an American town where an American President was born, that alone would be enough to establish notability. There would be placards and signs saying, "Birthplace of" all over the place. Thus, this village has to be kept as it is the home of a head of state of a major country. Balloonman 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For pity's sake, almost all "census-designated places" in the US have articles, and there are some in my densely populated home state with fewer than a thousand residents (cf. Millers Falls, Massachusetts). This isn't a terrificly well written article, but that isn't the point.  RGTraynor  20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Villages are notable. Besides, this is an Assembly Constituency (one of the ten in the Kottayam district), and there are eight Gram panchayats in the Uzhavoor block [1]. Plus, this is birthplace of President of India [2]. utcursch | talk 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there is not sufficient consensus to delete JodyB talk 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Baby Be Mine

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

Another Michael Jackson song that was an album track only. EliminatorJR Talk 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or slight merge to Thriller.-- JForget 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I am improving all of these disputed articles. Look at the " Just Good Friends article to see what I mean. I am adding references and expanding to save these. Please don't cut me short by a swift and brutal AFD which doesn't give me time to fix this. Give me a chance. I'm asking only for a little bit of time to do this. Paaerduag 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing particularly notable about this song. GassyGuy 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I had to think about this one, but it is a clear keep in my book. While there is no official policy on SONG notability, it does fit criteria 2 of the proposed criteria---released by a notable individual. This policy is consistent with other notability requirements on WP. A group is notable if it has or had a member who was independently famous. A composer is notable if they wrote the music for a notable group. Regardless of what we may think of him, Michael Jackson is one of the most influencial musicians of the 20th century. His songs are thus notable. Balloonman 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Er, no. It might be worth reading WP:MUSIC again. A group is notable if it has or had a notable member. An album is generally notable if released by a notable artist. Individual songs, however, are generally not notable unless they were charting singles or have some other claim of notability (this is quite rare, though). EliminatorJR Talk 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • It's also worth considering that every track on Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road has an article. Superior1 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Er, yes. Look at the proposed criteria for songs number 2... which explicitly reads, "...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." Few artist are as notable as Michael Jackson. While I would argue that criteria might not be strict enough, I do believe that M.J.'s songs are notable enough based on his name alone. But I would argue that any song on a Gold or Platinum album would be notable. This is one of the Jackson's most famous albums. Balloonman 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)NOTE: It was pointed out that this wasn't a single... but I still believe that any song on a multiplatinum album is by definition notable. It's relationship to the album makes it notable, even if its relationship to the singer doesn't. Balloonman 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Notability is not inherited. Being associated with a notable topic does not make another one notable. Rather than bandy about assertions of "I think it's notable," the best idea would be to prove it by finding multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, sources where the particular song is the primary topic. Otherwise the song is not notable by Wikipedia standards. GassyGuy 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • According to WP:MUSIC, notability is inherent and has IMHO fairly low threshold:
  • Composers: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that is notable
  • Composers: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who is notable.
  • Composers: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a notable artist.
  • Group/band: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable
These criteria are, IMHO, much less notable than being part of a platinum album---and each of them the notability is derived via relationship to something else that is notable! Plus, most songs on platinum albums are better documented/discussed than the composer who happened to write a song for a non-notable group. Balloonman 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jid'ya

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

This has all the hallmarks of a bored student's hoax: no (on-topic) references, no Google hits, silly content. Sandstein 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • I like how he took the time to look up a real website the second time... haha. Anyway, I Googled the main terms and theories and nothing came up. The first reference link he posted was obviously made up in a hurry. Terukiyo 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Duh! Shalom Hello 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as yet more WP:Complete Bollocks...did'ya Jid'ya? Eddie.willers 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I used altavista to look up the theories and the terms... nadda... Balloonman 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Michael Savage (actor)

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

as an unsigned poster said on the article's talk page, this is the most poorly designed page they've seen. It borders on incoherent. I suspect it is written by the subject of the article, their publicist or mom - who else would say some of this stuff? Besides that, I suspect extreme nn here and they are compensating by trying to make this guy seem more important than he really is. Also, it has been orphaned for a while - if this guy was notable, someone would have linked him/mentioned him in an article on things he has acted in or said something like "Actor A appeared in film B with Michael Savage" but that hasn't happened. So, his roles in these productions must be too minor to be listed. Postcard Cathy 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

PS The article states that this guy's original name is Ron Jacobson. If you check the author's talk page, you will see that the he wrote an article on someone named Ron Jacobson and it was deleted. He wrote this article the same day that article was speedy deleted. Want to take bets that it is the same guy?  :) :) :) Postcard Cathy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

PPS It is an autobiography. The author's name is SirTony13 which also the domain name of the actor's personal website.

  • Delete Actor does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. This can't have been put up by a publicist - what publicist would create a page so incoherent and so amateur-looking that it makes his client look bad? -- Charlene 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Horribly written page about nn person. Edward321 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete under patent nonsense and WP:SNOW, since not only is it unreadable to high heaven, the guy depicted here is clearly non-notable. Good God what an eyesore of an article. TheLetterM 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete [3] reads "Michael Salvage aka SirTony" in other words---this is clearly and autobio. Doesn't meet notability. Balloonman 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, technically speedily as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no arguments to delete. -- Core desat 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of entomology journals

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

Contested prod. The article is simply a list of links to largely non-existent articles - it's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research. The article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content, so there's no reason to think it can or will be improved. "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links" (especially redlinks!) andy 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn - the article has been significantly improved with further improvements to follow. andy 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments / Request for further details

"list of links to largely non-existent articles."

The fact that the articles don't (yet) exist shouldn't be a reason to delete the list, it should instead be a reason to create those articles, where they are appropriate. If some entries do not deserve an article, then they should be trimmed from the list.

"Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content"

What usable content you would expect a list like this to contain that it does not contain? Addition of that info would be an alternative to deletion, but we need to know what you have in mind.

"It's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."

To say something is impossible requires an enormously high standard of proof ... is that really what you meant to say?

SP-KP 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. This is well covered at WP:NOT. The essential question for any encyclopedia article is what useful information it conveys. This article lists the names of many journals but gives no information whatsoever about them, not even how to find them. Does this article actually tell anyone anything useful? If the name of one of these journals was replaced with The Beano would it alter the information content of the article? Compare with List of scientific journals in chemistry which has a ranked list of external links together with references to analyses of citations. andy 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not aware of anything at WP:NOT which suggests that this kind of list is deletionworthy - which specific section do you mean? You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:List guideline which gives more specific guidelines on lists. It contains links to lists which do not differ greatly in character from this one. It appears that the authors of the entomology articles have chosen to add websites directly to the article pages, rather than to this list, so readers can find them, with one extra mouse click. There's no reason why they couldn't be added here too though. If that was done, would that be enough to retain the article? If not, what else would you like to see? SP-KP 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the items in the list were verifiable (an issue raised at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_content). In practise the best way to do this is to provide external links where there is no WP article, and this would also enable the article to be used as a research tool. The recent comment about classification on the article's Talk page would make it even more useful. List of chess periodicals, mentioned below, is an excellent example. But right now, if I was to add a totally spurious journal to the list or move some of the entries to different countries there would be no proper basis to challenge my edit because there are no verifiable references. My word against yours. Give me one good reason backed up by references why The Beano should not be included in the list! This is a basic requirement of all WP articles. andy 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThis is a less developed article than chemistry, there being probably more chemists around here. The science people in general are writing articles about important journals as fast as they can, but there are many hundreds to go. The list provides more than title information--it contains the dates and the name changes and the country of publication. All 3 of these are very important and necessary parts of information about journals, and will be in the future articles as well. Lists give information about what the journals are--its the articles that need to give information about them. DGG 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just disagree with the nominator; it's hard to say it any other way. I believe that lists of subject-specific journals are useful, and if some of the journals are notable than the list is notable. That's why I wrote List of chess periodicals, which is more informative but essentially similar in style and scope. Shalom Hello 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Useful list. I just learnt that it has many local entomology works, applied journals and annual reviews missed ! Needs more work but is potentially just as encyclopaedic as List of scientific journals in chemistry which nom as pointed out as encylopaedic. Shyamal 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If kept, the redlinks in this article should be severed. It makes it look bad to have such a sea of red. They can be re-wikilinked as articles about each publication are created. Also, it would be nice to have some sources confirming that these publications actually exist, so we don't have any non-existent entomology publications such as The Beano in this list. ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LIST explicitly encourages the use of lists for purposes of development. It is the third criteria. Also, this is explicitly one of the goals of WP:MISSING. The fact that nobody has developed parts of this region of wikipedia yet is not valid grounds for deletion. If you can't verify the existence of specific journals on the list, that's a matter for the article talk page, but not a valid reason to delete the entire list. Further setting a precedent for deleting lists of academic journals seems to me like a poor idea. This is definitely an area that needs improvement, and definitely an area that should not be abandoned. The future credibility of wikipedia depends on better coverage of academia perhaps as much as anything else! -- JayHenry 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I hate to be awkward but while WP:LIST does indeed encourage the use of lists for purposes of development it states very clearly that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space." What could be more clear? So what's the problem - someone who wants to keep it should fix the article! andy 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's a fair point Andy and perhaps I should've been clearer. This list still is an informational list as well, which is criteria #1. This is an accurate list of entomology journals and someone looking for the name of entomology journals, or entomology journals by country or when journals were started would be well-served by the list. It's not just a random list of red links. And the fact that it contains many redlinks is not, by itself, a valid reason for deletion. There's a big difference between links that are red because there should not be an article (i.e. List of Jefferson Elementary School Principals) and links that are red because a well-needed and perfectly valid article has not yet been written. -- JayHenry 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Andy, the list doesn't exist "primarily for development or maintenance purposes". SP-KP 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That was JayHenry's view, not mine. Yet it clearly isn't fully developed, is it? Have a look at the edits I just made to the UK section of the article - isn't that an improvement? andy 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
That's a difficult one - I'm not sure of my opinion as I feel the changes are an improvement in some respects, but not in others. But ... if the references were in one of the standard formats at WP:CITE I would definitely agree that this section is better. SP-KP 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have no strong views on the format of the references - it's the existence of the references that's essential in a hypertext such as Wikipedia, and indeed in any academic text. JayHenry's recent edits are probably better than mine because they leave open the option for articles on each journal as well as external references. Whatever - anything is better than nothing. andy 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. I've standardised the referencing format for both the US and UK sections (or what should be sections ... we need to convert those bold text pretend headings to real section headings). I've also added external refs for those that only had internal wikilinks. Just the remaining countries to go - that should keep someone busy!! SP-KP 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (Meow Wars (second nomination) nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ck lostsword• T• C 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

OpenDBA

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

Orphan, no explanation of why this software product is notable, no reliable third-party sources are given that refer to this product. — Bkell ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ladybirds Can Fly

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

Band's notability is in question. Dudesleeper · Talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete fails wp:music Balloonman 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria listed here, despite what is being claimed on the article's talk page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This band isn't notable in any way and the talk page shows bad-faith editing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Dansereau

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

Non Notable indy wrestler. Darrenhusted 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Halo DS

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

Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and clean up ck lostsword• T• C 10:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vasily Gryaznov

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

Incoherent translated article about a marginal individual. Speedy tag was declined by admin Wafulz. Shalom Hello 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: this is about a local saint recognized in 1999 (the monastery needs something to attract visitors). The version on ru: is equally lousy as the one here, it originally comes (with permission) from another website (warning: that website may be infected, it was trying to break into my computer).
Both the monastery and the saint are IMHO notable. Whether anything from the current text is salvageable is a question. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. It's a badly written article, but saints are in my opinion always notable. He's mentioned on many Church sites ( [4] and [5], for instance) so verifiability is not a problem. Note: I moved an apology off the main page onto the talk page - such things shouldn't be on the main page. -- Charlene 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that there's nothing in the article to start from. Some information about the person is on the page of the town Pavlovsky Posad. Pavel Vozenilek 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and start over, as it appears unsalvageable and as noted above, contains infected text. Bearian 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and stubify - The subject is notable, and as a saint, I'd expect reliable sources could be found. The article contents, as they stand, are completely incoherent, and so removing it all and turing it into a stub would be appropriate. -- Whpq 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - subject also appears to have been the subject of a 1924 film Elder Vasily Gryaznov as per the page at http://www.inter-film.org/pdf/Databank_Ron_Hollway.pdf. Article clearly needs cleanup and referencing, though. John Carter 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I had a go at changing a bit to make it more readable, but there's still heaps missing Guycalledryan 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems better. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. -- MaNeMeBasat 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agiletext

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

Possible conflict of interest by author on a product of questionable notability. I don't have a strong opinion because I didn't actually read the article (sorry, folks.) Shalom Hello 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. Qst 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersey All Pro Wrestling

Jersey All Pro Wrestling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Small time indy fed, seems to fail company for a start. Not enough third party credible refs. Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nitrogen deposition in California

Looks like someone dumped their research paper onto us. No pages link here and I'm not sure it's a reasonable encyclopedic topic. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Satyagraha (quarterly)

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

Non-notable publication of the Ghandi Information Center ( recently deleted along with a bio of the author). Can find no significant and notable mentions of the publication online and given the failed effort to find notability for the publishing organization and author, I believe this article should also be deleted. SiobhanHansa 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This will be absolutely alright from my side, Siobhan Hansa, this article can be deleted at once (actually it was not my idea), because our members' information is not for the public (so not a "publication"), with two exceptions from the rule according to special permission (that is why you find the two issues on the internet). Do not worry! Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

  • Speedy Delete - the original author, Chrbartolf is supporting the deletion. -- Whpq 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Eddie Kingston

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

Non notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. — Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Extremely major player in CZW and Chikara, which are more then notable. He is also a former CZW Champion. Kris 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Eddy Kingston is a well known indy wrestler. He's wrestled all over the world, but mostly on the east coast. CMAngle33 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Note (no !vote), although this user has only made two edits both of which are to AfD's (including this one) consensus is still in favour of keep. Closing as non admin. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of films about school

List of films about school (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete - arbitrary indiscriminate list, also a directory of loosely associated topics and a repository of internal links. There is no objective standard as to how much of the film needs to involve "students" or "teachers" or "classrooms" or "school" to be "about school." The list tells us nothing about teachers, students, school, education, how these topics are addressed in film or the real world. Otto4711 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - yes it has organizational problems, but I don't see that as a reason for throwing it out. It can be a useful list. StudierMalMarburg 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I believe that's where WP:USEFUL is drawn from. The point still remains, to spell it out, that the possibility that an article is "useful" or, as you say, "can be useful" does not excuse this or any other article from meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply saying that the list is or might possibly be useful does not counter the arguments presented in the nomination, which is that the list is arbitrary, indiscriminate, subjective and vague. Otto4711 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, this isn't so much an article as a list -- something like a table, which, as WP:USEFUL points out, justifies its existence by being useful, not by being encyclopedic. Noroton 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The reason for deletion is WP:NOT#DIR, #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Thse films have in common only that they refer to school or education in some way; but "film about school" is not an encyclopedic topic, at least the list does not give any hint why it should be. -- B. Wolterding 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because it fails to include the classic that is Carry On Teacher. Lugnuts 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my usual spiel regarding "films about" lists: OR, POV, subjective, and how "about" school does it have to be? The introductory paragraph does nothing to narrow the scope or address these concerns but does lead to such an overinclusiveness that these things have little in common. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIR; most of these "Films about..." lists should be deleted for the same reasons. Masaruemoto 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Purpose probably already covered by the coming-of-age film category. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and ors. It's a loose list and doesn't meet the relevant criteria. Thewinchester (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because I find the argument in WP:USEFUL quite compelling in justifying the existence of a list such as this because it's useful. Noroton 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Gordon Kit Thorne

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

An unencyclopedic article on a subject who fails WP:BIO. Entirely unverifiable, the only references provided are unpublished interviews with the subject's son, the owner of the the subject's copyrights, a geneologist and "Gordon Kit Thorne's Diaries" (also unpublished). Victoriagirl 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. NN (165 Google hits, nothing in Google Books, 1 hit in News Archives) plus nearly zero proper sourcing (a short paragraph on a site selling his works isn't enough). Gordonofcartoon 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. I add that "ARCA (Associate Royal Canadian Artist)", said to be one of Thorne's titles, appears not to exist outside this article. In fact, the only trace of this distinction on the web is found within a current ebay listing which quotes this very article. Victoriagirl 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's the Royal Canadian Academy, but no "Royal Canadian Artists" that I can find. I checked the RCA database to be sure; no Gordon Kit Thorne listed since 1880. Freshacconci 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead wrestlers

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

Nom - previously speedied and restored. Partially redundant to Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes. Rklawton 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There seems little point in having this page. Paul20070 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete isn't this a recreation of a previously deleted page? Lugnuts 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt - we've deleted articles, lists and categories numerous times for dead wrestlers. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a tribute site or an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. Eventually all wrestlers will be dead wrestlers. Otto4711 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and Salt It. Not needed. Darrenhusted 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no provision for this article to be speedily deleted, since it hasn't been through AfD before, nor does it meet any of the other criteria. That said, it's an arbitrary list that's better covered by a category. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Playboy Playmates. Shalom Hello 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Whiteness and the creation of the united states

Whiteness and the creation of the united states (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced essay Gilliam 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Gremlins Adventure

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

Contested prod. This is a non-notable amusement park ride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Stuart Semple

Stuart Semple (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)This WP entry reads like pure sockpuppetry. Semple has had only a couple of gallery shows, and his importance as a living artist is negligible. Apparently his only claims to fame were the notoriety of being associated with Uri Geller (itself hardly a notable thing) and of having stolen some materials from the Momart fire, which he "recontextualized" into "artworks". The fact that this WP entry was created from an anonymous IP address in Britain, and that same anonymous user has only contributed to this WP entry and the entry on the Momart fire, suggests that Semple himself created it. WP isn't a vanity press. I move for deletion on the grounds of him not being a notable living person. Bricology 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
And if I might add, to refresh ones memory, the WP "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists): the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." A 26 year-old with just one verified solo Gallery show has definitely not met the WP:Notability criteria as a living artist. Bricology 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply


  • Strong keep. Per WP:BIO he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are two specific events which gained national media coverage in the UK. The first was a project concerning the Momart fire.( Daily Telegraph) The other was an art intervention in the Saatchi Gallery.( BBC, Daily Telegraph, The Times) He continues to receive media coverage in numerous outlets (go to stuartsemple.com and click "press"). The nom has rather misunderstood sockpuppets, of which there is no evidence or relevance here. Even if Semple created it (and we have no evidence of that), it is not a reason for deletion. Nor do we penalise anon editors per se. It was created in December 2004 and has been edited by a number of different users since (including myself). This easily meets the criteria for inclusion. Tyrenius 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm quite disappointed with what you consider logic in this case, but perhaps your involvement with editing Semple's entry is telling. Semple's alleged noteworthiness for his WP entry is as an artist, not as a provocateur (to wit -- "Stuart Semple (born 1980) is an English artist"). If merely being the subject of two incidents of notoriety in the press (only one of which is a live link, BTW) counts as "notability" by WP's standards, then surely there are thousands of amateur and mediocre artists who might as well do something (get arrested, whatever) that gets them mentioned in the media, and thus their own WP entry. Do any of the published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually speak to Semple's relative merits as an artist? Not a one. They merely say that he sneaked a painting into one of Saatchi's shows (a stunt done many times before by other artists), and that he stole some debris from the Momart fire site and repackaged it into his own "artwork". The fact that this work wasn't exhibited in any gallery or museum makes the notoriety all the more minor. And the fact that Uri Geller calls Semple his "protoge" ought to make it clear that Semple's main goal is publicity, rather than stature as an artist. Sad to see WP become party to that goal. Bricology 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My editing of it is indeed telling, because it means I have already assessed it as worth keeping. I trust you are not implying anything other. All the links given are "live". There is one in The Times where the full article doesn't appear, which I think is one of the many glitches in the redesign of the paper's web site: I have emailed them about it. There is a fallacy in your reasoning, where you are concerned with "Semple's relative merits as an artist". Wikipedia has no interest in this whatsoever. We only care about his relative merits for notability, namely whether or not he has been the subject of reliable secondary sources, which he clearly has. Nor is it in the slightest relevant, in this respect, what his goal is, or whether he is "amateur and mediocre" - an implication which is anyway forbidden by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless you have appropriate sources to substantiate it: Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion on matters. I realise you are a relatively new editor, and you may not be familiar with all of these policies; and I am sure that you have acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Tyrenius 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Am I implying anything? Only that you, a fellow Britain, who has edited Semple’s WP entry are the the only person saying "strong keep", which wouldn’t exactly dispel suspicions of a conflict of interest in a court of law. Indeed, I believe I am acting with the best interests of WP in mind, to try to help prevent it from becoming turned into a PR vanity outlet on the level of MySpace. The fact that you assessed Semple’s entry as worth keeping has not convinced me one whit that it is worth keeping, merely that you believe it to be. Of course, I have no idea what qualifications you have to make that judgment, but I can tell you this -- as an artist who has had over a dozen solo shows in 4 different countries, been in many group shows in museums and other contemporary art events, been written up favorably in national art magazines (not merely websites or web-news), and sold many works, I’m perhaps in a better position to assess Semple’s merit as an artist than you. As for “amateur or mediocre” -- the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim otherwise. Does Semple make his living from his artwork? If not, then he’s an “amateur” by definition. Is his work praised by a considerable number of acknowledged experts as being of a high standard of quality? Then it may well be “mediocre”. And even though I would certainly more qualify by your criteria for my own WP entry, I don’t believe that I warrant one! If the issue is, as you claim, notability, then are you actually claiming that two mentions on web-news sites qualifies anyone as “notable” for ones own WP entry?! If so, millions of otherwise unknown people mentioned in two news or opinion articles should get in line, ready to dilute the whole idea of any “encyclopedia”. No, the fact is that Semple’s entire WP entry specifically deals with him AS AN ARTIST, not as merely some individual who appeared in two web news stories. You're trying to have it both ways: a WP entry about an artist, predicated upon non-artistic merit. Again, I draw your attention to WP’s "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists):The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Semple has not met even ONE of those criteria. Semple is an artist, he has a WP entry that deals 100% with him AS AN ARTIST, but he fails WP:Notability Living People (artists). QED. Finally, you claim that “all the links (on Semple’s entry) are live”. Apparently you didn’t bother to click on the second of his three links (to The Telegraph's story), which is quite dead . Bricology 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Link mended. Gordonofcartoon 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I presume you mean "Briton", as I am not a country. However, it is prohibited on wikipedia to make negative personal comments on other editors, including their (presumed) nationality. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please comment on issues, not editors. You have not understood wiki's criteria: valuations of artistic worth such as "mediocre" or "amateur" are irrelevant, as I've already pointed out. You are also confusing the notability guidelines. There is a general guideline as in WP:N and the top of WP:BIO. The specific profession guidelines do not supercede this, but can also be considered. These are all guidelines and not set in stone (see WP:LAWYER). Wikipedia has more space than paper encyclopedias and a lower threshold. What you say about yourself would seem to be enough to meet wikipedia's standards. I was referring to links in my post above, not the ones in the article, though I've now put them in the article anyway. The mentions are not mere "web-news sites". They are the online versions of UK national papers: i.e. the same stories that have appeared in print. The stories also deal specifically with events that he has undertaken as an artist. Tyrenius 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Tyrenius. meets WP:BIO Johnbod 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but wikify it, good grief!! -- Attilios 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - NewsBank finds more than enough independent press coverage to rate him as notable. Gordonofcartoon 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above as stated, can use some help, Modernist 11:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mary Rhys-Jones

Mary Rhys-Jones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is the mother of Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, daughter-in-law of the Queen. There is no indication of any notability of this person beyond her daughter being a member of the Royal family. NoSeptember 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for being utter, non-notable fatuousness. Eddie.willers 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete - or else run the risk of having everybody's parents get an entry. Kripto 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remain - as the mother of the daughter-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II and grandmother to the 8th and 9th (later in the year) persons in line to the throne, she is of great importance to genealogists. Providing valuable correct information is my understood purpose of Wikipedia. ShadowOZ 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)— ShadowOZ ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete per nom; nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is of some interest: she shared a grandchild with The Queen. But the article should remain short; it should not go into any biographical detail. Viewfinder 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable and provides no references that assert that she is. Tdmg 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of famous smokers

AfDs for this article:
List of famous smokers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is a list page. Some lists are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The majority of the entries are unsourced, which also leads to possible WP:BLP violations. Many of those with sources are rather unreliable. Unclear what constitutes a smoker - e.g., Bill Clinton is listed because he 'tried it but "never inhaled"'! (By that logic, I'm a smoker, however I would object strongly to being labelled a smoker.) Mdwh 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Also see overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-harmers (yes, I appreciate I opposed deletion there, but that was based on existing lists such as this one; I think the response in that debate makes it clear that we need to start cleaning up "List of people" type articles, and this article has far more unsourced/dubious entries). Also suggested was that we can't take claims by the person in question as a reliable source, and a large number of the sources for this article fall into this category. Mdwh 16:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Smoke it (i.e. DELETE) - First of all, this article, like many "List of famous X" articles, has the issue of the fact that "fame" is subjective. Also, the page contradicts itself; it says at the top that the people on this list all have smoking as part of their public image somehow (i.e. Groucho's cigar, FDR's cigarette holder, Sherlock's pipe, etc.), and yet the list has pretty much every celebrity who has ever smoked anything. Furthermore, we've got serious WP:BLP issues here, especially since this article includes "cannabis smokers." -- Hnsampat 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. Otto4711 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I voted in the 2nd nomination, and I still think this is an indiscriminate list whose time has come. Shalom Hello 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of smokers which begat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers resulting in latest 3 AfDs. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pardon the pun, but I see some Merit in this one. The title sucks, practically a magnet for deletion, but it's well-reasearched; and it's a good example of how attitudes towards smoking have changed over the years, from the era when celebrities took pride in what brand they smoked, to now, when smoking is considered, once again, a nasty habit. The additional information about which of these icons developed lung cancer, emphysema, etc. is useful (yeah, I know folks here hate "useful") as a deterrent to smokers. This will probably get crushed out on its second go-round, but I urge the author(s) to light another one. Mandsford 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Slight chance it could work as "List of iconic smokers", which would include Churchill, Groucho, Sherlock Holmes and maybe Audrey Hepburn, but right now it is just an indiscriminate list of famous people who also happen to smoke. Clarityfiend 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Attempts following the first AfD to keep the list reasonably pruned were resisted. Watching this page, it appears to be a dumping ground for a random collection of individuals, some famous, some not so famous, who smoke or smoked (as who among us has not) and who it occurs to someone to add. For instance: someone decided to add all the members of The Donnas. If the criteria is to be "as famous as the bass player for The Donnas", (and "smokes or smoked"), the list could be expanded to hundreds of thousands of entries. Herostratus 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not useful information, not deserving of its own page. There are millions of smokers around the world and to create a list that everyday grows and shrinks even if they are "famous" does not seem relevant. If anything this list could be used for propaganda purposes which is not the intent of the wiki project.-- 70.179.173.149 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom., and above comments in agreement.-- JayJasper 12:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ando Tammik

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

An anon tagged it for speedy deletion, but he worked on a lot of movies and there are some external links so A7 does not really apply. However, I can find no evidence that he is notable, just a few sites (Yahoo, New York Times, IMDB) that give lists of movies he worked on. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Velvet D’Amour

Velvet D’Amour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This was originally speedy-deleted as an A7. DRV overturned finding a claim to notability in the modeling work and film role. Weak delete, pending other opinions, given uncertainty over notability. Xoloz 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, I just can't find anything of substance about her. Most sources which mention her do so only incidentally or in passing, and are substantially about something else (a fashion show, a movie). The vast majority of material is also on blogs or otherwise unreliable. I just don't see that there's enough information out there to write a biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems that lots of newspapers wrote about her. Yes we are struggling to get info to write a full biography-but that is no reason to delete. According to this [7] there were multiple newspapers writing about her. I think she is notable by wikipedia definition. Obina 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to title role in Avida. -- Groggy Dice T | C 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, within the topic of plus-size models' she is very notable, and given the very real and widespread international media attention this woman continues to receive after her catwalk appearances she definitely has merit. Respondants to this AfD who do not regularly monitor fashion media will likely discount her impact on the fashion industry but it cannot be denied; D'Amour is the largest woman to have ever appeared during a Paris fashion showing, and this at the height of the 'model health debate'. Prevalence of blogs talking about this woman and reposting existing media interviews and television appearances implies that she has high impact in current popular culture AntiVanity 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete - insufficient reliable sources. I suspect she may gain notability in the future if her career continues, but not right now. -- Whpq 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Seems to be notable.

¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of morris dance sides

List of morris dance sides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I speedied this as A3, then changed my mind. It's got a very long edit history, can anything be done with it? EliminatorJR Talk 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of external links. Otto4711 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very useful. Some one should put this on a web site. But not here. This is an encylopedia not a web directory. Obina 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:NOT a web directory, and it looks like all this info is on the morris dance wiki linked to at the top of the list page. -- Allen 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into morris dancing. Don't know what that is, apparently popular for some, but I agree with Obina and Amobride. Did the author mean "sites"?
  • Delete. If most of these Morris dancing sides (Yes, they are called sides) were notable enough to have an article on them, a list as well as category might be valuable. This is clearly not the case. Morris dance sides are not notable, so the list is not encyclopedic. I think the list is too long to merge into morris dancing. -- Bduke 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Articles with virtually just links are unnecessary as stated by Otto. Maybe the links (or some of them) can go to the parent article.-- JForget 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied. -- Golbez 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mrazon Republic

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

This is most likely a hoax, or somebody's private joke. No Google hits, and the article even claims it is an imaginary country. Depending on what exactly it is, it probably violates WP:HOAX, WP:OR, and/or WP:NOTABILITY, at least. J. Spencer 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I know the guy who made this. He actually meant that to be a serious page, because he believes that it is a real country. It isn't a hoax and it really doesn't deserve to be put in WP:BJAODN. Just speedy deletion like last time. This page has been made before.
  • Delete - A terribly sad bit of fun. Deliberate vandalism of Wikipedia. Get rid of it as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. However, I know the guy who made this page, and can guess at whoever added part to it, and I agree fully with the facts section :)
  • Delete - clearly a hoax. The republic "only has a population of one - one of the world's saddest people." -- Javits2000 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as it appears to be hoax, a good one though and perhaps qualifies for WP:BJAODN. It is also a sad commentary on our processes. -- Bhadani ( talk) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Of course this is a hoax, no need to debate about it. Pretty funny though so sending it over to WP:BJAODN may not be a bad idea.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, needless to say, but bravo to Lord Mrazon for all of his hard work in creating something that will only stay up for a few days. Maybe you'll find a Lady Mrazon. You've got a future in advertising... Mandsford 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • BJAODN, pretty well done hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:HOAX.-- JForget 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have seen much better hoaxes here. Pavel Vozenilek 12:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not an especially convincing hoax. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

ISaiah Moore

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Evil1987 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

HD DASH DANCE2

HD DASH DANCE2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable radio station. Fails to assert reasons for notability, reads like an advert. the only refernce is its own website. Greatestrowerever 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ra'virr

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

This is a minor character in a notable video game. It was recommended for a merge to that video game, but the name (or its variants) are not even mentioned in that article, which is featured, so I doubt that it's notable enough even for a passing mention. Shalom Hello 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable to the extreme. It's a shopkeeper NPC in an eye-wateringly large RPG game with umpteen named characters who populate the world but really don't need coverage. Consists of a couple of lines of text such as a heading titled Appearance with this (er.. inspiring?) nugget of info: "Ra'virr is a male Khajiit, and thus looks like one". There's nothing to merge. QuagmireDog 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (and would probably be a speedy if A7 applied to fictional characters). No need to merge this anywhere, as the game has a massive number of characters and this one isn't among the more notable of those. JavaTenor 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I invite the original editor to expand on the Ra'Virr article present at the Elder Scrolls wiki. Marasmusine 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and possibly merge if necessary. Andre ( talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as much as I loved Morrowind, this guy is just a shopkeeper. -- Whpq 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Electrobeat Crew

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

Fails WP:BAND easily. Author bulldozed the PROD tag. :) Shalom Hello 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Disarm (band)

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

Some claim of notability through touring and supporting other bands, but no album yet, so I doubt if they pass WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Redirected to Proctology. NawlinWiki 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Rectology

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

I am unable to confirm that 'rectology' is a legitimate scientific term; my googling reveals the word used only in a slang sense. Prod removed without comment. FisherQueen ( Talk) 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The medical specialty is called Proctology, to which Rectology should be redirected. — AldeBaer ( c) 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per Aldebaer. Shalom Hello 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Delete unless legitimate medical usage of the term can be shown; no need for a redirect. I've removed two paragraphs of copyvio from the article, so there's not much left. Deor 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • What the sh*t? Thank you for saving the image of the rectum.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any usable content and redirect. Not a medical word to my knowledge -- no hits on Medline & no entry in Mosby's Medical Dictionary tend to support that view. However, if it is a slang usage, a simple redirect to proctology wouldn't seem unreasonable. Espresso Addict 08:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Only 275 Google hits so it's not widely used even as slang, but it's just about possible that someone who doesn't know the correct medical term might search for it anyway. Iain99 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect misspelling ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Faust manifesto

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

Listed as a work by Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov, which looks like a hoax to me. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov

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

Looks like a hoax. It doesn't sound like a Belarusian name: Karimov is Central Asian last name and Boskonovitch is a name of a Tekken character. Can't find him on Google. Prose looks suspiciously like something from the Postmodernism Generator. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Manny Elefthriou

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

Non notable wrestler, poorly written article with no refs. Darrenhusted 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Arsenal

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

Non notable wrestler working for non notable fed. Darrenhusted 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator

AfDs for this article:
I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Much better I'm withdrawing my nom due to the great work of Brighterorange feel free to close the AfD. Whispe ring 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom. No notabiltiy, no references. / Blaxthos 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The story about the video game's creation is cute, but the game itself is otherwise not notable. Shalom Hello 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge relevant information into Jack Thompson (attorney) Will ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Had a whole page to itself in the UK version of PC Zone last year as their 'Free web game of the month.' DarkSaber2k 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there's actually a lot more about this, it's not the subject's fault no one's fixed it. There was a pile of stuff involving Penny Arcade also covering the $10k that I can find, and Child's Play came about as a result of it, too. It needs citing, not deletion; I'll work on it after I get my signpost article done. -- Thespian 08:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Needs the sources to establish the notability, but I'm pretty certain those can be found if one goes looking. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; notable in the computer gaming community. *Dan T.* 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep Could use more of this integrated into the article, but there is loads of media coverage surrounding this game (naturally, since it is a media stunt) and plenty of real world context to fill an encyclopedia entry. —  brighterorange ( talk) 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is notable, and there have been many mentions in magazines, etc. Andre ( talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment On sources added to the article, the first two are from blogs and the third only gives passing mention to the game. We need better sources than that is there anyway to get a scan or a webpage for the UK PC Zone? Whispe ring 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I added a couple that I found on Lexis-Nexis. Of course we don't need the sources to be online for them to be reliable (although it makes them more useful, naturally)... —  brighterorange ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Highwire Daze

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

Magazine that apparently fails WP:CORP. No secondary sources given; article created in an obvious COI by User:Highwiredaze; large parts of the text violate WP:NOT#DIR. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Older Parthenon

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

This article, originally created by me as a sub-section on the Parthenon article, is a redundant split from that article. It was created without consensus or discussion and defeats the purpose of my original work, which was to give historical context to the building of the Parthenon. The sub-section has now been restored, this article should be deleted. Twospoonfuls 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This should be a sub-article of Parthenon, in accordance with summary style. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note Arguably, if the nominator is factually correct, the article qualifies under CSD G6. However, I agree with Akhilleus that we have a valid content fork here. Shalom Hello 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Parthenon. The original article is not so huge as to require splitting off this amount of information. Otto4711 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If Parthenon is properly written, it will be much larger and this article will need to be split off again. As the article is now, I don't really think that the (old) dispute between Dorpfeld and Dinsmoor whether there were one or two proto-Parthenons belongs in the main article anyway--a full reporting of this dispute, going up to present theories about the proto/pre/Older Parthenon(s) and its/their influence on the building we see now will be far more detailed than the present "Older Parthenon" article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and even if the content is redundant, it can serve as a kernel of a more thorough discussion. -- Javits2000 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't dispute for a monent that there is considerably more to be said about the pre-Parthenon(s). However, my understanding is that Dorpfeld is the consensus view amongst archaeologists and Dinsmoor is the heterodox opinion, but it is not an "old" dispute in the sense of having been definitively decided. As always in classical archaeology there is a modest tray of evidence and a substantial slagheap of conjecture, so to suggest, as the truncated main article sub-section does, that the issue is settled would be actively misleading. Context is essential here, which is why I tried to sketch the main physical evidence for the thing and the principal theories about it. For this reason I cannot agree to abbreviating the sub-section, and if the sub-section remains as I wrote it what is the point of this daughter page? Now if anyone were willing to do some research into the subject and significantly expand this page (I am not) then I'd agree I would be worth keeping. Twospoonfuls 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I cannot be objective as the creator of this article per WP:SS (based on the work of Twospoonfuls), but I do believe that it is a notable encyclopedic topic that can easily support a separate article.-- Yannismarou 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bill Foster (candidate for Congress)

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

This article seems to be a about a fellow who intends to run in his local Democratic primary for the party's nomination for his district. It is supported by a news report in a local newspaper, and the content of our article seems to be primarily some kind of promotional piece--the kind of flier that a candidate might be expected to hand out to prospective voters. I suggest that this isn't really what Wikipedia is for--specifically it isn't a soap box. Let's cover this chap if he ever makes it to the House of Representatives, certainly, but then there will be something to write about him. -- Tony Sidaway 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it could be userfied in case he is successful. -- Tony Sidaway 13:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Clearly would fail WP:BIO if his candidacy were the only matter, but he may be notable as a physicist. The man won the Rossi Prize, although he won it as part of a group and I'm not sure if it's notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of his work could advise as to whether he is considered notable by his peers. -- Charlene 13:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that it should be deleted presently, and then if he is successful; re-create the page. Just my opinion. Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that being a candidate does not make one notable, but running for office doesn't actually take away from notability either. If someone's otherwise notable, a run for Congress doesn't make that person non-notable. I don't know whether his accomplishments as a scientist are notable enough, but I have a suspicion they might be. -- Charlene 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- As it stands now, the article doesn't primarily address notability of the subject as a physicist. Until that notabiltiy is established, the article shouldn't exist as a campaigning stump. / Blaxthos 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup: assuming that all information in the article is correct, it should be kept for his actions as a physicist. Nyttend 14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Rename, as well, since being the candidate isn't the reason for notability. Nyttend 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep actually for that company of his. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete It's obvious from the title that this is not about his achievements as a physicist or a businessman, and it never was. Tony Sidaway is right on point. This is blatant advertising. If he gets elected, I'm sure his press secretary will write a very nice article. Nice that he's starting early, what with the Democratic primary just 11 months away. Mandsford 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep rewritten as an article on the obviously notable scientist. --with a small paragraph about his political ambitions, along with other hobbies--unless it develops further. I dont want to change the title during the AfD, but it should be "Bill Foster (physicist)"
    I'm all for keeping articles on physicists, but do we have anything verifiable on this chap as a physicist? I see that he worked at Fermilab and was associated with nice stuff, but it's really all very vague about what he actually did. On the other hand his company has a good article and perhaps it might be a good idea to redirect this article to the article on that company. -- Tony Sidaway 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure & won't be until it gets worked on--it is very difficult to deal with those whose career is in government or industrial labs; academia is a good deal more open. DGG 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I did some work: it turns out he is G. William Foster, but at Fermilab he uses it interchangeably with Bill and William. I have enough references now that I've figured out the name. He is primarily a scientific administrator, not a scientist, but he led several of their largest development groups. I think it is sufficiently shown by the awards mentioned in the first section (though some of them were shared) & head of some major projects--but I of course there must be independent verification since I do not trust a campaign biography, especially one that never mentions his full name. Tony, what way should we go: I suggest an article on G. William Foster, with a redirect for Bill Foster, until his political career overshadows his scientific career. should I simply start over again at the correct name? DGG 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I would suggest the G. William Foster article, if indeed he is notable. I would redirect from this article after it is renamed without the political line. JodyB talk 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete - this is the second 2008 state senate election candidiate bio I've seen, and this is only the slow trickle before the flood. Kripto 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete his company is not notable by WP standards - if 500 employees sets the bar, then many a busy restaurant, hotel, grocery store location would fit the bill - we are in the process of deleting Hyatt Regency Phoenix and Hyatt Regency Birmingham, and, gosh, not one editor has mentioned that these places may have the magical 500 employees needed to establish inherent notability and save the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It depends on the business. His company made electronic theater controls, as was the 2nd largest in the country. That's not much a compared to , say, GE, but its one of the two major ones in the industry. DGG 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that the business is important one. We already have an article on the business, so really we're asking whether this fellow should in addition have his own article. -- Tony Sidaway 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator after 5 days, and no other "delete" opinions. -- Tony Sidaway 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bill Shannon

AfDs for this article:
Bill Shannon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article was created in one draft on 11 June, but had no further content edits by a human being until I saw it on June 24. The article was tagged as "Uncategorized people" and moved from "Bill shannon" to "Bill Shannon". That's it.

The article is orphaned and unsourced. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 24th. There were no further edits until June 30th when someone removed the tag with the edit summary "(I dunno; seems arguably notable; take this to WP:AFD if you wish".

The concern here is not "notability", but verifiability. Unless this article is sourced in the next few days, I suggest that we delete it as a violation of our core Verifiability policy. Those who think it can be made verifiable, please do so. -- Tony Sidaway 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Based on the Google hits, it looks like we can fulfill Tony's request for sources. I'm in no rush to do it right now, but that's why AFDs are given five days. Shalom Hello 13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the awards and grants listed, he is clearly notable, Just needs some refs. DGG 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There may well be sources, but the article as currently written appears to be a copyright violation of this≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as copyright problem with no prejudice against creating a new article if can meet the inclusion criteria. Jay32183 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Copyright problems gone. Jay32183 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, copyvio fixed; lead sentence now sourced. John Vandenberg 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Your edit summary says keep, but you just wrote delete here. Your reasoning also seems to suggest keep. I'm pretty sure the "Delete" is a typo. Jay32183 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an expired prod. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure

AfDs for this article:
Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Hoax template already up for 5 days; and not notable article Gammondog 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's not a hoax, just a non-notable TV series. Just google, it's even on IMDB. The main Blinky Bill article does not have any of his TV series listed though, and considering this article is mostly unsalvagable, delete with no merge. -- Breno talk 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Tribe of Mic-O-Say (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:
Tribe of Mic-O-Say (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Second nomination. This article appears to fail the verifiability criteria in its current form. Interestingly, an ISBN search suggests that cited references seem not to exist in the ISBN database under those ISBN numbers, suggesting that some or all of this article may be a hoax.

Although the previous AfD voted "keep", this was entirely based on voting by respondents to the AfD, rather than by providing sources.

Suggest deletion unless mainstream sources can be provided.

Please note: Since this AfD nomination regards the verifiability criteria, please provide verifiable third party sources, rather than just voting "keep". Karada 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete -- Unverifiable, dubious sources, and non-notable. This is coming from an Eagle Scout and OA member. / Blaxthos 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, plus: the article seems to be an attack page against OA. Nyttend 14:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article you are wanting to delete is one that has been badly vandalized by an anon user, who had been warned earlier at User talk:24.41.62.216 on June 5 about edits to this article. This accounts for the attack stuff about the BSA. I have reverted all the edits of July 1 back to the version 12:17, 26 June 2007 by Canjth. Please use that to determine notability. If I missed something valuable added by User:Marmotboy666, I apologise. Please add it back. -- Bduke 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep - article needs more references, but Mic-O-Say is mildly notable as it is a major aspect in a several councils of the BSA as an alternative to the Order of the Arrow. I personally don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it non-encyclopedic. Justinm1978 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep per justinm1978 Rlevse 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BDuke. -- evrik ( talk) 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep-this is a historically notable, recognized component of the BSA program, and recent vandalisms should not make it worthy of deletion. Chris 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment - historically notable, yes, but not a recognized component of the "BSA program". It is a recognized component of the Boy Scout program in a few councils, but is vastly unknown in the rest of the Boy Scout program. The AfD nomination isn't about the notability though, it's about the verifiability. It's very tough to find anything that isn't self-published regarding the subject, and that's what needs to be addressed to avoid deletion, I think. Justinm1978 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup the non vandalized article - too much peripheral info like who attended the 75th anniversary... -- Trödel 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I won't argue or discuss the existence of the cited reference books. However, I strongly disagree with the statements about the article being "an elaborate hoax". Try doing a Google search on "Mic-O-Say". There are lots of web sites referencing it. Plus, for verifiability, try going to the camp. It is quite easy to see that it is real. I started in the program almost 40 years ago, and I can attest to the accuracy of the bulk of the article. While there are flaws and mistakes within any article in Wikipedia, this one seems very accurate. RSStockdale 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - This article NEEDS to be kept. Tons of people, including me, still use it. It's just like any other important article. 642Mystery 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. For future reference, please note that arguments based solely in notability by association have no basis in policy and may be (in this case, were) discounted. Though the nomination saw participation from relatively few editors, I do not believe that relisting will help to achieve a consensus, particularly given the length and depth of the discussion. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete - WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries and, as with the recently deleted Quint and Nola article, this is a character-specific plot summary for this so-called "supercouple." Otto4711 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I am currently working on improving all of the soap couple articles. I need time. This isn't a so-called supercouple. This is a supercouple. I don't see how plot summaries are that big of an issue, when articles such as Anakin Skywalker exist.

I have stated this three times now...two of those times were with both the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article...and the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, both in which were judged keep, because they are now re-written and now provide real-world impact from reliable sources. I was going to get around to improving this article, had this funny feeling that I should check on it, and, well, it's now nominated for deletion before I have even got around to fixing it up. While I, of course, understand the fact that articles on Wikipedia shouldn't only provide plot summaries, all of these soap opera couple articles will be worked on and formatted to fit Wikipedia policy, which is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas exists, and is why I ask other editors to hold off on nominating these soap opera couple articles for deletion. As for the Quint and Nola article, I was disappointed to see that deleted, because I could have fixed that article up before it was deleted. And while I'm not a fan of most of these soap opera supercouples, I may re-create that article and fix it up anyway. Going around and deleting these soap opera popular and or supercouple articles is not the answer. Clean-up is. Flyer22 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • This article has been updated
  • I have updated this article, to where the plot summary is now re-worded in present tense, it's been cut down in length, and a Cultural impact section is now provided in this article, with real-world impact, and reliable sources.

I must point out that not too many soap opera couples are noted by Chicago Sun-Times, and this couple is. This couple is also noted as a supercouple by the soap opera media, the first telling factor of a soap opera supercouple. I ask that the closing administrator take all of this into account when closing this deletion debate, which I'm certain that the closing administrator of this debate will. This is truly a notable supercouple in soap opera history. And this article is in accordance with what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states of supercouples or other notable couples being featured on Wikipedia. Flyer22 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The one-sentence mention in the Sun-Times is trivial. The one-sentence mention in Soap Opera Digest is trivial. Soapdom.com is an "official" soap opera site so it's not an independent source and its mentions of the couple are trivial. The Victory Gardens Theatre website does not mention Taylor Miller in the context of the couple, only a brief mention of her character Nina and nothing about Cliff. The biography of American Speakers Bureau speaker Peter Bergman at the American Speakers Bureau website is not an independent source. These trivial and non-independent sources do not establish the notability of the couple nor do they establish that the couple has had any lasting cultural impact. The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass. Otto4711 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it. Give 'em a chance to do so! -- 140.254.225.30 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Otto4711, I greatly disagree with your opinion of this article. No mention in Chicago Sun-Times is trivial, especially if it's a soap opera couple. A fact is that Chicago Sun-Times pointed out that Cliff and Nina are a notable couple, and by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples, that is notability. Heck, by any standards, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera supercouple. The mention of Cliff and Nina being a supercouple by Soap Opera Digest is also not trivial. Soap Opera Digest doesn't just call any soap opera couple a supercouple. A couple has to be a supercouple first. And Soap Opera Digest calls Cliff and Nina a supercouple on more than one occasion. Soapdom.com is just more proof that Cliff and Nina are a highly notable couple, just as Bennifer once were, and they still are, because of the impact that they had. So are Cliff and Nina, because of the impact that they had as one of the world's most popular soap opera supercouples.

Victory Gardens Theatre not mentioning Taylor Miller in the context of the couple? The whole reason that Taylor Miller's character of Nina is even considered popular, and the bigger reason that people stop her on a street, screaming in giddy anticipation about meeting her is because of her character's romance with Cliff Warner. I see no such trivial matters in this couple obviously being notable, and I don't see how it can be disputed that this couple is a notable soap opera couple, a supercouple, in fact. And as for what you stated with this sentence..."The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass"... People here are obviously smart enough to make up their own minds and won't be confused by any sort of manipulation that I am doing, because there is no manipulation on my part to confuse them. This article is not trivial; it's not a trivia section, and fans and the soap opera media determine which couples are supercouples. They determined that Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a supercouple, and Chicago Sun-Times took notice of this couple's popularity, even if it is just one sentence. This couple was also pointed out as being notable by Hollywood.com, which is an independent source. There is nothing huge in being wrong with this article's plot summary any longer, since it's the length or close to the length of some good articles in which have storyline plots on Wikipedia. There isn't much more to add to an article about a soap opera couple, but plot and Cultural impact, and a History section before the Storyline section, in which the History section discusses the creation of the characters, what the producers were going for upon creating the characters or romance, or both, and if I find such details from great sites in which discuss this, I'll make sure to add them to this article. Flyer22 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Noatability guidelines require that an article topic be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is in no way "significant coverage" even if the article is in the Sun-Times. Programs for regional theatre companies that mention one character but not the other or the couple do not constitute "significant coverage." An article on a decade in soap operas that mentions the couple does not constitute "significant coverage." Fans declaring a couple to be a "supercouple" does not constitute "significant coverage." The article remains a plot summary despite your attempts to tack on insignificant mentions as reliable sources. Come up with some sources which are specifically about the couple and their supposed cultural impact, otherwise this is plot plus trivia. Otto4711 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I know what Noatability guidelines states, which is clearly why this article... Victor Newman and Nikki Reed...was judged a keep, and isn't classified as just plot, plus trivia, they are a significant couple. I also know what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states, and the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt article fits what they ask. This is a soap opera couple, and being so-called reported by multiple outside sources such as CNN News is usually not going to happen with a soap opera couple or soap opera supercouple, unless that couple is Luke and Laura, but that doesn't make them any less notable. A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is significant coverage...when that couple is a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times. Fans declaring a couple to being a "supercouple" does constitute "significant coverage" when Soap Opera Digest also notes the couple's popularity and states that the couple is a supercouple, multiple times. Regardless, this couple is mentioned as a supercouple in more than one article, whether we state which article as reliable or not, but with mention of this couple being notable by Chicago Sun-Times, Hollywood.com (both independent sources), plus Soap Opera Digest proves this couple's notability, and it proves that this couple is not some ordinary soap opera couple, whether you feel that their Cultural impact section is trivia or not, which I state that it isn't. Flyer22 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, sorry, a single sentence out of a larger article is not "significant coverage." Fans calling a couple a supercouple does not constitute "significant coverage." A soap opera magazine mentioning the couple in passing, even if they mention the couple in passing more than once, does not constitute "significant coverage." The Wiki soap opera project may have its own internal criteria but those criteria do not trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Otto4711 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm sorry, but when it comes to a soap opera couple being mentioned in two independent sources, both outside of soap opera, Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera couple. Wiki Soap Opera Project has a certain criteria because it's only logical that soap opera characters aren't going to be featured in some heavy news article or celebrity magazine that often, if at all for most of them, thus when a couple is, it is certainly notable, which is why not all soap opera couples can have their own articles on Wikipedia.

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed didn't have to have extensive and or significant coverage on their love story in the mentions that were given to them by more than one independent reliable source. Just the fact that they were mentioned in more than one outside reliable source, The News & Advance, EW.com, Variety Magazine (and I'm sure many more), in what you call "in passsing" was enough to prove that couple's notability, thus I certainly don't see any extensive and or "significant coverage" needed as to having an article discussing that couple in its entirety.

In any case, Soap Opera Digest doesn't just mention Cliff and Nina in passing. They discuss the couple in more detail regardless.

Trivia sections mainly mention silly things, such as "This fictional character's favorite color is red"... Cultural impact sections more so cover a person, thing, character or couple's real-world impact, fictional or real, and that's what this article does. And if it's kept, it will certainly be improved further, at least with attempts. If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then.

Anyway, I need to go and fix up other soap opera couple articles, and some soap opera character articles, some of which like I did with the Bianca Montgomery character, which now provides a lot of real-world impact within her article, and will be further worked on as I edit articles here at Wikipedia. The Josh Madden article as well, both of these are certainly two highly notable characters, and I will have fun editing their articles for quite a while. It was/is interesting debating with you, Otto4711. Flyer22 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Look, I realize that you're trying desperately to save this article, but your desperation doesn't change the simple fact that the mere appearance of the names of the couple in an article does not constitute significant coverage, even if that article is in the Sun-Times. It may very well be that the Sun-Times doesn't mention soap opera characters very often, but that does mean that simply putting their names in a sentence means that the S-T has devoted significant coverage to them. I've been mentioned in articles in the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and any number of other papers. But I wasn't the subject of the articles in which I was mentioned and my being mentioned in them does not make them significant coverage of me or serve to establish me as notable by Wikipedia standards. The passing mentions in non-reliable sources don't constitute "cultural impact" no matter how hard you try to manufacture it. The Soap Opera Digest devotes one sentence to the couple out of a longer profile of the actor and doesn't even mention their last names. The soap opera project's standards do not under any circumstances supercede Wikipedia's so continuing to cite them is meaningless. And threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content is very inappropriate. Otto4711 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Otto4711, I'm not desperate to save any article as of now, and your accusation that I'm threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by re-creating deleted material is totally off, almost if I were to accuse you of having a serious need to delete any and every soap opera article on Wikipedia, when most can be improved. Don't treat me as though I'm some vandal. I'm not. And Wikipedia editors are allowed to re-create deleted articles, if they better format the deleted articles upon re-creation. That's not a threat or disruption of any kind to Wikipedia. And your opinion that this couple is not notable, even though they've been cited by reliable outside sources, such as Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, even if it is in what you call as "passing" is something I obviously disagree with. A person being mentioned in passing in one of those sources is quite different than a soap opera couple being mentioned in one of those sources. And Soap Opera Digest doesn't have to have an entire article on a couple to mention that that couple is a supercouple. The fact remains that Soap Opera Digest calls them a supercouple, and Soap Opera Digest only calls soap opera couples who are supercouples...supercouples. But I certainly can provide a reference from Soap Opera Digest where they have an article on this couple. Either way, we don't agree on this article, as it is now, and I see no reason to keep debating this issue with you. Flyer22 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, you're the one who said "If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later". Your words. And it's clear you're completely missing the point. The point is not whether or not Soap Opera Digest refers to them as a supercouple. The point is that the article is nothing more than a plot summary which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The sources you cite do not establish the notability of the subject of the article. They do not establish any supposed "cultural impact" of the subject. Try actually reading WP:N and WP:RS. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A single sentence out of an article does not constitute "significant coverage." The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not "independent." This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it. Otto4711 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Um, my exact words, were "If it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then"... And that is not a threat of any kind, and is also no different than well-respected Wikipedian editors stating such a statement in deletion debates that maybe they will re-create an article later in the hopes of improving it then or that the article can be re-created later by another editor, hopefully better. As for your comment of ..."The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not independent. This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it"...don't talk down to me in a condescending way. I NEVER called the speakers bureau in which Peter Bergman works for independent. If we're going to condescend, I honestly don't know why you can't grasp the fact that a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times or Hollywood.com is most certainly notable for a soap opera couple.

Honestly, what you claim as needing to be "significant coverage" for a soap opera couple was not brought up by two excellent Wikipedian editors in the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion debate, in which the fact was/is that Victor and Nikki were cited as a highly notable couple by extremely valid independent sources outside of the soap opera media, with none of those sources referenced in their article having provided an entire article on the couple. And I'm positive that those editors in that deletion debate knew what they were doing. Your solution to deleting an article because it has plot summary is off in my opinion. Wikipedia has nothing against plot summaries, it states that an article shouldn't just be about plot; that's what it's against. And this article isn't just about plot. And this article can always be improved. Again, we don't agree on this article as of now, and if you want to continue this back-and-forth between you and I, then so be it, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether some other article exists or whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD. It is this article under discussion and the point has been brought up in this AFD. And, again, as much as you might wish it, the passing mentions of one or the other of the actors or of the couple do not establish notability. One sentence in a newspaper article is not notability. Two sentences on a website is not notability. Sorry if you feel like you're being talked down to here, but clearly no matter how it's explained to you you're not getting that passing mentions do not make notability. Notability requires that the source be about the subject, not that it just mention the subject. Again, notability requires that sources be about the subject. Absent the unsupported and frankly phony "cultural impact" section that is fabricated out of whole cloth, the article is plot, plot and more plot. Otto4711 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Stop pointing me to policies such as other stuff exists. I'm quite aware of that policy. And it does matter whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD, because your "point" is off, Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited in more than one independent reliable source, and as User: EliminatorJR pointed out in that deletion debate upon his nomination of that article...."I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion"...that was the point, Victor and Nikki were proven notable, outside of the soap opera media even, and no article addressing the couple in its entirety is needed. In the same way that when an editor makes a statement such as Katie Holmes' favorite color is red, they have to find a reliable citation to validate that claim, not an entire article on Katie Holmes' favorite color being red.

Sorry, but it's not just a feeling that you were being condescending in this debate. You were and are being condescending in this so-called deletion debate. And if an article is about the impact soap opera couples had on the world, or about storylines in which had an impact on the world, and a couple is noted in that article, such as Victor Newman and Nikki Reed, then that is an article about that couple, that's what you're not geting. "Notability requires that the source be 'about' the couple"...and, yes, when an article is discussing storylines that changed the world and it mentions that fictional couple, then that is that article being about that fictional couple. Seriously, I don't need to debate this issue with you any longer. I don't need to be told that I'm not getting something or told to believe something in which you believe is what notability is, or pointed to some policy that I'm aware of, whether you believe that I'm aware of it or not. This debate between you and I is no longer as civil as it's supposed to be, and I do not wish to continue this tiresome round-whatever. Flyer22 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • You keep saying that you don't feel the need to continue this, yet here you continue to be, letting fly paragraph after paragraph. Once again, it does not matter what anyone said about Victor and Nikki or any other couple. Victor and Nikki are not under discussion here. They're not, They're just not. And once again, a sentence in an article that mentions X does not make the article about X. It just doesn't. I agree that if this article were sourced to show real-world notability then it should stay, but it is not so sourced. Otto4711 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is sourced, just not extensively, which can always be further improved. And I keep showing up here because you keep responding. A sentence in an article that mentions X does make that article about X if that article is discussing storylines that impacted the world or soap opera coupes that impacted the world, which can be added to this article. And telling me what is not sourced, or not notable, from checking your edit history, it seems that you were pointed to the same policy as to an article deemed not notable by most Wikipedian editors. Of course, not that that is the point of this article, as you'd point out, but obviously pointing me to policies when you yourself are pointed out as not taking them into account on occasion, is fruitless in my opinion, even more so because regardless of your opinion of this article, they are mentioned in three independent reliable sources as notable, passing or not. Again, we disagree as to this article as of now. Obviously. Flyer22 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)\ reply

No it doesn't. A single sentence in an article does not and can not and never will make the article about that subject. A one sentence mention in an article is trivial. It is a passing mention. If even a single one of these had a section that discussed the couple that would be a different issue but none of these discuss the couple. Mentioning the couple is not the same as discussing the couple and it can only be your painfully obvious bias that prevents you from acknowledging that. This article is not sourced. It does not have a single source in it that meets WP:RS and that is about the subject of the couple, let alone three. The words "Cliff and Nina" in an article don't make the article about Cliff and Nina. An article about "storylines that impacted the world" (which none of the links in this article are, by the way) does not suddenly become about every storyline listed off in it. Otto4711 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Did I say that the mentions of this couple by Chicago Sun-Times, and Hollywood.com, and Associated Content were an article about this couple? No. Although, the Associated Content article referenced in this article is specifically about the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera, and notes Cliff and Nina, which makes that article about Cliff and Nina as well. And, yes, Associated Content, the second source in this article, has been cited as a reliable independent source in many great articles on Wikipedia. A single sentence in an article does, and can, and will make that article about that couple, if it's a topic of storylines that impacted the world or couples that impacted the world, and mentions that couple, which I was speaking of the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article. I stated that the Cliff and Nina article could be improved. I have no painfully obvious bias that is preventing me from acknowledging anything that you claim. This is not some favorite and or even slightly favorite couple of mine. I'm 24 years old, and was not at all interested in the soap opera "All My Children" as a very young child. Not until at least age 10, with the villainous character of Todd Manning, did I become interested in soap operas, as I didn't even consider him just a soap opera character, and that character was definitely created some time after the Cliff and Nina mania. I could easily state that your bias of soap opera articles is what brought you to nominate this article for deletion, besides plot, and especially when it's obvious that regardless of what you think, this couple is a supercouple.

Anyway, I try to maintain good faith in what you claim as to this article, and we just are not on the same side when it comes to this article. No need for us to linger on our thoughts as to this article. Flyer22 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • You have yet to provide a source that indicates that this storyline "impacted the world." And no, as hard as you might wish it, mentioning a thing in passing is not enough to make a source about that thing. Notability requires non-trivial coverage, and the mere mention of the couple's names is trivial. Otto4711 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have provided more than one source that proves that this couple is notable. And, as hard as you might wish that this couple is not notable, they are. The mere mention of this couple's name in a matter such as the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera is not trivial. It proves that this couple is a supercouple. In fact, just this couple being called a supercouple in more than one instance proves that this couple is a supercouple, regardless of what you consider trivial or not. Not every soap opera couple is called a supercouple by the soap opera media, or is noted outside of it just for the heck of it. In the same way that the mere mention of Angelina Jolie's name on more than one top ten most beautiful women and or people in the world lists proves that she is notable as one of the most beautiful women and or people in the world, besides her other notable aspects. Flyer22 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Angelina Jolie may very well be a notably beautiful woman but her name on a published list of beautiful women does not in and of itself establish her notability. Sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Once again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. "Passing mentions" does not equal "substantial coverage." A source which mentions this couple in one sentence is not substantial coverage. Otto4711 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Stop twisting my words, Otto4711. I didn't state that Angelina Jolie's name on published lists of beautiful women in and of itself establishes her notability (although I feel that does, beside her other notable aspects). I stated that it establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or beautiful people.

And, all sources on Wikipedia do not have to provide substantial coverage, and plenty of sources on Wikipedia in great articles do not. A source which mentions this couple in one sentence may not be substantial coverage, but it is notable when they are mentioned as a supercouple or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source. In the same way that Angelina Jolie being mentioned in more than one most beautiful women and or people lists establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or people, Cliff and Nina being listed as a supercouple and or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source establishes that this couple is a supercouple. Also, the characters Cliff and Nina were merged into this article, thus deleting this article would be doing away with two notable characters as well, apart from being a part of this couple, in the show All My Children. Although, an editor here at Wikipedia could always re-create an article on the Cliff Warner character, as well as an article on the Nina Cortlandt character, it's a bit redundant, considering that most of their character history revolves around each other. Flyer22 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • That you think a single source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on the list merely further demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of notability guidelines. Otto4711 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Again twisting my words. I never stated that a source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on that list. I stated that a woman (Angelina Jolie) being listed on several lists as a beautiful woman establishes her notability as a beautiful woman and or person. And the fact of being listed on so many lists as a beautiful woman and or person is quite notable of that person. The fact that you keep twisting my words proves your lack of understanding of how not to twist words. Flyer22 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, we don't need to circle in this tiresome debate any longer. We don't need to condescend to each other. We've basically stated everything that we can state, more than once. That is just over, basically, at this point, even if this debate is still open at this very moment. You've stated your feelings, I've stated mine. We really don't have any reason to state the same things over and over again, whether it's a condescending remark of how the other doesn't understand a Wikipedia guideline and that we want that other one to know it or not. I suggest we stop this back-and-forth between you and I in this debate. We know where each other stand. Flyer22 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appeared in a notable program, thus are notable Giggy U C P 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no consensus to delete JodyB talk 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Norse mythology in popular culture

Norse mythology in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Not indiscriminate, not mere trivia, and more than just a vanilla list. This is good information for anyone looking into Norse mythology. There could be a lot more info here (especially the language section, I may add to that myself), and for some things independent sources need to be referenced, but overall the article is valuable and appropriate. Capmango 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A potentially good article with some good content, but poorly arranged and in need of purging. Items like "such-and-such was inspired by Norse mythology" without particular examples vitiate the usefulness of the page. Still, deletion seems like overkill. RandomCritic 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Named precedents describe the influence on popular culture of single pieces of art; how the cultural heritage of an entire civilisation impacts popular culture is another matter entirely. That being said, this article needs some serious overhaul, because as a long list, it isn't that useful. More article, less list. But deletion is overkill. Cayafas 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A problem with ___IPC articles is that the authors want to include everything. If it had been limited to the days of the week, a few references to Thor and... whoever the other Norse gods were, it might have been passable. However, this inclusion is illustrative: "In the 20th episode of the first season of the show Metalocalypse, Skwisgaar Skwigelf referred to the name of Odin with the sentence 'What in the fucking names of Odin?!'. Skwigelf also references Valhalla in the sentence 'I will sees you in Valhalska.'" For that, I say, let's get rid of this Frigg-in' article. Mandsford 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Article simply needs work. :bloodofox: 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per many similar other noms with maybe some info to be transferred into the parent article.-- JForget 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Capmango and Cayafas... Ranma9617 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep this is a closer call than most. There is more here than a list of cross-references; there seems to be some claim as to how the mythology was "reintroduced" - I've heard other versions mostly in the context of LOTR, but nothing pinned to WP:RSes. So I'm inclined to accept the topic as encyclopedic. However, what are needed are WP:RSes to back the facts. The standard for deletion based on lack of sources is that after some search, sources cannot be found. This AfD is the clarion call to the editors, find sources! Carlossuarez46 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Entirely unsourced and violates WP:NOT#INFO. Every small mention of any Norse god, myth, or story is indiscriminate as well as unencyclopedic. I think it is also important to point out that many of the keep reasonings above utilize WP:USEFUL. There is no reason to keep this article based on Wikipedia policy and/or guideline. María ( críticame) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Take it away, take it away, the awful thing. Entirely unsourced. It consists only of current advertising ephemera in list format. There are no unifying themes. This is not the yellow pages here. The articles should cover the mythology and if anyone sees a passing reference in a game or comic book they can look up the mythology. There must be hundreds of thousands of passing references. I don't know why these few were selected out for inclusion. Advertising opportunity? Dave 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is already a category for this topic, which itself needs to be cleaned up. This list provides nothing that the category cannot do better. CaveatLector Talk 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep not indiscriminate ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Notable subject which covers a large part of popular culture ranging from Tolkien to Marvel comics. I'd really like the nominator to explain more in detail how he reasons in this case.-- Berig 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but trim down the modern stuff. It's just a laundry list -- only the first two sections, which resemble an actual article, save this in my mind. -- Haemo 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Like most "X in popular culture" articles, it's recentist and contains horrid trivia lists, but a legitimate article can be written on this topic. I'd be very surprised if there aren't academic books on the topic. But cut most of the "modern popular culture" section, and consider renaming something like Reception of Norse mythology. EALacey 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Valkyries in popular culture

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

Yet another insufficiently sourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture

Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to recreation by users independent of the subject. -- Core desat 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article has a bit of history. It used to be a user page ( User:Aabaig) I speedy deleted. The deletion was contested by the user on his talk page, asserting his company did meet the WP:CORP criteria. Since we both disagreed, I moved the page to the article space and I am bringing it to AfD. My opinion is that despite the fact that this company is on a list of accredited companies (with ~30 other companies from Pakistan), it does not make it notable, and its small size (30 employees) doesn't help. Delete -- lucasbfr talk 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Note - Article is also under discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WP:COI_http:.2F.2Fspam.aabaig.com
  • Delete per nominator; non-notable. Riana (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. multi article linkspaming for aabaig.com by 124.29.203.33 also presents a problem. see WikiProject Spam case -- Hu12 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Request not to be Deleted. You guys may rather advise me to make necessary changes within the article to make it more appropriate and acceptable as per your regulations. I would also appreciate if you consider the following facts: a) This firm has around 100 employees if you include the employees which are hired by the firm but outsourced to various local and multinational organizations all over the country. The concept is known as Staff Leasing or HR Outsourcing. Since, such employees are hired purely for specific clients and are used there dedicatedly for long periods, such employees are not included by the firm in its manpower strength. b) Pakistan has more than 500 Accountancy Practicing Firms all working under license from the profession's regulatory body - the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, however, only around 90 odd firms have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. This firm is one of them. c) This firm was one of the first few professional firms / companies to have been given the status of ACCA Accredited Employer by ACCA even before companies such as Unilever Pakistan, Proctor & Gamble Pakistan, etc were given the same status. d) This firm's IS/IT Division's main clientele is UK based and the IS/IT Division's offices are also located in Leicestershire as well as in Newcastle - UK. Having offshore offices is a rarity among Accountancy / Consulting Firms in Pakistan. e)The firm's growth rate during the last financial year has been more than 100%. f)Keeping in view the fact that in Pakistan, there are only 5004 Chartered Accountants with 20% of them (around 1000) overseas, so from the point of view of Pakistanis and several other South Asians, this firm might justify a place at Wikipedia. g)You must note that Pakistan's economy is a growing one with one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world during the last consecutive three financial years. The economy is booming and so are professional service providers. This firm has grown from a relatively small sole practice into a medium size practice within a very short span of time (within five years). This too is an achievement for this firm. h)If you look at this firm's clientele, you will see that there are several top financial institutions which shows this firm's credibility. i) I will also appreciate if you look at the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzacott "Buzzacott is a mid-sized London Accountancy firm based in a single office in the City. Buzzacott Lillywhite began trading in the City of London in 1919, by the late 1960’s the firm was working for a number of religious and charitable clients. Indeed, not-for-profit remains one of the firm's seven specialist teams together with corporate, private client, expatriate, VAT, IT & consulting and financial services. Buzzacott is a growing firm with around 200 employees and 18 partners and was ranked 30th in 2007 (with an income of £15m) in the Accountancy Age list of the top 50 accountancy firms." My reservation is that if a single office, single city firm which comes at number '30' in UK can justify a space at wikipedia, why cannot a multi office international firm like AAB justify a space at wikipedia. You may also visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergroup and you will understand my point more clearly. Please reconsider. Thankyou -- Ahson Tariq— Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral Response: Maybe if you were to have put that information in the article, rather than your list of services, representative clients and alliances, this wouldn't be so quick to be deleted. I'm well aware that firms such as yours pay of listings in directories, just as law firms list such information in "Martindale-Hubbell". I'll concede that articles like the one on accounting giant [PricewaterhouseCoopers]] have a list of their clientele, which may be considered "informational", but Wikipedia should NOT be advertising. A small firm that is striving to become a larger one is, essentially, advertising. If you want to see an example of a professional firm description that lists its offices, see Greenberg Traurig. Bear in mind, however, that the large firms built their notability before there was a World Wide Web. Mandsford 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Spammy goodness ( SPA/ COI diatribe not withstanding). / Blaxthos 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Spamming Unintentional, not SPA and COI not relevant The spamming was not intentional and Hu cleared it to me earlier and I understood and noted his point. The issue of COI is not relevant here since the same info may be posted by tens of thousands of other people who know of this firm and they would more or less post the same facts about the firm. Lastly, the issue of SPA. Since this account has been created just today, you cannot classify it as SPA and you should wait for a while to see what range of topics is the particular user interested in. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Ashon, thank you for bringing Buzzacott and Intergroup to our attention - they should be deleted as well, and the appropriate procedures have been started. Tevildo 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CORP I have read WP:CORP and I do not see how the article under discussion violates any of the regulations / requirements mentioned in WP:CORP. It would be more fruitful if you explain the specific area where this article is in conflict. Maybe your'e right and that particular conflict can be removed from this article instead of deleting it altogether. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
    • From WP:CORP - "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The only secondary sources currently listed on the page are the various professional regulatory bodies and associations that your firm is a member of, none of which count as non-trivial. We'll need an article that's specifically about your firm, not just its inclusion in a list of similar, non-notable, firms. Tevildo 14:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Ref | WP:CORP - ACCA is the world's largest accountancy body and has been around for over a hundred (yes over 100) years and has members in over 170 countries - Calling such an organization "TRIVIAL" is an absurdity. Moreover, we are not just a member of this International Accountancy Body, we are its "Accredited Employers" and there are not many in Pakistan who have this status. Coming to the second Accountancy Regulatory Body - Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan - then again, we are not only just a member of this Regulatory Body, we are one of the few firms in Pakistan who have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. In my 'professional' opinion, comparison of a newspaper or magazine article, especially from those of local Pakistani print media WITH listing on the official websites of these prominent Accountancy Bodies is not appropriate. Nonetheless, here's an independent source from where you can check about our firm on the web media http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 . Feel free to make further queries. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
      • Ref | WP:CORP - One more thing. Here's the wiki link of Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder which is without a doubt one of the top most Accountancy Firms in Pakistan and represents Ernst & Young (Big 4) in the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Rhodes_Sidat_Hyder As you will see, its entry is also not supported by any 'article that's specifically about the firm', even though it is indeed one of the top firms of the country. Still its entry is there at Wikipedia. Why do the rules not apply to everyone? I can give u several other entries here which although are not backed by news articles but still the organizations are such that they merit a place at Wikipedia. I will appreciate if after looking at the independent link http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 , this article is not subjected to further open scrutiny for deletion. Regards and thanks. Ahson Tariq ( talk • contribs
  • Guys, I think this discussion can go on and on forever, so I'll throw in the towel. You guys do what you feel is appropriate. However, I must commend the moderation team here who are very vigilant. Lastly, I propose that you guys may consider waiting a bit and see whether any visitor (apart from moderating team) has any objection to this article. If it is reported, then the moderating team can consider deleting the article, while in the meantime, it may consider ending this deliberation on removing the article and remove the box on the top of the article for the time being which says that the article's deletion is being considered. Regards and thanks. Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination as well as the fact that the article is mostly made up of external links. (consider me outside the "moderation team", although one doesn't really exist...) Nat Tang ta | co | em 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. The external links were for authenticity. Moreover, The article could have contained thousands of words, but it was deliberately kept the way it is to ensure that it served an information purpose rather than commercial purpose. And the endless debate goes on..... Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • We all are missing one important point here. Accountancy Firms are grooming / training grounds for Finance Professionals all over the world. Tens of thousands (if not in hundreds of thousands) of Students of ACCA, CA, CIMA, et al look for recruitment in Accountancy Firms all the time. Do a random search of the web and you'll see that information regarding Accountancy Firms is easily available for US/UK/Canada/Australian Accountancy Firms. But when it comes to Accountancy Firms in Asia, there is no organized information available for these students. Wikipedia's Accountancy Firms page can help fill that gap with country-wise information about various Accountancy Firms. However, the theme should be informative rather than commercial. Ahson Tariq( talk • contribs)
  • Keep, because of references and client list in article shows notability. Add more description/history kind of stuff, maybe images, though, but in summary, keep and improve, seems notable enough for such a large encyclopedia. -- 24.154.173.243 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination (but allow for independent recreation). Article contains no information whatsoever, let alone its assertion as notable. Please put the article on WP:RA. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable. Narson 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Coredesat non admin close. Whispe ring 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

AfDs for this article:
A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This page doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines and might be used as an advertisment. The images on the page are dead and most of it's content seems to be exteranal links. This article should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The result was The result was speedy delete per criterion G11. -- Evilclown93 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Shou Records

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

NN label, spam, fails WP:CORP and the intro reads like some fanboy listing! Lugnuts 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need, since it was blanked it sould no longer be a problem. Try to bypass your cache (pressing Ctrl+F5 on any Wikipedia page, usually) if you still have problems.. -- lucasbfr talk 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js

AfDs for this article:
User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js (  | [[Talk:User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Aditya Kabir 10:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: On preview, this page appears to import a script called twinkle.js. -- Charlene 10:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Help, please. And, this twinkle is screwing up with my monobook. Damn. I hope my account isn't compromised yet. Aditya Kabir 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Neocommunism

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

This neologism can not possibly be identifyed and attributed to reliable sources, 'couse it has no tangible content. Carn 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: After searching around the internet, I see that this term is mostly used to describe the corrupt, autocratic post-Soviet régimes like that in Belarus, which rely heavily on the dismantling of basic freedoms and the establishment of a self-perpetuating personality cult. These staples of post-Soviet autocratic régimes are far removed from Communism in its ideological form. Although the subject is rather interesting, it might more faithfully described as being closer to a diluted form of second-wave Stalinism.. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of meaningful content without prejudice to recreation under a better style. Shalom Hello 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. The entire article: "Neocommunism can refer to any recent development in Communist or Marxist thought." I suppose it can. Mandsford 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless editors can expand this significantly with reliable sources, otherwise that will only go into the parent and appropriate articles.-- JForget 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I suspect that it is a valid term...unfortunately it fails just about ... everything ... in its present form. (No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, etc.) -- Tim4christ17  talk 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JodyB talk 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sameh almadhon

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

No Google hits for either the spelling of the name in the article or the spelling in the title, other than those sourced directly or indirectly from this Wikipedia article. Unless verifiable evidence from third-party reliable sources can be provided for the existence of this person, the article should be deleted. Arthur Frayn 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep There are 300,000 Google hits for the Arabic spelling. I found that the standard English spelling is Samih Madhoun (standard vowelization and dropping the "al" prefix). That spelling has 12,500 Google hits, including this news story. Shalom Hello 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A person doesn't qualify as "notable" if the reliable third-party coverage is short-lived. Since he's now dead, I suspect there will not be any further coverage. The claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that he was recently killed. I don't see how that makes him notable. ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, sources found and article tidied up. John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • What other claims to notability does he have, other than having been "a senior leader" in a militant terrorist organization, and that he was recently killed in a clash with a rival militant terrorist organization? ≈≈ Carolfrog≈≈ ♦тос♦ 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Generational secret

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

Contested prod... I think! Originally prodded as a neologism. An attempt to conflate different vernacular uses of the phrase in order to create a new concept. No references and no relevant ghits beyond everyday usage, nothing to support this as a distinct concept that's in general use. When I prodded it the author vandalised it and left a strange message implying she was done forever with WP. Not quite nonsensical enough for speedying, hence this AfD.

I am also nominating a related page from this author:

Tatee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's an unreferenced dictionary definition, now transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has not been expanded beyond a dictionary definition and there's no evidence or assertion of notability (the article even says it's not a term in wide use). Again, when I prodded this the author vandalised it.

andy 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both neologism/dictdef. / Blaxthos 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice for a different generational secret article. The term is used in counselling, but that's a different use than what appears in this strange article. Capmango 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Save

My dear learned ones. Yes my self deletion had some unusual content. There are items unwritten that you are of the blessed few, not to have experienced. I attended a family reunion last year of which upon introduction, I found my status."Oh I didn't know Claude Derrill had a son". The man mentioned was my father, I at one time was his son. Being "unique" to the point of becoming a Generational secret, made me aware of it's implications and the energy needed with in a family to keep such persons unknown. I suffered through electric shock, chemical shock and solitary confinement for 30 days at a time, just for being different. Now as I am becoming a most wonderful Transformed Woman, I find the need to remain in the shadows, sub notes, whispered entries a total waste of energy I may be speaking from another culture, that is unfamiliar to my judicial board, but am willing to dialog with any and all in my justification. For at one time was not the world considered flat, and all who believed otherwise burnt at the stake? I ask for even a subcategory of unexplored words, even if needed a category of undesirable word notation. I do appreciate being considered unique, if curiosity is of effect please to venture to my space countess_estelle. Thank you for consideration of my entries, and I do wish to have the option of self deletion, if that may be afforded.

Ms. Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II

  • Delete - no reliable sources and no indication it can be extended beyond a dicdef. -- Whpq 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete especially the second one as a slightly expanded dicdef. theProject 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mitch Modeleski

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

This is another of those hated WP:BLP messes. (We can thank Jimbo for starting a terrible precedent with Alan Dershowitz, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.) The article used to look like this, but in the face of edit warring, an administrator was forced to protect the page and convert it into a stub. Now there's a debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul Andrew Mitchell (the same person), and someone said, take the article to AFD, it's only one sentence long anyway, and then the talk page will fall automatically. I thought, great idea! The only complication is that this wasn't always one sentence long. Regardless, I believe that keeping the BLP in any form may cause more trouble than it's worth.

To be clear: I make no judgment about the fellow's notability. I just think that with certain articles - the Bogdanov affair comes to mind - it may be better to have no article than a controversial article. I'm willing to get a "speedy keep" thrown at this if only to make sure it's been considered. Shalom Hello 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Looking back on the article's history, there don't appear to be any references that confirm the subject's notability. If all he's done is to file a frivolous lawsuit against AOL, I don't think that makes him notable. If he's done anything else to make him notable, the article should say what that is. Even if we revert to one of the non-stub versions, that information isn't there. Tevildo 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think that the nominator (Shalom) should state explicitly whether or not they support deletion of this article; it's not clear from the nomination. Tevildo 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Response Great question, Tevildo. I Googled the fellow's name, and the first hit (ahead of Wikipedia!) was Wikitruth.info's archive of the "uncensored" version. Let's use that as a starting point if we decide to restore the article. I would want to rewrite the last two paragraphs to soften the tone. Looking at the references, it's clear that this fellow has earned an underground following, but just about everyone knows he's a crazy idiot. Here we enter the intersection of notability and neutral point of view. I think notability, as an independent baseline, is satisfied in the Wikitruth version - there are multiple, nontrivial sources, including a full article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, describing this fellow's activity. However, when you analyze what he is advocating, you realize that his theories are cultic conspiracy bollocks accepted by nobody with a brain inside his skull. So I'd suggest that the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV overrides the bare minimum of notability. In the sea of human knowledge, this guy barely qualifies as a twig of seaweed. Shalom Hello 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I checked that reference from our history; I'm still not convinced that it makes him notable (as opposed to his lawsuit being verifiable). There are many ways that self-published authors attempt to gain publicity - this may be one of the more original methods, but, unless it's propelled his book into regions where it can pass WP:BK, he doesn't deserve an article here. Tevildo 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a "weak" delete. I edit fairly heavily in the tax protester-related articles in Wikipedia. The subject of this article is indeed a promoter of Tax protester arguments, and I have been following his "career" (if you will) for some time. On balance, I would say he is somewhat notable, but arguably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That of course could always change later. Yours, Famspear 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just to follow up, I opine that tax protesters are a dime a dozen. The main reason I categorize this fellow as not yet notable enough is that he has had, as far as I know, no criminal legal problems. Any fool can file frivolous civil lawsuits. My unofficial main criterion for judging the notability of a U.S. tax protester is: Has this person been prosecuted criminally? Very, very few people are actually prosecuted for Federal tax crimes in the United States. As far as we know, the subject of the article has not been prosecuted criminally. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No assertion of notability; being described as a "tax protestor" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion per WP:BIO, as not all tax protestors are inherently notable. The article needs evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Walton talk 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The edit which show at least something is [8] Except for the final sentence, I see no reason why the article in that form would violate BLP, provided a source were found for some of the legal resolutions; and I'm sure a source could be found saying something like that as well. DGG 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. NawlinWiki 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Won-Joon Yoon

Won-Joon Yoon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable victim of a spree shooting Richard 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep I can't really explain why; I just don't think any one person is nonnotable in the context of a spree shooting. This problem has arisen in connection with the Virginia Tech Massacre and other incidents. Shalom Hello 09:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly mege these 2 vic pages into a central (not yet created) 1999 Illinois shooting spree (etc). Most of the event's details are covered in the shooter's article Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. We've had a number VT and 9/11 victim articles come though AfD recently, and WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E make good points. -- Breno talk 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Breno. I'd be careful, though, about extrapolating WP:BLP1E to dead people, since some dead people are notable for doing one thing - Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, for instance. -- Charlene 13:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah I asked over on BLP if that was correct.. turns out BLP1E should not be used for the deceased. Still, MEMORIAL does apply. -- Breno talk 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the shooter's page. JJL 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the shooter's page. - Agree with JJL. Redirect is probably the best approach. -- Richard 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith;, this article doesn't contain any biographical facts that cant be summarised on the shooters page. John Vandenberg 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • merge as per John. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the arguments to keep aren't based in policy or guidelines; whether Wikipedia is or isn't becoming too restrictive isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. -- Core desat 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Themes and motifs in Harry Potter

AfDs for this article:
Themes and motifs in Harry Potter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

It is largely unsourced and consists almost entirely of original research. It has been up for months and no serious action has been taken to revise it Serendipodous 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is an excellent example to illustrate my opinion that an attributed article can contain original research. At best, this article falls under the synthesis clause. There is no way to write a neutral encyclopedic article under this title. Shalom Hello 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rewrite: there have been enough books written on this subject that we surely could have an article that discusses various authors' views of these themes. Nyttend 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To avoid being original research, and belong in an encyclopedia, this article would probably have to not only be completely rewritten, it would have to have a different title. I can see an article on critical reaction to Harry Potter being appropriate, but "Themes and Motifs" just feels more like something you'd find on a fansite. Skittle 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article uses attributable facts to create new analysis, fails WP:NOR. Jay32183 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete origional research-- Sefringle Talk 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I personally don't have a problem with the article; we should just keep it... but that's just my opinion. DarthSidious 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious reply
  • Keep The article may need to be revised, but with appropriate tags and warnings eventually someone will take an interest. The article does seem to be active, just no interest in cleaning up...yet. Libertycookies 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:SYNTH violation, unnecessary fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep & Rewrite - whereas the article as it currently stands seems to fail WP:SYNTH I'm not convinced that it should be removed. I think the idea of such an article is valid but it must be completely rewritten into an encyclopaedic tone and cite the many books dealing with literary analysis of the series as primary sources. However, I am hovering towards ambivalence on this one and will gladly welcome any attempts to convince me in either direction! Aula TPN 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is an example of how not to write an article in Wikipedia. If the article is to be kept, it needs a complete deletion of all the text, removing all SYNTH and staying close to the sources. Better to delete and re-create, if someone has the inclination to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Which is basically what I suggested. ;-) Aula TPN 13:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The "powers that be" among wikipedians are becoming too restrictive in their judgements as to what should or should not be in wikipedia. Every other article is festooned with tags about references and originality and the like. Where did the spirit of anarchy go? If the article doesn't meet with your satisfaction, improve it, don't call for its elimination! Agricolaplenus 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's original research. Elimination is the only way to deal with it. Jay32183 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per no original research. Whispe ring 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a synthesis of information forming original research. -- Whpq 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus to delete. I personally think the title should be changed to Women in Iran, but I'll leave that for further discussion on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iranian women

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

Having grappled with this article from time to time, I have decided that the reason this article is difficult to work with is because it is not a real encyclopedia topic. Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" (notice that the definition itself lacks a source here) a wide variety of information pertaining to females from Iranian cultures, past and present, is arbitrarily selected to be added to this article. The association of these random facts under a supposed common term/phenomenon, "Iranian women," smells like a very strange form of OR by synthesis.

Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic, but if the topic itself has no certain definition, how can information be posted here as relevant? As this is not a real topic there can be no real content aside from synthesis relying upon the OR definition held by the editor. This kind of purposeless OR has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 08:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. At minimum we may need a name change. Shalom Hello 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My understanding is that actual women's issues in Iran are already covered at articles with real topics such as Persian women's movement. While the latter article is also in pretty bad shape, it is possible that it has the benefit of possessing a concrete definition according to reliable sources, as any topic should have. The Behnam 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. None of the reasons mentioned above are convincing:
  • It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article.
  • Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
  • Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
  • OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
  • A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
  • I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".

User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.

I vote for keep. Thanks. Sangak Talk 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There is currently no other article that addreses the issue of women in Iran in its entirety. and such topics are essential, if not critical. e.g. similaer articles Women in Japan, women in India, etc.-- Zereshk 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Persian women's movement covers the issue of women in Iran. But how is the topic "essential" or "critical" even as it lacks definition and scope? As for the others you mentioned, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Behnam 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So tell me, how do topics like women's health in Iran, Iranian women's fashion, motherhood in Iran, Iranian women etiquette, and cultural issues of Iranian women relate to Persian women's movement? Or are they not "well defined" either?-- Zereshk 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Right now I am not addressing the other articles as I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a bad argument. Don't you? The Behnam 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • You still havent answered the question. How does Persian women's movement cover all those mentioned topics that Iranian women does (or is intended to)?-- Zereshk 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not going to make recommendations about that other article here as here is not the place for it. However you bring up what I said about the article lacking definition and scope. Without a real definition it is hard to describe the scope of the article, a.k.a. what it is "intended to" cover. The Behnam 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
              • So you agree that Persian women's movement is not able to cover all issues of women in Iran, which Iranian women does by being a more general article. Lack of scope is hardly a reason for deletion. I dont buy that argument.-- Zereshk 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I didn't agree or disagree with anything. BTW, there is much more to my deletion than simply the "scope" aspect. I strongly encourage you to read this page, as knowing what else has been written can help you better express your own views on the deletion debate. Thanks. The Behnam 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to "Women in Iran" and reorganize to be more focused on present day conditions. RandomCritic 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My understanding is that the Iranian women's movement article covers present-day issues and there is no need to repeat them in the article for this pseudo-topic. The Behnam 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep - seems a perfectly valid topic although the article needs some work. Hard to say its not notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Please explain how this topic is "perfectly valid." For some time I've tried to see this supposed validity but found no real encyclopedic definition for the topic "Iranian women," as I have discussed in detail here. I feel like saying it is "perfectly valid" without responding to any of my concerns seems more like a "vote" and less like a debate. The Behnam 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, an article that presents information about the female persons of the region that is now modern-day Iran is valuable insofar as this information differs from that of the population as a whole - regardless of sex. This article purports to show that this is indeed the case. Thus, I consider it valuable. Information that cannot be sourced or that is OR should be excised, that doesnt mean; however, that the article itself is of no value. I apologise for not stating my reasons before due to laziness - I know its annoying to have people merely assert something is notable/encyclopedic without reason in these debates and shouldve known better. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation, but the concern I have is about the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedia topic, and I've yet to see how the definition that this article relies upon is anything but OR. I even had to recently remove what seemed to me an absurdity ( [9]), but who are we to dictate the definition of this supposed topic? Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article does, and the collection of facts attached to it is based upon this assumed definition. The Behnam 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think I can see some flaws in this article that may or may not be the ones you share. As far as I can see, the article defines Iranian women as those with an Iranian culture, speaking Farsi and living in the greater Iran region - I can see a problem arising as one can easily have women who are members of the first one or two groups that are not members of the second or third (for instance ethnically Persian women in the USA or UK who may not speak Farsi) - for that reason this definition may be a poor one. Additionally, the women described in the pre-Islamic section may well deviate from this definition. The author describes prehistoric burials without showing that these were of women of a Persian culture. I think I have to change my view to a relucatant (as I consider it would be valuable to have an article on the history of women of Persian culture) weak delete unless these problems can be fixed. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Well. I think the definition is pretty clear. The two articles are covering "History of women in Persia/Iran". That's pretty clear. Iran is a multi-ethnic country. It size reduced over the last centuries. The word, Iran and Iranian in its modern usage only refers to nationals of current Iran. But for instance 200 years ago Iran was bigger. So we needed to explain that issue. We also needed to explain that Persian women means women of Persia (former name of Iran). The word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity which accounts for the majority of people of Persian and Iran. But this article is not limited to those. In summary this article is the History of women in Persia/Greater Iran. The article Iranian women's movement was meant to cover the history of women in modern Iran (starting from Persian constitutional revolution). I think the definition is pretty clear. Please note that when we say German women (wome of Germany), we have to make it clear that they are not all ethnicly German. The same story is true for Turkish people and Turkey. There many Kurds who are nationals of Turkey. ... Thanks. Sangak Talk 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm not so sure that the definition you offer above is the same as that of the article which defines Iranian women by stating "{t}he term refers to women who practice Iranian culture, speak Iranian languages and live mainly throughout the Iranian cultural continent." To me this clearly excludes non-culturally Persian natives of what is now modern day Iran (the pre-Islamic portion of the article) as well as any non Farsi-speaking or non-Persian women of Iran (Arabs, Azeris etc). Perhaps the article can be repaired along the lines that you suggect above? The topic - women of Iran - is an interesting and valuable one, however, the definition used is, imo, a problem. If steps could be taken to improve the definition I think a keep would be best for the wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • @Sangak: Thanks for the extensive response. I'll response to each one:
    • It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article. "
      • While I don't recall requiring expertise to work on Wikipedia, I'm not really questioning the individual facts stated in the article as much as I am questioning its basis for existence. I'm sure that an editor could add even more random facts somehow related to this concept "Iranian women" using Persian sources but this does not resolve the apparent lack of encyclopedic definition for the topic.
    • Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
      • How isn't there a problem with the definition? Throughout all of these months we have no RS defining this term, much less doing so in a manner that gives the article scope and direction to prevent it from being a collection of random facts that editors selected to associate to the topic. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument; in fact I'm thinking about nominating some of the other non-topic articles for deletion as well. I even thought about tacking Kurdish women to this deletion debate.
    • Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
      • How do you determine relevance without a concrete and focused definition of the topic based upon reliable sources?
    • OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
      • OR is definitely relevant. A "topic" lacking a concrete definition cannot be written about without using a definition and scope not rooted in reliable sources. The personal perception of the topic's definition & scope is combined with a raw fact taken from a source to advance an association, but as this association itself is unsupported by RS it is OR.
  • In WP:OR, one of the examples of original research that should not be included in Wikipedia is anything that "defines new terms." The definition used in this article does not rely upon reliable sources and is essentially the opinion of an editor. As the article's definition and scope is OR, the article is fundamentally flawed.
    • A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
      • While it wasn't my point (it was Shalom's), I think it should be clarified that Shalom seemed to be suggesting a name change at the minimum. Anyway, as I've said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify an article's existence; I am actively considering nominating others (such as Women in Arab societies) for deletion as well.
    • I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".
      • I don't claim that they are equivalent and I think that Iranian women's movement probably has a concrete definition somewhere that provides direction and basis for the article. And while it isn't relevant, generally empires shrink as conquered lands break away or are taken by others. What article would you like to suggest for merge?
    • User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.
      • Again I'm not concerned about the sources for the facts (though I was back before cais-soas was blacklisted), but rather the source for the definition that should guide the entire article. And obviously I'm still not convinced that this is a real topic. BTW, "smelling" was not meant literally :)
  • Anyway, thanks again for your extensive response as I appreciate real discussion of the article's merits (rather than simple voting). Hope to hear back from you. The Behnam 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi Behnam! Thanks for your feedback. I think your major point is about the scope of the pages. Do you see any problem with "History of women in Persia/Iran"? When we are discussing women in old times we have no choice but discussing their appreance in literature, paintings and so on. "Iranian women's movement" is also very familiar to any Iranian. The persian translation is Jonbeshe Zanan e Iran. It was initiated in 19th century by a group of women who wanted to participate in politics, to have education for women, sport for women, music for women and so on. There are now several organizations and journals persuing those projects. Perhaps Iranian women were among pioneers of women activism in central Asia and western Asia.

If there is any ambiguities, that's not in the nature of the subject. That's due to the ambiguities in the name Iran/Persia. The same problem exists when you want to talk about German nationals or Turkish nationals etc. When one says A is a Turkish parliament member, people may automatically consider him/her from Turkish ethnicity. But we know that one third of the population of Turkey are Kurds. I know that politicians do not care about terminology. But wikipedia is a democracy and for that reason we explained these issues at the begining of "Iranian woman" page. Please note that this ambiguity does not exist in Persian language where the name of the land has been always "Iran". In English language the name Iran, was not in use until 20th century.

I do think this article has the potential to become a great article in future and I do not see any reason for deletion of the article. As I mentioned above the French version has a high quality and it reached FA status in the past. There are master programs in several Iranian Universities on "Iranian women studies". So the subject is very well-established. Sangak Talk 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not concerned about Iran/Persia ambiguities here, nor do I doubt the existence of the Iranian women's movement or its appropriateness in an encyclopedia. My problem is that this article is written based on a definition made up by editors based upon their personal ideas about what comprises the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women." Until this problem is entirely resolved I support deletion. And don't worry about the other stuff - I am getting tired of artificial topics elsewhere on Wikipedia too; I'm not trying to pick on Iran or something like that. BTW Wikipedia is not a democracy though it sometimes acts like one :( The Behnam 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If you are unhappy with the content, you may want to post a translation request to French wikipedia and have the FA version translated into English. Or you may want to contact an expert to step in. Or perhaps you may want to search in the web and find sources like Women's live in ancient Persia and The Women's Movement in Iran and improve the article. Alternatively, one can think of merging the two articles. I think deletion does not make sense. Sangak Talk 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Citations to research, encyclopedic value, and the author handles the topics with objectivity. The objection appears to be to the title. The status of women around the world is of interest to more than 50% of the globe's population, not just to our "better half". Mandsford 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The objection is to the complete lack of definition and scope for this article. Some others have objected to the title but I object to the article itself as fundamentally flawed per WP:OR: "It defines new terms." The Behnam 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep" as an excellent effort at writing a NPOV article. The material is encyclopedic, and the editors can think about a better title. a good case has been made for other similar articles--saying they aren't there is not an argument against this one. DGG 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Please validate the article's topic. I've raised a number of concerns about the existence of this term as a topic and have pointed out the OR basis for this article. BTW, I've never used those other articles as a reason for this one to be deleted; I have only reminded others that the existence of those articles does not justify the existence of this article. Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article is doing, and the entirety of this article relies upon this OR definition. The Behnam 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not an article about a phrase. Its an article about a subject. The qy. of the best name for the subject is an editing question. It should be a neutral descriptive phrase. I myself cant think of anything much more neutral than this, but perhaps somebody will when the discussion returns to the article talk p. DGG 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It claims to define a certain encyclopedia, "Iranian women", and without basis associates a variety of different facts with this supposed idea. The definition provided in the article is and has always been OR. There may be a simple dictionary-type definition that can be accepted as obvious, such as "women from Iran," though you don't find this explicitly defined either. But to claim that there is a detailed definition, a topic with a specific and meaningful scope of relevance, is completely unfounded, and the article is not acceptable until this foundation can be established, and this established definition can redefine the content of the article. Right now it is just a collection of facts and pictures included because of the definition made-up in the lead or because of the personal notions of editors. This AFD has been disappointing from a debate perspective. So far I've mostly run into unsubstantiated claims (see the below "vote"), various distractions unrelated to my reasons for nomination (mostly along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and begging the question (such as yours - "its an article about a subject", despite the fact that the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedic subject is one of the very things that I am questioning in this AFD).
  • Keep definently encyclopediac topic and material is encyclopediac. Also seems to be pretty well sourced.-- Sefringle Talk 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Should I just take your word for it? Your response doesn't address any of the problems I have brought up here. Dude, this is a debate. The Behnam 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep encyclopedic article on topic rarely found in an English language encyclopedia. Serves to strengthen Wikipedia by countering systemic bias. Promotes understanding of women's issues and contribution of women to Iranian culture in an objective manner. One editor argued that the article has a complete lack of definition and scope, but I disagree. IMHO once the title is changed to something like "Women in Iranian Society" the scope and definition are no longer an issue. -- Chicaneo 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Strike through on -- Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Upon further reflection, and after working on the article, I now tend to agree with Sangak regarding keeping the article's name. Sangak has made very strong arguments in support of the title, in spite of many suggestions to change it. The contents of this article are unique and do not fit in with existing articles. Sangak's argument that the word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity is what convinced me. I think a good comparison would probably be Hispanic women. Hispanic is a term that encompasses people from many nationalities while describing a commonality of Spanish ancestry. -- Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: I’m not quite sure I understand the OR argument. WP:OR refers to unpublished facts, and unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position or historical interpretation that is novel. The article is well sourced so it obviously does not rely on unpublished facts, analysis or synthesis. So then those who are taking the OR position must be arguing that the authors of the article are trying to push a certain POV, novel idea, or novel historical perspective. Please clarify for me what is novel about the existence of Iranian women in Iran and their contributions to their own society? Also, the argument that this article "defines new terms." has really got me confused. What new terms are defined? Could you list them? Surely you don‘t mean “Iranian women”. I think that term has been around as long as there have been women in Iran. Now I’m no expert on Iran, but I believe that would be since about 3200 B.C.. So what’s new about that? It’s possible that I have misunderstood these two arguments. If so, could you please provide clarification. Thanks.-- Chicaneo 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An 'unpublished definition' is just as much OR as the other unpublished variants, and in fact could be considered more severe, as it is equivalent to "made up." The new definition is that used for the encyclopedia itself. Have you read the lead or looked at prior versions? The concept of this the article has no sourced definition & scope and as such there cannot possibly be an encyclopedic article about it. There is no anchor for the definition of the topic, and this definition determines the material included in the rest of the article. I don't think that most of the facts included are necessarily OR - they look good overall, though I haven't checked each of them. I won't say that there is a specific POV pushed as the article is just a jumble of facts tacked to a page; perhaps some of them try to 'make a point' but that is aside from the point. Perhaps the sourced information should simply be relegated/kept elsewhere instead of pooled under this artificial article topic. BTW 3,200 BC sounds a tad too early - by about 3000 years. The concept of "Iran" before Parthian (I think) & Sassanian times remains unattested (the expected form would be *Aryanam but as the asterisk indicates, this is unattested). The cultural ancestors discussed at Iran are listed as starting 3200 BC - perhaps the coverage there is misleading so as to portray the nation of Iran as existing that far back. I'll think about some possible adjustments there. The Behnam 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all, prior versions are irrelevant. The AfD is to determine the fate of the article that is shown in real time. What I hear you saying is that the intro section needs work. So what? Is that a reason to delete the entire article? No. The solution is simple. Just fix the intro to match the article. You said the article “defines new terms”. Again, what new terms??? Can you please list them? Surely you don’t mean “Iranian Women”? Now that you’ve clarified the timeline for me, that term has been around since about 200BC. I hope the terms you list are newer than this. -- Chicaneo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Zereshk although rename Women in Iran if that is the naming precedent for these kinds of articles. -- Joshdboz 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It would be quite a stretch to keep "Iran" in any case as this assumes that really ancient stuff counts as Iran. Perhaps for some nationalists this is the case but in reality the national concept of "Iran" is not attested to in Achaemenian times. I've had to remove anything suggesting otherwise from the main article ( Iran). This is part of the vagueness. Does the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women" include women from all Iranian groups or just the nation of Iran? How much history is considered relevant? What aspects are considered relevant? We can't just have random facts tacked onto a page. The definition used in the article is OR. It amazes me that despite all of these 'keep' votes nobody has even moved to help out the article to address any of these problems. The Behnam 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Have you? As fas as I see, all you ever do is go around unreasonably tagging articles, deleting or decimating articles, engaging in editorial combat with everyone involved and throwing accusations at them, and reporting them to admins. Tell me one Iranian related article you have fully created and authored? Even one?-- Zereshk 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll take you up on your offer to help out. But since "these problems" are your problems really, it seems reasonable that you should bring them up on the talk page, if you haven't already, and then you should accept the consensus whatever that is. -- Chicaneo 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep RS'ed ,encyclopedic, objective and certainly noteable. Dman727 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - This is supposed to be more than a Wiktionary article. Perhaps in Wiktionary you can define "Iranian women" as "women from Iran" without incident (though there is no source for that definition yet), but encyclopedia articles need to have focus, definition, scope rather than just being a collection of somewhat-related facts. And throughout this debate this hasn't happened. And I doubt it will happen even after this debate closes. Do know, however, that just as Zereshk so despises, I will relentlessly remove anything inappropriate from this article. I haven't much interest in 'creating' articles for this "encyclopedia," but rather removing crap from what exists already. Maybe after the crap is removed I'll try to make a full article on my own, but right I'm not interested. Zereshk's comment bringing up the question of my authorship of articles was inappropriate anyway. Like many Iran-related articles, this one also has issues. Considering that the problem is quite fundamental (with OR defining the topic & its scope), I suspected that this isn't a real encyclopedia topic (no, don't build the strawman that I don't believe Iranian women exist or similar BS misinterpretation of my arguments), and hence felt that deletion was best. However, since I failed to communicate my case against the article persuasively, it seems that this is heading for a "Keep," so I will simply cut the crap directly from the article upon the debate's closure.

Chicaneo, thanks for making some edits to the article, but as you don't seem to think that this article has any problems with definition & scope, can you please provide sources for the lead that explicitly back up every claim? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep per above, specially Chicaneo. Where's the OR? What are the new terms being defined? 'Iranian women'? Article may need more work, but it definitely is encyclopedic. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Can you define the ideas in the lead and those ideas used in directing the article's development? So far there have been so many 'keep' votes and yet nobody has actually tried to address the fundamental issue here. All of the facts used in the page are loosely associated by pertaining to "Iranian women," but the definition of that term in the encyclopedic sense is not clear (and apparently nonexistent). Maybe, just maybe, you can try wiktionary for "Iranian women" but to present it as a unified subject suitable for an encyclopedia is preposterous. There just isn't anything to define what is relevant other than loose association to the undefined "Iranian women," and this is against WP:NOT (no loosely associated collections). The Behnam 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Peacent 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Wombination

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

Do we really need to have this...? LamentIndex 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've nominated this for speedy deletion as nonsense. Should work. :-) The Behnam 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to the school district article. -- Core desat 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School

I'm also nominating the following schools because they're all elementary schools in the same school district.

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arndt Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barbara Fasken Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonnie L. Garcia Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Borchers Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Centeno Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clark Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colonel Santos Benavides Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cuellar Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
De Llano Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finley Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judith Zaffirini Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Juarez-Lincoln Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazen Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kennedy-Zapata Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malakoff Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muller Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newman Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nye Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prada Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roosevelt Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruiz Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salinas Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trautmann Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United D.D. Hachar Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

1) Elementary schools are not inherently notable and 2) All these articles are clones of each other and there's no content in any of them. Delete and Redirect to the school district page Corpx 08:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: inherently non-notable duplicates... -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all because they are hopelessly redundant. In addition, redirect all to the article about the local school district, and remove the link coding for those schools in the target article in order to discourage recreation. Shalom Hello 13:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all of them, failing WP:ORG. Some have actually been expanded from the template, e.g. Nye Elementary School, but notability is not established. This is something like "mass-schoolcruft". -- B. Wolterding 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge all to the school district as Elementary school unless historical facts are generally nn.-- JForget 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. — Tim4christ17  talk 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hopeless romantics

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

This article has been here for months with nothing been done to make it into an encyclopedia article. I can't really see how it can ever be an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. Dazz (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "In love with love" indeed... -- Charlene 08:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Delete this foolishness. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; ah, but a hopeless romantic would know that this would happen, and would move on elsewhere... c'est la vie. Mandsford 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not in love with this article. Cedars 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Thriller (album), without prejudice to recreating an article if someone can add content showing that the song in particular has notability (like, for example, Beat It). NawlinWiki 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Lady In My Life

The Lady In My Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Another non-notable Michael Jackson album track which User:Superior1 refuses to leave as a redirect to the album page. Corvus cornix 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Dazz (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Is this on the right article? I'm not sure that a Michael Jackson song belongs on Urban Dictionary. -- Charlene 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. Paaerduag 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • What references would ever do anything to this article to make it more than a run of the mill non-notable album track? Corvus cornix 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album track. GassyGuy 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect back to the album. It might be on one of the best-selling albums of all time, but it's still an album track. EliminatorJR Talk 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Does the same go for all the album tracks on the Beatles albums and stuff like The Dark Side of the Moon? Superior1 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, for The Wall, another Pink Floyd album with all of the album tracks having their own articles, six of the tracks were released as singles. Are you saying the other twenty should be merged? Superior1 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:POKEMON for reasons why these arguments, while they may be valid (I have not examined the articles in question to see if they are), do not impact the keeping or deletion of this particular article. GassyGuy 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am in danger of repeating myself to the point of being a broken record, but I am asking for time. Look at what I've done to the Just Good Friends article for those of you who think I've simply been talking myself up and actually doing nothing. That is not an article worthy of deletion. A stub, maybe, but not worthy of deletion. I need time to do this. Just a little bit. But if all of these AFDs are concluded swiftly then you will cut me short, and that will be extremely unfair. Please give me just a bit of time. What's the harm in that? I ask you again, what is the harm in giving me a little bit of time to expand and add references to these articles? There is no harm. Paaerduag 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is that there's still no evidence of notability. To prove that this album track is notable, it needs to have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources in which it is the primary topic. It has coverage in user-submitted reviews on sputnikmusic and amazon.com, which are not reliable sources. It has trivial coverage in album reviews. It has been performed on tour, but that alone is not a notability criterion. The problem, therefore, is not with the sourcing of these articles, but that the subjects themselves are unfit. GassyGuy 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major one Balloonman 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have told Superior1 that I am not going to be expanding or referencing either of the Thriller songs because I simply do not have the time. I don't care what you do, but my keep vote remains simply because this is a notable song, and Rolling Stone, which you conveniently forgot to mention, is indeed a reliable source, as is sputnikmusic and amazon IMO. Paaerduag 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The Amazon and Sputnikmusic reviews are user-submitted. That is the same as a forum post or blog review, and therefore are not reliable. The Rolling Stone review is about the album, which proves that the album is notable. The song is not the primary topic, which is why that source does not demonstrate the notability of the song per WP:NOTE. GassyGuy 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:MUSIC establishes some guidlines on the notability of songs and this song doesnt meet any of the requirements there. The song itself is notcovered in sufficient independent works, it is not ranked on a national or significant music chart, it has not recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire, it has not won a significant award or honor (all per the article). I couldnt find out whether this one was released as a single, but even then due to the lack of a chart apperance I'd stick with my delete vote. Corpx 10:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Thriller. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to assert any semblance of notability aside from being connected to a notable album. Trusilver 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unlike The Lady In My Life (above), this article has substantive content discussing this specific song and why it is notable, and has specific references. NawlinWiki 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Just Good Friends (song)

Just Good Friends (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable album track, not a single. Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track spree". I tried redirecting, but the originator refused to leave it that way. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed Demon (song). Corvus cornix 06:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. -- Paaerduag 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • References about what? References which say this is other than a non-notable album track? Such references will not exist, because it isn't anything other than a non-notable album track, no matter how many references you stick onto the article. Corvus cornix 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If it has references, it would lead one to the conclusion that it isn't entirely non-notable. Paaerduag 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This song is a non-notable album track. References that prove otherwise should be produced now for the article kept, not vaguely promised for some future time. See Talk:HIStory for other problems related to this editor, where I proposed the merging of several of these non-notable tracks to their parent album (using the proper Proposed Mergers page etc.) and had the proposal closed by this editor in less than a week after a 2-1 vote by 2 members of WikiProject Michael Jackson. GassyGuy 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Obviously you have entirely misread what I have said. If a song has references, that means that it isn't totally, 100% non-notable as some would have you believe. Also, I'm not promising references for some future time; don't put words in my mouth. Also, GassyGuy, were you planning to actually rebut the HIStory merging issue at the time, or where you going to keep your opinion quiet until some future time, such as now, when you could use the issue to your advantage? I'm getting references, whether you like it or not. -- Paaerduag 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Expanded and referenced - shallow promises eh? I've added references, and am continuing to do so. Also, please don't quickly shut the other Afd's (as many of you would like) as I am going to improve them as well. Paaerduag 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • LOOK - I'd call it a lot better than it was. Sure, it ain't a long article, but it's referenced, and therefore it isn't as obscure as you might like. It no longer deserves to be deleted. Paaerduag 03:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Song reviews do not make a non-notable album track notable. Corvus cornix 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the proposed notability guidelines for songs includes "2: is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." This guideline is consistent with other notability guidelines that gives implied notability to a number of groups/writers/etc based upon affiliation to famous people (just look at WP:MUSIC and you'll see how this criteria is consistent with other notability guidelines there.) Balloonman 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Except it wasn't a single, so that guideline doesn't apply. EliminatorJR Talk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I missed the phrase single... but I would still argue that any song on a platinum album is noteworthy. This album is 8x platinum. Balloonman 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Fine, but then where does that level of notability stop? That's why the guideline is there. EliminatorJR Talk 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Notability is just a guideline... I am not a music person... I couldn't identify 10 songs that reached the top 100 in the past year. I'm more into sports. But I have more respect for any song on a platinum album than I do for that backup linebacker who gained notability via a single game... or the book that nobody has heard about, but was written by somebody famous. The guidelines are broken, but if the potential exists for these non-notables to be considered notable, then you would be hard pressed to convince me that a song on a platinum album is any less notable. Balloonman 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Speed Demon (song) - ARC Gritt TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • And yet it still fails the primary notability criterion. That one trumps all other guidelines, including WP:MUSIC, which does leave grey area, although it does not explicitly pass any of those criteria either. Basically, this amounts to "keep because I think being on a notable album is good enough," but there is no policy which backs that up. GassyGuy 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - funny how the concert image has mysteriously stopped working in the infobox. I don't know why, but I'm still puttin' it in as a thumbnail. If anyone knows why it doesn't work in the infobox, please tell. If anyone subterfugely removed it, sorry but it ain't going nowhere.-- Paaerduag 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete by WP:MUSIC. Every Jackson album is notable, and most sold very well. However, that does not mean that every song on all those albums deserves an article. The song has to assert its own notability, either through cultural influence or popularity (did it chart well?). Tdmg 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bad. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to Bad. I don't like the trend of "every song for every notable albume deserves an article". While I did feel that Speed Demon had enough notability due to how prominently it was featured in Moonwalker, this one has no such secondary claim to notability beside simply being on a notable album. Trusilver 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure of orphan AfD Hut 8.5 09:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

X-o.g

X-o.g (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable DJ. Claims of notability, so can't be speedied. Corvus cornix 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, similar to Just Good Friends (song). NawlinWiki 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Speed Demon (song)

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

Non-notable album track. Every track on every album doesn't need an article. Corvus cornix 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to the album ( Bad (album)). All info here is in the album article. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track" spree. Corvus cornix 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment I was only planning to do HIStory, Thriller, Bad and maybe Dangerous. Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible are unnotable. Superior1 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I tried redirecting Just Good Friends (song) to the album article, but Superior1 refuses to leave it that way. Therefore I have been compelled to nominate Just Good Friends (song) for deletion as well. Corvus cornix 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. -- Paaerduag 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Adding references doesn't make this anything more than what it is, a non-notable album track. Corvus cornix 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Dazz |Talk 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete just being part of a notable album by a notable artist does not grant notability to a song. Unless the song made the charts/win notable awards etc, its not notable. I dont see any references to those in the artilce Corpx 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the album. This song does not pass WP:SONG. -- Charlene 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album track. Viable as a redirect, not as an article. GassyGuy 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge per Charlene and Saberwyn.-- JForget 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have repeated myself over and over again, but I hope not onto deaf ears. Look at the Just Good Friends (song) article if you don't believe me. That is what I intend to do to all four of these disputed articles. If you cut me short then I cannot. I ask for one thing, and one thing only: time. Give me a little bit of time to improve and cite these articles. That is all I am asking. Look at the Just Good Friends article if you think I am just talking. I am not. I am DOING. Paaerduag 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Notability of subject - I do not think that this is an entirely obscure, non-notable song anyway. It was, after all, featured on the film Moonwalker by Michael, and there is a music video that accompanies this. That makes it notable, after all. Paaerduag 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Just because a movie used it and a music video was made does not make this notable. I'd guess that thousands of songs fit this criteria Corpx 04:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well I still think it does make it notable. Paaerduag 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major one Balloonman 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Just Good Friends (song) - ARC Gritt TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There are references, but there are not references which demonstrate notability. WP:NOTE establishes that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources either are not reliable sources or deal not primarily with the song, but with its parent album. That is a strong case for discussing the song within the article for its album, but not for keeping this one as its own independent article. GassyGuy 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is Michael Jackson. This is a notable song by Michael Jackson. Can we leave the bureaucracy at home on this one? It's obviously notable, if not for its interesting usage/subversion of a negative slang word normally reserved for Hispanics alone. In short the article has potential. -- Manboobies 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The point is that there's yet to be any reliable source presented that shows it does indeed meet the guidelines set out by WP:NOTE. Notability is not subjective. I've seen nowhere that says "It must meet the criteria except if it's associated with Michael Jackson, in which case we can ignore them." GassyGuy 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Rolling Stone magazine IS notable. Why do you keep ignoring that one? Also, why must it be about the song itself? I don't see why comments within a larger framework are wrong? And if you start quoting WikiProjects, I'll simply direct you to WP:SONG, which states that "there are currently no guidelines for the notability of songs."-- Paaerduag 09:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not ignoring Rolling Stone. If you read me, I already said that this is not non-trivial coverage of the song, as the primary topic of the article is the album, proving the notability of the album, not the song. Also, I don't see why you're linking to WP:SONG when it is not the WikiProject's unofficial notability guidelines I am invoking, but rather the primary notability guideline. I am starting to feel like a broken record and apologize to whoever closes this. GassyGuy 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Amil Imani

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

As has been discussed on the article's talk page, this guy isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE applies here, as his views definitely qualify as fringe views, and it is definitely undue weight to give him an article. I have to do this through AFD because the proposed deletion, which was seconded by another user, was invalid because the page's author, User:Patchouli, removed the 'prod' tag earlier, and no exception was made to allow the prod go through even after 5 days. Anyway the guy is still not notable and hence the article should be deleted. The Behnam 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:Fringe or not, this guy fails WP:Notability by a wide margin. VanTucky 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. Dazz |Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I dunno... I see 90K Ghits for him... A lot of people seem to be listening to what he has to say. -- Groggy Dice T | C 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This was discussed already on the talk page. Fringe, hate sites and bloggish stuff, mainly. He also appears on some sites where people can submit their writing for posting. But I don't see much mainstream RS about him to make him notable, and we are also not supposed to place undue weight on fringe views & activists. If the fact that he features prominently on anti-Islamic fringe sites doesn't convince you that he is fringe, I suggest that you read this rant. It doesn't even come close to being mainstream. The Behnam 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't need "much," just enough, & our definition is enough=2. DGG 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Should I say "any" instead? I don't like pretending to know everything so I don't say "any" just in case there is something really big that I have missed. The Behnam 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Fillmore 4th of July Festival

Fillmore 4th of July Festival (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable fourth of july festival whose only claim to fame is the sale of fireworks. Corvus cornix 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Its a Fourth of July festival. Is there anywhere in the United States of America that does not have a Fourth of July festival? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankstown Christmas Carols for my reasoning why a location's festival does not need an article when every location in the same nation/continent has the same festival. -- saberwyn 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. Dazz |Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's nothing unique about this festival that vastly sets it about other 4th July celebrations! Corpx 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If festival is significant to the town and the surrounding area, I think it then deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia.
  • Delete non notable firework show Balloonman 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no references that establish its notability among fireworks shows. We do not take the authors word for the article's notability, he needs to provide evidence for that. Tdmg 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Josh Appell

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. No indication that he's played yet in the majors. Corvus cornix 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete due to no claim of notability aside from minor league baseball. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most notable award is the Honorable punter. Honorable ____ is awarded to any player who has received at least one vote in the poll Corpx 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability of MLB players which requires a game in the Majors. Balloonman 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments still appear to be mostly valid even after the reversion. -- Core desat 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

hopelessly POV, doesn't seem to be notable Makerowner 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete without prejudice that someone else could write a completely different article on this subject that we could keep. no comment on notability; can't tell from article. But extremely unencyclopedic article, and lacking context as well. Capmango 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice due to bias issues. -- Metropolitan90 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a possibly WP:Fringe topic (at least from the Yankee perspective) that is POV in addition to being totally unreadable. VanTucky 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't think it's a fringe article (this isn't the American Wikipedia; an article about a notable British phenomenon is just as notable as one about an American phenomenon), but it's hopelessly POV. I think a good article could be made out of the topic, but this is not the article. In fact, it reads like an essay someone did in school one day. -- Charlene 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete reads like a POV essay. It might be possible to write a decent article on this, but as we'd have to start from scratch we might as well delete it. Hut 8.5 09:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no encyclopedic material not included in the article about the parent body, the Free Church of England. That this article doesn't even link to that one demonstrates its uselessness in its present form.. DGG 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete when I was earning my history degree, I used to say that History should be a B.S. degree because we BS'ed around that which we didn't know... this article seems like one where in a person BS'ed around the fact that s/he didn't know. Balloonman 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have reverted to this article to an older edit. Some of the above criticisms are less valid when considering the older text (e.g. less POV). If there is going to be a vote on keeping the article or not, perhaps it should be re-done, based on the older version, before un-encyclopedic edits were made. -- BenStevenson 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without images. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Fergie videography

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

Spam, nonsense. It is not an appropriate encyclopedia article for Wikipedia and it will confuse most users. A Raider Like Indiana 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into Fergie article. It's not spam and it's not nonsense; if someone is interested in Fergie (which I don't happen to be), a videography is just as useful as a discography. It's small enough that it doesn't need its own article, though. Capmango 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge whatever passes WP:N into Fergie Rackabello 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, the entire thing is an egregious copyright violation. Those images cannot be in this article. Nor can they be in the Fergie article. Corvus cornix 05:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into main article, then delete Corpx 05:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge without images and redirect to an article on this artist's discography or this artist's released singles. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the Fergie article, it doesn't deserve a separate article.-- JForget 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Fergie ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of music videos by Fergie, and remove images as copyvios (per WP:MUSTARD) Giggy U C P 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaults to keep. I am very disappointed in the number of one hit wonder votes from redlinked and anon editors (most only have thier edits to this AfD in thier contrib history). But even taking this into consideration, there were enough established editors suggesting this subject be kept. There are still outstanding concerns for this article. I'm going to tag it as needing clean up and sourced. I believe John Vandenberg makes the best case for notability, but I'm shocked that none of that made it into the actual article. This article has major issues, so I'm asking those who were in favor of keeping this article to please try your best to bring it up to wikipedia standards. Andrew c  [talk] 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

HR-XML

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

Non-notable organization. Most of this article is not in fact about the organization, but about document formats developed by it. Valrith 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Good reference information. Capmango 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Corvus cornix 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and separate. Document schemas and the actual HR-XML Consortium/certifications are two different things. -- Breno talk 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone else has written about it. Dazz |Talk 07:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:COI WP:SPAM. Author was one Chuckhr-xml ( talk · contribs). MER-C 11:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did not create this page, but I did recently update it. Certainly HR-XML is as notable as similar specifications. Consider XBRL, ACORD, Interactive Financial Exchange, RosettaNet, Association for Retail Technology Standards the Data-Interchange-Standards-Association, Health Level 7, eLML, WS-I, hResume and ANSI ASC X12. If we delete HR-XML, I suggest we next turn our attention to deleting each of these others. While the HR-XML page may benefit from additional work, it is more complete and substantive than most of the aforementioned pages concerning organizations/formats that are peers to HR-XML. Per Breno's suggestion, I have clarified the distinction between "HR-XML" -- a term used commonly to refer to a library of XML specifications published by the HR-XML Consortium -- and the Consortium itself. I wouldn't suggest that the two be broken out on separate pages. The same issue of "specification(s)" vs "source organization" applies in the case of the other entries I've cited and is handled in a similar manner. Please review the current page and the the entries for the other consortia I cite.

I made the suggestion in jest that Health Level 7 be deleted -- but I see that this has been suggested before. Perhaps consortia deserve a bit of special handling in terms of establishing "notability". I'd say that the notability of a consortium or standards organization rests on the notability of its members and documented adoption within the particular market the organization is intended to serve. If you don't apply this type of standard, you may well end up deleting many of the entries I cite above. However, if you do, I don't believe you will be serving the best interests of the wikipedia community. -- Chuckhr-xml 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Content has recently been added that is valuable to the wikipedia community, particularly anyone in the human resource community. -- kimhrxml 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same comment as previous ones. Many consortia and organizations should be deleted if following the same rules, including major ones such as the Object Management Group or even the World Wide Web Consortium. Pages for tehse organizations merely describe the specifications they created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.74.15 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2007
  • Comment the following comment was mistakenly left on the talk page by an anonymous IP.
Please do not delete this entry. The HR-XML Consortium should be part of Wikipedia for sure. Pascal.Tesson 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you have a diff for that? John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a global standard in the Human Resources space for exchange of HR related data BillKerrOracleCorp 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, this is crazy. This article is about the standards, and covers the XML-HR consortium only due to its important role in the standards; is this Afd requesting that the consortium has its article? 232 scholar and 62 book results say this is notable. John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite to make it readable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The HR-XML Consortium is a global standards development organization in the Human Resources space. Its standards are used for the exchange of HR related data. If this is deleted, then information about other similar organizations should be deleted as well. JFritzADP 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michaelas 10 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Copticflag

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

This looks like some kind of POV fork. There is already an article at Coptic flag, this article has been deleted twice, and yet it keeps getting recreated. At best, if there are references to indicate that anything in this article needs to be merged into the other, pre-existing article, then a merge may be in order. I have suggested this before, but the original creator seems more on making a point with this spinoff article. Corvus cornix 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vibantena Brahana

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

There is only one Google hit for this term. I was going to tag it for moving to wiktionary, but it seems more like an ad. And where is Dhusmeka? Corvus cornix 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and WP:NEO, perhaps CSD A1. Shalom Hello 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. LowdownDazz 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's the name of an apparently non-notable church gathering for youth who belong to something called the "Unity Movement". There are about 25 different Unity Movements in the religious world per a recent Google search: which one this pertains to I haven't a clue and neither this article nor the Unity Youth page says. -- Charlene 08:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ad ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as author request. gadfium 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sansiri

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

Appears to be blanked test page created by new user. Antidespotic 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cosmonaut (Angels and Airwaves song)

Cosmonaut (Angels and Airwaves song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in this article appears to be hearsay, and I cannot find evidence of notability. Gracenotes T § 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation (g12); also see the site's copyright notice here. Chaser - T 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Al Gore's Seven Point Pledge

Al Gore's Seven Point Pledge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This is either a copyright violation, or it needs to go to Wikisource. No sources, no context, nothing to indicate what makes this an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete G11 and G12. The text is a political advertisement from Gore's presidential campaign. The text can be found here. Shalom Hello 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Exists at Live Earth Pledge, it's part of the Live Earth campaign spearheaded by Gore, and as of now he is not an announced candidate, Shalom. I think Wikisourcing is likely possible the same as a public statement or speech. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LowdownDazz 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Blatant copyvio, see [10], also spam and no assertion of notability (G11 and A7) Rackabello 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Bryant S. Hinckley

Bryant S. Hinckley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

WP:BIO notability concerns. Main feature of "notability" appears to be that he is the father of the current president of the LDS Church. Otherwise he was, as the article acknowledges, a run-of-the-mill "mid-level" leader in the LDS Church. There have been thousands and probably tens of thousands of stake presidents and mission presidents, which appear to have been his highest callings in the hierarchy. In any case, no sources are referenced. SESmith 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Inadequate assertion of notability, no sources. Caknuck 04:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. I see no attribution and no reliable third-party independent sources that are talking about him specifically (and not just in relationship to his notable son). -- Charlene 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. LowdownDazz 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There are several notations of him for his role as a speaker and writter. It should be born in mind some references mention his son more to place him than because that is why he is important. There are also several places where quotes can be found by him that do not mention he is the father of Gordon B. Hinckley.
  • Keep there are two articles on him in the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia written by Andrew jenson. This was published in four volumes from 1900-1936, so his son's latter notability did not influence Jenson to include him.

The following link has another quote from Bryant S. Hinckley. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6944

Here is another one where they have a short poem by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.clayfieldcounselling.com.au/newsletter/newsletter_2005_07.html

In this document on page 111 there is mention of Bryant S. Hinckley's renowned style of speaking. http://avp.byu.edu/documents/pdf/shakespearesaints.pdf

The fact that there is a quote from Bryant S. Hinckley at this site is not particularly notable, but I think it does demonstrate that he is widely quoted. http://www.christysclipart.com/bedience_quotes.html

This link mentions Bryant S. Hinckley organizing the Lansing Michigan District in 1936. http://www.mission.net/michigan/lansing/page.php?pg_id=2739

Here are some people quoting Bryant S. Hinckley who do not particularly like him. http://www.tbaptist.com/pbc/2005/pbc0508.html

Here is a quote that mentions Bryant S. Hinckley's role as an author. "In the late 1890s, Roberts also helped establish the Improvement Era. He raised money, selected the journal's name, and framed an editorial policy that featured history (during its seventy-three-year history, the Improvement Era printed over eight hundred history-related articles). As its longtime, de facto editor, Roberts used some of the best local talent available: Edward H. Anderson, Joseph J. Cannon, John Henry Evans, Susa Young Gates, Preston Nibley, Joseph Fielding Smith, Junius F. Wells, and John A. Widtsoe. Later such important writers as Juanita Brooks, Richard L. Evans, Bryant S. Hinckley, and William Mulder joined the Improvement Era ranks. No one was more prolific than Roberts himself, however. During his thirty-five-year association with the periodical, he averaged three articles a year." I found it at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/walker/02.html. This is a book published by the University of illinois press.

In 1969 there was a Bryant S. Hinckley church history group that G. Homer Durham was involved in. They were named such because Bryant S. Hinckley had written so many biographies of Mormon leaders.

Here is a reference to another book by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/gaq/020216.shtml

Here is a link to a talk given by Bryant S. Hinckley at General Conference. http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/207775

Comment : the article had none of this information at the time of nomination. These efforts should go towards improving the article and not just dragged out during a AFD to save an article. – SESmith 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Here is a reference to Bryant S. Hinckley as stake president in BYU Professor Thomas G. Alexander's book "Mormonism in Transition". http://books.google.com/books?id=u9jkQnDJExYC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22bryant+s+hinckley%22&source=web&ots=mvEyYd2xp-&sig=PQ7Ka-RqN_PQUj1MkLhM5aJVTiM#PPA155,M1

  • Comment any time they go in improves the article, as long as they do go in. Many articles are improved during an AfD. It would have been better had they gone in before, but at least we have them now. I added the missing line of code so refs would display in a separate section they way they are supposed to. DGG 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (from nominator) : in light of the recent edits, I am more than willing to withdraw this nomination. I think notability has been established. – SESmith 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. — David Eppstein 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was all merged into Area (LDS Church). The Evil Spartan 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Asia Area (LDS Church)

Asia Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

The world is divided into 29 administrative "areas" by the LDS Church. This article is about one of the 29 areas, and this one does not seem to be in any way notable as compared to the other 28. Rather than having an article for each of the 29 areas, it would probably be more helpful to have one article about the jurisdiction of "area" within the LDS Church. This is the approach that has been taken with the ~350 missions of the LDS Church. Rather than an article for each mission, there is one article at Mission (LDS Church). However, currently no such general article about LDS Church areas exist for these to be merged into. – SESmith 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages which are articles about other "areas" in the LDS Church:

Utah Salt Lake City Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Utah South Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America Central Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America Southwest Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America West Area (LDS Church) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Merge them all into Area (LDS Church). On its own, each article could never grow beyond a stub. Capmango 04:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge them all, but into something such as "Area (Latter-day Saints)" or whatever the proper capitalisation is. It seems like most LDS-related articles, when they have the LDS included in the title, spell it out rather than using the LDS abbreviation. Nyttend 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If it's a topic that only applies to the LDS Church, the correct appellation is -(LDS Church). If it applies to all or most denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, the appelation is -(Latter Day Saints). I think here you would be suggesting -(LDS Church), since these areas are only used by the LDS Church and not by other Latter Day Saint denominations. - SESmith 04:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Aha, I see, thanks. As a Presbyterian, I'm never sure what things are specific to the largest Latter Day Saint denomination and which things are used by multiple denominations. Nyttend 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into Area (LDS Church) per nom. -- Metropolitan90 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all with no prejudice against against expansion when there is something to say, in additional to the geographic boundaries. There probably is material to be found for good articles. DGG 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

There is also the possibility of studying the membership statistics. Also there is the fact that the areas have area presidents, some of whom are notable. For example, it was when John H. Groberg was president of the North America West Area that the first Tongan Speaking stake in the US was organized in that areas boundaries. I think this was more than coincidence considering how connected to Tonga Elder Groberg is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2007

  • Very little of the information on the nominated articles is found in the article Seventy (Latter Day Saints), which is already large enough. Why dont these regional chapters of the LDS church merit there own article? John Vandenberg 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I didn't say the material about Areas is at Seventy (Latter Day Saints). I said the material on Area Seventies is there. An Area Seventy is a position held by a person; an Area is a geographic division. I also never said Area (LDS Church) shouldn't have an article, I just don't see the need for an individual one for each of the 29 areas. You may disagree, of course. – SESmith 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a suggestion to disband the article. Three competing views are present in the discussion. The first is that the page ought to be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The second is that the page ought to be kept in order to divert unwanted additions away from the main B-52 Stratofortress article. Though this argument does not have any direct basis in policy, it is in this particular case supported by a consensus reached through discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Triva, features. Thus, I do not feel that it can simply be discounted. The third view is that the content of the page should be retained (in part or in whole) in some form, though not necessarily in this article, mostly based on the argument that much of the content is not trivial.

All things considered, there is consensus to not delete the article. However, based on the comments made, I feel that there is support for "disbanding" the article. By "disbanding", I mean scattering the individual parts of the page and converting it into a redirect. There is no consensus for any specific course of action, so I will list some of the suggestions made in the discussion. Which one or ones is/are eventually chosen is up to editors' discretion.

(Note: The suggestions are listed in decreasing order based of the extent of modifications required; however, keep in mind that less significant changes do less to satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion.) -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

B-52 Stratofortress trivia

B-52 Stratofortress trivia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

just a page full of trivia, which shouldn't be anywhere in the first place, violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Dannycali 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Merge what can be merged with the main article, and move the list to List of surviving B-52's. That said, there are a lot of {{citation needed}} templates on the article. It will be hard to save very much. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into main article, and take out bullet-point format. Most of the information in 'trivia' is actually non-trivial information and should be part of the main article. Capmango 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - main article it too long as it is. Editors should have the option of splitting of info if necessary, even if it contains the word "Trivia". - BillCJ 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Just because the main article is too long is not a reason to keep this article. Trivia articles are discouraged here, several have been deleted as of late, including one on John Lennon. Dannycali 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - main aritcle too long... similar problem with the B-29. Suggest remaining aritcle to "List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses", like in the List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses and move the Pop culture section below the main list section, move all "uncited" to the Talk page for further research, and have a Trivia section for all cited trivia. LanceBarber 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and cleanup. Except for the Popular Culture section, most of it is not trivia. Clarityfiend 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • merge/delete - content is non-notable, already in main article, or belongs elsewhere. and some phrases are lifted straight from military.com [11]. user:GraemeLeggett 1/7/2007
  • Split and clean-up. This could be split into two separate articles - a popular culture article - which the B52 probably warrants - particularly films like Gathering of Eagles - which was almost an advert for the B52, and Dr Strangelove, where the appearance of the B52 is Notable - and described much better in the main article, and a list of survivors article similar to the B29 one. Bringing these two parts back into the main article would make it unmanageable in length. Nigel Ish 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please don't suggest that this trivia fork is kept or split even further. Most popular culture articles are deleted, and the Dr. Stranglove one was. Dannycali 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Things like "Big Ugly Fat Fucker" shouldn't stay in the main article :). -- Eurocopter tigre 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename Everyone seems to like this article. It's too big to merge back into the original B-52 article... in fact, it's too big in this form too, since a list of B-52s on display should be its own list or part of an article about bomber exhibits. However, it's a mistake to use the word "trivia" to describe the information, only a little of which seems to be trivial. I'm not sure what synonym you could use to incorporate this, other than "B-52 Stratofortress in History" (which is different than "History of the B-52").
  • Keep - split off from the main article to minimize pollution of an otherwise evolving and sourced article with constant additions of unsourced trivia. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Should note that this user created the article, and spilting off crap/trivia from an article into another is not a reason to keep this. Dannycali 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Until Wiki starts to appreciate editors who do honest work and makes an effort to protect their contributions from swarms of idiot children, creating crap magnets is an effective strategy. Members of WP:Air are interested in creating the best possible aircraft coverage on Wikipedia, thus I fail to see how that creates a "conflict of interest." Finally, merging the uncited and anecdotal information in would significantly degrade the quality of the main article. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - split off the lists into their own articles and possibly rename the article something like "B-52 achievements and milestones" or something like that. Other than that, this info is certainly relevant and worth keeping and doesn't really fit in the main article very well. — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By looking at most of the voters profiles, a majority appear to be part of the aviation wikiproject, which shows somewhat of a conflict of interest in the discussion. I put the article for AFD as it is just a page full of trivia. This is not what WP is about. Look through WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, as this article fails both of these standards, and more. Trivia has no place on WP, and many pages full and based on trivia have been deleted in the past and will continue to be deleted. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this "article". Dannycali 05:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back with the main B-52 page and change the format a bit. Much of the information here is indeed valid, information about preserved specimens is valid for aviation history coverage (there exist books about aviation museums), information about the crew accomodations are valid, and some of the technical aspects are clearly relevant to covering the aircraft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this info is certainly worth keeping and doesn't fit in the main article very well. Piotr Mikołajski 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but with a proviso that significant details should be reincorporated into the main article. FWIW Bzuk 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC). reply
  • Keep but reorganize somewhat (that display list to the end) and maybe rename - not all the information is trivial Johnbod 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete by WP:NOT#INFO. Subject alone is not notable. Keeping it because the main article is too long is not a legit reason. Calling it something other than "trivia" is just covering up what it really is. Sure, some of it could be formed into a "in Pop Culture" article, but a lot of it would need to be cut. "Achievements and Milestones" would just be a euphemism for "trivia". The information might be interesting, I'm not a nut about planes and it is still interesting, but that does not make any of it notable or worthy of an article. If any of these factoids were important to the B52 then it would be incorporated into the main article. Tdmg 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there is a clue in the name. Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia. ALR 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there was a good reason to split this off. There's a lot valuable information here but too much to fit in the already very large B-52 article. -- Denniss 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Just because a portion of an article has overgrown should not mean it can violate the rules and guidelines. Delete per WP:TRIVIA Corpx 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nitin Sahrawat

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

Contested Prod, non-referenced article of an "emerging" actor, notability not proven SkierRMH 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not notable yet. Might have done bit roles in TV commercials, but there are no references for even those. The PROD was removed saying that "nitin sahrawat is one of the most popular actors and his commercials can be accessed on you tube". Searching YouTube for "Nitin Sahrawat" fetches no results. If he is indeed "one of the most popular actors", I am sure a Google search should return more than two unrelated results. utcursch | talk 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only true assertion of notability is the controversy about the music videos, and even this is rather tenuous. Nothing in the article is sourced. Caknuck 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided Not clear to me yet that this actor has not had a major role in a feature film or TV show. Page creator is new to wikipedia, and should be given a chance and some coaching on what info needs to be provided and how to provide it (I've put some on author's talk page). May be that all the really good sources are in hindi and wouldn't be found on google search. I will see if this can be addressed before weighing in; from the info I have so far, I'm leaning toward delete. Capmango 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Searching in Hindi doesn't give any results either. Besides, English is quite common in India -- if this actor is "one of the most popular" ones, it's really surprising that it's so hard to find any sources. utcursch | talk 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Emerging actor", as in non-notable actor. No major roles except a few commercials (per article) Corpx 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • With ref to my article on 'Nitin Sahrawat' kindly search Youtube again. some friends have managed to upload some of Mr Sahrawat's commercials. The reason for Nitin Sahrawat's relative obscurity is his almost reclusive nature.Inspite of him being an actor he has a policy of letting his work speak for itself- he has never given any interview. Thats what makes him even more endearing.

Do let me know if any more proofs wd be required. thanks. Karan Singhania 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment It is not proof of existence that is needed; it is proof of notability. Are there any newspaper or magazine articles in major independent publications that are specifically about him and him alone? Does he have any non-trivial independent third party notice from reviewers? Actors who appear only in commercials are almost always non-notable because nobody cares who is in an ad, and no independent, non-trivial third party is talking about them specifically (in other words, not just mentioning them as an aside). -- Charlene 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deletion Corpx 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Intellectual Edge

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

These forums are not notable in any way. HeavenGames, Kongming.net, and Physics Forums, all far more active forums than this, have all been deleted. Simfish 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It seems to be just another online forum, and the article reads like an advertisement. Shalom Hello 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Nominated for CSD Corpx 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 04:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of video game developers

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

Malformed nom was created by User:Kesh; his nom can be found here. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Nom - Indiscriminate list. Do we really need to list every game development company that ever existed? A category would suffice to cover the notable companies. There is no reason to have a list like this to cover companies that were never well-known enough to be verifiably notable. -- Kesh 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(Thanks to Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) for fixing this.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

James Simmons (baseball player)

James Simmons (baseball player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Also nominated:

Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Does not pass WP:BIO or consensus that baseball players must have played in the major leagues to be considered notable. -- Charlene 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom as well as per the precedent recently set with deletions of minor-leagues or those who have not yet signed contracts. Montco 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all of them except Aaron Poreda, who was a finalist for the Roger Clemens Award. Capmango 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as they have all just reached the Major Leagues, or at least wait until they sign or don't sign; you wouldn't delete the article of a recently elected congressman just because he hadn't voted on anything yet. IMHO, simply going that high in the MLB draft should be a firm basis for notability, especially with Ross. Per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Such coverage exists, especially given their draft numbers. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Being drafted doesn't mean you've reached the major leagues. The consensus at WP:BASEBALL has been that you need to play in a major league game (like Moonlight Graham) in order to be notable. Most of these players are playing rookie league ball right now, and will need to go thru A, AA, and AAA before they reach the majors (which most of them never will). Personally, I think playing in AAA should be enough, but in order to be consistent, playing in a major league game is the only automatic in. There are ways that a minor leaguer can become notable (e.g. throw a perfect game), but just being drafted doesn't count. Everyone who ever even played college ball will be covered by independent sources. Capmango 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Temporary Delete until they do indeed play in one game in the MLB.-- JForget 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as failing WP:BIO, non-notable minor league draft picks Jaranda wat's sup 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None assert their notability. Clemens Award does not make you a notable (unlike the Cy Young award), it is of little consequence. Also, the baseball draft does not make them notable. Many first round picks never make the Major Leagues, even some #1 picks never make it to the Majors. Tdmg 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Naruto - "Shinobi Action" Figure Line

AfDs for this article:
Naruto - "Shinobi Action" Figure Line (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article about a non-notable toy based on a popular animated series. No reliable sources, fails WP:V. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Jay32183 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I suppose this is a spam. H irohisat Talk Page 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn´t seem notable enough. We could as well make own articles about any other merchandising. Would be fine in an overview about all more notable merchandising in the main article. ~ Felcis 03:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. It lacks verifiable sources to justify its inclusion. Tyrenius 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Secret wall tattoo

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

I tagged this article as unencyclopedic, and those who have discussed the article on the talk page seem to agree. Basically, this article is about graffiti behind pictures in hotel rooms and similar. To me, this seems like a semi-notable concept. Didn't JK Rowling do something similar after writing the last Harry Potter novel? I can't remember exactly. Anyway, the main problem with this article is that it seems to be a vehicle for an idea started by Josh Homme of the bands Kyuss and QOTSA, and the references are inadequate, not fully addressing the concept. The references may not meet WP:RS. 333 ghits for the exact phrase minus Wikipedia and mirrors. Non-notable neologism? I think the concept should be notable, but it's problematic. I'll let you decide.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete see nom Tdxz 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I sorted through all those internet hits. The google-hits include a couple of articles in acceptable secondary sources. Secret wall tattoos are also the topic of a lot of blog entries. That's not surprising, as it's an 'underground art' kind of thing. Most convincing, is that there are entries in multiple languages: English, German, Spanish and Italian (I think it was Italian, but maybe just more Spanish entries). The coverage is spread among sites about hotels, music, visual arts, as well as general blog-space. Both those factors seem to indicate that this topic is of interest to a wider audience. ColtsScore 05:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment, Can you add the "articles in acceptable secondary sources" you found to the article? It would help confirm any notability, which is lacking here. I've checked Google but can only find trivial references. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As for the 'discussion' on this article's talk page, I only see 2 comments there, speculating as to whether this is a hoax or not. I found enough sources to convince me that it's not. ColtsScore 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) DES (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I feel like there ought to be a better name for it, though. I left a message under my hardwood floor just recently ("Why are you tearing up the floor? That was a lot of work!"), so I know it's not a hoax. - Richfife 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per above -- the concept is real, and I'm hoping User:ColtsScore will add said refs to the article (hint, hint). Funny comment to put down there, too, User:Richfife... Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appears to be a notable enough phenomenon. Article isn't bad. Capmango 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are about this topic. About half of the ghits for "secret wall tattoo" are Wikipedia or mirrors and vast numbers of the rest of them are blogs, message boards, myspace and other non-reliable sources, and even if those are accepted as reliable, they are not about this topic, they merely mention the words. Otto4711 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As it lacks multiple independent and reliable sources and fails WP:N. Edison 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless ColtsScore adds those "articles in acceptable secondary sources" they found. I've tried to find sources. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nude Bowl

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

Article is about a non-notable, now destroyed skateboarding park. There is zero true notability and looks like complete bollocks to me. Reywas92 Talk 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • This might be notable, if it is accurate. Being the site of videos by a group notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the site of a three way confrontation between skateboarders, skinheads, and cops might be notable. But there are no sources. There is no way to tell even if these statements are true, much less if they were reported in such a way as to imply notability. Delete unless reliable sources are added to the article that would establish or at else pretty clearly imply notability. DES (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • With the added sourcing keep. Sources are not ideal, but ther are quite ample to establish notability, the question now isn't deletion but article quality. DES (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was not a "non-notable" skateboarding park. It was considered one of the most notable skateboarding sites of the 80's. It was featured in multiple skateboarding videos in the 80's, many magazine shoots, and was famous enough to have a replica of it put in the Palm Springs skate park. The issue with references is that it was popular during the 80's - long before the web. The Bones Brigade videos are not on the Internet, so they cannot be used as references. The many magazines of the 80's (ie: Transworld) have not been transcribed to the Internet, so they cannot be used as references. My hope is that someone will find resources online for article referencing. -- Kainaw (what?) 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • comment There is no requirement at all that sources be on the web. Give title, author, page number, and date (for a newspaper) or date and issue (for a magazine) or ISBN (for a book) Use {{ citation}} or {{ cite news}} or just but them in anyhow and someone else will do the formatting, but supply the sources. Then anyone who cares can go to the library and confirm. If there are sources on the net, great! but if not, give details on off-line sources. Read WP:CITE. DES (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not have any of my old videos or magazines anymore. That was a long (LONG) time ago. I've been grabbing up online resources, but I wouldn't claim they are dependable by themselves. However, I think that having multiple unrelated sources that make the same claim sort of makes up for the lack of newsworthiness of the source. Of course, I wouldn't mind if they'd put the Bones Brigade videos back out on DVD. I'd buy the box set. -- Kainaw (what?) 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Well, it does seem to be well known among skateboarders, and it disappeared before the Internet was mainstream, so if anything, I'd tag it {{ expert-subject}}. Print sources are needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per above. JJL 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Someone added references. I think the article is fine now. Capmango 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to be verifiable and notable (there does appear to be a song written about it). Cedars 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Guided arrow

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

Not notable, game guide, violates WP:NOT#INFO. east. 718 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom, or if not deleted, merge into article about game. DES (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nonnotable minor game element. NawlinWiki 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. JJL 02:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge info into Diablo II article if someone thinks it is important enough. Capmango 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete spells aren't covered in Diablo II article I'd say it's just a nn part of gameplay. -- Breno talk 12:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Each of the Diablo 2 characters (of which there are 5, 7 with the expansion pack) has @ 20 or 25 of these skills to be unlocked. I wouldn't expect each of the skills to be covered in the main article or anywhere else on WP but on gamefaqs, a fansite or a Diablo wiki, let alone a seperate article for one. QuagmireDog 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The claims of notability in the article are not supported by reliable sources. The subject's book is self-published by iUniverse, making the Amazon and B&N listings useless, and the two sources cited in the article do not support the point they are cited for. Note also the multiple "Keep" votes by User:216.80.113.228, a single-purpose account. NawlinWiki 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Paul M. Banks

Paul M. Banks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Subject is not notable. KenWalker | Talk 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Fulbright fellowship; has appeared on Comcast Sports Net, ESPN Radio and the Sporting News Radio; work has appeared in FOX, CBS, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, 670 The Score, and Midwest Book Review; runs a webzine. Sounds pretty notable to me. Passes WP:BIO -- except there are very few sources. Better sources are needed here, and must be out there if this list is accurate. Also there is lots of trivia and unencyclopedic writing here, but that is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. DES (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with serious sources and clean-up. -- Stormbay 03:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable. Capmango 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • First, I have to disagree with DES that this person even sounds notable. Having a Fulbright fellowhip, having appeared on those networks, having submitted work to those media outlets, and running a webzine (anyone can found one, and this one claims to have an editorial staff of seven) are not necessarily indicators that the person is the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources that we can use to write a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article. And when claims like these are part of an autobiographical-sounding article like this, one has to wonder if the claims to notability are even verifiable. For example, I can find no evidence that his book Resume was "received favorably by both the University of Illinois and Loyola media as well as being the focal point of a feature article in his hometown newspaper." [12] [13] [14]. His webzine (with its editorial staff of seven) has been non-trivially noted by no one. [15] The article doesn't specify what kind of work he submitted to those media outlets, but anyway most anyone who submits work to media outlets will not be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. And there is no sign from the rest of the article that M. Banks is the subject of such sources, because the claims to notability appear not to be independently verifiable. The article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. Pan Dan 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with Pan Dan here. Although someone has gone to a lot of effort to bring together what's been written about him, the results are extraordinarily thin. (I wonder whether there shouldn't be WP:Not a scrapbook for minor figures' press clippings.) semper fictilis 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • FYI I've WP:PRODed Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Subject is notable and sounds very accomplished. I have to strongly disagree with the user who wrote that this entry sounds autobiographical. Also, so few people are actually awarded Fulbright fellowships and/or appear on ESPN, that the rarity of those accomplishments warrants keeping it. Especially considering that the subject has done both. I also agree that this article needs cleanup and sourcing. I'd say keep and significantly clean up this entry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • keep but edit/delete the unencyclopedic parts of this entry. the non-professional and personal sounding information should be cut— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • keep found a source. subjects appearance on ESPN Radio Milwaukee can be foudn and downloaded here http://sportsandpopculturebank.com/aboutthewebsite.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
  • FYI #2, Sports and Pop Culture Bank has been deprodded. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep As the writer of the article, I can tell you that Paul did not write it I did. I am one of the staff of seven on the growing website. Paul is a published author, Fullbright scholar, and a multimedia journalist in the 3rd largest media market in the U.S. I can clean things up and post more of his bylines as sources if necessary, but to say that Paul is not notable is ridiculous. Anderspc 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The great thing about judging notability on Wikipedia is that we've got a standard that is simple and objective. We don't have to argue about whether all the attributes you list (which remain unverified by the way) make a person notable. We just have to check whether there are any non-trivial, reliable, 3rd party sources about him. If you know of any such sources, please provide them. Pan Dan 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless sources are found. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Keep it, but delete the stuff about his interests, hobbies, and crushes. keep the media stuff, which is verified with two sources at the end of the page, but get rid of the personal material— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 ( talk • contribs)
    • The two sources at the bottom of the page don't verify any of the content of the article. Pan Dan 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep here's the subject of the article's book listed for sale on amazon as well as barnes and noble entry. both pages list reviews which match up with the information listed in the entry. Under accreditation on the Barnes and Noble Page, you'll see pretty much the same information about the subject's media appearances that is listed in this entry

http://www.amazon.com/Resume-Paul-Max-Banks/dp/0595320872/ref=sr_1_1/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0595320872/sr=8-1/qid=1184024353/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595320875&z=y

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595664771&z=y#ACC

  • Keep per 4 sources above me Giggy U C P 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Delone Catholic High School

Delone Catholic High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

As Schoolcruft. School does not meet the notability criteria. A unique fund-raising activity for a notable event does not qualify for notability by association, and community consensus at AfD has determined that state level inter-school competitions are not considered notable (See the Girls Sport Victoria, PSA, etc AfD's). The school's mission statement is just pure cruft. After you remove the fund raising, the marketing cruft, and the sports from the article, you have nothing left but an almost empty article which isn't even stub worthy and falls foul of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Thewinchester (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — Thewinchester (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yet another AfD that clearly fails WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles. Nominator mentions other AfDs to demonstrate that there is some sort of precedent, but had provided no sources to support his baseless claim. The argument that once you ignore everything there's nothing left is a circular logic not even worth addressing. Alansohn 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You're making a keep nomination on the basis that the reasons for deletion disagree with an essay you created? And you're the one saying others are using circular logic! The article in question does not meet notability, as clearly outlined and dissected in the nominator's opening explanation. Additionally, you once again fail to assume good faith and accuse another user of having undertaking a concerted campaign of deleting school articles, and you do so with no basis or justification. As for the other AfD's in question, anyone who's anyone who keeps an eye on the Schools deletion sorting list will know these so there's simply no point linking to them. Next time Alan, challenge the reasons provided for deletion, instead of launching into another tirade against a user on the sole basis that the nomination simply disagrees with your narrow way of thinking. Thewinchester (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Using WP:SCHOOLCRUFT as the primary excuse to delete an article, as is the case here, is a cardinal example of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. I will restate my reasons for retention: "Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles." The article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for the school's achievements to demonstrate notability, in full compliance with WP:N. At no time have I accused you of a concerted anti-school campaign, and your insistence that I am making this accusation is once again a blatant failure to assume good faith and part of a continued pattern of WP:CIVIL violations. My comment that started "In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days" was directed at the fact that there have been more than a dozen AfDs in the past few days (see Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for details), among which are AfDs were participants weighed success in sports competition as a critical factor in establishing notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesleyan Christian Academy for an excellent example), contrary to your entirely unsupported assertion. If you believe that the specific AfDs you mentioned establish any sort of precedent, you will need to cite them (as I have), as I have no idea what you're referring to. Alansohn 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment At this point, I would feel it appropriate to point out for others who may encounter this AfD that Alansohn is the subject of a active Request for Comment case for issues of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, and his continued comments here are prime example why five different users have seen fit to certify the dispute against him. His comments are another of ad hominem attacks which IMHO have become his trademark of late, and once again fail to address the well documented reasons for this AfD. The article is an example of Schoolcruft which infests wikipedia, and if the user in question had taken the time to read beyond the first full stop, they would have seen that there is a fully and clearly justified opinion in respect to policy issues associated with the article and the reasons for it being brought to AfD (Being that it does in no way meet WP:N and if all non-notable information was removed from the article it would become encyclopaedic and removed anyway). As is often the case, editors will often use various essays as a shorthand reason for an XfD nomination, which nowhere in WP policy, procedures, or guidelines is considered unacceptable or frowned upon. This has the benefit of saving reasonable and considered users valuable time when looking at the issues brought to hand, particularly if they know the essay. In the case of this AfD, an essay has been accompanied with a reasonable, detailed and considered explanation for those who wish to dig further into the deletion argument. Your use of this essay for the purpose of labelling an editor and their actions is an egregious breach of WP:AGF, a point made by WP Administrator Orderinchaos when you were issued a AGF3 Warning for these comments. You have also stated in your comments on Orderinchaos' talk page that he is my buddy. OIC and myself do go back quite a way, but both of us as demonstrated from our histories here act independently of friendships or relationships, and act simply on the issues at hand in the spirit and manner which WP intends, and not in a collusive manner which you have ceaselessly alleged without basis or merit, again an egregious breach of WP:AGF and an example of why users have seen fit to open an RFC regarding your actions. You have continued to extrapolate minor and meaningless points for your own benefit, and I will again repeat my previous advice - comment on the AfD and not your issues or viewpoints with users, essays, consensus, or other matters. Instead of the countless hours you spend commenting ad nausem regarding these issues, you'd be much better off devoting that time back to improving articles. Thewinchester (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Important Note The above comments were restored after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Important Note The above comments were restored for a second time after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have tried to remove your blatant personal attack on three occasions only to have you reinsert them and add further attacks. Your choices to make a personal attacks are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL and will be addressed with appropriate sanctions if you refuse to remove all of your attacks. Alansohn 07:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly an interesting way of admitting you almost breached WP:3RR over, of all things, an AfD. Wholesale removal of editors' comments is unacceptable, what I see is a heated discussion, and someone who doesn't like being disagreed with. There is a reason the Wikipedia powers-that-be invented 3RR as a rule, and this kind of case seems to speak to it. Zivko85 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • As you have admitted, there is no WP:3RR violation, nor would there be for removing personal attacks made in violation of WP:NPA. Alansohn 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system, a Wikipedia behavioural guideline which reads as follows: Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption, such as obstinately reverting an edit exactly three times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated.. I think this says all that needs to be said here regarding your actions. Thewinchester (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You all seem to be forgetting that this is a deletion discussion for an article, not a discussion of any individual editor's behavior. Let's get back to the subject shall we? VanTucky 07:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In order for this school to pass WP:N, it needs independent sources which have been written about the subject. This does not appear to be the case - any references cited thus far, and any I can find, do not address this and lead the article towards WP:NOT#IINFO territory. My personal opinion is that many schools are notable, some highly so - I've written and assisted with the writing of articles about several. However, this one isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 04:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:Notability. Sports news and trivial fundraising (how many thousands of institutions raised funds for Katrina?) does not equal "significant coverage". Any journalist who has worked at even the rural local level knows that sports sections and columns are functionally obligated to cover this material to fill their pages every day. Coverage of sports does not equal a reliable news organization making the independent choice to cover a school for its newsworthy attributes. Hence, no notability is proven by sports coverage. VanTucky 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If a local paper decides to cover a school or event, then that is objectively notable. Papers exist to sell things, and if including school items sells newspapers because people want to read about them, then makes it a significant coverage. Surely a commercial newspaper isn't going to waste a page on something that doesn't sell things. I would suggest that Rupert Murdoch would be upset otherwise. Assize 13:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO. I am broadly in support of VanTucky's and OIC's comments here. Zivko85 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete School that is not notable, and I agree with VanTuckey's point above. The attempt to establish notability through the sports record and fundraising activities is ridiculous. Eusebeus 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is the perfect example to question the "ridiculous" claim (see User:Eusebeus/School Notability) that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school", specifically excluding accomplishments such as notable alumni, sports achievements, and awards, despite the extremely broad consensus (as shown here, among many others) that these are precisely the characteristics that prove a school's notability. For every other category of article, notability is established precisely by the distinction that comes through their normal operation and function; politicians are notable for passing laws, athletes for scoring goals and hitting home runs, roads for being covered with concrete or asphalt, bridges for spanning rivers, doctors for curing diseases. An athlete does not have to cure cancer and a doctor doesn't have to be covered in asphalt to be considered notable. 99.9% of Wikipedia operates under the principle that it is precisely those accomplishments that occur in their normal operations that establish notability. This high school has been recognized not for its operation as a school, but for its accomplishments that distinguish itself from other schools. Even disregarding the disconnect that rules applied as a matter of course to other entities don't apply to schools, this article makes a specific claim of notability that goes beyond "its normal operation as a school". I'm no fan of Hanson, and other schools have had fundraisers, but this particular fundraiser received national attention from the CBS Early Show, MTV News and Rolling Stone, a distinction which goes far above and beyond other fundraisers, none of which are part of a school's normal operation, and all of which for this school is backed up by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. The circumlocutions in the essay are a major step forward from "no school is notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources", as previously advocated. But what we are left with is that schools are not notable either because their accomplishments are related in any way to their function as schools or even if their claim of notability is unrelated to their primary educational role. Is any school notable? Or is that a "ridiculous" question? Alansohn 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep High Schools in general are recognised as being sufficiently notable as they have a greater input/affect within the community, where as articles on a high school sporting event(s), its buildings, and staff isnt that's what schoolcruft deals with. Since the school did attract media attention only reinforces its notability beyond the local community. Gnan garra 09:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This school meets established standards for claims of notability and references... -- W.marsh 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A well referenced article. High schools should be inherently notable, and even without this, this is well referenced. Why would "sports news" and "fund raising" be non-notable? If its notable enough to be recognized by independent media, its notable for Wikipedia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep just over the bar. One notable alumnus, a few championships.Both of these are accepted factors in notability. The article is sourced. Personal comments in afds can & should be ignored in the decision. DGG 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep High schools have generally been found in AFDs to be notable. WP:SCFT is nominated for deletion just an essay, and thus not a convincing reason to delete a high school article. Has several reliable and independent sources. Edison 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An essay is never a reason to delete *anything*. That's why almost everyone here has been citing specific policies/guidelines. Orderinchaos 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Edison, DGG and W.marsh.-- JForget 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are tens of thousands of Catholic schools worldwide. Playing Hanson through the loud speakers doesn't make this one special. Cedars 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment How does 10,000 schools suddenly make this school less notable? There were 11,000 competitors at the Athens Olympics and each is notable under WP:BIO. By the same argument, all Olympians shouldn't be notable. Assize 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per W.marsh. -- DS1953 talk 05:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notability clearly stated. Why is it so important for some wikipedians to remove school articles? If you are not interested in them, don't read them... EagleFan 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't some attack on school articles in general (and BTW, your little quip about just not reading bad articles is the most infantile argument I have ever read in an AFD. We shouldn't delete NN articles, we should just ignore them? What a crock) nor is this an I don't like it deletion. The school does not meet the notability guidelines, plain and simple. As I stated above, coverage of sports wins is something that newspapers, especially local/regional ones, are basically forced to cover to fill their sports section everyday. It's worthless in terms of notability, bc it isn't an independent choice to cover the school because of it's notable and newsworthy status. And Katrine funding? please. hundreds of thousands of completely non-notable schools and organizations raised funds for this and other national disasters. it's not unique or notable. Neither of these two kinds of coverage, which comprise all of the schools news coverage referenced, meet the definition of "significant coverage". VanTucky 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the feeback. :) EagleFan 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep. I like the rediculous school articles generally, but even my tiny catholic HS was more notable than this one. I'll not be sad if the consensus is to delete. -- Rocksanddirt 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A cute fundraiser and some success in sports does not a notable school make. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - notability comes from multiple reliable sources per WP:N and this article has plenty of them together with notable achievements. TerriersFan 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per TerriersFan's arguments and can we please avoid ad hominem attacks even when irritated. Thank you. Noroton 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Almost every high school in my state (Massachusetts) has won some sports championship and has put on a fundraiser, but merely citing them does not make this high school notable. As for WP:SCHOOL, I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", mentioned, but not the focus; 2. "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction", it's seems to have instruction similar to every Catholic school; 3. "The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history", nope, nothing on such mentioned. Tdmg 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In addition to dozens of articles and extensive mentions in Rolling Stone and MTV News, the fundraiser was covered by a segment on The Early Show that focused entirely on the school and the fundraiser ( Click here for a CBS News article on the event). You may not think its notable, but CBS News decided that this was a story that they wanted to air nationally. People magazine also decided to do a story exclusively on the school and its fundraiser, describing it as a "clever twist" ( Click here for their article). I'm sure that there are other schools that have won sports championships, but this article makes a specific claim of notability for winning three consecutive state championships, each of which is supported by an article from a major newspaper. You or I don't decide to put these things in newspapers, magazines or on television. Each media outlet decided on its own that the school and its achievements were sufficiently notable to share with their audience. I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", a resounding YES as the focus of each of these achievements. Notability has been established. Alansohn 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The fact that a school has won a competition doesn't make it notable. The fact it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in an independent newspaper does make it notable. Assize 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • If the only thing vaguely notable about the school is some fundraiser, Redirect this to Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. The school qua school is unnotable, per above. It is important not to conflate verifiability with notability. True, multiple, non-trivial sources usually provide clear indications of notability. But this is a good instance where a strong argument can be made that media coverage does not raise the subject above the trivial. So they held a fundraiser. So it received national attention. So what. One of thousands. Are we going to have an article on every fundraiser across the world that manages some national attention? We are not unthinking automatons and no good faith reading of the notability guideline obliges any editor to concede that the sources adduced lead inevitably to an assertion of notability. I am in complete disagreement with what I read as the spirit of Alan's argument. This is a community-driven, consensus-seeking debate. Alan's view above seems to suggest that every time different media organisations make an editorial decision to give something coverage, Wikipedia editors no longer enjoy the license to exercise their own judgment. That's not on. Eusebeus 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Comment Could not have said it any better myself, particually on the issues of notability in the context of media coverage. Those comments go to the core of cruft issues with wikipedia, and the existance alone of news reporting no matter the quality or the context is often used as a justification for a keep vote. This is something I have always disagreed with, and make a point of looking at every article posted where possible to see if it really establishes notability, or is just the usual non-trivial coverage. A great example of these issues can be found in this AfD for a marketing company targeting those in same sex relationships. The closing admin made the following specific point in relation to the sources that were being used to justify the article being kept, "While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability." Thewinchester (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
            • These are all interesting interpretations of the rather clear standards established by Wikipedia:Notability, the bedrock standard by which notability is established for any article on Wikipedia. WP:N states that: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a standard that is clearly met by this article. WP:N definitions for "Significant coverage" (sources that address the subject directly in detail), "Reliable" (sources with editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability), "Sources," (secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability) and "Independent of the subject" (excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject) are all satisfied in their entirety by this article. The utterly irrelevant AfD cited addresses issues of WP:CORP and concerns with WP:COI and WP:SOAP that even this AfDs nominator didn't bother to cite. The userfied essay User:Eusebeus/School Notability, in a section aptly named "Schools & Inherent Lack of Notability" makes the claim that one should make the argument to delete a school article as "Delete, nn school", rather than "Delete, nn school", carefully choosing to ignore the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in Wikipedia. While this essay contains a lot of text, all it basically says is "Delete as nn school since schools are inherently unnotable" ( see here). As each and every one of the standards of Wikipedia:Notability have been met, the clear presumption is that the school and this article are notable. The strong burden of proof is on those who believe that this school is non-notable to explain why this presumption should be ignored. Alansohn 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So was the topic covered the school? Or the school's fundraiser? As I say, create the article Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. Your reading of the notability guideline is tendentious as is your characterisation of my views about School Notability. Disagree, but don't distort. Eusebeus 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your presumption that notability has been met is not that same as a patent meeting of Notability requirements. You seem to simply ignore the fact that what we are saying is obviously trivial mentions of playing MMM-Bop for a Katrina fundraiser and sports coverage do not in any way qualify as "significant coverage" which "address the subject directly in detail". The coverage is not about the educational institution in any of the articles sourced. Do they profile the school's academic status, history or extracurricular activities in the MTV bit? No, they just connect it to their main point of coverage, which is pop music. Patently trivial, as the fact that this is Delone Catholic High School (and no other school) plays no role in the connection to a notable band. Does the coverage about the sports wins comprehensively profile the school? No, it is more about the season and the teams than the actual educational institutions. If you doubt that any of this coverage is trivial, just think about what would happen if each was all the school had...speedy deletion, that's what. VanTucky (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You may rightfully believe that the fundraiser itself was trivial. However, the articles about the program clearly meet the "significant coverage" qualifier and all address the school directly and in detail per each an every clause of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The term "trivial" refers to the nature of the mention within an article, not subjective perception of the importance of the event. Consensus is clear here that Wikipedia:Notability is satisfied. Alansohn 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not talking about the events at all, I'm talking about the coverage. I think the fundraiser itself is a far from trivial in the real world, but the coverage of it most definitely was. Significant coverage means the subject is covered "in detail". A school is, simply put, a place where students learn from teachers. If the coverage cited only speaks of a sports event or a fundraiser, it is not covering in detail what that subject is and how it operates. VanTucky (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Alansohn - Are you incapable of seeing the logic and meaning in the arguments of others? I would have expected a greater level of intellegance from yourself, but my hopes once again seem dashed. Go back, re-read the AfD I refered to in it's entirety, the comments of the closing admin, then come back to this AfD (Because it seems that everyone else managed to understand the connection between this AfD and the one I mentioned). The lesson in the quotation of the closing administator's remarks was that sources are often used that are only incidential or trivial references to an articles subject (which is the point VanTucky and many others have been at pains to point out), and make no offering of information that leads to the establishment of Notability. The closing remarks of the admin regarding other policies were in relation to that specific AfD and I haven't seen anyone try and use them here as apart of the deletion reference. Playing sport does not make one school more notable than another, because every school plays sport. If that sporting competition was a long standing competition of a national level organised by a crediable organisation then you might be able to bend for the article (And that's only if that organisation and competition have articles which meet relevant criteria). Many schools organise fundraising activities on a daily basis, and just because one school has one which is for a notable event which uses a notable band as part of the activity does not notability grant by association. Just because it has one known notable alumnis does not grant it notability by association either. A logical exception to this would be if for example the school ran a significantly regonised regional or national academy for a specific sport or academic pursuit where there had been significant notable alumni from it. The userfied essay you cited in your recent comments has not been mentioned by anyone here other than yourself, nor was it used in the nominators statement for deletion, nor has it been cited by anyone else. Your attempt to introduce that into the discussion is irrilivent and of no bearing to this AfD. If you want to start essay wars, then I suggest you look at your own essay and the total lack of anything useful to deal with perceived problems you claim exist. The fact is that regardless of what you think the relevant policies say in your view, consensus at AfD has generally disagreed with you. The sooner you learn to take a leaf from Willie Nelson, then the better off WP might be for it. Thewinchester (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The WP:NPA violations need to stop. An additional warning has been placed on your user talk page. Alansohn 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; this Afd is built on the premise that the essay WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is even a real problem. (that was predictable). The school appears to have been established in 1939 [16] [17] and a student is mentioned as graduating in 1941 [18]. Spread over 60 odd years, Google News has 7,830 results, and Google Books has 20; plenty of room for expansion. John Vandenberg 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-referenced, notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:CRUFTCRUFT are not official policies and are red herrings in this debate. The subject of this article is the primary object of several non-trival references in independent secondary sources. It clearly meets WP:N as a result. The size or quality of the article are not grounds for deletion. The discussion about notablity is revolving around fame, which is not notability. WP:N states that notability is "distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It is an objective test, and if the fundraiser was a simple raffle which received national coverage, then that is notable because of the national coverage. Assize 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:N. Also, there is enough reliable sources coverage to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about the school. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Kudrat Terrii Merrii

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

Non-notable TV series. Article claims it's a "popular serial", yet it has only 5 (or 8) Google hits. It is also not included in {{ SP Shows}} as a Star Plus show. Anas talk? 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Is that so? Very well then. Delete per nom. - WarthogDemon 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Claims unverified Rackabello 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ja'afar Touqan

AfDs for this article:
Ja'afar Touqan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This article fails WP:BIO. I found nothing from the 130 Google Search results. I even tried searching using Arabic and, while there were considerably more results, all I found were two news articles just mentioning his name. Anas talk? 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep if assertions in article are true, then the subject does not fail WP:BIO at all, so this is a WP:V question, not a WP:NN question. No reason to think this is a hoax, and article has never been tagged with verify, so just tag it for verification. Capmango 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is definitely not a hoax; he was mentioned in two newspapers. The issue is that he doesn't meet any criteria of WP:BIO, IMO, and those that he might seem to, he doesn't. The award he received is not a "significant recognized" award, for example. — Anas talk? 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep If there is documentation of the design of the buildings, he would be notable. So add it,. don;t just talk about it. DGG 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep tagged with verification template. No need to delete, per Capmango Giggy U C P 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Looks like he meets WP:BIO - I tried a few different spelling combinations and came up with three online references in English [19], [20] and [21] which I have also added to the article. I think the problem is that this guys name has been transliterated into English in several different ways - I tried Ja'afar, Ja afar, Jaafar and Jafar - with varying results. However, all the sites I saw (not including wikimirrors) report that he is the bee's knees of Jordanian architects so he deserves an article just like Frank Lloyd Wright :) Paxse 10:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there's not a snowball in hell's chance this is going to have a consensus to Keep or to Merge, it can never be neutral and at the moment, it's a personal essay from an upset and confused editor. Nick 11:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Red Army crimes

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

A pretty clear case of POV-pushing. This article is completely unsourced, yet makes claims of unspecified "crimes" and "inhuman activities" of the Red Army. I have no doubt that such things did occur, but this isn't the right way to go about writing about it. See author's other Red Army articles nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Estonia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Ukraine. eaolson 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POW Ttturbo 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Those articles where nominated for deleting by the same Belorus wiki user Mikalaj working under finish nick name Miikka, who was supported by ther other slavians. Mikalaj didn't made any posting at war crime discussion but started immediately deleting process of knowledge. According to wiki rules this seems to be some specific kind of vandalism becouse of knowledge deleting! Red Army SMERSH murdered my grandmother in March 1945 and millions of the other citizens. Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete efectively unsourced, PoV, gives no specifcs anyway. DES (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is {{ stub}}, so everyone has possibility to add something usefull. The war crimes must be described, the murders must be persecuted! Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that some nasty shit went down at the hands of the Red Army, but unless there was some sort of conviction in a court of law (esp. a war crimes tribunal), the article is opinion. - Richfife 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I would like to ask - isn't every military crime described by historicians not military crime till there is no some tribunal decision? If the country is occupated or having dictator regime (like Lukashenko's Belorus) is there possible such tribunal and we must wait calmly ? Ttturbo 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
On Wikipedia, yes. That's exactly correct. On your own website, do anything you want. This website has rules that need to be followed no matter how strongly you feel about the subject matter. In fact, the stronger you feel about what you're writing about, the more strongly the rules must be followed. - Richfife 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that justice is the great authority, but sometimes well known historicians, politicians, religion leaders are too! Was there court process on Katyn massacre? I don't know exactly, but Putin appologised for this, like for Budapest and Prague anyway. Were there courts on those criminal invasions? Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Poorly-worded, poorly-sourced article with vague references to war crimes. Nowhere close to passing WP:NPOV. Caknuck 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Make better your own!! i agree that it is poor enough now, but in future... Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV-pushing, already seen on the subsidiary pages already in AfD. We can see where this editor's heading now, at least, and can look forward to seeing the redlinks soon. No question terrible things happened, but such issues belong in a well-sourced, well-written NPOV article. This one isn't it. I'm not sure that the Defense of the Motherland in WWII would get approval from this author. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It was the defence of his homeland (yard) by lots of russians and people of the other nations, but it was the defence of their criminal politics by Kremlin leaders! How to make this article well-written and using which statesments I showed some NPOW? Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe my point was just illustrated above. "Kremlin leaders" in WWII mean Stalin, and we know who and what he was. The editor also focuses on the Red Army. Many of the crimes the editor discusses were instigated by the Cheka and their successsors, whose targets for liquidation included elements of the Red Army. The GRU and its counterintelligence arm SMERSH were nominally part of the General Staff, but effectively acted autonomously, and were feared by everybody of lesser stature than Stalin. To ignore the very complex politics of terror in the Soviet Union is simplistic and dilutes the credibility of the article. This is akin to writing an article on Wehrmacht crimes without mentioning the SS, SD or Gestapo, and blaming the whole spectrum of Nazi crimes on the army. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree about sharing of responsibility. But first I stressed, that The total of comunism victims was aproximately evaluated to be 100 million and a large part of this is the result of aggressive confrontating politics of communist party realised by Red Army, which supported the other repressive structures of Soviet union And secondly, if I write about Soviet union responsibility for military crimes I must describe criminal activities of party and gobernment. then of it's repressive structures - police, secret police and intelligence, and Red army. I think this is to many for the article and enough for category. This is why I study single Army, but including it's inteligence too ( who made not only crimes but rescoed thousands of poor jewish, for example). Ttturbo 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
By the way, I sympathize strongly with the author. If my grandmother had been killed by SMERSH (which was not part of the Red Army, by the way), I'd be angry too. I also wouldn't have any business writing the article on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the point made about other editors by the article's author, but it that doesn't mean the deletion nomination is improper. I would not have the same objection to a well-written, well-researched, NPOV article on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete for POV that borderlines on attack pages. I agree with Acroterion, something should be written about Red Army Crimes, but respecting neutrality and well researched sources Rackabello 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
How to make this article well-written and using which statements I showed some NPOW? Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not delete, but add more information and sources. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!

Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no way this will ever be NPOV. The subject can easily be dealt with within a larger NPOV context. Your comparison with Holocaust denial is distasteful to say the least. To use the fact that the nominator of the other related articles is Belarusian against him is a clear personal attack that we do not tolerate. Anyone is free to edit and nomiate articles for deletion no matter where they come from without you running around and comparing them to Holocaust deniers. MartinDK 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Mr.Martin -I've got a great experience during these days. But I would like to stres -I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enuogh to stay in the limits of neutral POW! Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if I should intrepret what you are saying literally or just attribute it to your English skills but it is not our job to analyze what happened. No one is saying that these crimes that did indeed occur should not be mentioned/dealt with on Wikipedia. On the contrary. What we are saying is basically that it should be dealt with in a larger context without the original research that you call analysis. We already have a suitable article for this - one that the nominator did not nominate for deletion. Why don't you try to collaborate with the authors of that article instead if you believe that you have something to add to it. Being Danish I can tell you that I fully understand the horror of the situation on both the German side as well as the Soviet side during WW2 but these things need to be dealt with constructively and from a NPOV point of view. By that I mean we need to deal with them within the appropriate context and without any personal analysis of the situation. The deportations of civillians to Russify the Baltic states and the crimes comitted by both the German soldiers as well as the Soviet soldiers during the war on the Eastern front certainly should be dealt with and if you read the appropriate articles here you will see that this is already being done. MartinDK 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep I highly doubt the never NPOV statement. If we deleted things on that basis alone, we'd have to cut out a lot of articles related to Nazism. It's very hard to make an article like that and write it from a NPOV. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Martintg. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As I alluded to above, the articles on Nazism could provide a model for the construction of an article entitled "State oppression in the Soviet era" or something along those lines. A focus on the Red Army, or, worse, a confusion of the Army with other State Organs, as the Soviets liked to say, has the cart before the horse. I think this topic needs to be started over from the beginning. However, the author's comparison of objections to this article with Holocaust denial indicates that he can never provide the necessary detachment. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks - I've seen this problem of "cart" placing and made a small remark on it to Mikalaj. Few minutes ago I've placed the chapter RESPONSIBILITY adding this text - Responsibility for the commited military crimes of Soviet Union belongs to leading party and government together with executor - military forces and single officers, soldiers. Sometimes it is possible to accuse single officers if it was spontanic crime, not planned directly by politicians. For example, more than 20 thousand Polish people and officers massacre in spring 1940 in Katyn and other places of Belarus, Ukraine was planned by polit-bureo of comunist party in Kremlin, but there was single crimes against Polish people commited only under general line of comunist party. Do you agree with such position? I see, another problem is, if we accuse all the time only politicians the soldiers never will start to think independently. The very important example it was when Russian soldiers supported Boris Jelcin during Moscow coup in August 1991. Horrible situation we had in Kosovo. Ttturbo 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is personal attack!!Have you ever read any esays at cultural weeklies? Some part of this article is theoretical abstract, becouse this is the general article. No emotions and evaluations, but only logic and facts.But the article is not perfect written and sourced enough still. Ttturbo 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor quality attack page lacking in every departement. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It is incoherent, only "a list of" which does not call itself "a list of". Since the author cannot be expected to collaborate fruitfully with others on articles like this (he recently accused someone whom he himself canvassed on wiki:help of hacking his talk page to hide Red army war crimes [26]) this will never be of any use. -- Pan Gerwazy 23:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to the Red Army article, POV-filled article JForget 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Any sourced and neutral information deserves its place on Wikipedia, but poorly sourced POV-pushing agendas do not. IgorSF 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword• T• C 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

American Singles

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

no evidence of notability here. Creator claimed improvements coming, but that was 6 months ago, I think that should have been sufficient time if something was to come of this. Crossmr 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Appears to be non-notable with no attribution to reliable sources. The ubiquity of term "American singles" with respect to cheese and other items makes a google search unhelpful. -- Charlene 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. H irohisat Talk Page 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable company, looks like it's been sold since anyhow. Capmango 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, numerous articles in WP:RS found via Google News Archive (using terms like "dating" or the site's owner "MatchNet" helps considerably). notoriety, even. One of four major dating sites chosen for a study by Cornell. [27] Claims that the organization (not the website per se?) is the "largest" in the US. [28] MatchNet almost went IPO in 2004, with AS one of its two important properties. [29] In 2004, AS along with JDate ranked 2nd in the dating market. [30] [31] -- Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The first article is about a beating that happened to involve someone met on the site, the website isn't the focus of the article. The second its mentioned in passing, a trivial mention. Again not the focus of the article. The third is about the founder, not the website. The fourth is about the parent company at the time, not the website, the usa today link doesn't indicate whether AS was 2nd or 3rd, but given the order and match.com being listed first it would be second. However, again not the focus of the article. The last link shows that combined the two sites were second. Its individual performance isn't listed. The coverage is minor at best, and what dating site large or small hasn't had a few creeps on it? That hardly makes it notorious.-- Crossmr 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Close Please STAY AWAY from subjects that you don't know anything about. Some background: Back in 1942, the U.S. was involved in World War II. During the war years 1942-44, college football players who went into the military often played on "service teams" before being sent overseas. Iowa Pre-Flight, Great Lakes Naval Training Station, etc., played college football teams. A college football fan would recognize the significance of a team that played against Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame. A "non-notable historical local football team". Please.

I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.

  • Strong Keep. Appears to have equal notability to many university football teams, and also appears to have many reliable sources. To the nom - did you google this and assume due to lack of Google hits that it's non-notable? Because Google hits, although a pretty good standard for 21st century United States pop culture items, is less useful for subjects that existed long before the advent of the Net. -- Charlene 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Service teams during World War II were generally more popular than the major university teams with whom they shared facilities, and generally performed better as well. About 15 to 20 service teams played Division 1-A football during the war, and only one or two suffered losing seasons, while nearly half were ranked in the top twenty. I'm guessing your Google hunch is correct. The teams do have some acclaim on the Internet, but it is difficult to find. Several of the online sources I have provided should be enough for anyone doubting the teams' prominence. Also, I should note that, contrary to popular stereotypes, the Iowa Pre-Flight teams played mostly non-service teams, including the 1941 national champion Minnesota, the 1942 national champion Ohio State, the 1943 national champion Notre Dame, and many other powerhouse programs of the day, and beat most of them.

  • Speedy close and strong keep looks like these were all nominated in error, maybe nom will withdraw? Capmango 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • "Speedy Close" as listed above. As Iowa13 points out IOWA PRE-FLIGHT was #2 in the nation in the 1943 College Football AP Poll, second only to Notre Dame. Read this www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present_b.html Mandsford 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.
  • Strong Keep per my argument above. The No. 2 university football team in the US in any year is notable. Don't know about the individual athletes, but the team itself has proven notability due to its rank. (Edited because bold is beautiful, but not that much.) -- Charlene 02:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team

1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable historical football team. See also 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Again Speedy Close. #6 in the nation in 1944. Don't nominate what you don't understand. Mandsford 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.

  • Strong Keep per my argument above. The No. 6 university football team in the US in any year is notable. Don't know about the individual athletes, but the team itself has proven notability due to its rank. (Edited.) -- Charlene 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is completely original research, so nothing is to be gained by merging. The "Other crap exists" arguments aren't enough to keep this article I'm afraid. A plain redirect to Fan translation seems to be the best way forward. Majorly ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

RPGe

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

DeJap Tranlations is more notable then RPGe (they translated four high profile games - Dragon Quest 3, Tales of Phantasia, Star Ocean, and Bahamut Lagoon [32], whereas RPGe has only ever done one - Final Fantasy V) and RPGe was redirected. Misterdiscreet 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If I am correct that you want the All your base are belong to us article deleted you will need to create a seperate AFD since this is for RPGe and not that. If I misunderstood I appolige for any confusion. -- 67.71.77.220 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep How could a non-notable subject get an article created about it ten years after the fact? FWIW, I also disagree with the outcome of the DeJap AfD. 209.209.214.5 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, you'd be surprised at what articles some people create. -- WikiSlasher 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reference does not assert its notability. Just because an individual chose to write about a non-notable subject ten years later does not make it notable. A guy was hit by a drunk driver on my street ten years ago, and we all still remember him, but that does make him notable, same goes for ROM translators. Tdmg 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • the guy who was hit by a drunk driver on your street probably wouldn't have Final Fantasy V linking to him, Fan translation, or Console emulator. these aren't bogus linkages, either - they're quite justified. unless, of course, you care to explain to me how they're not 209.209.214.5 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • If I wrote an article on myself I could link to many Wikipedia article (including a few FA's), but that does not make me notable. tdmg 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        • if you did that, your edits would be reverted very quickly as they are not on topic - as they would be unjustified links. as i said - and as you have ignored - the RPGe links are justified. take a look at how long they've been there. the Final Fantasy V link was there more then two years ago. look at the history. no one's deleted it. no one's disputed it's relevance. click on any arbitrary edit made after the one i just linked to. you'll see RPGe mentioned. do you seriously think any link you made to an article you created about yourself would stay around that long? conversely, do you seriously think that if you removed all material discussing RPGe that it wouldn't be readded and that your edit wouldn't constitute vandalism? go ahead and try it. see how long the material you removed stays removed. 209.209.214.5 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
i see on your talk page that "faulty logic irks you so bad". you must really be pissed off at yourself, now, because you've been committing red herrings. you can't counter my points so you introduce a half-baked analogy under the guise of being relevant and instead counter it. 209.209.214.5 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not disrespect your opinion, I just disagree. You simply said "the guy who was hit by a drunk driver on your street probably wouldn't have Final Fantasy V linked to him." I don't know if the guy played Final Fantasy V, so you are probably right. I was merely pointing out that he could probably have notable articles linked to on his page. That was my only point. I called it "faulty logic" because you tried to rebuff my statement, with what I saw as a ridiculous claim (that he would have no notable articles linked to him). Now, you did point out that my analogy was bad, and I agree that it isn't a great analogy, because people aren't companies and their criteria for notability are different. However, I still don't believe that any of the references establish RPGe as a notable. This is my opinion. As for the points that I "can't counter". I believe I gave a counter to you 10-year argument above (that just because some individual or small group remembers it does not make it notable). I will retract the analogy (it was 4:30AM and I made a bad choice of subjects, no red herring was intended), but I think that my point holds true (I will not attempt a more accurate analogy because it is late again). Now I guess "faulty logic irks me so bad" has a more apt meaning pertaining to me :D tdmg 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It appears to me there is a misunderstanding going on here. tdmg is talking about RPGe linking to various high-profile pages, while 209.209.214.5 is talking about RPGe being linked from various high-profile pages. Anomie 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Even if their translations are linked from the game articles, I do not think that is appropriate. If someone else linked to them other than the author, then the RPGe might be notable. However, there is no documentation of their notability other than their body of work (which I do not think is notable enough in itself to support their notability). Thank you for clearing that up Anomie :) tdmg 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
the original author did not link Final Fantasy V to RPGe. here are his edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/219.237.248.2
also, i think einstein's notability is due, almost exclusively, to his body of work. in fact most peoples notability is probably going to be derived from their work. one exception i can think of is prince henry of wales. the most notable thing he's doneis be born. 209.209.214.5 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I never said that notability can't be derived from the person's body of work. I just don't think that RPGe's body of work is substantial enough to make them notable. That's just my opinion though, and I don't think it unreasonable to think otherwise. tdmg 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then redirect into fan translation. This may require someone to restructure fan translation to include an appropriate section for the merge. Do not try "redirect then merge", that's likely to end up the same as just "redirect". Anomie 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment RPGe is mainly notable for the translation of Final Fantasy V, which was the first RPG to be fan-translated and reportedly inspired a number of later translations. [33] I can find no evidence that there is enough information available to satisfy WP:N for an entire article on RPGe, however that guideline clearly states "If possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context". It's possible, and therefore this AfD should not be closed as delete. I think some who frequent these AfD discussions are too quick to vote "delete!" rather than consider how relevant material may be kept from an article that does not rise to the high standard of notability. Anomie 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into fan translation. RPGe does have some notability, but not enough to warrant a separate article; a mention in Fan translation (and Final Fantasy V) would be appropriate. Kariteh 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per above ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per above. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if indeed they did work on those games, they are notable and therefore deserve an article. It doens't matter if someone else is "more notable", that's like deleting Shannon Noll in favour of Bill Gates Giggy U C P 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    They didn't work on the games. They made fan translations. Granted, RPGe MIGHT be noteworthy because they were they first to complete an RPG, but probably not beyond the scope of the base article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question - how could this be artfully merged into Fan translation? The Evil Spartan 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Since the whole article is original research, nothing can sensibly be merged. Majorly ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 serial. Redirects are cheap, and there's no compelling case for deleting a "possibly relevant" redirect. Cheers, Wily D 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Live novel

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

The term has been dreamed up. I can't find any evidence that people actually use it from a Google search [34]. There are also hardly any articles that link to this one, suggesting that no notable "live novel" has been produced - a fact that makes one question whether or not the term, itself, is even notable Misterdiscreet 06:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to serial, and if that page gets split into sub-articles, redirect to serial novel. The concept of a "live novel" is an old medium in new clothing. Shalom Hello 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete falls into WP:MADEUP. No evidence of notability for the term given. All three references do not even mention the term, let alone assert its notability. Tdmg 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to serial. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to serial and merge anything useful. NawlinWiki 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Since there are no reliable sources, and per WP:NEO there are clearly no references that discuss the use of the term 'live novel', I think there's not even a case for a redirect. There's no way to tell if any of the info in the article is true. Some people write novels; in turn some of them decide to publish on the internet. What else can be reliably said? None of the three web sites mentioned seems to use the term 'live novel,' which was also noticed by a commenter above. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. EdJohnston 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge useful information to serial novel, redirect article Giggy U C P 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mother Teresa C.S.

Mother Teresa C.S. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school; article completely unsourced, with very trivial content that does not fit with an encyclopedia. Angelo 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The Waterfront

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

This article should be deleted because I feel this is not very notable. There are many other places called "The Waterfront" which may be more notable than the one in Pittsburgh. Perhaps this article should be deleted also because it is mainly a listing showing the stores in the mall, qualifying this as spam or advertisement for this mall. Also, this article failed to cite any sources. HoustonWeHaveAProblem 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - putting my vote in. When I think of "Waterfront", this place is probably not on my mind as I live in the Philly area. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 14:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, I can't even find an official website or anything. Non-notable strip mall. Also, you don't have to vote after making your nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Mall still has no official website, which is telling, but its historical location might make it notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per rewrite, notability is asserted now. Sorry for changing my vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete even tho nominating user's only contribs are to Pittsburgh mall AfD's, this is just a plaza. No plaza needs an article, there are probably 300,000+ in PA alone.-- trey 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep -- the site of this open-air shopping mall (it's not a plaza) is on the historical grounds of US Steel's Homestead works plant. It carries with it much history to the region. The mall is also an important aspect of the town of Homestead. It certainly needs some work, though. I'll say here what I said elsewhere, rather than offer something for deletion, search the Web for information on it. Newspaper sources are acceptable and I know many have been written on this locale.-- Write On 1983 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Take a gander at what I found. It's certainly worth a keep. -- Write On 1983 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Good job. I nuked the directory, since we don't need that. Now where the heck were all those references when I googled this mall?! Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm a journalist. I dig through the Internet for fun!! I'd like to add more about the steel mill that once sat there but all I know about is the Homestead strikes. It might not be a heck of a lot, but the land certainly carries a lot of history. -- Write On 1983 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm leaning toward keep because of what Write On 1983 mentioned about the district's history, though I'm not sure if the mall itself is notable. Obviously there's some history in the steel works that used to be there, and there's a Homestead Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places that's listed as, "Eighth Ave. area roughly bounded by Mesta, Sixth, Andrew, 11th and Walnuts Sts. and Doyle and Seventh Aves." On Google Maps, that looks like the intersection of several parallel streets, so I can't tell if the area covered by The Waterfront is part of the historic district. I'll see if I can find any more about this being part of the National Register or any other district. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Northway Mall

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

This article fails to show the notability of this mall as it says "insignificant". Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website and a blog. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am quite skeptical about mall articles, but this qualifies in its present form. Has notability, references. As with other topics, historical malls are no less notable than active ones, if there is enough information. DGG 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Meh. Size is less than a regional mall, but some claim to historicity as first enclosed mall in a large state. Edison 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Good history section with references.-- JForget 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Grove City Outlets

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

This article fails to show the notability of this mall as there is almost no content to the article. Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Just because it's short and poorly referenced doesn't mean that it should be deleted. It's a major location; last year, it even created a ten-mile-long traffic jam in the middle of the night! [35] Nyttend 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete still recommend deletion. (If there is an article on that 10 mile jam, maybe keep then. Can you cite that source?) -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Yes, that external link in my comment is a link to that story. It's now been added to the article. Nyttend 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment (to Houston): You can't vote again after nominating an article for deletion (unless you change your mind and withdraw). Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Some notability is established per the link Nyttend added; however, I don't know if it's enough. I've been trying to add more but it may not be sufficient yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, even more information has been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Rather than offer the entry for deletion, surf the Web for information pertaining to its history and some notable facts about the place. -- Write On 1983 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I've tried, there ain't much out there. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Malls are notable, every mall has its own article.-- trey 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominating user has less than 50 contribs, mostly to the mall AfD's he has opened.-- trey 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not all malls have their own articles on Wikipedia. Malls aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As suburbs continue to grow, the shopping mall is the new downtown, so I tend to think that malls are notable and very important to a region's economy. My personal thoughts on malls differ, but in today's economy they're important.-- Write On 1983 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Waterworks Mall

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

I don't see the significance of this mall.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 July 2007

  • Delete - article fails to cite sources and assert notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I added several references to this article. I would say that it's definitely notable, given the kidnapping incident. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Malls are generally notable, nominating users only contribs are nominating Pittsburgh malls for deletion. Anyone smell socks?-- trey 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That would be me -- I guess I forgot to change my socks again... Er, seriously though, I think that this user's nomination was truly in good faith, as the article made no assertion of notability at the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think the baby raping or whatever makes it notable, also, it is notable in the Pittsburgh Metro and beyond. (I live in Erie, PA and have herd of it.-- trey 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.| -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cranberry Mall

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

Article has nothing except the mall's website and a list of stores in that mall. Not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( 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 Redirected to Truco#Truco in Brazil, virtually all the nontrivial content from this article is already there. NawlinWiki 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Truco mineiro

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

Wikipedia is not a card game guide. Will ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Is this another name for this Truco? perhaps we can redirect, or make a section.If not, then perhaps we fix to tell about the game, and the history etc, as this article does. Net I'm thinking more merge or clean up. Obina 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. Any relevant info can be apportioned in truco. the_undertow talk 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide and there are no references to attest to the game's notability. Articles aren't kept just because their subject might be legit. The article can always be recreated when the article is written appropriately. Right now everything would have to be deleted and Wikipedia does not keep empty pages, they get speedily deleted. Tdmg 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Truco. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any notable information to Truco. Remove the rest, then redirect Giggy U C P 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn - I have nothing against the "one-hit wonder" title, just the "with only one pop hit" title. Will ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States

List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

listcruftinfinity Will ( talk) 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Untitled Raven-Symoné 4th Album

Untitled Raven-Symoné 4th Album (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Most of the information in this article appears to be completely made up or derived exclusively from fansite reports and message board posts. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only reliable source in the article contains a very brief mention of one of the producers on Raven-Symoné's next album, and that's not enough to justify the existence of a separate article independent of the main Raven-Symoné article. Also nominating:

Got It Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extraordinary Machine 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The album may not be notable in the end. - Nv8200p talk 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per no RS. 2 refs are the same and do not address the subject, and rest require log-in. the_undertow talk 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Core desat 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Maryam Hashemi

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

Fails WP:BIO. No major media coverage or her art. No references in article to establish notablility. Nv8200p talk 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No sources except the artist's own site. Delete until some notability or media coverage is established. Oregongirl0407 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Reference does not assert notability (it being a personal website is "fine", but it does not distinguish them in their field). Tdmg 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Peel away ads

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

self-promotion, and not quite true. Google finds lots of "peel-away ads", but they seem to have existed long before "June 27, 2007". (E.g. http://www.batchconverter.com/PeelAwayAds-download-49386.shtml has a 2006 copyright line.) The very model of a minor general 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, advertising. -- Allen 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per using the phrase 'time will only tell.' This article is entirely OR and must go. the_undertow talk 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a11 advertisement. Only reference is a broken link (and therefore not capable of asserting notability). Too new to be notable. Tdmg 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scien tizzle 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ippimail

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

Non-notable. Average PR [36], no Alexa rank [37]. Misterdiscreet 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Assertion of notability lies within it being free and charitable. the_undertow talk 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Free as an assertion of notability? Every open source project is free but wikipedia is not a directory of every single open source project ever made. Nor is it a directory of every single free email service provider out there.
And being charitable as an assertion of notability? Does that mean if I donate money to wikipedia, I get to get a wikipedia article, too? After all, I'm being charitable, aren't I?
Maybe if their charity, itself, becomes notable, a WP article would be prudent. Or if the website, itself, becomes notable. Right now however they're not notable and neither charity nor free service, by themselves, are sufficient. Misterdiscreet 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I sense sarcasm when there really isn't any reason for it. Try not to take 'your' AfD personally. Your anecdote about donating to wiki is off-base. This software was designed, unlike most email, to directly put money in the hands of non-profits, thus giving it notability. You donating to wikipedia quite a poor analogy. An Alexa ranking is not a criteria used for keeping an article, so it really does no good. You asserted that ippimail is NN. However, I disagree. The sources I added to the article say that it is unique in the fact that many charities benefit from the use of this email. I provided sources, the article asserts its notability, and the content is verifiable and cited. 'Average PR and no Alexa rank' mean nothing in this process. the_undertow talk 09:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
High PR and high Alexa rank (past a certain point) certainly do mean something per WP:WEP. Average PR and no Alexa rank, I concede, doesn't necessarily mean much however uniqueness doesnt mean much, either. Most open source projects are probably unique in their own way. Same with most webcomics. None of that justifies having a wikipedia article for each one. Content by itself doesn't mean anything in this process either yet for this article you think it does? Misterdiscreet 12:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not that content is what I am looking at. It appears to me that the article asserts why it is notable, and has reliable sources to back up that assertion. As much as you see this as an easy 'delete,' I see it as an easy keep. You should re-list this so we can get a better consensus. I think you and I are on different sides of the fence, which is fine, but I rather dislike when articles stay due to lack of consensus. I'd rather get snowed. the_undertow talk 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Get snowed?
Anyways, if more people vote, there may be a clear consensus to keep - a consensus you contributed to. I may disagree with you but I don't think your opinions should be ignored, which is what a re-listing would basically do.. :\ Misterdiscreet 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A Sorrowful Dream

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

The subject of the article fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, no hit singles or awards. No third party media coverage. Nv8200p talk 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete to date they have made 4 demos---enough said Balloonman 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete does not have notability, no albums or singles have charted, no notable musicians Tdmg 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete coverage I was able to find was trivial in nature, of the form "A Sorrowful Dream has a new lineup" which looks like press release journalism [38]. 4 demos and no albums in 11 years tends to support a lack of notability. - Fordan ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_1&oldid=1116877837"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE