Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. AfD already closed as keep this month. El_C 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_May (2nd nomination)[edit]

Nominating for deletion because the subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrick (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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Playstation Portable Gamesharing games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list exists nowhere else. Every listing has been researched and verified. A lot of work by a lot of people has gone into creating this list. It's frankly completely ignorant to suggest it for deletion. - Transce080 18:21, 27 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. —Kurykh 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BurritoVille[edit]

Insufficient notability: local chain restaurant (Manhattan only) Feeeshboy 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over a million people live in Manhattan, so I'm not concerned about the limited geographic range. There are a decent number of Google News results, as well. Zagalejo 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as popular tourist destination restaurant. Their food is popular with locals and tourists alike. Needs cites, reviews, etc. Bearian 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are quite a few Google news results but the articles now require payment. But based on the brief information, quite a few of the articles appear to be about Burritoville, so it look slike this artcile could be sourced. -- Whpq 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LOCAL. Wl219 10:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series running more than 10 years[edit]

Arbitrary cut-off point/inclusion criterion, and redundant to the superior List of longest running TV shows by category which is how this topic should be handled. Saikokira 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. "More than 10 years" is purely arbitrary -- why cut off there? Why should shows only in their 10th year be excluded? I agree, List of longest running TV shows by category is far superior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ten-year limit is exactly the kind of objective criterion that keeps this under control. "Longest" is an equally arbitrary criterion. The ten-year criterion allows listing multiple shows in each category, providing more information than the longest criterion. Useful compilation of information. Fg2 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, a ten-year limit isn't particularly arbitrary. Since we use a base-10 numbering system, we tend to consider multiples of 10 (and multiples of 5 to a lesser extent) to be more notable than say 9 or 11. Choosing ">10" versus ">=10" is arbitrary, but I don't think it's sufficiently arbitrary for deletion and in fact the actual inclusion criteria don't make it clear which is intended. While List of longest running TV shows by category is similar, it is not the same type of information; that lists one show per (semi-arbitrary) category while this lists all shows of sufficient longevity. On the matter of whether this list is preferable to a similarly-named category, I have no opinion. Anomie 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "list of" lists rarely pass muster and this is too arbitrary, so it can't establish why it is noteworthy. The fact that we use base 10 math and decades doesn't make the list more notable. Pharmboy 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING.. but no solid policy-based reason to keep yet.. Spazure 03:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists mostly of American shows, which are handled much better in List of longest running U.S. television series. There's enough to make a Canadian or non-American list, I suppose. Clarityfiend 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because 10 years is an arbitrary criteria and this information is well enough covered in the longest running shows article Corpx 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarity; this is primarily a list of American TV shows, with a few others thrown in. Worse, though, it's just a list of blue links with no explanation about what any show was about. It's a dull, throwaway list that you can find in a lot of books. I agree that 10 years is arbitrary, since a lot of successful shows retire after their seventh season, while they're still getting good ratings. Mandsford 23:16, 29 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, with no prejudice towards future notability. —Kurykh 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Stansberry[edit]

Never made it to major leagues. Violates WP:NN and WP:WPBB. Truest blue 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons.--Truest blue
Neutral. "'Never' made it to the major leagues" is an inaccurate term, as the player is still active -- and of course if he gets called up he will merit an article per baseball notability guidelines. Has the baseball Wikiproject recommended a course of action for players on the 40-man roster? Slic e NYC (Talk) 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Very tough call because on further inspection [1] it seems like he's very close to making the Majors, and it would be a case where you'd have to delete and then recreate him later on. Honestly, I could just as easily be convinced the other way. Chengwes 06:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Normally, I push to delete non-Major Leaguers, but if he's on the 40-man roster this late in the season, he'll possibly get a September call-up and see a game or two. If not, we can reconsider deletion in the off-season. Caknuck 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki surfing[edit]

Original research. Non-notable phrase. Brianga 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~Salt~~ wasn't this created before? Also per nom. James Luftan 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Spazure 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)forgot to sign when i made this comment, so timestamp on sig is wrong[reply]
Comment. It might be interesting to note that the article asserts that the term was invented by “British teenager Tom Bagley” and...you guessed it: the author of the article is TomBagley. ●DanMS • Talk 06:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out-and-out neologism. --Aarktica 14:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Reads like an Urban Dictionary entry... which isn't exactly a positive thing. --Entoaggie09 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't you find it funny that the article says that the term was created on July 27, 2007 yet the article was created on July 25? James Luftan ^contribs 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Different enough from Wikisurfing (a game) to not be subject to speedy deletion. However, it's a non-notable neologism with absolutely no sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is clearly attempting to pander "British Teenager Tom Bagley," which is, in fact, himself. 72.24.121.153 21:01, 30 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 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable television programs[edit]

Combination of indiscriminate information and loosely associated topics with unclear inclusion criteria that appears to be completely arbitrary. The title bears no relevance to the contents as the lists starts with Aaron Spelling and Regis Philbin, neither of whom are television programs. The intro bears no relevance either, suggesting it's a list of longest running TV shows. It's just a few bits of miscellaneous trivia. Saikokira 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this list's inclusion criteria are so vague it doesn't even know what it's doing. I mean, it says "This is a list of longest running TV shows, by category. It also includes information on record breaking shows." That's pretty vague. However, it then lists a bunch of people, then a bunch of commercials, then a bunch of random facts. --Haemo 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for lists of loosely associated facts. In addition , as per Haemo, this list doesn't even know what it's doing. And really, even if it did follow the rules, wouldn't a list of notable TV programs be five miles long? TV's only been around since the 1930s you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That impossible task is being attempted at List of television programs by name. Saikokira 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per a list of trivia facts.--JForget 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this grab bag of television trivia. --Bongwarrior 08:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A short, useless article that touches on rather random facts about trivia and blah. And yeah, it can't be complete, because it would then be too long. RaNdOm26 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad and subjective. Metamagician3000 12:01, 28 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 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Stumpf[edit]

Absolutely nothing to validate article, per WP:NN. Truest blue 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons.--Truest blue 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verification, doubtful notability even if verified. Realkyhick 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following the sole link provided, it confirms he managed the Rockford Peaches (ok, they finished dead last, but still). [2] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Guidelines, "Baseball executives, coaches, and managers are also notable." Clarityfiend 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. The coaches part only applies to MLB + MiLB, not "All-American Girls Professional Baseball League" Corpx 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The guideline only says it "includes" the MLB. The AAGPBL was the top (only) pro league for women. The connection with A League of Their Own doesn't hurt either. Clarityfiend 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of less prominent baseball leagues - Independent league baseball (that are probably more prominent than this league), but I dont think coaches there should be automatically notable. Corpx

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raza (singer)[edit]

this article seems to contradict itself. He has one album to his credit and the author admits it was a failure. Yet the author claims he is notable for introducing a certain genre of music to his country. It is a stretch considering the album was a failure. I say nn musician. Postcard Cathy 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no sources, pretty much a failure. Realkyhick 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. A google search shows up no reliable hits as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music. - Cyborg Ninja 14:21, 28 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 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Got It From My Mama (Genetics)[edit]

Unsourced "single" with no sources - chart information in the infobox is obviously fake, especially if (as the article claims), the single was released this week. - eo 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obviously a hoax. Incorrect chart positions seem to have been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The track is confirmed] despite the album not coming out yet. It needs cleaning up though. Jddphd 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother if that's all you can confirm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitability? Jddphd 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dubious at best. Realkyhick 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable song. James Luftan 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It exists and will be a single is not nearly enough information to warrant an article. 17Drew 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is a single, and has a video, and is very likely to hit the Billboard charts. Tom Danson 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when it goes gold. A lot of songs hit the Billboard charts. Wikipedia isn't a press release. Mandsford 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The single HAS been confirmed, it has a video, and the official website for BEP confirmed. Although, someone should clean it up. 11:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.94.148 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo album[edit]

Supposed forthcoming album with no source information... and no information at all, really. Suggest merging to the artist page until some kind of official statement is issued from the record company. - eo 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just plain delete. No info to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure speculation. Realkyhick 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without sources (and possibly even with them..), it looks like a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me.
Delete: Just another case of WP:CRYSTAL, plus no reliable sources in the article as backup. RaNdOm26 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not making an album, because BEP is making Roots to Fruits. Or at least, that's what the nonexistant/completely unreliable sources say. And if they say so, it must be true. 17Drew 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly speculative. Rumours and musings do not constitute reliable sources. -- Whpq 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems promotional too. Ebay3 16:09, 31 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 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Vasquez[edit]

Poor minor league baseball player. Article violates WP:NPOV AND WP:NN Truest blue 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons--Truest blue 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rising to AA ball isn't exactly notable. Realkyhick 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Meets the clear and long-established requirements for sportsmen. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Golfcam 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Found no popular press articles with him as the subject, he's apparently not earned any notable awards or honors, no Major League experience. --Sanfranman59 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He only played in the minor leagues and even the steroid issue doesn't make him that notable yet.--JForget 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article about a non-notable minor league player which lacks any kind of reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:37, 31 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 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Waste Your Time (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

not confirmed, only rumor, can wait for IF/When it is a single Alankc 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no source for this info. Could also merge to the album article if necessary. - eo 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom says it all. No sources to be seen. Could also be merged to album until confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the rest of the court. Realkyhick 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Official UK Site of Kelly Clarkson has confirmed it [3]
Keep. It has been confirmed. Peter2012 1.02, July 29 2007
Keep. Confirmed, to the deletionists' fury. 68.194.50.41 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was confirmed in Kelly Clarkson's website & the Sony BMG UK website. Removed deletion tag because it's not longer needed. (Majority rule & Source proving the fact). Bull Borgnine 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the AfD tag to the article, since the page is still technically up for deletion. The tag should be removed when this AfD is over, and not before. Acalamari 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, sorry I removed it before it should have been removed. However, it will get deleted soon, so it won't make any difference. Bull Borgnine 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, officially confirmed. RaNdOm26 10:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's confirmed and there's a source. Acalamari 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Aarktica 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blosxom[edit]

~~Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOFTWARE, I used WP:PROD, but someone removed it. There are 0 third party sources.~~ Jackaranga 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, not notable. Realkyhick 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a small but notable-enough application. First, there are 3 million hits for "blosxom" on Google, and there's nothing except this called "blosxom". Second, those two Further reading books, from a significant publisher, discuss it at a level of detail (unfortunately, I don't have access to them to see how much). Third, Blojsom, a Blosxom derivative, is bundled with Mac OS X Server, and Blosxom is an official package for Ubuntu and other distributions. It seems to have 131 installs on the Debian Popularity Contest - I'm not sure whether that's a decent number, but there you go. Fourth, there are reviews and guides to Blosxom in reliable publications, such as this one in Guardian Unlimited, this one in Linux Journal, and another in MacUser, and we can add those sources to the article. Fifth, it's a core product of a developer (Rael Dornfest) who is at least notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. My only bias is that I still use it to run my blog. :) Dreamyshade 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok I change my mind, I vote keep too. Jackaranga 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is notable; the article could make that clearer, but this is a fixer, not a trasher. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:26, 28 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Verlander's No-hitter[edit]

Do we really need articles on every no-hitter, while this is a rather rare event, there is no reason why this no-hitter is special then any other, including perfect games or any other game for that matter. Wikipedia isn't a place for current sports news. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even worth a redirect. Carom 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series doesn't merit its own article, then this doesn't stand a chance. Caknuck 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this article does not document a "current" event (while it did happen this year, the facts in the article will not change over time). The fact that other no-hitter/perfect game articles do not exist is not a valid reason to delete this article; Larsen's perfect game probably does merit its own article anyway. I contend that the article is about a notable event as no-hitters are very rare. X96lee15 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Caknuck. —Shining Eyes 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No-hitters are not that rare. Perfect games are, though, and likely deserving of their own articles. Realkyhick 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sufficient to include details of this game in Verlander's article and it should be mentioned in 2007 in baseball and 2007 Detroit Tigers season. It doesn't need its own article.
Merge. This info should be tightened up and merged into the Verlander article in my opinion. There's plenty of room for expanding the no hitter section on his article. If it were to be kept, I would hope that the title would at least be changed. It kind of sounds like the creator has assumed that Jason will never have another one. If any individual games do deserve their own articles, it's perfect games. There's plenty of info to work with out there. There are whole books devoted to perfect games and their backstories. Kinston eagle 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge I think the main article is more then enough for this event.--JForget 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enough information is covered on the subject in Justin Verlander already. T Rex | talk 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete If this was a perfect game I'd say otherwise. Acroterion _(talk) 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems just wrong-headed, if not foolish to say it is a current sports event or "news", as the original nominator said. It is a historical event that will remain unchanged forever. Unless Verlander pitches another no-hitter, I cannot image it being reduced in signifigance as time goes by. If other no hitters lack articles, then they might be added in the future. The article is large, not just a whimpy little two paragraph thing like too many articles on wikipedia and it might be a very interseting article to read in ten years or twenty years time- after all for Tiger fans it is one of six in their history, delete it now and you are denying future generations of this inning by inning analysis. As Reverend Lovejoy's wife says- "think of the children!" --Mikerussell 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - A person can look at the box score and see what happened. I'd encourage to creator to make this at wikinews, where it would be much more appropriate. Corpx 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have been going to major league games since I was in grade 2 or something and I still have no idea how to read a box score. I thought only losers or electrical engineers sat in the crowd pissing away the joy of being there by recording it on to a scrap of paper. I think my girlfriend once smacked me in the head for just helping the nerd besides us with something he missed when he ran to washroom. My point- box scores are for losers. This article should remain it is much better then some stupid box score. Plus, it is not wikinews. The link Corpx just gives is proof against including it wikinews, not including it. --Mikerussell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no more deserving of an article than Barry Bonds breaking the record. When that happens, should there be an article about how he walked to the plate, the pitch counts, how he swung, where the ball landed etc? This was not even a perfect game :) Corpx 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble seeing any logic in the above statement. You are comparing a career achievement that took 15 seasons to accomplish with a single game event? Makes absolutely no sense. The article represents what a box score attempts to do- a discrete event that in this case is historically lasting and unchanging. A slice of permamnent Detroit Tiger history. "This was not even a perfect game"- where in wikipedia or baseball tradition does it say a perfect game deserves an article and a no-hitter doesn't? Pure arbitrary decision on your part, your subjective opinion alone, that says a perfect game deserves inclusion. The no-hitter certainly is a rare enough event to be notable, and I I just cannot understand with so much junk on wikipedia this deserves to be censored. It is factual, it has length and footnotes plus photos. It really has a lasting interest and will be read for many years to come. It certainly isn't recent news. --Mikerussell 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In attempting to apply real-world notability standards, consider this: a no-hitter is someting you tell people about when you come in to work the next day. A perfect game is something you tell your grandchildren about. There have been 17 perfect games in MLB history and 234 no-hitters, of which 17 were also perfect games. The problem for both achievements is that no-hitters make dull reading, and perfect games are worse - 27 up, 27 down. There's just not much to say. We have a List of Major League Baseball no-hitters already, and I just don't see that 234 articles on no-hitters are worthwhile if we can't even get 17 articles on perfect games - the most inherently notable single-game event in baseball. Inning-by-inning accounts of baseball games are straying into baseballcruft territory, which is (thankfully) relatively absent from Wikipedia. Just because there are 10,000 articles on Pokemon doesn't justify an equivalent degree of detail for baseball. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare this to football, it'd be like writing an article every time a QB passes for over 500 yards, with descriptions on each play. I just dont think play by play or inning by inning level summary is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Is there really historic notability for a no hitter? No, in my opinion Corpx 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Verlander's profile. That seems fair enough. Otherwise, you're going to have 200+ other articles about no-hitters in Wikipedia. Chengwes 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's obviously a significant career achievement for a pitcher and deserves to be in the pitcher's article. What it needs is a good bit of gopyeditting in the merge to remove the excess detail. For comparison purposes, Dave Stieb's no-hitter, which stands as the first and only no-hiiter in franchise history for the Blue Jays is dealt with in a single sentence in his article. -- Whpq 13:38, 31 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fortepiano in popular culture[edit]

Delete - There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this subject. The list is a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of its "references" it doesn't seem to be the main subject of the occurences but an appendage. Reginmund 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another culturecruft list. Realkyhick 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now these items are loosely associated. Punkmorten 10:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth merging into Fortepiano although nothing to stop anyone from briefly mentioning Amadeus or Sense and Sensibility in the main article. It's no more interesting than a list of films displaying a cotton gin. If a CD comes out entitled "Now THAT'S fortepiano!", this may become notable
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fortepiano. A list of fiilms/tv where one can be heard playing is useful for an obselete instrument. Johnbod 01:23, 31 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 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kerr[edit]

prod contested and article has been improved. However, I still believe he is a non notable actor. Looking at his IMDB page, you see he is a sporadic actor who has had mostly one episode appearances spread out over many years (I didn't count but it is give or take ten shows). On one show, he made about 5 appearances. I see this more as a guy who enjoys acting and does it when he can and not a serious actor. Postcard Cathy 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think he passes the threshold for being notable.Callelinea 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable, but just barely. Realkyhick 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article needs some expanding to include the WP:RS to confirm notability, but the information is certainly out there. Also if he has one fan site, he's likely got others, and a cult fan following is one of the marks for WP:BIO Spazure 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My STRONG opinion has always been that the info being "out there" takes a back seat to being "on here" You need not write a doctoral thesis on a topic to show notability. You can show notability with just a few choice sentences. You can write a very short article on Meryl Streep or Katherine Hepburn by saying "She is an oft nominated Academy Award nominee and winner with a large fan base...." and notability is established in that one sentence. You may not be able to write the kind of article that either actress deserves but with that one sentence you asserted notability and left the door open for the article to stay until someone could expand it. When this article was first prod'd by me, this guy spent enough time on this article to create more than a few sentences but only mentioned in passing he was an actor and spent more time discussing his other pursuits. None of those pursuits were notable. So, if we were going to focus on his acting for his notability, simply stating Kerr was/is an actor doesn't confer notability. Postcard Cathy 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, recurring role on 1st & Ten (a quasi-cult favorite of sports fans) just barely puts him over the top. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 28 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot fight[edit]

In other news, sometime, somewhere in history, people have probably used their elbows, heads, etc in horseplay, games. This will never be codified enough to warrant an article Cander0000 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not noteworthy enough. Nom says it all here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show "Foot fighting" is a notable sport, like Cock fighting. Edison 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least until that sorry day when ESPN gives us "Extreme Foot Fighting," right after the No-Limit Old Maid event at the 2011 World Series of Poker. Realkyhick 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - here's the entire article; "Foot fights are a commonly used teenage party game where two or more people are barefoot, put their feet together and push.". Uh huh? Is that all? That covers, from my 1990's Scout Manual alone like a half-dozen different games. --Haemo 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleteone of the most pointless pages i have ever seen

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Life to Live title sequences[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this topic. Otto4711 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless proof of encyclopaedic worth produced. --Aarktica 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please, folks, what is notable about a history of title sequences? Realkyhick 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete WP:INTERESTING... but where's the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" WP:NOTE Spazure 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage for this title sequence Corpx 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete — if reliable sources can be found which discuss the title sequences of this series, that would be sufficient to keep the article. (I happen to know that such sources exist for the title sequences of Doctor Who — they may or may not exist for One Life to Live.) However, if reliable sources cannot be found, then delete. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle For Destainia[edit]

NN game with no non-advert or non-WP Ghits; article apparently serves only for advertisement. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No assertion of notability, no sourcing. Caknuck 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:N. —Shining Eyes 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:N Corpx 16:10, 28 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 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold T. Barrett Junior High School[edit]

Article seems to be point-of-view original research on a seemingly non-notable subject. SamBC 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Caknuck 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete-junior highs are not inherently notable. Chris 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of notability Corpx 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Caknuck and GreenJoe. Bearian 13:44, 30 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 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering with Management[edit]

Article about non-notable program of study at Trinity College, Dublin. Article was initially WP:PROD'ed, author removed tag and somewhat improved article. Proposed merge with Trinity College article, which met with resistance from others that I'm inclined to agree with. - Fordan (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a program at the college, with no wider importance that leads to coverage in third-party sources. The appropriate location for this information is on their web pages, not Wikipedia. The college's article would best only briefly mention the general fields the institution offers degrees in, not the specific details. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do strongly agree with the above comments. This article should go for deletion. Niaz bd 10:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not assert any notability --NAHID 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it appears to be a unique program, which ought to be notable, but cites are desperately needed per WP:V. Bearian 13:54, 30 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. —Kurykh 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem Server (CMS)[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY, there are no third party sources, it's an advert. Jackaranga 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a 3rd party reference. Tandem Sever is a new CMS System so we do not have many 3rd party references, they are coming, we are just not widely known yet. I don't understand why this is being removed? You have a page dedicated to list different CMS Systems yet you don't allow a page to describe them? Have you looked at the cms system pages you have on your site now? why don't you just scrap the whole works? 90% of them violate the "guidelines" you have. How many 3rd party references do you need? i can probably get a couple more in a week or 2. This article is not meant to be an "advertisement" we are just trying to be diligent in including Tandem Server when CMS Systems are disscussed.Nyhtal 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found your article by looking through that list, I decided to use PROD on the rest when I saw how many there were going to be. Jackaranga 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do to keep my article on the site? Nyhtal 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)nyhtal[reply]

Comment Just come up with some references from third-party, independent sources. Notability is the only major concern here. See WP:NOTE for details. If you can prove notability (in the present, not "possibly in the future"), we'll keep it. Spazure 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a problem with WP:COI if you read what Nyhtal said, he wrote this article to promote his software. Jackaranga 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding me Jack? EVERY ONE OF THE CMS Systems in the list are promotions - you are nieve to think they are not. Like i said before why don't you just scrap the entire List page and all the CMS System pages there? THEY ARE ALL "ADVERTISEMENTS". They are products so they are an advertisement. Since you allow products to be listed then you should just limit them to no "sales pitches", which they are not, I think they fit the wikipedia way by just defining what they are. Again i say, why would you have a list page for the different CMS System if you are not going to allow anyone to list their system? Seems silly and a completely biased toward big name brand systems, don't you think? On a side note, I have listed a few "External Resources" for the system to make it notable. I hope this is good enough to get off the deletion status. There will be more resources listed and this page will be updated as time goes on as new things happen with Tandem Server, we plan on keeping this page up to date as much as possible. Nyhtal 29 July 2007

Delete as failing WP:N, WP:RS. Among the many thing that Wikipedia is not is a place for products that are "new" or "not widely known yet" to become so. When/if the software becomes notable (with multiple, independent, non-trivial sources), it may be appropriate to re-create this. -- MarcoTolo 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBHcms[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY, there are no third party sources, it's an advert. Jackaranga 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also reported the original creator at WP:UAA, because his username matches the name of the internet site promoting this product. Jackaranga 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable article possibly created for advertising purposes. —Shining Eyes 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought WP:SOFTWARE didn't count anymore? Either way though, an exhaustive search of the internet (which does count for this, because it's open-source, downloadable software) shows a lack of third-party coverage to meet notability WP:NOTE. Spazure 04:12, 28 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. I'm of the opinion of that the need for reliable sources for medical subjects is especially pressing and takes priority. El_C 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Decay[edit]

Neologism created by the article's principle author. No demonstration of notability, no references. Originally CSD'd as spam, but COI is not automatically spam, and as this isn't advertising a product, I decided to bring it here instead, as there is no CSD for neologisms AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sort of notable, if pages on Chiropractors' websites are believable. —Travis ^talk 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was sort of on the fence on this one. Yes, there are obviously plenty of Google hits. I was, however, afraid that there might also quite a few positives that talk about spinal decay in general and not about the term as it's specifically defined in the article. I did find some chiropractic literature that did at least mention the term and spinal decay patient's anamnesis and symptoms (though often in passing). Unfortunately, I do not have access to any medical databases. Upon closer examination, it becomes obvious that there are some false positives but I also think that there are many sources that deal specifically with this phenomenon/syndrome. At this point, it's probably pretty obvious that I'm not a doctor (and that I don't play one on TV either) and, while this may not become a FA anytime soon, I still think that the term is sufficiently notable and that there are enough reliable sources out there to keep the article. --S ^up? 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Pubmed has no articles with the phrase in the title or abstract--and neither does Scopus. the conclusion is that it is not notable as science. It is used by chiropractors, but again not in professional journals--the article explains fairly well that it is a very generic popular term for spinal problems at various stages. I couldn't find a conventionally RS online. DGG (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Spinal Decay, you see, is apparently a term used exclusively in chiropractic, so it's not exactly medicine. Therefore, I'm not surprised that you couldn't find it in medical references. —Travis ^talk 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chiropractors are not doctors. This is psuedo-science not medicine. This is not a term recognised by proper medical journals or qualified doctors. It's misleading to present it as medicine because it is actually voodoo. Nick mallory 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism, coined by an apparently non-notable "doctor". Pubmed has exactly zero hits for "spinal decay", while it has >3000 hits for "chiropractic". So while it is easy to establish the notability of the latter, irrespective of whether one believes it is pseudoscientific or not, the former simply does not have secondary, reliable sources that are needed to write an article. Note that especially for health related matters, it is worse to have half-baked articles based on non-reliable sources (such as the ones given by google), than no article at all. Abecedare 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JonFursh (talk · contribs) has created other articles (The Furshpan Maneuver, Bernard Furshpan) that were deleted as blatant spam, advert and comment. Abecedare 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than the author's and a few other chiropractors' websites. Also per Abecedare's "health related matters" argument. —Travis ^talk 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Neologism. If somebody wanted to find more information about it, they could read about spondylosis or degenerative disc disease. Like everyone else said, the "doctor" is a chiropractor who has repeatedly added spam to WP. Original research, and was added by the "doctor" himself. - Cyborg Ninja 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read a lot of medical reports and "spinal decay" doesn't seem to have caught on. Chiropractors tend to have a little more leeway in making up new terms, but even the chiropractic association doesn't seem to endorse this one. "Degenerative disc disease" is the equally scary sounding term that physicians use for the process going on with all of us. Mandsford 23:28, 29 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. Sr 13 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katiki Point Lighthouse[edit]

The article has little to no notability as there are no other independent sources I can find that report on it. It also has only one internal encyclopaedic link. Also note that there are no articles regarding "Katiki Point" or even "Katiki. Reginmund 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, not that that's particularly relevant. Keep. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources of info: NZ Gov't Photos and details and More general info Most of the rest of what I found was travel- or photography-related, however. The article clearly needs work, but I find this lighthouse no less notable than most of the rest on Wikipedia. —Travis^talk 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is also known as Moeraki or Katigi, so searching on these terms will find additional articles, like Moeraki and Moeraki Boulders on WP plus additional ones via Google.--Mendors 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Other New Zealand lighthouses have articles, so why have a red link to this one? The article may need work with regards to refs, but it's only 2 days old. Further more, look at Moeraki. It's commonly known as the Moeraki Lighthouse but that's not actually the name bestowed upon it from Maritime NZ --Hayden5650 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perusing the links I previously posted will easily clarify the name issue per Hayden5650. I also point out that lack of a WP article is not in itself evidence of non-notability. —Travis ^talk 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional references to the article, including linking it with some Maori traditions which are covered by some NZ government treaty settlement legislation.--Mendors 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the US, all lighthouses are fairly important as local tourist attractions as well as due to their history, restoration/conservation efforts, etc. Unless there's reason to think the situation is very different in NZ, this should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable lighthouse and the article is now sourced. --Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article and lighthouse seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This lighthouse has been working for 125 years, I wonder if Wikipedia will last so long. It's a good article now and well sourced. Nick mallory 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we could wind up this discussion now? There seems to be an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of keeping the article. --Hayden5650 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic and restored lighthouse. --Oakshade 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep deserves to be kept for above reasons Delighted eyes 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Other lighthouses in New Zealand are notable, why not this one. Malathos 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. In addition to the other arguments, this lighthouse's link with Yellow-eyed penguins, and Janice Jones work while living there make this really quite notable.--Limegreen 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above, the current version of this article conveys notability. Burntsauce 17:42, 31 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. Sr 13 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 115[edit]

One of a large set of mini-articles. I listed it for speedy deletion under db-context since there is no explanation as to who wrote the sonnet and even what a sonnet is. I have since been told that not only does this not need to be done, since it is one of a set of presumably similar articles, but the Original Research interpretation and lack of sources is not a problem. This may require further AfDs to the entire set. Corvus cornix 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with clean-up --Onceonthisisland 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this gets seriously re-written. The synopsis is completely original research, and lists no reliable sources for an analysis of the poem. I just added a short lead, but it's incredibly basic and also needs more expansion. The article is more or less a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient references available Addhoc 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Part of a set of articles on Shakespeare's sonnets, all of which merit individual articles. Golfcam 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, notability is not inherited, so I almost went delete, but I'm sure with enough searching, we could find the proper coverage to confer notability for the particular sonnet, and this run on sentence is giving me a headache, but I'm in a very weird mood and at least I'm only doing it on a talk page, so I'm going to go ahead and go with keep, unless we can come up with a strong reason to delete it (instead of, say .. fixing it). Spazure 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Get thee to a library! There has been an enormous amount of critical commentary on every word Shakespeare ever wrote. I'd be extremely surprised if this sonnet is an exception. Zagalejo 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt there's a Shakespearian sonnet that isn't notable. (Someone's trying to Kill Bill. Don't Mess With Bill.) Clarityfiend 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo spazure (contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Laughable this was even nominated for deletion. Seems the article was just added the day before, too. - Cyborg Ninja 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject, just needs some time to grow (more than 24 hours)--Entoaggie09 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the subject is clearly notable an merits encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:41, 31 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 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casiotone Nation[edit]

NN as listed in WP:N. No sources. No links. No albums released. No national tours listed. Official website is empty. Advertising. Btl 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only claims of notability in the article are doing well in two contests (which I can't confirm, 'cause it appears most of the references to them are in German; I *think* I can order a beer in German, that's about the extent of it), and as the nom indicates, there's no real approach to meeting WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 27 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. I'll add a mention in Lyle E. Littlefield Ornamentals Trial Garden as DGG suggests. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clapp Greenhouses[edit]

Doesn't appear notable enough for separate article. Merge to ~~University of Maine~~, or delete outright. SarekOfVulcan 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Preferred merge would be to Littlefield Garden, as below.--SarekOfVulcan 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having it separate allows it to be better categorized. GlassFET 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a single research facility within a single department. Fundamentally no more notable than any other such facility--all large bio depts have greenhouses, and animal care facilities, and so on, almost none of which will be notable. Some will be named, raising money being the sort of art that it is. But since it has a small public display element (3,000 sq ft), it could be mentioned in the article on their botanic garden, Lyle E. Littlefield Ornamentals Trial Garden. I think most botanic gardens would be notable. DGG (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of independent sources attesting to notability Corpx 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx and DGG. Nice facility and all, but the requirements of WP:SCI are sorely lacking here. --Aarktica 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I realized I !voted below, but after further consideration, I looked much further into this article and it absolutely a WP:BLP nightmare. None of these nicknames are sourced, and some could be considered borderline libel. As such, this article is being Speedy Deleted per WP:BLP concerns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs)

List of sportspeople by nickname[edit]

I discovered this list while cleaning up useless redirects. Very poorly sourced article, almost no references at all, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. It also seems like every athelte who ever played got a nickname, so it's a endless list. Fails WP:RS WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:V, WP:NOT and possibly WP:OR. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep. Delete per nom. That will be painful-to-impossible to maintain properly...--SarekOfVulcan 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That page is unsourced and enormous. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute definition of "list of loosely associated topics" Only thing these people have in common are that they have a nickname and they competed in an athletic event. Corpx 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's a list of loosely associated topics if I've ever seen one. —Travis ^talk 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I didn't underatand how the list was organized at first, so I now disagree with my earlier !vote. However, the list is too long with nearly 1,500 entries, so long in fact, that it crashed Firefox with wikEd installed when I opened it for editing. Clearly, if it is to be kept, it needs to be split up. —Travis ^talk 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm usually hard on lists, but I have to say, I don't see the problem with this one. So it's a list of nicknames by which athletes have been known; I don't see that as loosely associated items, as in many of the more trivial "List of songs about …" articles, since in those cases the songs and the topics mentioned are truly loosely associated and the items are mutually irrelevant. I could do without the ones coined by Chris Berman, though. Deor 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've amended this nom by adding the usual line of links and the "Remove this template" notice at the top. I hope I've done it correctly. Deor 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this article is that one of the most poorly sourced articles on wikipedia, most of the nicknames looks like they were nicknamed by the fans, and likely won't get any Reliable sources never with the exception of a few nicknames, many of the nicknames I checked in google are just passing trivial mentions or blogs. In a way WP:BLP applies here as well. I know AFD isn't for cleanup, but this is unsalvageable as it stands. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, almost all the nicknames I'm seeing are well-known. The sourcing may be thin, but sources can be added (and if the nicknames are sourced in the persons' articles, I don't think they need be sourced here as well). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't consider that the idea of this list violates policies or guidelines, so any problems can be handled via discussion and cleanup. ("One of the most poorly sourced articles on wikipedia" is a hyperbole that's forgivable in a discussion, but I find it hard to believe that you really consider it so. I've seen many, many more poorly sourced ones.) Deor 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont think WP should be a nickname database. Nicknames should be mentioned in individual articles, with appropriate sourcing, but this is just a trivial list. Corpx 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefulness is a strong argument when it comes to lists, since that is, after all, their purpose. The usefulness of this one is absolutely obvious. It makes it easier to navigate articles and helps readers who remember that some sports figure's name was "The Animal" but just can't remember the guy's name. Yes, you could use a search engine to find something, but, like everything else is supposed to be in Wikipedia, this is a tool that makes the search for information faster. And if you had two or three nicknames to look up, this would be manna from heaven. The subject itself, nicknames of sports figures, is encyclopedic, it seems to me. If we're going to have articles on sports figures, organized at an essential level by name, then a list of alternate names is valuable.Noroton 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep great subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 July 2007
Keep Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people, simply because sports reporters create them. This list takes the approach of running from Ace to Zeko; it's a plus that it's not limited to Americans. Mandsford 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Jaranda has it right, it's failing every single one of those policies and guidelines, and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Most of the keeps seem to be WP:ILIKEIT's, as they do not answer the policy concerns raised by the nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen M. Hartley-Nagle[edit]

Lack of notability. Her biggest claim to fame seems to be loosing a congressional election, and is head of a foundation that isn't notable enough to have a wikiarticle. No refs asserting notability other than relating to her failed election bid. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO:Politicians.--SarekOfVulcan 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not a major-party candidate for a national legislature--an independent candidate for House of Representatives, and a losing candidate for the Democratic nomination DGG (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 14:50, 30 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKSUM[edit]

Unreferenced, Japanese indie game. Only claim to notability is an (unverified) student award. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page the award should be on [4]. Doesn't appear to be there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) As the article says "7th CESA student game award in 2005" (even though 2005 was the 9th), I've also checked the 7th [5] and the 2005-2006 awards [6]. None of these lists appear to mention this game, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per JohnnyMrNinja's link.--SarekOfVulcan 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This[7] is perhaps the award that the article says. The link that the nominator (JohnnyMrNinja) showed is to CESA game awards, not to the CESA 'Student' game awards. Aside from that, the subject of this afd would be apt for having an article on Wikipedia since this game is introduced in the Gamespot[8] and the Gamefaqs[9]. --Neko jarashi 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well pointed-out, that was all I could find in English and I just assumed it was the same thing. The subject still fails notability, as in "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Even without considering the fact that Gamespot has BLOCKSUM for available for download (meaning it doesn't really count as independent), or the fact that GameFAQs is part of Gamespot, or that both entries are possibly edited by fans (GameFAQs for sure is), neither one has any significant coverage. Gamespot has "Join numbered tiles together to combine their values, and clear them by matching that number of similarly valued tiles together." Is that considered significant? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, Neko jarashi. The machine translated version isn't easy to make sense of but it might very well verify that article's claim. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. The Gamespot link is a two-edged sword: it is a major website but we're not talking about a review or any form of editorial content here - the link goes to the games subpage which is listed under 'Downloads'. As I understand it, it's possible for registered Gamespot users to upload content now. Another fact to consider is the Gamespot ranking which, as I'm writing this, is at number 37,351 of 39,732 overall and number 6,524 of 8,377 in the PC downloads section. And even though it may be up to debate whether Gamespot is a reliable source in other contexts, I think in this case it clearly isn't. Gamefaqs is virtually the same story (well, both sites are owned by the same company) and there's even less information there. Google also finds various blog posts and alternative download sources (and judging from the video is looks very interesting) but I'm afraid this isn't enough for me. In terms of notability, we may have the award but unless I'm missing something (and that's always a possibility), nothing else. Therefore, I'd advocate deleting the article. S ^up? 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(But,I don't have no right to vote yet...) I'm the author.I almost agree with Neko jarashi.--ARIYA,Ginzang 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it leads to another All your base are belong to us. Trynton Shines 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That game seems to commercially be remade into a cellular phone game[10]. So if Gamespot isn't a valid citation, there is still justification to keep this article. By the way, what's to do with "All your base" stuff? Need I say, "Y'all on da way ta destruction!" or anything? --Neko jarashi 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent source is a comment on a Japanese-language web site, for which no translation is provided. Since we depend on secondary sources to show notability, I believe this is not enough. (The machine-translated comment does not seem to establish the passing of any particular standard of quality). EdJohnston 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Franks[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This 14 year old murder victim is known only for being killed in 1924 and fails to satisfy WP:BIO. The crime is notable and is already fully covered at the article about the infamous thrill killers Leopold and Loeb who were defended by Clarence Darrow in a famous trial. A merge or redirect could also be appropriate. Edison 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to L&L per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Leopold and Loeb. Likely search term for someone interested in the case, no notability other than as the (unfortunate) victim in the case, all information can be incorporated into the article on the killers. Carom 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to L&L. Not notable enough for own article. Realkyhick 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While Wikipedia is not a memorial, Bobby Franks became a household name in the 1920s. As such, he is indeed notable enough for an entry page here. I also do not see how Franks fails WP:BIO. Regardless of how he became notable, he surely is notable. ExRat 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an exception--I think both he and the killers are separately notable in this instance.DGG (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, since he's, basically, one of the most famous murder victims of all time. I recognized the name instantly. Zagalejo 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Lindbergh Baby" kidnapping murder was more notable than the Leopold and Loeb thrill killing of Bobby Franks, but we have only an article on the Lindbergh kidnapping and not a memorial article about 1 year old Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Junior. Nor is there a memorial article about the wife murdered by Hawley Harvey Crippen in another famous murder of the early 2oth century. Had the two killers managed to pick up one of their other potential victims that they considered that day, Bobby Franks would not have gained any notoreity as their victim. We normally have an article about the crime, and not the victim, unless he was otherwise notable. The article is sourced only by someone's website, and has no sources so far satisfying WP:A. The article only has 1 or 2 sentences not presently in the target article about Leopold and Loeb, which fully describes the crime and the trial, and would be a good place to merge the few additional words about the victim in this article. He only gets passing reference in articles about the killers or the trial, which does not establish notability per WP:N. Arguments such as "I have heard of him" and "I think he is notable" really do nothing to tip the balance toward keeping the article, since this is not a vote. Edison 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that there are some biographical details about Franks that are not included in the article. Stuff like this. That's not a great counter-argument, but I don't think this is an issue for AFD anyway. There's no conceivable reason to delete the page outright. At the very least, it'll be turned into a redirect. People can just hash out the details on the talk pages. Zagalejo 06:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least as notable as Ronald Goldman. Edward321 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The observation that other probably deletion-worth articles exist is not a valid argument for keeping the one under discussion. Edison 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loeb and Leopold. I'm not impressed with the article at all, which is not about the victim, despite its well-meaning title. I'm of the opinion that if a criminal rates an article, then his victims should be written up as well, although generally as part of the article on the crime. Obviously, we couldn't have individual articles about victims of a serial killer, save for those where the victim became as prominent as the killer (as with Ron Goldman or Sharon Tate). In this case, the author tells us nothing about the 14 year old Chicago boy who happened to live across the street from a couple of assholes. Mandsford 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You suggest that articles of victims should be written when the victims become as prominent as their killers - Bobby Franks was nearly a household name in the 1920s in the USA, possibly as much so as Ronald Goldman. I would even dare say that many people still recognize the name. That alone makes him notable. I do however agree that that article needs major work, but I certainly think he merits his own inclusion on Wikipedia. I don't think a redirect is what is necessary; just a major overhaul with more information on Franks. Bobby Franks was and is a notable individual. ExRat 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia doesn't have to be a memorial to have articles about notable murder victims. This person is a well-known part of Chicago history and the article needs improvement and cleanup, not deletion. A Merge would be acceptable. The Parsnip! 04:22, 31 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 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Badami[edit]

He isn't really that notable. It seems like this was written either by himself or someone that knows him. Eggy49er 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator, please place a proper WP:AFD notice on the page. WP:PROD is not a nomination for deletion via this process. (Also, placing a prod three minutes after an editor edits is counter-productive. Prod is not useful for articles being actively edited. They will simply be disputed, and we end up here anyway.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the AfD tag to this page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Thanks for telling me. I'll make sure to do that for now on. Eggy49er 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO, I think. Mentioned in multiple independent sources is not the same as covered in them. Article claims national significance: coverage is local. Delete -- if not, MAJOR rewriting needed.--SarekOfVulcan 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO for *ahem* less-than-stellar achievements. Agree with the assessment that it looks like a friend of the subject created this.--Sethacus 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE! It's a shout-out from a buddy. Not even close to being notable. Good grief! Realkyhick 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree it should be deleted (I just haven't put in a !vote because my reasons are the same as those already stated), it's not a speedy, because it doesn't actually meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Do you perhaps mean "strong delete"?
Delete there is actually a claim to notability hidden there, though obviously not a sufficient one 14th place finish in the nationals for the high school National Forensic League competition for extemporaneous speaking. it apparently got him into Brown, but that isnt notable enough, no offense to Brown people here. But it looks like one of his friends did a remarkable amount of work.DGG (talk)`

delete this article is very strange as it seems a lot of stuff on someone completly unknown i personally think he must have been up all night and i hope his mum brought him up a cup of cocoDelighted eyes 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per SarekOfVulcan. Too bad, as it is a great article, well sourced, well written, but about a local celebrity. When he wins a Rhodes scholarship, then he'll be nationally notable. Bearian 16:06, 30 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. A Train^talk 19:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workitu Ayanu Gurmu[edit]

Initially nominated for Speedy under CSD-A7, it seems unclear what assertion of notability is here; I would suggest that, as the article stands, the subject seems to be non-notable. SamBC 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginal notability at best as an athlete. Her top showing seems to be the 6th place finish.--Sethacus 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No medal/podium finish, no notability. One race could change this, of course. Such is life. Realkyhick 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Realkyhick - one doesn't have to win a medal to be notable. Such a view have no grounds whatsoever in the relevant Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. (...) Athletes: Competitors who have played (my emphasis) in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis (or athletics; my comment)." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Moussambani ended with keep because the athletes in question had "participated in a major international competition". A similar case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Róża Kasprzak. Workitu Ayanu Gurmu has not only participated in the principal event in African athletics, she even reached the final and achieved a quite high place there. Now, the important question: Does the All-Africa Games count as a sufficiently high level of the sport? The answer is a whole-hearted YES, at least when it pertains to running, as African runners show an almost complete dominante the event in question. Workitu Ayanu Gurmu is even number 12 on the current world list.^[11] Number 12 in the world, huh? (note: the reason I have not added this fact to the article is that rankings tend to change during the season and are thus hard to maintain. But this time would have secured an eleventh place at the last World Championships.^[12]) As for claims of marginal notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer ended with keep since he has played seven minutes in a professional football league. I started that AFD but the outcome was fair and square, given the notability guidelines which have not changed since then. Come on, this athlete has participated for twice as long as Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer in a top-level (yes, top-level in a global perspective) athletics final :) Punkmorten 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that I started the article. Punkmorten 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Sethacus. Aarktica 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about founding your views in Wikipedia guidelines? Punkmorten 11:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. W. Richards[edit]

This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards as outlined in WP:BIO Golem88991 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence he passes WP:BK is uncovered. Novels are published by "Rokam Publications" which no longer exists and gets 0 ghits, suggesting it's unnotably small, a vanity publisher, or a self-publication. Otherwise the article seems WP:COATRACKed to highlight the dispute with the student. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BK.--Sethacus 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete only 4 or 5 library holdings for the books. conceivably the debate coach for the national champions at the high school level might be notable, but he has only state level championships to his team's credit. DGG (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:30, 28 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. Sr 13 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maine State Building[edit]

This building isn't notable. Eggy49er 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems marginally notable to me. Changing to keep per Dhartung and Eddie's additions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the few surviving structures from the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the last great World's Fair. Structure is on the National Register of Historic Places since 1974.[13] Designed by Charles Sumner Frost, a Chicago architect[14] who should have an article but does not.--Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Dhartung. --Boricuaeddie 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I've added the references provided by Dhartung to the article. --Boricuaeddie 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic buildings are prime encyclopedia fodder. —Xezbeth 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable building. Golfcam 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A cursory Google search would have revealed, within the first or second pages, that the building is listed on the National Register and is indeed historic and notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Golfcam, Elkman, Dhartung, and Boricuaeddie, and WP:HEY. I also wikified it a bit. Bearian 14:45, 30 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 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Cricket[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not a notable drinking game; Wikipedia is not for things made up at college one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. Minimal Google results for a search, no apparent reliable sources to verify it either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a place for instructions for how to play a drinking game made up in school one day. —Travis ^talk 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author of this article, I can assure you that this was not a game "made up in school one day." The game really is of New Zealand origin. I would not be too shocked to not find anything on google about a drinking game. Is Wikipedia only a place for the most mainstream of things? Even if the game were, as you say, "something made up in school one day," I cannot think of a modern drinking game not of such origins. The article is written professionally. It chronicles a real game played in real places. The sourcing for other similarly listed drinking games is suspect at best, and in many cases also totally lacking. I see no reason to strike it from the database. Clark P. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I made a cheeky statement earlier, and I meant no offense by it. What I was trying to point out, however, is that Wikipedia articles must have verifiable sources to assert their notability. I am not questioning whether the game is real, but you have provided no sources to back up your text. As for the other drinking games, just because they have articles, it is not automatic justification for another. Please don't take this personally; provide proper sources and your article may be keep-worthy. —Travis ^talk 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Let me say that I understand the need for sourcing. Were this article on a person, place, or thing, I would vote to delete as well. It is not, however, on any of those things. It is on a game, and a very fun game at that. Will people searching Wikipedia for new and exciting drinking games benefit from having this article posted? The answer is a resounding yes. I mean, if I went to one of these websites that houses rules for drinking games, posted the rules there, and then sourced that on Wikipedia it would then be keep-worthy? Needless to say, were the article to remain, six months from now it could be predicted that sources would appear of people writing about what a cool game they've played. Clark P.165.219.245.62 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article has no sources and the author indicates that there aren't any. We need independent sources to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. I'm sure Beer pong got deleted when it first appeared, too, but people went to extraordinary lengths to source that silliness, so now we have an article on it. Find sources, restore article. PS: I really, really really, wish people would stop capitalizing game names as if they were proper names. What next? Are we going to eat Dinner, then watch a Movie and pet the Cat? We're supposed to be speaking English here, not German. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP DELETE FOR LACK OF SOURCES????????????????? That makes no sense AT ALL. IF WikiPedia is concerned with validity/verifiability and gasp, SOURCES, they simply become a mirror for anything anybody could go find on Google. Is WP simply a MIRROR for GOOGLE? If so, most of their content immediately becomes non-unique, and thus less interesting. The fact that it does not appear on Google, makes this article PREMIUM. Especially when you're dealing with a localized game from NZ that is especially difficult to communicate and explain. That somebody has finally taken the time to nail down the particulars, even though it does not appear elsewhere on Googleland, should be embraced!!! DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!! p.s. anything anybody links on WP for popular culture is a sham anyways. You think a bogus link adds credibility? 71.191.97.240 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)PK— 71.191.97.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Simply has no notability. --Malcolmxl5 20:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back when there are sources that make this notable and make it meet our policy. It currently fails to do this. --Bduke 06:25, 29 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 Hawk Nelson. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kevin Dunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was speedy deleted as A7 per the last AfD. This time it may need to be either speedied again or salted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied it before, and it was pointed out to me that it did in fact assert notability. So, I undeleted it, and cut a lot of cruft out of it. - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Subject is member of a notable band, so it meets WP:MUSIC. --Boricuaeddie 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for pointing that out. If he's a member of a notable band, then I would recommend a speedy merge to the band in question. Member doesn't seem notable enough to stand out on his own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hawk Nelson. As posted article was a copy of a MySpace profile (or something). Wikipedia is not a social networking site (at least not in this way). --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawk Nelson. All the information on the article is already there. --Boricuaeddie 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 27 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 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo/screamo groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of emo/screamo groups

There's already a sufficient list of bands under Category:Emo musical groups, and most of the bands referenced here are redlinked. TheLetterM 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is unnecessary and redundant. --Cheeser1 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Delete.Ragaxus 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another list with loose inclusion criteria that's better served by a category! Corpx 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per nom. —Shining Eyes 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is what a category is for. --Haemo 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo and Corpx. Listcruft/unsourced indeed.--JForget 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad state today and not useful tomorrow. Punkmorten 10:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 14:51, 30 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 per consensus and nominator withdrawal. Ryanjunk 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avira[edit]

Prodded by me almost a year ago was deprodded and almost a year later there still aren't any multiple independent reliable sources giving any indication of notability. Whispe ring 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me nom withdrawn. Whispe ring 11:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Their product, but not the company, has been reviewed by the BBC and PCMagazine.--Sethacus 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Lots of people know products and not the companies, and to me this makes the parent company article worthy if the product is notable. Giving some slack because it is AV and the importance of AV both "today" and historically in this era. Pharmboy 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, and slight rewrite There isn't an exisiting article for their product, Antivir. Since Antivir doesn't exist yet (it's a redirect to Avira), and since this article is mostly about Antivir (and not Avira) anyway, I suggest switching the redirect for the article title (and vice versa), and a rewrite of the lead. Spazure 04:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided revisions are made to satisfy WP:CORP guidelines. --Aarktica 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Aarktica. Kayaker 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete still no independent sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources would be necessary to meet your personal opinion of "coverage in multiple sources"? spazure (contribs) 06:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think ~30 million users of Avira's products guarantee the notability?--Petrim 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Resmebles a textbook chapter. May be recreated if more than that one source is used, so as to establish notability. El_C 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational dimensions of information[edit]

Seems to fail WP:N. This article lists precisely one book as a source (I actually don't have access to it). Google returns mainly hits containing the term "Organizational dimensions of information systems", which does not seem to be the same concept. The article might rather be a book summary. Expert review request to WikiProject Business and Economics turned up nothing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks more like an excerpt from a business book than than something that can stand on its own. Should have specific references, not just one reference to the book the whole thing came from. -Steve Sanbeg 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete tagged a long time ago for further work that never happened. Mandsford 23:50, 29 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 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of frivolous political parties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Mostly redundant to Category:Joke political parties Will ^(talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly not at all redundant with the category. The list provides two significant advantages - firstly, the list entries provide information above and beyond the cateogory (since it's sorted by where the party was located, not just alphabetically - additionally, it contains other information a category can't, like whether a party is still active) and secondly, it contains redlinks to encourage develop of relevant future articles. There's also some content at the bottom of the list which discusses the phenomena in fiction, which isn't appropriate for a category at all. Wily D 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the list of fictional parties should be in the main article. (That, and I'm in half a mind to add Election Night Special to the category). Will ^(talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be, but the "organisation by country" feature is one of the prime reasons for a list per WP:LIST Wily D 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists and categories are both acceptable ways of grouping and navigating articles. They are complementary rather than redundant (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). These articles have an obvious connection and therefore a list is fully appropriate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, didn't we just go through this a few months ago? Do we have to keep on having this debate again and again? Zsero 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons given Reginmund 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. List is not redundant, as it provides more information than a category could. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above. --Bduke 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. ajdlinux | u t c 07:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Structured lists providing more info than a category as per WP:LIST. Davewild 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the great things about living in a democracy is the right to be frivolous. Mandsford 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant feature. --Soman 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a Speedy Keep over here in the circumstances, or is there any particular point in that any more? Mind, I'm impressed by the way this discussion has stuck to the nominator's claim and not erupted in a rematch over whether we should nuke the whole subject. Thanks, folks. --Kizor 12:21, 31 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 to Naruto: Ninja Council 3. --Core desat 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Ninja Concil 3[edit]

Seems to violate Not a Crystal Ball; no sources to indicate notability; so poorly written that I don't know whether this is supposed to be entitled "Concil" or "Council" or "Console" or something else. Definitely not encyclopedic, whatever it is. Nyttend 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thousand Years of Death!!! Er...delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispe ring 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No references and scant information. Oh, and the crystal ball bit, as well. —Travis^talk 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect per A Link to the Past. —Travis ^talk 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate per nom. --Agamemnon2 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - [15] - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:31, 30 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 all, a7, no credible assertion of notability -- making the ridiculous, unverified claim of selling "a billion copies" does not save these articles from speedy deletion. NawlinWiki 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook's Right Hand[edit]

Not-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. Their MySpace [16] (which lists the same band member names as the Wikipedia article) says they were formed in 2005, played some local clubs and have so far recorded "one song for the promotional use". Unverifiable nonsense claims such as their debut album released in 1986 selling billion copies, their first tour attracting 625,000 fans and them having a Billboard Hot 100 hit, obviously, do not check out. Karaboom 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) delete. Seems like nonsense.-Wafulz 17:20, 27 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy lynn[edit]

Not notable unsourced article. Harlowraman 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not apparently notable even if real. --Dhartung | Talk 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to weak keep after revisions. --Dhartung | Talk 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is clearly a nonsense article. Oli Filth 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Parts of this seem unlikely and are certainly unverifiable (ie Musical, sausages, nickname etc) but Guy Lynn is a BBC reporter in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire as claimed [17] [18] and even won an award from the Royal Television Society--Slp1 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, nonsense bits have been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep But wouldn't want to use the as the test for notability, or a good article. Pharmboy 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he's notable and the facts can be verified. Needs exapansion. Bearian 15:01, 30 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. Entry lacks content (!). El_C 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Abrahamists[edit]

This article essentially has no content other than links to our existing articles Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Anti-Mormonism, and Persecution of Muslims. No indication that this catchall term is anything but a neologism. NawlinWiki 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like at best those links might merit a "see also" in the article Abrahamic Religion. Moonriddengirl 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently there is not enough material for an article, although I don't know where "neologism" comes into play. Is putting two words together a neologism, now? Instruction creep? --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was just trying to make the point that there's no reason to have an article with this title, because there's no evidence that anyone actually uses the phrase "Persecution of Abrahamists". It doesn't matter to me whether we call it a neologism or not. NawlinWiki 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's a bit strict. So if we had a source that discussed "harassment of Abrahamists" or "Abrahamists beat up" or "Abrahamists discriminated against" or whatnot, we'd be unable to say "persecution" or wrap all these things into one article? Sometimes the "does the source use THIS EXACT PHRASE" thing is taken too far. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because no actual content. Disagree with the neologism position of the nom, though. Oli Filth 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change into a category to contain those articles linked to in this article. Nyttend 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; little more than a useless disambiguation page. Ragaxus 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Liftarn still seems to be disappointed that Persecution of Germanic Pagans is only a disambiguation page and that he did not get Religious discrimination against Asatru linked at Template:Religious persecution; See the respective discussion pages. Zara1709 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or let's just replace this with a list of Persecution of Everyone in the World and throw in a bunch of other links. Mandsford 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the expression "Abrahamist" is derived from the phrase "religion of Abraham" in the Qur'an' I don't think it can be called a neologism. (see Abrahamic religion#Origin of the expression). // Liftarn

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to the existing article on this topic (test anxiety). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exam stress[edit]

The article is little more than a definition followed by vague generalizations. There are no references. I don't see anything here that isn't much better covered in Stress (medicine), so a redirect seems to be in order. Clarityfiend 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stress (medicine) per nom. There's no information of value here. Propaniac 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Holiday stress has references, but not much more content, so it should receive the same treatment. Clarityfiend 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Oli Filth 17:08, 27 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 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Neilson[edit]

This has been prodded and dleted before, and recreated. So I am treating it as a contested prod. i don't know wrestling well enough to know how notable or otherwise this person is, nor what the claims actually imply. However, no sources are cited. DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless sources are cited to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto above. Oli Filth 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a former wrestler from TNA. She is as notable as any other former big time performer on Wikipedia. However, the article should be rewritten. Eggy49er 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a wrestler doesn't automatically guarantee notability. Being an astronaut, perhaps, but not a wrestler/entertainer for a very short time. Pharmboy 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, to me, is a non-notable biography for which I had previously recommended a speedy. --Stormbay 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable jewelry designer, nothing within this article is backed by reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:41, 31 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. Strongly urge to make use of right columns (perhaps structure this in tables, supplanting and supplementing the templates). Renaming is also an option, as is reorganizing. It's obvious merging is likely to detract from the holistic scope of this list —which some view as desirable, while others maintain some overlap to be unavoidable— and this decision is left for discussion elsewhere. El_C 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial, imperial and otherwise controlled foreign territories by dominant power[edit]

Delete indiscriminate collection of loosely related things. Also, unnreferenced, POV and difficult to verifiably maintain. The definition says:"widely varied spectrum of colonies, protectorates, mandates, trust territories, occupied or annexed states, dependent territories and other political entities that were (or in some cases are) subjected to another sovereign power, or in (de facto unequal) personal union," There were thousands of wars and country expansions in human history during which someone "sontrolled" something else. This list may easily contain tens of thousands entries. `'Míkka 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and as per WP:NOT#INFO. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a fairly good job. the dates provide the basic information, & the articles on the countries will give the details,. Indiscriminate means applying no criterion for discrimination, and there is a very clear one: those area... The list further fulfills the purpose of a list by being organized usefully by controlling country. To delete an article because it "might grow too large" is a strange reason, given that we have several methods of dealing with such articles, such as splitting them. Deleting an article because it might have POV problems is equally strange, because probably all the content in WP dealing with politics or history has POV problems. Difficult to verifiably maintain is strange, since there is no evidence that it is not well maintained--and in any case is an editing problem. I remind my colleague above about the usefulness of saying per nom without further explanation--it doesn't show that one has even read the AfD, let alone the article. And what is one supposed to reply. "anti-nom"? Let's have a real discussion here. DGG (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination is exactly because it is not clear. In particular, "occupied or annexed" covers basically the whole history of civilization territorial movements. The criterion is extremely vague. People even still don't agree what "colony" is. "Subjected to another sovereign power": was France "subjected to sovereign power of Vatican? After all, Pope could excommunicate a king. This article is an arbitrary collection. If there are salvageable, well-defined pieces, by all means save them before deletion. There is no problem with GFDL, because non-creative, purely compilative lists are not copyrightable. `'Míkka 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd much rather filter this down to Nations who were colonies or something like that, where the inclusion criteria is strict. Corpx 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG (except for his last two sentences; "per nom" can be a legitimate comment). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite completely. Uhm. I need a little help parsing the opening statement .. the stated inclusion criterion of this list is convoluted. This list needs to either be pared down and renamed to reflect some kind of quantifiable purpose, or just deleted outright. As it stands it is open to include literally any political entity in the world. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly conceived, poorly defined, poorly titled, far too open to debate. I would say it is rather indescriminate, as the criteria are far too general, vague, and contains far too many poorly defined terms or concepts. Categories would work far better in organizing this disparate material. Agent 86 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that kind of lists are difficult to maintain and verify, and since we already have that information splitted in other articles (e.g. Antarctic territorial claims, British Empire, etc) such a huge list is unnecessary. Phrases such as American Empire may attract edit wars or flaming, and as Agent 86 said categories would work better. —Shining Eyes 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -it appears too vague to be functional in its current form. --Haemo 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Japan was occupied by Allied forces after WWII. :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damm! I forgot... uh, there's a slice of Antarctica that's not claimed by any country?...--Victor falk 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? Of course not. Russians claim even the North pole! `'Míkka 16:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True there is a slice, although the USA (& the Russians) reserves the right to claim, but the Antarctic Treaty System currently over-rides all claims.

Keep May just need some clean-up in areas & better titled, but overall still informative & more sourcing could be looked into, if given the time & effort to get them. If defined better or even specifically split up in separate articles may help keep it in better shape. That-Vela-Fella 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an excellent, intelligently organized table that sums up the history of colonialism and the age of imperialism about as concisely as I've ever seen. Without judgment, it simply lists when a current nation was once under the administration of another nation. It wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking) that the sun never set on the British Empire. Now it sets at 8:35 pm, tomorrow at 8:33. Mandsford 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly useful list for historical research -- though I think a chronological scheme of organization would suit it better. RandomCritic 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I'd like to point out that this list is highly redundant to List of empires, which is much more informative and better organised (and that's saying a lot, since it's tagged to be cleaned-up!); many of them have infoboxes that in turn list territories.

To be useful, this list would have to be a table, with on one axis, every year from 1500 to 2007, and on the other axis, every colony, protectorate, possession, dominion, satellite, dependency, mandate, condominium, province, and occupied territory that has switched allegiance at one time or the other. That list would be slightly cumbersome--Victor falk 11:54, 30 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 all. Consensus was that all articles failed to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. The closest to being a keep was Distorted Penguins, which had only once received non-trivial coverage in a reliable, published work independent from the subject: [19]

Pro-Gravity Records[edit]

Record label from western Maryland. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. Same author is busily creating articles on this label's affiliated acts and their albums, all of which have the same notability problems. Listing them below. NawlinWiki 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Also including:[reply]

Midnight:30
Midnight: 30 (duplicate)
Plan:Be
Plan: Be (duplicate)
Truce II Headrush
The Enigmatic
List of musical artists from Cumberland, Maryland
Distorted Penguins
200 North
CMD Represent, Vol. 1
Billiam Rockwell
Watching the World Die
Antiform (album)

My argument

Here is the gist of my argument, as explained to "NawlinWiki" on that admin's talk page:

Hey I dont' know if this is the correct way to communicate with you or not, but here it is ... I mean, I see what you're saying about Ice Records vs. Pro-Gravity and all. But as far as noteworthiness goes, again, it's an Indpendent label with about 8 acts and 10 albums -- with 4 albums in the pipeline. Yeah, it's only artists around Allegany County, Maryland, but why does that in and of itself make it not worthy of inclusion? I can produce articles on most of the bands on the list from the local paper (some aren't accessible on the Website any longer), but I have a feeling those articles won't be up to snuff either. I mean, Pro-Gravity is legit (disclaimer: I am not Pro-Gravity records) ... people around here know who they are, and it's who everyone tries to release an album with. They're recognized within a good two to three hours of here and respected for their DIY/Indie footprint.

It seems as though if an artist isn't on a major record label or doesn't release a song that charts, they're going to be deleted, which (IMHO) flies in the face of what Wikipedia is about.

I am obviously coming from an angle of trying to increase the presence of musicians from Allegany County/Cumberland, Maryland on the Web, including Wiki, so I wont' deny that, but I feel almost being discriminated against b/c we're from a smaller area. Our local newspaper barely pays attention to us, though articles do exist on most of the bands on this list. And we're three hours from any MAJOR newspapers (DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) so there's nothing in those papers but rewritten press releases. These aren't bands that started yesterday or exist only in the artists' minds ... 200 North has played in Europe, Distorted Penguins plays (literally) hundreds of shows a year as far away as Oregon. I'm not putting up articles on the smaller players in our area. But, as a reperesentation of an independent label that is making it through Word of Mouth and via the Web and DIY ethic, Pro-Gravity Records, its artists and the musicians of Cumberland/Allegany County are certainly noteworthy.

Please tell me what I must do to save these articles from deletion. Lawofone 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some links: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

These are just the first few I could track down. There are plenty more. Lawofone 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pro-Gravity Records as lacking in reliable sources and likely notability; neutral on the bands right now until I've got more time to look into them one by one. to Lawofone: The label needs to have been covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources to define its notability - everything needs to be sourced to be verifiable. The bands need to be able to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC for articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the bands, deleteall but Distorted Penguins as failing WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, as well as the albums for each; neutral on Distorted Penguins, with a lean towards a weak keep if someone turns up non-trivial independent mentions of their national touring as well as more reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless, of course, the author has some verifiable sources that show that this label or related acts are notable as required by WP criteria. —Travis ^talk 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I"ve got what I feel is the necessary references, which I'll add after voting is finished (assuming it survives). Lawofone 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add them right away, as additional sources will make a difference on the opinions being expressed here. If you wait, the articles are all likely to be deleted - the sources won't do a whole lot afterwards... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm in 3 of the bands on this label. I have no idea why someone would even dispute this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannorth (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 July 2007— Briannorth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This is silly. The label itself is legitimate as are the associated bands. Both print and web sources have been produced to prove this. What's the problem? Cdadamly 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources really meet the need for multiple, non-trivial independent references to verify the claims in the article. The label itself just hasn't developed enough notability to meet guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are independent newspaper articles not acceptable? Are the guidelines tougher to get a band on here than, oh, anything else in Wikipedia? If there was no independent verification, then I'd agree, but they've met the criteria.

Local newspapers write about local bands. I've done it. When magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. write about bands from outside their local area, that indicates they're developing notability outside of their home town, and that moves them towards meeting the music guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that there is no notability for these acts outside their hometown, but you're basically admitting that this evidence proves that they are notable there. From what I see in the guidelines, they only require notability, not world-wide notability nor even national notability.Cdadamly 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although we're definitely starting to go around in circles here. But how can these bands not get a page when this does? I'm in no way callign for that article's deletion, but I GUARANTEE these bands' pages will get more hits than Archibald Sturrock. What's the harm of giving a person out there who may hear of 200 North (or Distorted Penguins, or Pro-Gravity) from being able to go to Wikipedia and find information? I, for one, think it HEIGHTENS Wikipedia's standing for people to be able to find such information. I know that I mainly use Wikipedia to read about random, obscure tidbits. It tickles me to come here and find articles on such topics. That's when Wikipedia proves its value to me; not its ability to give me information on Britney Spears, but its ability to give me information on things like this. Lawofone 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, generally. Especially when the article pointed to is of a person who has books written about him, holds a patent for a steam boiler improvement, invented the steam tender, managed a major railroad for years, etc. Nonetheless, because one article exists is not a good reason for another to exist; we still need those multiple reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the existence of other, more trivial articles shows that certain articles are being singled out for some reason. Like the above example, the Tristate Zoological Park. Why aren't we discussing that article's deletion? Not that I think we should; there's room enough for both (and plenty more) on Wikipedia. Truce m3 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, I think the notability standards are a bit overwrought and largely unnecessary. Major labels/groups/bands gain notoriety by having enough capital to promote product. This doesn’t necessarily make them notable in any meaningful sense of the word; and because a small label/group/band doesn’t have the ability to buy ‘notability’ in the way that better funded labels/groups/bands do makes them no less notable. I don’t see how there isn’t room enough for all. SKOOCH 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) — SKOOCH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I think I basically agree with the above posts. Print/Web exists. Who cares if they're not big, they've met the criteria. I always side with keeping articles, not deleting them. Truce m3 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I kind of resent being tagged as a single-use account or whatever. I've been on wikipedia for three or four years now. It's a cheap attempt to render my opinion irrelevant.

My apologies, then; your edit history under this account consists of seven edits outside of this debate, which leads to the assumption. Please remember to sign your posts.

Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The label seems to be marginally notable within the state of Maryland, but a detailed search finds very little in the way of reliable sources regarding the label and its bands. None of the acts seem to have ever charted on a major chart or done anything else that makes them pass WP:MUSIC. Most of the hits for the bands are MySpace and similar non-reliable pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must recall Cdadamly's point above: You allow that the label (and, by association, its acts) are notable in Maryland; notability guidelines do not indicate what level an act/label must be notable on, only that they must be notable. So ... Lawofone 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a couple minutes, so I found a small handful of references on the web. There are definitely more to be found. This was a cursory search.

Review of The Enigmaic by Truce II Headrush

Review of The Trend's self-titled album

Search for 200 North on this page for a review of WtWD

Review of 200 North/Esteem split at top of page

Also, according to the guidlines regarding notability, a band has to meet only one of the criteria, one of them being, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Since Brendan Ekstrom, the guitarist from 200 North later went on to join This Day Forward and is now a member of Circa Survive, this should spare 200 North from deletion (and I would assume Pro-Gravity Records, the label that currently supports their 3 Song Demo and split with Esteem, as well.

Cdadamly 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the criteria lists "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city," which should spare Midnight:30 and its derivitaves. I mean, Midnight:30, essentially IS Western Maryland's hip-hop scene. Again, being the representative of a LARGE local scene is not required, merely "of the local scene of a city." Midnight:30, and its derivatives, are the most prominent representatives of hip-hop within Allegany County and beyond, so they easily qualify. Lawofone 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bulk of these articles fit our CSD G11 criteria if you ask me. Burntsauce 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are not quite as familiar with WikiAcronyms, so praytell, what does CSD G11 mean?

The above bands fall within the notability guidlines, as they have documentation showing them as notable (remember that "notability" is completely different from "popularity"). Even those contesting the inclusion of these articles have admitted that the bands are notable in Maryland, or at least in Western Maryland. Also, 200 North stands even more easily due to its ties to Circa Survive (a band that I challenge any of you to challenge the notability of). However, I note that this doesn't really matter. According to those same guidelines, we could argue the articles' inclusion or exclusion regardless of notability ("Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.") This is especially troubling, not to mention a shakey basis for deletion, as there is a separate debate (started by CharlesGillingham) going on on the talk page for music notability

So, what types of sources are you actually looking for in order to call off this witch hunt? Give the editors who are currently working on these pages some real information on what you want, and we/they can provide it.

Editing is greatly preferred over deletion.

Cdadamly 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is the most important policies in determining whether an article is suitable. We need verifiable reliable sources - articles that state these bands are prominent representatives of a notable style as mentioned above, that aren't trivial mentions; we need indications that there are people writing, in established publications that have an editorial policy of some note, articles that indicate the subjects of the articles are notable; in essence, we need proof that the claims in the articles are true. I haven't yet seen any independent references to the record label, nor to most of the bands, that make me feel WP:V or WP:MUSIC are satisfied. Anyhow, this is my last opinion on the matter, unless some firm references come forward; it's up to the closing administrator to decide. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me till Friday, and I can provide the information on Truce II Headrush and The Enigmatic -- they'll be in the paper then.

Keep 200 North

Independent review of 200 North / Esteem split CD

The band's first release was on Eulogy Recordings as verified by the following: [30] [31] [32], and Eulogy has also released albums by Dashboard Confessional, This Day Forward, and Unearth, all undeniabley notable bands.

Also, Brendan Ekstrom, guitarist from 200 North, went on to join This Day Forward and later, Circa Survive as documented here, here, and here.

Cdadamly 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distorted Penguins

The fact that most of these articles are from local sources should not matter. They are independent sources.

Announcement of final show

Mention in letter to the editor from a Cumberland native living in TX

Mention in article on Frostburg State University compilation CD

Article on release of CMD Represent, Vol. 1 by Pre-Gravity, including references to Distorted Penguins

mention in letter to the editor regarding local radio

DC101 reference (the band is played on the Washington, DC station)

Announcement of Distorted Penguins show with Blues Traveler, Nine Days, and Mos Def

Cdadamly 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- At least we're fighting the good fight; when will the decision be made? Truce m3 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 200 North, Distorted Penguins, Pro-Gravity

This is a virgin Wikipedia post/edit. I came across this page after reading an article pertaining to Pro-Gravity's most recent release:

Newspaper feature on Pro-Gravity album release

I don't have anything terribly new to add to this debate. The two potential bases for deletion seem to be reliable sources and notability. The link above provides yet another reliable source. Others have been furnished in previous posts. Simply put, verifiability does not seem to be an issue here. That leaves notability as a potential basis for deletion. I admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie; however, based on my perusal of the guidelines for music it seems clear that the Pro-Gravity label as well as several of the bands (200 North and Distorted Penguins in particular) satisfy at least one of the listed notability criteria. The Pro-Gravity label meets item 7 (most notable representative...of the local scene of the city) as since its inception the label has put out the vast majority of meaningful local records in the hip-hop, rock and indie genres. As noted in earlier posts, 200 North meets item 6 (Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable) while Distorted Penguins meets item 4 (have toured nationally).

Clearly, interesting questions lurk here regarding the appropriate geographic scope for notability in music. Under the current criteria, however, Pro-Gravity and the bands mentioned above should be kept. Perhaps the criteria should be revised to more clearly indicate the appropriate geographic scope for notability; however, this seems like a discussion that should take place at a higher level (i.e., elsewhere). Mrtrigonometrybedsheets 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- Truce II Headrush article now has references. Working on the others. Lawofone 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; what few sources there are in this article are self-publish or otherwise not reliable. Not notable. — Coren ^(talk) 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla about two years ago. The sources presented are dubious at best, and I feel the subject is unverifiable by reliable sources. The material in this article seems like original research. Google search doesn't bring up substantial sources. Wafulz 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep www.streetgangs.com seems to be an at least somewhat reliabel source. More and better sources ar highly desireable, of course. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't actually offer any information. It basically says "This is a gang, this is where they operate"-Wafulz 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's irrelevant how many sources for this article exist online, as the print sources are more than enough to justify an article. Look here [33]. Sometimes I think there's a prejudice on Wikipedia in favor of online sources and against print sources. For accuracy, I'll take a book or newspaper over a blog anyday. A blogger is nothing more than a guy with an opinion and an Internet connection. Qworty 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take those sources any day. Nobody is promoting weblogs. From the way this article is written, I assumed the article was about an overall gang rather than a neighbourhood.-Wafulz 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walfulz, in view of those sources, does that mean you're withdrawing the nom. if they are added. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. I think I might've misunderstood the original topic- it does need to be rewritten so it actually makes sense though.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 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. El_C 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applications in cryptography[edit]

I have studied cryptography since 1987 and worked professionally with it since 1999. I say the article is really bad and redundant. That is, it tries to describe things that already are described better in other Wikipedia articles. And the article seems to be abandoned by its creator.

The article seems to have the following contents:

The first section describes a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG).

The second section is about stream ciphers:

First it talks about the one-time pad encryption method.
Then it says we can take a shortcut and use a stream cipher instead of the one-time pad.
Then it says we can build a stream cipher by using a CSPRNG to produce the keystream for the stream cipher.
Then it discusses security of CSPRNGs and if secure PRNGs really exist. That is, if one-way functions really exist or not.

So basically we can make the article a redirect to stream cipher or perhaps to CSPRNG. But since the article has such a bad name I would prefer that the article is deleted. David Göthberg 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, over technical, covers only a fraction of the subjct matter inmplied by the title, redundant with bettr existing artiles, and as per nom. After deletion, recreate as a redirect to Cryptography as this is a pluasible search target. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Oli Filth 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is already covered well enough at the other articles, and "Applications in cryptography" doesn't make sense as an article idea. Mangojuice^talk 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can imagine a useful survery/summery-style article at that title, but this isn't even a start on such a thing. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't. Cryptography is a field of applications, so a survey or summary style article really belongs at Cryptography, or a reasonable fork-out of tat article. Mango juice^talk 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dabble in crypto myself, and the nom knows what he's talking about. This article is redundant, in addition to being poorly written. Spazure 04:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original author, "yaniv.pariente" is no longer in Wikipedia (created article 3 months ago). If a cryptographer who understands
|Pr_s←U_n[A(s) = 1] − Pr_s←U_l(n) [A(Gen(s)) = 1]| <1/p(n).

feels the article should be deleted, that's good enough for me. Mandsford 00:20, 30 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Bank Monarch Drive Elementary[edit]

Article doesn't assert notability of this school. Nothing on Google indicates that it might be notable. Oli Filth 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Come on Oli, the article is less than a day old. Give it a few months (considering it is summer vacation for those that are most familiar with the school) for it to be improved. I added a stub tag. To not give it time to be improved goes against the wiki spirit if you ask me. Postcard Cathy 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cathy, if people around then have evidence of notability, they can make a new article. There seems to be no indication that it is notable, and I'm sure that they author could place one their if they wanted to and it was possible; the idea has been indicated to them. Alternatively, if there's a suitable article to merge it into, that would be fine to my mind, possibly preferable to deletion. SamBC 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but but most schools have more than 12 or so hours to make their case.Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few elementary or primary schools are notable, and I see no particular indication that this one is. if it is, the article can be recreated later with sources and reasons. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This school is about as notable as Paris Hilton's little finger. Qworty 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this because....... Given the amount of time this article has been on and people have been able to add to it, you must be a mind reader.Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, schools are hardly ever notable and this one is no exception. ♠P M C♠ 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live one town over from Harvard and MIT. I will tell them on Monday. Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major universities are very often notable. Elementary schools very rarely are. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about where PMC is from, but in quite a lot of the english-speaking world 'school' is used only to refer to education up to and including age 18 (ie, 6th form in England, high school in the US), not to refer to colleges and universities. SamBC 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMC is from Vancouver, and here, generally, "school" refers to elementary, middle, and high school, not post-secondary. ♠P M C♠ 07:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In general--and only in general-- elementary (primary) schools are not notable ,so there is no reason to suppose that sources for notability will be added. This AfD will however run for 4 more days and should not be closed earlier--and if notability can be shown, so much the better. There is no prejudice against re-creation of a better article if it can later be done. DGG (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elementary school. No notability in article or anywhere else that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both Google and Yahoo suggest that this article fails WP:N categorically. To the people voting for keeping - can you explain me why, in the first place, do we have this article here? Read WP:NOT, please. —Shining Eyes 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 19:26, 29 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 condense and merge into Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School Dance Marathon[edit]

I seconded this prod and it was contested by IIRC an anonymous editor who very well could be original author. Anyway, the point is still the same - teh edit summary indicated the author felt outside sources would help stave off a deletion but in reality, regardless of the sources, it is still a middle school charitable event. If we allow this article to stay, it will set a precedent for all other school fundraisers. Hey, buy my chocolate to send us to disney! Postcard Cathy 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Original prod said only source was school announcement. OK, so now we have a newspaper source. But it also still reads like an essay! Postcard Cathy 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It still fails the requirement in WP:N for significant coverage. The Daily Tar Heel article doesn't count; it's about UNC's marathon and not WF-R's. The N&O blurb doesn't count; it's one paragraph in their School Notes column. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAKESALE. Or just WP:N and a final song of WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the school itself isn't notable, then neither are the dances held there. Qworty 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think wikipedia has a concept of precedents, each article stands on its own; this one clearly isn't notable. -Steve Sanbeg 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People here seem to have very long memories and if they say well you kept xyz article for that reason, you should keep mine for that reason. I know I used that argument to delete several articles and categories and it worked. Cathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.146.30.27 (talk • contribs).

Delete. Nothing about this is notable or worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a hypothetical "perfect" wikipedia, this would have been deleted as hopelessly and unsalvagably non-notable within seconds of its creation. Embarassing for everyone involved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename and expand into Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School. Normally I feel junior highs are non-notable, this caught my eye and that they are doing something popular 65 years ago to raise funds is innovative and fascinating. I'll help with the rewrite. Chris 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this would be valid to include within the context of an article on the middle school...if there were an article on the middle school for it to go into. I do not think that this should carry the school's article; it should be a section within a larger article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after page move[edit]

I've added a break here since User:Kintetsubuffalo has boldly moved the article to Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School and is expanding it. In its current state, it's a shell, but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt now. Let's keep the article on WF-R MS, but let's delete the redirect with the Dance Marathon title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an article on the School. Google news has plenty of material here with which to expand this article and there are enough sources available to easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am the author of this article. I am very new to Wikipedia and I am a bit confused as to why so many want to delete my entry. We are proudly one of the only middle schools in the nation that has this type of project. The project has been recognized by Penn State's THON (the largest student run philanthropy in the world -- and THON also is on Wikipedia) and the UNC-Chapel Hill Dance Marathon. UNC has adopted our school's project for this coming school year. Regarding concern about other school fundraisers, please know this is not a school fundraiser. The school does not make one dollar from this event and it is truly a unique event for a middle school. I have added other things to the original article that I hope will help improve the status of it.

It is my goal to expand the idea of middle school students helping people and giving back to the community. Our goal is teaching students to Pay It Forward. It is true that the event is not notable on a national scale and that is why I put this on wikipedia. I am trying to gain support from others to encourage public schools in America to give kids opportunities to make a positive difference. This is part of teaching our youth to be good citizens and to care about other people. It honestly has been disheartening to see so many people wanting to delete this article. Some of my students are excited to see the event they helped organize on Wikipedia since we are trying to make positive changes together in education today.

If I am in violation of a wikipedia policy, please tell me exactly how I can fix it so the article will be accepted and supported. As I said, this is the very first thing I have ever posted on Wikipedia and I am not sure how to proceed. I do apologize that some seem to find this a huge waste of everyone's time and not notable.

As for references, we did have a very large write up in the local paper, but they do not have it on their website anymore. I could only post references that are still on-line. Thank you everyone for your time. More references will be coming as the project grows. I will also add other things about the school since it seems that having a heading under the school is more appropriate. Thank you to those of you who helped make that change. I appreciate your time and your recognition that I am just trying to do something good for kids here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psuallegator (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wake_Forest-Rolesville_Middle_School"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Cinema[edit]

It's just a movie theater. Fails notability guideline KelleyCook 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as the largest theater in the area, I say it should stay. Postcard Cathy 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The abundance of detail on things like the number of bathrooms and ICEE machines indicates pretty strongly that there's nothing special about this theatre; it's just a corporate multiplex like hundreds of others in the United States (and it's probably all original research to boot). Propaniac 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ordinary movie theater complex with no notability. I swear we did this before, or something almost exactly like it. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like a spoof, though they left out how many wads of gum can be found stuck beneath the seats, with specific mentions by row and seat number. Qworty 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the town's article, a single movie theather unless there is historical significance are not really notableJForget 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Wikipedia should be a repository of all information, and someone might want to know which particular theater in their area sells Dippin' Dots or how many ICEE machines there are. OK, I'm kidding. Delete it and let the theater chain do the explaining. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to tell me the showtimes for Hairspray. Mandsford 00:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Oil Filth, Propaniac and Qworty. Bearian 14:55, 30 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 nonsense by Hoary. Whispe ring 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poo ah kee ah[edit]

Seems like pointless trivia that could be in the Dog article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't even sound like trivia, more like something someone has made up. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 15:52, 27 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 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bock[edit]

Non-notable local politician. --ROGER ^TALK 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was reduced from this to almost nothing because of Biography of Living Persons concerns among editors over the subject's controversies. A rewording of the controversies in a more neutral point of view manner would make for an article worthy of keeping in my opinion. The subject has been the subject articles in major New York and Buffalo newspapers. His position as the town supervisor in a town of 36,318 puts him on par with mayors in medium sized cities. Royalbroil 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the articles are cited. It is obvious from the history that here are serious editing questions about this. I dont think deletion should be used as the way of resolving them. DGG (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can suggest another way of going about it, that fulfils WP:BLP's numerous requirements I'll happily withdraw the nomination. However, one requirement is if someone is is notable mostly for a single incident then they should be covered within its article and not in their own article. Biographies of living people have to be complete and balanced. I should point out, by the way, that whatever some editors feel this person is clearly held in considerable regard in his community as is evidenced by the civic posts he still holds. --ROGER ^TALK 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not really familiar with the position of town supervisor as practiced in NYS, but our article suggests it is not a particularly powerful position. The article appears to give Bock primary responsibility for oversight. It's also not clear to me how the town administration could "cover up" a school budget problem (hinted to be some sort of larceny). In most of the US school districts are separate entities from municipalities. This troubles me as it gives the article the appearance of a smear. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Tom 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history of this article is yet another ugly chapter in the history of Wikipedia. That an attack article was allowed to stay up for so long is a complete disgrace. Unfortunately, there are too many Wikipedia editors who, while not being notable themselves, feel empowered to create attack articles (or sections of articles) against people who are more notable then they are. It's sickening and it goes on all the time. Fortunately for the victim in this case, he is not notable enough to merit an article. What's left of it should be deleted. Come on--a councilman from a town so small nobody ever heard of it? One shudders at the petty decade-old hatred that inspired an attack article of this sort. Lets bury the remains right now--not just in the name of Wikipedia policies, but in the name of human decency. Qworty 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like my version above even though your is very passionate and inspiring :)--Tom 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. While I take umbrage to the suggestion that this article was created as an attack (seeing as I initially planned to write articles on ALL the Town Supervisors in Yorktown, and having written numerous other biographies, none of which have ever been characterized as slanted, it's not my fault he was the subject of controversy; and also, other editors removed the initial attack tag noting that it was not an attack article and it was properly referenced by major sources), I would like to point up that it was up for less then two hours before it was flagged as db-attack and the questionable material was removed immediately. It's hard for me to wade through the grandstanding and conclude that you're truly familiar with the history of this article. I would also briefly note that 'delete per nome' is not an acceptable AfD vote per the guideline. I'd love to share the Times article to verify what the article states, but I do not want to violate any copyright laws. I will note the excerpt from the Times.com archive "An investigation contends that the present situation started out as an innocent mistake -- a typographical error made when a bookkeeper entered the figure $ 23.4 million instead of $ 24.4 million on a tax warrant for the 1993-94 school year. But that innocent mistake has escalated into accusations and counteraccusations of deceit and betrayal among municipal officials, school district personnel, Board of Education members and the public at large. The mistake, which meant that taxpayers underpaid in the 1993-94 tax year and had to make up the difference in 1994-95, was concealed from the public for 10 months." According to the articles, he was not mainly responsible for the oversight, rather, he was responsible for the coverup. It is also in numerous other publications from the time--the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Journal News, and others. Also, I disagree with the characterization of a Town Supervisor in the New York City Metropolitan Division from a town larger then the capitols of Alaska or Montana that "no one ever heard of". On the one note issue, the closing of the only major equity theater in Westchester County was also a controversial and widely reported issue at the time. That said, this article led me to become familiar with the controversy regarding Daniel Brandt here on Wikipedia. I have come to realize that this is not an issue about the notability of the subject, or the event, or town supervisors, or the town. It's an issue about someone's feelings, and reputation. It actually made me think twice about completing this project without asking permission from the subject being written about. As the author of the article, I think the events are notable enough to be merged into the article on the Town of Yorktown, "decades old hatred" aside. I hope I've made my point as to why this article was never an attack, nor was it intended to be, and that in the future I will be taking BLP into greater consideration. Although it's fairly evident at this point that Rosenberg, Merri. Mistake Raises Ire in Yorktown, New York Times, February 12, 1995, Budget Threatens Yorktown Theater Troupe, New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Section 1 and YORKTOWN TAXPAYERS URGE RESIGNATIONS AFTER TOWN COVERS UP $1 MILLION, The Buffalo News January 17, 1995 are verified, and notable, I do not want to bring any controversy whatsoever to Wikipedia, so at this point, I'd have no complaint if the article was deleted.MrPrada 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MrPrada, thank you for expressing your position. Personally, I feel that a town supervisor is not a sufficiently important position to normally rate an article; our guideline WP:BIO says that only state legislators and up are automatically worthy of individual coverage. In this case, it's a more nuanced problem, which is that there is insufficient material to write a truly balanced article. Neutral point of view is one of our core policies, and in the case of living persons, we enforce it aggressively. If Bock were in the "automatic" class we'd feel obligated to forge ahead with what we have, at least a stub, and only the parts of the controversy that we could reasonably cover and comply with policy. Here we don't have to take that choice, as there's nothing demonstrating normal levels of notability for the individual in the first place. The coverage is for a controversy that doesn't seem directly connected to him in the way that, say, a civil lawsuit might be, and has serious verification problems given the relatively few available sources. In any case, it's not about you or your motives, it's how the article comes across to editors who have no knowledge of the case. --Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability for this person outside Yorktown and/or neighboring areas. I don't think people of such small notability should be included in wikipedia. Corpx 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am now convinced. --Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx and Dhartung --ROGER ^TALK 04:45, 28 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ-Kicks: Tiga[edit]

This was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7 and CSD G11. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability sufficient to prevent this from being classified as outright spam. Still, Delete, as major concerns regarding notability and promotional content remain. Xoloz 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Not notable, possibly COI. The fact that it was created and deleted twice calls for Salt. James Luftan 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and Salt) as per Xoloz and James Luftan. 72.76.6.129 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep DJ Tiga is a perfectly notable dj [34]. And DJ Kicks is a label that has released Carl Craig, C.J. Bolland and Felix Da Housecat; you can't get more notable than those guys.--Victor falk 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as Tiga most certainly is, then said artist's albums are notable enough for their own articles. A7 applies to people, not to albums, and Tiga passes it handily. And G11 has the proviso "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" written right into it, specifying that the actual content has to be inappropriate. Which this isn't; it's entirely consistent with standard Wikipedia tone and content for articles about albums. There was only one sentence in the entire article that was even remotely "advertising"-like, so I removed that — and now there isn't a single "tone" problem left to be had. Ergo, keep.Bearcat 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, you have removed the contentious sentence, which I believe was advertising for the artist and the album and is totally unencyclopedic (see the entry on the talk page). That's fine, and I agree with your edit, but the same thing was done once before, and the edit was shot down by P4k with the edit summary: "what is wrong with you." Following the logic you employed in the post above (re notable artist = notable album), and according to the summary listed by P4k, if there was something "wrong" with the first editor who removed the sentence, then there must be something "wrong" with you as well, for removing the sentence. Now I don't think there's anything wrong with you or the first editor (especially since I agree with your edits) but what is to prevent P4k or any other editor from coming along and restoring the contentious sentence? Please see additional comment below under your reply to GreenJoe. 72.68.122.101 12:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. --GreenJoe 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how does an album by a notable musician constitute being a "junkyard"? Bearcat 04:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSIC#Albums:

“

If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

--Victor falk 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

Bearcat, I intepret GreenJoe's comment to mean that related material should not be spread all over Wikipedia. Consider what we have with Tiga, the collection and the albums and artists on it, and the record label: Tiga has his own article, the record label has its own article, the collection has its own article, and some of the artists and some of the albums in the collection have their own article. On the collection page, each artist is listed with details from the album (including the record label's catalog number), every album that has its own article is linked, and nearly every artist listed there is linked to her/his own article, so in some cases we have duplication, and in some, triplication. And, we have external links to the record label for an oh so convenient link to make a purchase. I would suggest merging (intentionally written not in boldface) the album content to the artists' pages, but then what to do with the track listings? And why must there be track listings? -- why so much detail? I think it's because there's a need to fill what would be much space next to the infobox in the absence of any track listing. I believe this whole kit and caboodle is one huge coordinated advert for the artists, the label, the collection, and the albums. And I don't know what to suggest to do about it. 72.68.122.101 12:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the approach we take, then no album should ever have an article on Wikipedia. Bearcat 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album by a notable artist, and it has been reviewed by critics in many third-party publications—just now I added a few more to the list under Professional reviews. Keep. --Paul Erik 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Info on this artist is all over Wikipedia as cited above. Regarding the comment above: "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" -- that is, "...albums may have sufficient notability..." That the artist is notable is given, though I wonder if his notability extends beyond people in the electro industry, people writing about the electro industry, or those who frequent clubs where electro music is played. I don't see how this album is notable. The question here is whether the article standing on its own can be free from promotional content. The contentious sentence which has us here in discussion was removed twice and restored twice; what is to prevent it from being restored yet again, making this article even more free advertising for the album and artist? I say merge this article onto his bio article, removing extraneous material. 71.127.229.221 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dosthill Colts F.C.[edit]

Non notable football club, currently playing at step 8 and seemingly have never been higher. Number 5 7 14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a minor nitpick (Step 8 does not exist, the NLS only goes down to Step 7), agree with nominator. Delete. - fchd 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. --Angelo 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the level 10 standard and no other evidence to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 20:30, 30 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Shakin[edit]

Shakin is the author of 3 books. A thorough Google search turns up many stores selling them and a few reviews, though most of the reviews seem to be copies of one another. I can't find any references about the man himself, why he's notable, or even biographical information except from his personal site and that of his publisher. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could you please link to the reviews either here or on the article itself so people can judge them without having to replicate the search and sift through the many blogs and so on. DGG (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure. There aren't really that many, and they all seem to be copies of eachother. I found them through [35]. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's referenced in a number of print sources, including references to his critical standing in gay literature. Here are some examples [36]. With three published books to his name and independent critical standing, he merits an article. Qworty 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None the the items listed hold. Some of them are simply his other books. The others are books from the same publisher that simply list one of his books as also being by the same publisher. The only "review" was a one sentence note on the books web site from an un-named contributor. Published reviews in 3rd party reliable sources are needed to prove notability , and I see none at all. I checked Google, and find only 900 ghits total, which does not imply that there is a widespread internet interest either--things popular in the blogosphere usually get 100 times that number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete none of the asserted sources are reliable and independent (and for that matter few are either). Eluchil404 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself has no reliable sources. So far no-one has found any reviews in the mainstream press. EdJohnston 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not enough information in this one-sentence article. El_C 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Inc.[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Seems to be a small aircraft repair company based in a small airport in Colorado. Russavia 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge what content there is into Front Range Airport. EyeSerene^TALK 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Article doesn't assert notability. Pharmboy 23:51, 27 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. Don't nominate articles featured on the main page. That being said, this article will obviously survive and at most needs a merge.-Wafulz 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doping at the 2007 Tour de France[edit]

This sport,like many others, has been in scandal with doping and allegations of such since it began, and this was no exceptional year that requires a seperate article on the matter.Last year's winner Floyd Landis tested positive for drugs and his tittle is still being contested, and its rather frivolous anyways to have an article on a doping contraversy at a major sporting event. Rodrigue 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: First of all, the AfD tag was deleted on this page and you never followed through with the entire nomination procedure... most importantly being posting the article on the daily logs. So if you decide to actually finish the whole nomination process, the following will be my verdict:

Keep. The notability guideline declares that an article must have significant coverage. This article has multiple, well known, correctly cited news sources upon which it draws its information. The article is reliable based on the sources used (Forbes, BBC). The article is not self-published or a style of advertising. Keeping all this in mind, in my opinion, the article should be kept. -- VegitaU 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable and useful article summarizing who has done what and when. No question to keep. 206.154.229.139 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming a completed nomination. Clearly notable, both through independent sources and the fact that the event is currently ongoing. I disagree that this year's doping scandal is typical of the event, as the frontrunner is rarely (if ever?) removed from the event during the race itself. Once the event is complete, and coverage of the scandal(s) settles down, it might be worthwhile to merge the critical facts from this article to a main article on Doping in Cycling or the Tour, but the timeliness of this information trumps that concern, for now. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Tour de France is one of the biggest sporting events in the world and the doping scandals this year, particularly the withdrawl of Rasmussen when he was wearing the yellow jersey and an almost certain winner is almost unprecedented. This has generated huge publicity in Europe and is having a major effect on the world of cycling. How this can be deemed too trivial for a mention in Wikipedia is beyond me. Nick mallory 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll note further that this article is linked from the Main Page, as part of the "In the news" section. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per these 25,000 hits on Google News. And it's only going to get bigger... No actual deletion policies cited by nominator (see WP:DELETE). --DeLarge 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep if we have articles about people who kill other people (happens every day) who happen to be a sportsman, then why not this. This is without a doubt top 3 news for days on end now in Europe and as such notable. It is also said to be the deepest crises since the 1998 Festina scandal, with sponsors and media considering their participation in the Tour (1 first). It is the first time a team has withdrawn a rider wearing the yellow jersey without any evidence of doping usage. It is the Top cycling event in the world, all in all this seems like a Speedy Keep to me --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, a scandal of this magnitude marring what amounts to the premier competition for a given professional sport is easily notable enough. If there is a way to logically merge the information back into the parent article I'd not oppose that, however that does not appear to be the case here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY strong keep — This is an enormous story, whose aftereffects may well permanently alter the cycling landscape. This incident is apparently the final straw for some cycling authorities, as there is now talk of removing cycling entirely from the Olympics, or at the very least removing road cycling events. — Dale Arnett 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all above. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's notability and sources are unquestionable. Coverage is international. However, my argument is leaning more towards Keep, and let's see what happens. If the scandal dies down and nothing further arises (i.e., if it lacks lasting notability), the article could be merged with 2007 Tour de France, Doping at the Tour de France, and/or Doping (sport). But its to early to tell and, right now, the subject is notable; so, keep.

Keep. Highly notable current event. Per uses above. James Luftan 16:09, 27 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 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Bark Animation[edit]

Notability not claimed in article. 6 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. In contesting previous prod, creator of article claimed notability is for previous company, Yoram Gross Films. However, first several pages of ghits for that company also do not show notability. Fabrictramp 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources.-Wafulz 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serious notability issues. Pharmboy 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proceed to Delete - Have been unable to raise anything further for notability, so go ahead and nail it! Thor Malmjursson 12:41, 30 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. Marasmusine 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daishiro Okada[edit]

Unnotable biographical article. Blatant advertising. Kariteh 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From Google and Google news archive it seems like he's a reasonably big player as the COO of one of the most famous video game brands. I'm having trouble deciphering what's a press release and what isn't, though.-Wafulz 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a resume for an ordinary corporate executive, of whom there are hundreds of thousands throughout the world. Qworty 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there doesn't seem to be any evidence he's any more notable than any other COO of a large company. The article doesn't offer any claims of notability, either. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as he appears notable, but fluff needs to be removed and cites added. Bearian 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qworty and Nihonjoe. Feigning notability by wikilinking Square Enix multiple times is unacceptable. --Aarktica 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, huge amount of coverage. Mathmo ^Talk 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete — no need to keep an obvious delete open for five days. — Deckill er 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protaganists of Final Fantasy[edit]

Indiscriminate list of... names. Isn't even half-completed, and I'm not even mentioning the typo in the article's name. I suggest deletion because there's no obvious article to redirect this to. Kariteh 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't even think of a reasoning behind creating it. Axem Titanium 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, character lists for each game already have playable characters. No need for another. ~ Hibana 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really dont see much point of creation. To be honest, it was begging for deletion. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character lists without established notability should fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE Corpx 19:47, 27 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. Sr 13 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg Robinson Group[edit]

This is a company advertising its service and history. Wikipedia clearly states that companies should not do this and indeed this article should be deleted as it infringes the guidelines of content for wikipedia. GordonRimmer 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obvious speedy keep; meets WP:CORP by miles and miles. Needs a rewrite, but that's what {{cleanup}} is for. Very, very notable (150 years old, operates in 100 countries, £300m turnover -- all from their 2007 annual statement). Nominator has made no edits except to create this AfD. --DeLarge 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Today Hogg Robinson Group is an award-winning international corporate services company. . . I gather that this is some kind of travel agency that for whatever reason chooses to hide its actual business behind a fuzz of vague abstractions to put on a show of hypermodernity and omnicompetence. The business may well meet WP:CORP, but this article like this needs to be rewritten from the beginning in encyclopedic style. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite so rewrite--or at least stubbify. anyone can do that. DGG (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would usually say Blatant Advertising - Delete - but the article does seem to assert some notability and so therefore should be rewritten. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since it does seem that the business is notable, I have tried to rewrite the article to be more concrete and specific and more neutral in tone. The information in it was largely redacted or translated from what was originally there. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per re-write. → AA ^(talk) — 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after excellent rewrite work. Hogg Robinson is indeed a recognizable name. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep after rewrite, easily passes WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CORP nicely. Bonus points for the rewrite! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion re: WP:HEY. I will also work on it a bit. Bearian 14:57, 30 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 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overworld[edit]

Completely original research, no references or sources despite the need for them being brought up on the talk page several months ago. Miremare 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki to Wiktionary, and~~ weak delete A Google News Search indicates that this is definitely a term in common use, but the info in the article really should be sourced, and without references that indicate that this information is not only true, but notable in the field of video game development, I'm having a hard time believing that anyone should care. Propaniac 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no reason to Transwiki that I see (the definition is already included there), so strike that. Propaniac 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:ATT, WP:DICDEF and Propaniac. EyeSerene^TALK 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:ATT, WP:DICDEF and Propaniac. Geuiwogbil 23:55, 27 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. Avi 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Gidon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability tagged for 9 months; appears to have been recreated as this is the 2nd AfD --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Krav maga is notable and the Israeli Krav maga Association he heads is one of the main organizations I think the case for notability is strong enough. Perhaps a few more third party citations would be good but he is pretty main stream and with 1500 GHITs I wonder why the tag is there.Peter Rehse 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Krav maga is becoming very popular in the US and if its Wikipedia entry is true, Haim Gidon is the most important person; only he can grant a Black Belt. I agree with Peter Rehse that there could be better source material, and perhaps those who practice Krav maga should come up with those sources. FireGuard 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Krav maga article itself is tagged as having the same problem. By the way it says that the black belt awarding is within that one organization not Kav Maga in general. Also Krav maga has been notable for well over 20 years.Peter Rehse 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found it useful and informative. Fsamuels 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was speedily deleted (CSD A7) by Carlossuarez46 — Caknuck 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Rudravajhala[edit]

Only apparent claim to fame is that of being interviewed in relation to the death of a famous neighbor. Tizio 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lankiveil 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - defies the Creative professionals section in WP:BIO. Lra drama 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a non-notable writer has to start name-dropping dead neighbors, it's time to go. Qworty 19:00, 27 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. Subject noted in several academic sources. El_C 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terror management theory[edit]

Completing a nom. Rationale in the talk page:

Do we have any references of this theory anywhere? Right now, it looks uncomfortably like a largely-ignored pet theory. 75.73.153.18 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A "developing field of study", a/k/a a non-notable neologism. Terror management researchers have shown that making mortality salient to research participants will lead to such changes in behaviors and beliefs that seemingly protect worldview and encourage self-esteem striving. What is this trying to say in plain English? That if you threaten to kill people, they will change their behaviour in order to avoid being killed? I wonder how much grant money it took to discover this. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It appears that the "Further reading" section is actually a list of offline references. If this phrase is in fact being used in multiple academic studies, then an artilce is valid. However, this badly needs to be de-jargonized. If the academics use this sort of jargon (and I'll bet that they do) then the article oiught toi expalin what it means as well as that can be done, not simply repeat it. But all that is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. DES ^(talk) 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This Google scholar search returns 1130 hits on the phrase "Terror management theory". I haven't gone through them yet, but i suspect that there are some valid sources in there. DES ^(talk) 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- needs massive rewrite and restructure. Very innovative comment by IHCOYC. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:NEO because there are reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed journals) about the term. From Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, "one of the top journals in the fields of social and personality psychology" [37], [38], [39]. From Psychological Review, "one of psychology's most prestigious journals", [40]. From Advances in Experimental Social Psychology [41] and European Journal of Social Psychology [42]. These sources are from just the first 10 of the 1,100+ hits from the Google Scholar search. It does need a massive rewrite, but that isn't grounds for deletion. --Bláthnaid 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to the Journal of personality and social psychology to indicate that this is not just a pet theory. Mandsford 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I removed the tag for unreferenced. Also per Blathnaid, passes NEO but needs a re-write. Bearian 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A massively influential theoretical perspective in social psychology. Plenty of references out there in the most reliable of sources. IronGargoyle 15:23, 30 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 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Holly[edit]

Non-elected candidate for the United States House of Representatives. I believe such politicians do not meet WP:BIO. Tizio 11:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed election candidates are generally not held to be notable. Lankiveil 12:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:BIO is pretty clear on politicians. Just having run is way below the requirements, thus fails WP:N. Pedro | Chat 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet what's required in WP:BIO. Lra drama 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed candidates who have no other claim to fame, so to speak, do not pass notability standards. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I continue to think that major party candidates in the US who have the party nomination for national legislature should be considered notable. I know this is not yet the practice, but I think it ought to be. DGG (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something there, but for what it's worth, Mr. Holly ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that Mr. Holly is notable for anything other than being one party's sacrificial lamb in a noncompetitive district. NawlinWiki 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh well, he can always use his political experiences as the basis for a self-published book, and then we can delete him again. Qworty 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason I tagged this article for delection was because the candidate's last name is actually spelled "Holley" Qqqqqq 23:39, 27 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 sense, for now. El_C 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensuality[edit]

Incomplete nom. The following discussion was in the talk page. Tizio 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ffs, as a reasonably educated person, I read the current version and wonder what dodgy non-english speaking philosophy student wrote this. We're on the case and will convert the page in the next week.

211.30.203.243 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)ian<at>wakeman-moss<dot>freeserve<dot>co<dot>uk[reply]

Good call. This page is about as sophomoric and incomprehensible as they come. Although I might add that it has been several weeks and no change has been made. -69.47.186.226 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after another attempt at deciphering this page, I'm thinking it's better off being deleted. Even if we could winnow out whatever useful information is in the article, we'd be left with a shoddy Wiktionary definition--and I'm guessing Wiktionary already has a better one. I see no point in keeping an article this incomprehensible. I'm nominating it for deletion. -69.47.186.226 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like some post-new-age waffle to me. As stated above, even if this can be pared out, it would still not be much more than a dicdef. Lankiveil 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to a new and rewritten article. All this seems to say is that etymologically, sensuality refers to the property of having senses, but in contemporary usage it is more or less equivalent to sexuality or lasciviousness. A disambiguation page could serve up this information just as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a perfectly reasonable topic. Needs cleanup, not deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Possible move to Wiktionary - per WP:DICT. Oli Filth 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sense. Sandstein 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sense for now. I suspect there's enough written on the topic for it to be a reasonable article at some time, but this isn't it - unreferenced, for one. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it exists, its a dicdef. DGG (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sense, per Tony Fox. This could be a good article but the current version has nothing particularly worth saving. --Dhartung | Talk 16:13, 28 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. the wub "?!" 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicanor Fulgencio[edit]

Rationale was provided in the talk page: "this was a joke my friends played on me.. please this is my name and i am not a crime boss from the early 1900s i am young and very much alive so stop puttin it back up"; I personally could not found any reliable source of what's in the article; all Google hits are from Wikipedia, mirrors, and what was written in Vito Corleone by the same author of this article. Tizio 11:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G10 (attack pages) per nom. —David Eppstein 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apparently listed this one on the wrong day, so I have relisted it today. I guess it can be speedy closed, anyway. Tizio 11:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, yeah, looks like a hoaxy attack page to me. Lankiveil 12:12, 27 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 both. Sr 13 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines in Ukraine[edit]

As per this Afd these lists are more than covered by categories, and lists are at List of airlines and List of defunct airlines. Russavia 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it too is covered by categories as per above:

Delete Both, list categories that would be better served as categories. Lankiveil 12:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't seen any compelling reasons for deleting both. The proposed article presents information in a far better way and supplies way more information than categories would. --Hillock65 12:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to split List of airlines into List of airlines in <Country> to ensure List of airlines does not grow beyond a managable size and transclude each country specific list into List of airlines? → AA ^(talk) — 12:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the information can be found elsewhere. Can it not be transferred to a category, with each airline having its own article? If we look at {{Europe in topic|List of airlines in}}, all but one of the links is redundant. That link that isn't is this AfD, so those are my suggestions. Lra drama 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I don't want to bother logging in, I'd like to say that all of that information was hard to find and make a list out of. Having lists doesn't hurt Wikipedia, especially if the information is hard to find. --193.178.229.130 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is able to be found at [43] and also in a document produced by the "State Air Traffic Management Corporation" which lists all of this information, and then some. But the fact that some of the companies on this Ukraine list are not even airlines (in some cases they are ticketing agents and brokers), surely brings into question the accuracy of any list - ICAO codes being listed aside. --Russavia 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dont see categories showing information like hub airports. And I also agree that List of airlines may be better off split off into smaller, more easily managed articles which can also provide a little more information, which in turn helps add value to lists.--Huaiwei 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list includes minor airlines, which do not need articles written about them. Yet, the existence of such airlines worth mentioning, and the list serves this purpose. --Korpus6i67 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why we have to have only the category system for navigation and for referencing. Mulitple information paths are only a benefit to our readers, and having this list does nothing to harm the project. Categories have a number of limitations, and there's information in this list that would simply disappear if we only relied on the category system. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Huaiwei and others.--Riurik^(discuss) 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Other then the hubs, we already have this information in a list, Airline codes. As pointed out above this is a large amount of data. It takes most browsers a while to render the entire list. However that list was the combination of 3 other lists with the same data organized in different ways and in conflict with each other. With one list, changes mean updating one file rather then three. Usually only one list was updated in the past since editors were not aware of the others or did not care to do multiple updates. Now we have another set of lists again with the same data and adding hubs. Having the data in multiple places in in the past just resulted in out of date data in several places. By deleting these articles, we will have one place to update the information which should mean more accurate data on a timely basis. Leaving List of airlines is OK since that is a simple list by country without the other repeated data in that the other lists contain. Vegaswikian 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only way to have list which can sort information by country from Airline codes is to list all entries and then click the sort button. I just tried doing that, and I never completed the task, for it managed to crash my web browser. Its merely empirical, yes, but I am sure I will not be alone in experiencing such difficulties. Further, I doubt there will be many users seeking to look for quick information on airports in a country to actually check up Airline codes instead.--Huaiwei 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list having a lot of red links. Thus, everybody interested in Ukrainian aviation can see the airlibes missing and fill the void. Also the hub information is useful to Alex Bakharev 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This structured list is superior to the category. Golfcam 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Structured list, meets WP:LIST providing more information than category can provide. Davewild 08:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful encyclopedic list.--Oakshade 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories do not cover redlinks.Dhaluza 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhaluza. Avala 20:35, 31 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, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American quarterbacks. Sr 13 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American NFL quarterbacks[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointless list. the wub "?!" 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as useless intersection. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this is actually the third time this article has been listed for AFD (within the last five days). In the original listing, it was grouped with another article that was speedy-deleted, and it got bot-listed again on Tuesday:

Original listing from 7/23: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African-American quarterbacks
Second listing from 7/24: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American quarterbacks Propaniac 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to taste per above. — Dale Arnett 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection of being black & playing QB Corpx 19:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definetly pointless. —Shining Eyes 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneccesary, most of these quarterbacks share nothing in common besides the fact that they are black and quarterbacks. T Rex | talk 01:32, 28 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 - article has been rewritten and clearly passes criteria for notability :: maelgwn - talk 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Junction[edit]

Non-notable Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm inclined to think this is a notable development in the Whittlesea area. Lankiveil 12:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website indicates some serious brands have already been signed up, and this map (based on the Melway) screams location, location, location. Definitely WP:N, searches on Factiva indicate significant current independent coverage - just the article needs to be fixed, and IMO "University Hill" should be substituted for "Bundoora" as the former is a developer name only. Orderinchaos 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of improving this article - seems everywhere I look, new stuff comes up. It's even been discussed in the federal Hansard. I shall hit Factiva tomorrow and improve the current section, but it's pretty decent now. Orderinchaos 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ors, agree with notability stance. Just needs a cleanup, which AfD is not the place for. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10-odd reliables small article - not that it matters. Seems to follow WP:SHOP quite well. Vgood article. easily passes notability. Twenty Years 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of good sources proving notability. Rebecca 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced article. BTW, it would be good if the nom could explain in detail in his nomination why he thinks that the relevant article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I put simply "notable," deletionists would have my neck for using a WP:JNN arguement. The same standard should go for AfD nominators. Per all above, reliable sources indicate notability. --Oakshade 01:35, 29 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 into Wintec; since there are no opposing arguments — just do it. El_C 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Change Gullet System[edit]

I say either delete it, or merge it into the wintec/bates saddles article. Eventer 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add CAIR Panel System to this nom. Tizio 11:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Wintec. Tizio 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both as per above. Lankiveil 12:24, 27 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.

Greensborough Plaza[edit]

The result of the discussion is Keep per WP:SNOW and also all said keep or speedy keep. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-notable shopping center from the same user... Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 100+ stores, numerous anchors, multi-level, quite a bit of discussion on Google, and a website that's based upon Lotus Notes for some bizarre reason? Notable. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Lankiveil 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil :: maelgwn - talk 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not withstanding that the article is now a well-structured ~~stub with appropriate references~~ start class article overflowing with references, it ~~seems to be a~~ is a notable centre with a very significant history and the subject of multiple reliable independent sources. And as per Lankiveil, AfD is not for cleanup. ~~Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Thewinchester Taprobanus 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 16-odd reliables decent history/controversy section. Seems to follow WP:SHOP quite well. V/good article. easy passes notability. Twenty Years 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - subject is clearly notable, many reliable sources cited, article has been transformed since nomination. Orderinchaos 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and close, very obviously re-written, perfectly serviceable article. Passes WP:RS with flying colors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Good article, well sourced, easily passes notability. Rebecca 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Large shopping centres are notable especially if they had 75-100 + stores or is very very large in surface.--JForget 01:29, 28 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 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Minute[edit]

No third single has been selected yet, her second single SOBER hasn't even been officailly released yet. People really need to stop assuming and wait for things to actually happen. Alankc 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Lankiveil 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. WP is not a publicity forum. EyeSerene^TALK 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as is rumoured to be the next Australian single. JRobbed 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumoured means nothing, if it's released as a single, a page can be made then, rumours are not facts. Alankc 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or anything; just rumors. This is crystal-ballism. Acalamari 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ballism. Though the article has got quite a lot of info about the song itself. Maybe we can transfer some of the good info to the My December article, as that article can explain about all the songs that appear on the album. RaNdOm26 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; crystal ballery. "It was confirmed as the second single on an Australian radio station" is not a verifiable statement unless there is a print or online source reporting this. Extraordinary Machine 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no souce to prove that it's going to be a single in AUS. I've checked Kelly Clarkson's AUS website & the Sony BMG AUS website and the latest news there is My December album's release. Bull Borgnine 21:07, 29 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 Wiiiiiiiiiiiii. El_C 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii pornography[edit]

Non notable, outside game idustry. Wikipedia does not collect anythingYVNP 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this possibly be summarized and merged somewhere (e.g., Wii or Internet pornography)? Tizio 11:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The internet is for porn, and the Wii can access the internet. News media take these two things and sensationalize them far beyond any notability the subject has or ever will have. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the info can be put somewhere, but doesn't deserve it's own article. Maybe have a section in the Wii article? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see it being merged to Internet Channel. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Channel per above. Propaniac 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both Internet Channel and Internet Pornography. James Luftan 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per last comment. Oli Filth 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely non-sensical and no different from having an article on "Books Read in the Living Room", or "Meals Eaten in the Garden". I don't see what there is in the article to merge. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:27, 28 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 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit babies[edit]

Article appears to bear no relation to the title. Could be useful, if found to be truthful/accurate, but as it stands needs dramatic work to make sense. Drivenapart 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the article seems to be chopped off halfway through (it terminates mid-sentence). I'm inclined to treat this whole article as patent nonsense. Lankiveil 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The creator since added more to the article. Unfortunately this makes it clear it is something made up in school one day. So delete. the wub "?!" 12:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. The article reads as if Prof. Irwin Corey might have been a major contributor. Deor 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense - borderline G1 speedy. An example of an article where the words make sense, but the sentences don't. Written by someone who vaguely remembers high school chemistry (methyl butyrate is not a hydrocarbon), and probably a Chris Morris fan ("the incoherent mind vomit of a delusional alchemist"). Iain99 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total nonsense. NawlinWiki 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there such a thing as a text obfuscator? This certainly looks like it could've been generated that way. -Steve Sanbeg 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. —Shining Eyes 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for great justice! - J.

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

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

The result was delete. Inexplicably, this rather poorly-defined entry is more lengthy than the Gay pride article itself, this notwithstanding the fact that the consensus here point to it being, at this time, a mere footnote extension of the latter. El_C 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight pride[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(I originally deleted this outright for the reasons that follow, but I have undeleted it and brought it to AfD for a full discussion.)

This article was nominated for deletion a year and a half ago for the flimsy argument of being "homophobic," and given only that argument it was rightfully kept, as Wikipedia is not censored and controversial subjects are OK to write about as long as done in an NPOV manner (cf. the obviously related White pride).

However, the article has been tagged as needing verification and sourcing for most of its life here on Wikipedia (over 2 years), and there are still no reliable sources firmly documenting the existence and notability of "straight pride" as a concept. The majority of the sources seem to come from the "Straight Pride Clothing Company," obviously an unacceptable source and bordering on advertising, while the rest of the sources only discuss tangential points, including a couple news articles about College Republicans controversies. The central focus of the article -- that there is a notable movement or concept of "straight pride" -- is completely unsourced and unverifiable, and has been this way for the life of the article.

If reliable sources surface that confirm that this is a cohesive idea that is indeed notable, this article can certainly be rewritten, but the article as-is is an unsalvageable mess of original research and synthesis. Krimpet 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unverifiable junk. This article was tagged as unverified less than half a day after it was created two years ago, and hasn't improved since. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remove the spam and the unsourced claims and there's nothing left. --AliceJMarkham 10:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term is notable (as was discussed in the previous AfD), but there are some severe OWN issues with this article in its present form. I'd suggest an administrator intervention with the relevant editor, and strongly suggest adding the URL of the t-shirt vendor to the blacklist to prevent it from being re-added. I'm not going to lose sleep over this going away, however. Horologium t-c 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article as a whole seems to be an advertisment for some T-shirts of questionable taste. Unless other sources can be found documenting that this is a coherent philosophy (and a quick search by me did not turn any up), then this should be deleted as unverifiable. Lankiveil 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the article seems to be little more than a vehicle for advertisement, especially given the long time provided to verify the term. Krimpet, thank you for a very well-written nomination. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lankiveil. I'm not comfortable with the wiki being a place to push your "straight pride" products. Someone demonstrate a movement that can be written about with reliable sources, and take out all the merchandise pushing, and then we can talk about saving the article. - Philippe | Talk 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this, just a knee-jerk reversal of the phrase "gay pride". God knows why this crap was kept in the first place. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it looks like a wasted "vote". I'm seeing the following independent sources: KCRA Sacramento, Telluride Daily Planet, Fox news, 2001, Oak Ridger, 1997, NY Times, 1991, etc etc. Needs cleanup of course, and from the looks of the talk page there's flaring tempers among contributing editors, but I'd hardly call the subject matter "unverifiable". --DeLarge 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not wasted, since your argument will be considered by those who subsequently arrive. Don't let the pile-up in the first few hours necessarily determine the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DeLarge's notability references, despite the apparent WP:SNOW in the other direction Spazure 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite completely, or alternatively, smerge it into Gay Pride. The term is verifiable as demonstrated by the above sources, however it is not what this article paints it to be. There does not appear to be any organized "Straight Pride" movement as this article would lead one to believe. It seems to have arisen several times, largely as a protest measure, and its useage as such appears notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending a serious rewrite: the sources (above and in the article) do not provide evidence of a 'Straight Pride' movement, although they support the isolated use of the term. Notability is met, but the spamlinks need to go. EyeSerene^TALK 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per noms. Utterly non-notable and a weak effort at promotion of an obscure website (and what's with that t-shirt thing??). Also fails the Google Test - Alison ☺ 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the sources provided by DeLarge: The NYT - I didn't fancy shelling out $5, but the first para was just about a 'Conservative Awareness Week' and didn't mention straight pride. The Telluride article is about a satire. FOX story is about a case where a kid is stopped by his school from wearing a straight pride shirt. Oak Ridger is about a Straight Pride Day organised by an LGB society, which didn't actually happen. This does not add up to 'Article' in my mind, and no-one is defending the article's current sorry state. Anything worth saying - and there possibly isn't - should go into Gay Pride. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (to Gay Pride). Despite everyone apparently believing that I have WP:OWN issues with this article, I don't. I spent part of yesterday trying to keep a single editor from gutting an article without first building consensus to do so. Instead of accepting the reversion of his bold changes, per WP:BRD, he continued to reinsert them and when that failed, he chocked the article full of warning tags, several of which were completely frivolous (I am not the only one of such an opinion, and no other "regular" editor of the article believed the tags were appropriate). When violating BRD, 3RR, and the policies of the tags he abused wasn't enough, he nominated it for speedy deletion, and three of us independently stepped in and said that he was out of line. It was deleted anyway, despite a holdon tag, and I then had to get an administrator to undo a speedy deletion that was not properly justified, and whose justification did not match that which was given in the edit summary. So, my trying to build consensus is not the same as having OWN issues. In fact, I even suggested that the article be entirely rewritten or AfD'd, which would have been the proper procedure, had it been done so in a way that involves consensus. I guess maybe I have issues with consensus, in that I respect it more than most. I am also fairly insulted that several people are claiming "this is a terrible, horrible article that we hate, and it hasn't gotten better since the day it was created." I would question the judgment of anyone who considers this to be no improvement from this, this, or this. I originally intended to abstain, but I feel as though so many of the other contributors to this discussion haven't given enough (any) consideration to this article before their "delete" votes based on "spam" and "junk" and "advertising" and that I should do something to even it out. I think rewrite/merging it into Gay Pride is a great idea, actually, and I wish someone had thought of it sooner. --Cheeser1 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as is is just an ad for a political website to attempt to sell t-shirts and pretend it's about a movement. All attempts by more than just one editor have been reverted or editied back like a guard standing at the door all atempts to improve the article have been edited back. A single editor on the page refuses to allow any bold changes incorrectly citing wikipedia policy. There may be much more to his reasons. If the article is kept it needs to black list "Straight Pride Wear" clothing store also known as "Straight Pride.com" from further use. All references can be ubtained from original sources as no source refering to "Straight Pride" was actualy their original work.--Amadscientist 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite as per DeLarge and EyeSerene. Get rid of the spam components and add sources; there should be enough left for a stub anyway. Aleta 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at DeLarge's post above. Aleta 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's. In order...
A planned sudent event, no report on whether it happened or not.

A blog post on a parody march with a dozen or so participants.

A Fox News report on what seems to be one of the shirts sold by the site that the Wikipedia article is currently advertising. Did anyone else pick up this story?

A local newspaper report about a failed "straight pride" event organized by a college LGBT group.

An article about a failed "conservative awareness week."

What conclusion can we derive from these articles? "Every so often someone gets the idea to run a 'straight pride' parade or gathering, but it almost always fails due to backlash or a lack of interest"? None of those sources establish the existence and notability of "straight pride" as a concept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it needs a serious re-write. Get rid of all of the baggages and start it up from a stub. ~ Wikihermit 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Non-noteworthy. Non-encyclopedic. Merge any noteworthy, verifiable content, if there even is any, into Gay pride. ^Touro Osteopathic Freak ^T 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are verifiable references to a grass roots movement that is disorganized and non cohesive. If the page should remain it should be moved (or renamed) to "Straight Pride movement" and allowed to be freely edited and corrected by editors where needed. Consensus was there for a re-write and for removal of the links and references to "Straight Pride.com" but all attempts to remove the large section that refers only to that web site was met with reverts and edits returning it back. I honestly believe at this point that it may not be noteworthy enough a subject to include in wikipedia. I know the site is not noteworthy enough for it's own page. It contains no original research or opinion that I can see. All articles are attributed to other sources yet when used as references on the page they are attributing the articles to "Straight Pride.com" just so the name and url are prominently displayed.--Amadscientist 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: You are the one who originally nominated it for speedy deletion. Now you are advocating the existence of a legitimate movement?? For someone on a crusade against OR, this seems highly dubious. Furthermore, the links to straightpride.com were to indicate where a political website gets its info. If Bob writes an article, and in this article he cites Alice's article, and we want to Wikipedia to say "Bob cited Alice's article," whose article do I cite? Bob's. Not Alice's. (If you don't get it, Bob = sp.com, Alice = the original places where sp.com's political content was published). --Cheeser1 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Response to comments: Exactly who is on a crusade? You seem bent on keeping information out of the article. After reading the admins comments at the top of the page I began research on this website alone and found this...;

The “Straight Pride” movement has connections with “Rock for Life” which, according to straightpride.com, “is a division of the American Life League, the nation’s largest pro-life educational organization.”

“Straight Pride” links its Web site to Dr. James Dobson’s, founder of Focus on the Family and author of Christian self-help books.

Dobson was in the news recently when he worked with Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to prevent the removal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube. Dobson also publicly lent his endorsement to California’s Proposition 22, which sought to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Political analyst Michael Crowly of Slate magazine cites Dobson as the catalyst in President Bush’s successful re-election campaigns in Florida and Ohio.

“Straight Pride’s” association with these organizations and its not-so-“straight pride” political efforts suggests its motives extend well beyond the realm of strengthening the heterosexual community (if that was ever the case to begin with) and are more closely aligned with promoting right-wing, neo-conservative policies.

also although it brings up Elliot Chambers it presents him as a victim, but fails to mention his activism or comments made by the now 22 year old such as these;

"... a safe and respectful environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual, staff, and families. Confidentiality respected." (The ad then goes on to list all 48-50-classroom numbers and faculty members' names.) This is clearly recruitment into the gay and lesbian lifestyle." and these "They have abandoned the goal of educating students and have chosen, instead, to indoctrinate them into left- wing, liberal wacko ideology." Clearly if the article is to remain there is a great deal more that needs to be added!--Amadscientist 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree - rename: straight pride movement is certainly a better way of handling this topic.^Touro Osteopathic Freak ^T 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Traditional marriage movement or Gay pride until such time as the topic warrants an article all its own (i.e. - an organized movement). ZueJay (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are over 2.8 million hits for Straight Pride on Google; hardly something that is not "organized". Links to retail stores seems unacceptable, but there are plenty of other references. It would seem spiteful to merge it into the Gay pride article; they are diametrically opposed groups. With this many hits the article can be improved and sourced appropriately. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, if you search for "straight pride" with the inverted commas there to make it search for the words as a phrase, as opposed to just matching articles that happen to have both words regardless of context and how far apart they are, google returns "about 39,100" matches. Repeat with "straight pride" -wikipedia to remove wikipedia pages and derivatives and it comes down to "about 35,900", which still includes a lot of blogs discussing the straightpridewear web site, why straight pride doesn't exist, etc. --AliceJMarkham 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers. "Straight pride" -wikipedia -blog has about 19,500 hits. Less the plural of blogs, and there are about 11,600 hits. ZueJay (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how having a lot of hits on a neo conservative website that sells T-shirts with slogans qualifies as "organized". This is the problem. The site itself is being improperly emphasized AS the article. It does not actually claim to be the "Official" site anywhere but it's Google description. The article here on wiki says it has substantive information when it really doesn't. And if you look up "Straight Pride" you will find that there is very little information on the term at all, but what there is does show other sources and sites, however many of the articles speak to the lack of a true movement. That a group is attempting to push forward an agenda without a movement, so to speak. Yes there seems to be a small grass roots "following" I probably shouldn't use the term "movement"...as that may be overstating. However as the Admin points out above it is mainly College Republicans. Also, something I quickly discovered, many of these articles such as the KCRA.com article, are republishings of the same source material. The same article that KCRA.com posted is copied in several locations. It may appear as different headers in different locations....but it's the same article. No organization so far stands out as the leader, but this looks like a real attempt to define that site as such by people, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article now rewritten with reliable sources and otherwise meets Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jreferee has done an outstanding job turning the formerly messy spam-filled article into a real source of information complete with references. Great job! Benjiboi 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer Jreferee's changes. i ^{(said) (did)} 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee's effort and intent are to be commended. The result, however, is still problematic. The article's lead describes this as a "loosely organized movement," but then cites no cases of it being organized by anyone at all. The lead is full of further weasely claims: "it is seen by some to have the potential to water down local impact of the gay pride movement." Who? "Symbols of straight pride include white pins emblazoned with blue squares." According to whom?
After the lead, it's then just a list of random news reports that mention "straight pride," illustrating no movement or coherence. It's just a list of random counter-marches or unsuccessful non-events.
This article attempts to combine snarky T-shirts, counter-marches, and unsuccessful "Why not?" events run by LGBT groups into some sort of "movement," while not a single one of the sources refer to any sort of organization, movement, coordination, or connection.
Because of these problems, I still feel this original synthesis of vaguely-related news stories should still be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a major improvement and is only a beginning. True it could use the term "following" instead of "movement", but hey it's can still be edited by all. Let's just not chop it down and hope that the heart of the article reamains as Jreferee wrote it.--Amadscientist 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a major improvement in appearance, but it's a coat of paint over the real problem: there's no source anywhere that draws these threads together into a whole. It's an original synthesis. There's no movement or following anywhere. This isn't like gay pride or white pride, where there are even people self-identifying; this is all parodies, backlash groups, or LGBT groups trying to be fair. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As true as that is....and I do believe it. There are actual people that are making these parodies and in some cases they are more like a backlash or even worse hate filled marches of resentment. I agree it is not a national movement and have changed the word "movement" to "Following" but if you are not going to envolve yourself as an editor to back your own assertions what do you have. Edit the article in as nuetral a manner as you can. But I suggest research. Don't let your point of view stand in the way of what may be in front of you as bad and as hard to swallow as it may be.--Amadscientist 07:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view? What do you think I'm biased against? (Spoiler: I'm biased against original research.)

We shouldn't be the first to describe a trend. No source ever mentions any two of these things in the same breath. Ever. Anywhere. This is an original synthesis of vaguely similar things. You can't describe it as a movement or a following or as anything because nobody anywhere has ever described "it" as anything. Every single factual claim in the lead is unverified and unverifiable, because they're all original conclusions based on primary sources.

I urge the closing admin to take into account the lack of sources ever drawing together these disparate events into a "movement" or a "following" or a "trend" or whatever, and close this AFD accordingly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "Point of view" in a wiki sorta way. Not in a personal way. I am still hoping that the vote just deletes the article, but this is a better beginning and with everyones attention on it now we should be able to make it something worth while. Believe it or not we do need editors like yourself to weigh in.--Amadscientist 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dug through every academic database I could find to source this article. There's virtually nothing. Everything that mentioned "straight pride" basically said nothing about it; it's largely discussed as a heterosexual reaction to the concept of gay pride, and nothing more. The "references" and treatment in the media bear this out. It's not really even a movement; it's more like a phrase that's been co-opted by people opposed to gay pride in some fashion, and shows up on t-shirts. --Haemo 08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see other editors have taken to vigorously editing and tagging the article which is probably good. I suggest that the lede needs to be re-written rather than cite-tagging every sentence. The only instances I've heard of Strait Pride are instances of veiled homophobic responses to Gay pride events like the Day of Silence and National Coming Out Day. If that's what strait pride is then fine - state it concisely and neutrally. Benjiboi 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a few things, with references. I added Elliott Chambers name which was left out of this version, which I felt needed to be there as well as his activist comments from his sel wriiten article. We needed to know he was not just an innocent straight victim of Heterophobia. I also added the judges name and comments from the case as to be sure and mention that he was not citing as much for straight pride but for nondiscrimination on both sides. And as I mentioned above I changed movement to following.

I agree that the lead in may need to re-written, only because I am unable to find any web references. Perhaps the original author has more RT references.--Amadscientist 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would to remove the lede (at least temporarily) and see what supportable article is there. What does the credible information with no assumptions say. Write that summary and see what info from the prior lede is valid and weave it together. Benjiboi 10:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the lead strips the article of all context and merit. Without the lead, it's really just a grab-bag of marginally notable events carried out by conservative groups, typically on campuses, which use the term "straight pride". They're no longer indicative of any movement, just the satire of the term "gay pride" by groups opposed to homosexuality in some way. The subject no longer becomes notable; rather, it becomes perhaps a footnote to homophobia or gay pride. I mean, really, the entire article just becomes padding for the line "Straight pride is a phrase used by groups opposed to homosexuality as a satire of gay pride, and to express heterosexual identity and solidarity; usually in opposition to homosexual activism. The only reason the sourced material persists at this time is because it's purportedly part of the "timeline" of a movement. If you eliminate all mention or assertion that there is a movement, we're left with a loosely connected series of events with no rationale for why they have their own article. --Haemo 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and Haemo et al. I too looked for anything which would validate this as a legitimate subject per WP:N -nothing except an "activist" website selling t-shirts. If this article has been around for 2 years, I'm amazed. There's been more than enough time given for this to be fixed, and it hasn't been, because it's simply not fixable. <<-armon->> 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this seems to have been more a blip on the College Republican radar and not a notable movement of any sort. Two years is more than enough time to make this appear to be a movement, and not some early 1990s gag campaign. --David Shankbone 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been included on the Sexuality and gender-related AfDs. Aleta 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's gone without sources for far too long, and I see no evidence that said sources will ever be provided. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced info into different articles; maybe into gay pride, maybe into College Republicans; both even. This is, however, not a unified movement, delete the article. Atropos 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to substantiate the basis for this article's esistence, nor does it seem that they are likely to be forthcoming. Rebecca 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Haemo, David Shankbone, Rebecca, et al. Bearian 15:50, 30 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. Pascal.Tesson 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streetpunk bands[edit]

These lists of bands are hard to maintain and verify, and categories can do the job. Lots of precedent is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grindcore bands. Punkmorten 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. List will almost certainly remain incomplete, and a genre like "streetpunk" is really too amorphous and vague for a list. A category would be better. Lankiveil 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, as per norm. Almost every music genre has a list of notable artists. Either keep them all or delete them all and prevent the creation of any lists of musicians. There is no reason to single out the streetpunk list for deletion, when (as of this minute) there are 114 similar lists.Spylab 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streetpunk. Deor 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category. Being a band of a certain genre is a loose inclusion criteria to me Corpx 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil and Corpx. I can't believe people seriously think that "amorphous and vague" categories are a good thing. Kappa 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bogus grounds for deletion. If these are really hard to verify, then they should not go into categories either. Systematic bias. "hard to maintain" is no reason for deletion. Hard to verify is not good enough. Categories being better than lists is not founded in any policy or guideline. Yet another waste of the AFD process. (Mind meal 11:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and replace with a category. It is an unstructured list. Wikipedia is not a loose compendium of links. One of the things about categories that is suitable for hard to define genres is that the inclusion in the category can be justified in depth on the band's discussion page if need be. By Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:NOT, categories are better than unstructured lists. Hu 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, yeah. About that Hu, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states 5 criteria for what constitues indiscriminate collection of information. See, what you cited doesn't say what you say it does. Please show everyone where WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states that categories are better than unstructured lists. See, everyone else here also has eyes. And what you say that section says and what it actually says do not match up. That is a surprise,by the way. I am shocked. I propose Hu's vote be discounted, for they have failed to read the very policy they have cited. I'm tempted to call a duck a duck here, but we'll just say you must be confused. Unless, of course, you can show us where it says in the section they cited that categories are in fact superior to any list! Do you even know what you are citing ever? I'm dead serious, you do this so often. You need to start voting according to what current guidelines and policy actually do say, otherwise you shouldn't be voting at all. Hu is guilty of WP:POINT. In fact Hu, WP:NOT doesn't even mention the words "unstructered list". You are out to prove a point, not out to uphold policy. I'll take no response as an admission that it says that nowhere, and your vote will be discarded accordingly. Come to think of it, where does it say anywhere something about these "unstructured lists" you keep referring to? Certainly not at WP:LIST. Have you ever even read the guideline for what is needed for a list to exist there? No, no you have not. (Mind meal 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Absence of a response is not admission of anything. There are many reasons for not making a response, one of which might be not having read the demand for a response. In this case, at this time, I choose to not make a response other than what I have already made here clarifying that absence of a response is not admission of anything. Hu 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was hilarious! (Mind meal 03:30, 30 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. Neil ╦ 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of queercore bands[edit]

These lists of bands are hard to maintain and verify, and categories can do the job. Lots of precedent is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grindcore bands. Punkmorten 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. List will almost certainly remain incomplete, and a genre like "queercore" is really too amorphous and vague for a list. A category would be better. Lankiveil 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Loose criteria for inclusion, genre inclusion is not established, so its OR to classify them. Replace with a category Corpx 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another "List of" that should be a category as "article" adds no context to what is simply...a list. Pharmboy 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that is served better as category than list... and guess what, there's already a category entitled "Queercore groups". Just make sure all non red linked articles in list are included. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories provide no central place to collect references for inclusion in the list. Clearly the article as it stands needs work. But you got a lot of List of bands to delete after killing this one!--Larrybob 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeparticle presents information that is unique and doesn't seem to be readily available elsewhere. Categorization alternative would delete a large portion of the work as categories can only include bands that have their own articles. Article should have been tagged and prodded for improvement before AfD'ing process was instigated. Article certainly could use improvement but AfDing is not the best route as there are multiple ways to organize and present it and editors should be encouraged to arrive at consensus as to what will best serve WP purposes to organize and share information. Benjiboi 16:23, 30 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. Pascal.Tesson 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop punk bands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

These lists of bands are hard to maintain and verify, and categories can do the job. First nomination ended in "categorize", i.e. delete. Lots of other precedent is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grindcore bands. Punkmorten 10:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. List will almost certainly remain incomplete, and a genre like "pop punk" is really too amorphous and vague for a list. A category would be better. Lankiveil 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, as per norm. Almost every music genre has a list of notable artists. Either keep them all or delete them all and prevent the creation of any lists of musicians. There is no reason to single out the pop punk list for deletion, when (as of this minute) there are 114 similar lists.Spylab 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories are both acceptable ways of grouping and navigating articles. They are complimentary rather than redundant (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). These articles have an obvious, easy to verify connection and therefore a list is fully appropriate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also think that being a band of a genre is a loose criteria for inclusion (WP:NOT) and hence should be replaced with a category. Corpx 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to maintain and verify, maybe; deletable, I don't think so. No one ever said that editing Wikipedia was easy. Your point about the deletion of other lists is ridiculous: "because this other list was deleted, this one should be deleted too" is really not a valid argument. Show me the criteria in the deletion policy that apply to these lists. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent is ridiculous? Spare me. Punkmorten 10:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of what it is, this nomination is not grounds for deletion. At best you could ask for a better lead section and references. Lists are singled out with systematic bias, and it is troublesome. The arguments on lists being "hard to maintain" needs to stop already, as it has no basis in policy. The same with "will never be complete". People need to start nominating things based on policy. It's old already. (Mind meal 11:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This whole list is WP:OR - Who classified these bands into this particular genre? I looked at the first 5 articles and they dont even explain the inclusion into this genre. Corpx 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Should this really even be debated? it needs to stay (Tigerghost 10:32, 31 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 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of outsider musicians[edit]

Fails WP:LIST as a category can do the job. Lots of precedent is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grindcore bands. Punkmorten 10:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how do you qualify to be an "outsider musician". Criteria for inclusion are much too vague. Lankiveil 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the criteria for inclusion are anything but clear. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for inclusion is right there at the top: this is "a list of musicians whose Wikipedia articles describe them as creators of outsider music." I think that's fairly clear. This moves the "burden of proof" to the musician's WP article, where it can be well-cited, etc. Doctormatt 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly vague, almost a borderline attack on some of those listed: Why is a respected indie musician like Jad Fair and a technical pioneer like Joe Meek lumped in with legendarily-awful never-wases like The Shaggs? I could almost see this being a real article if there were clear, unambiguous, provable criteria, e.g.: Passes WP:MUSIC but never signed to any label or appeared on any charting recording or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose criteria for inclusion. Replace with category if inclusion to genre is proven Corpx 19:34, 27 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 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegan bands[edit]

Much the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups (second nomination). Furthermore, bands are not vegan, people are. On a side note, the amount of non-notable items is unusually large. Punkmorten 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable list cruft contradicting WP:NOR. Pedro | Chat 11:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Lankiveil 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as trivial intersection. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last comment. Oli Filth 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loose criteria of inclusion, lots of WP:OR putting bands into the category, unmaintainable. A category would be more appropriate if genre inclusion can be established Corpx 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see: vague inclusion criteria? Check. No hope of ever being complete or even nearly complete? Check. A number of redlink/article-less people listed? Check. Complete and utter lack of references? Check. Redundant to existing category? Check. With a perfect score all around, this is pretty much the very definition of listcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 27 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, G7 --Eyrian 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Windmills at the suburbs of Salamis city[edit]

Non-notable Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A1: no meaningful content. It's non-notable as well, but that's not speedy-able. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:28, 27 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 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fromdistance[edit]

Queried speedy delete db-inc "It is an article about a company or corporation that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some notability is asserted and actually demonstrated. --Tikiwont 10:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. Sander Säde 11:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't understand how this company can be labeled as 'non-notable'. When it comes to customers, it's one of the most notable mobile technology companies in Northern Europe. The clients include all major TV channels, newspapers and other media companies in many European countries. I suggest someone who is familiar with the topic should check this. --Petri Behm 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some proof of notability is acquired. Oli Filth 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have required notability. However, if someone can prove me wrong, I would be glad to change my vote. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criterion I tried to google. Most probably you won't find any articles on mobile device management (I found some in Finnish: DataInfo) - it's corporate stuff, and ordinary people don't really care about that. However, videoblogging stuff is quite popular. Services: Kaasa, FanBLOG, ConnectedDay; articles and press releases: HP interview, Mobile Monday 1 and 2, Forum Virium, Nokia Multimedia; some third-party blog; some of popular videoblogs: Nightwish, Lordi, Dudesons, Suosikki, Handelsblatt, RP Online; some articles and press releases in Finnish: HP news 1 and 2, Taloussanomat, Luoti. Still need more? Now I think article should be extended to include some of that :) — lim 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Datainfo isn't an article, it is news from corporate website. Blogs are not valid sources for Wikipedia, see WP:SOURCE - and the rest seem to be "we offer this service" pages from other corporations. Currently there are no news articles or any good, independent sources about Fromdistance - and furthermore, article reads like it is an advertisement. I suspect that the article is written as an advertisement by Fromdistance owner/workers. However, if author(s) manage to find good sources for the article, rewrite it and assert notability, then I have no problems with keeping it. Sander Säde 10:44, 28 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 reliable sources were introduced by the church member who commented last. If non-trivial, reliable, third-party sourcing can be provided, then this deletion can easily be overturned. — Caknuck 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Humanity[edit]

Notability not asserted, and no independent sources given. Very difficult to find anything relevant on e.g. Google. Oli Filth 08:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, text is a re-hash of that on the "official website", seems to be a marketing effort to get more people into the "church". Basically fails WP:V, WP:N and partially WP:NOR. Pedro | Chat 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By searching for "Church of Humanity" -Marvel -Wikipedia on a search engine, no reliable sources could be found. (Just forum and blog mention) As a newly begun church, there is no hint of any substantial achievements, let alone longevity. Does not satisfy WP:CORP.--Kylohk 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all real religions or sects should have articles, but there needs to be evidence they actually exist. This has no such evidence. DGG (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent or third-party sources. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is no evidence, as DGG said. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no evidence of notability or coverage by multiple non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anybody can make a website for their personal philosophy, and can claim however many members they wish to. However, the only truly online religion I've encountered has got to be Wikipedia itself. Mandsford 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Church exists, I'm a member. Seems unfair to persecute a church because it's new. Proof is in member lists and church's written material. Should I list it as reference? Is it even possible to obtain 3rd part sources. What do I do? We'd like to cooperate.Jiminezwaldorf 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response That's exactly what would need to be done, Jimenez-- third party sources and a link to any reference as described above. It's not a matter of the church being new, but rather authenticity. All of us here are recommending "delete" because we haven't seen independent proof that the COH is notable. None of us would criticize anyone because of their religious belief. As noted, anyone can make a website, but not everyone can get coverage in the press. Much of the skepticism comes from the statements that the COH wouldn't reveal its numbers. I do note that there are 900+ "ghits" (hits when doing a Google search), although few that seem to connect to news media. Save the article, since it's been on the deletion log for awhile and might get deleted when administrator has to make a decision. If that happens, you can ask for deletion review. Mandsford 12:22, 31 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. —Kurykh 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris D. Jackson[edit]

Well, firstly much of this is copied directly, by the subject of the article, from here. That article specifically states "Copyright © 1998-2007 Lawrence County Tennessee Government.", and since the author is not actually the government (though he is part of it) I think that counts as copvio. It has already been deleted at least twice as such (and once as "Chris D Jackson", without the full stop). However, since it is about him - he says "That is my info that I am submitting for the page. It is in the public domain. Thanks ChrisDJackson" on the talk page - I don't know if that obviates that.

Secondly, it is autobiographical. I know this is not in itself a reason for deletion, but you would think that if he really wants a WP entry he could write it himself instead of cutting and pasting.

Thirdly, notability. WP:BIO says: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability", but also : Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Is three local papers significant? You decide. Chris 08:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few articles about him, I have serious doubts about his notability. My main issue is the article's POV, which leans towards "this man is the greatest guy ever" in many articles with COI problems. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cleaned up somewhat; I removed the 1/3 that was PR-style verbiage, which probably fixes the copyright question as well. DGG (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I really dont think an encyclopedia is the place to have articles about. County Commissioners. These people/positions have no notability outside their local area of coverage. Corpx 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chris 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't (technically) about voting; give a reason for your suggestion. Also, put your !vote at the end of the current discussion if not replying to another !vote. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, it was me that nominated it and I gave a whole list of reasons there. The reason I put my "vote" at the top is because I forgot to put it there when I made the nomination :) Chris 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Forget I said anything, then :) ... although I suppose you could have said "Delete as nominator." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I don't see how my entry doesn't qualify when folks such as Christopher Seeley, Sam Juhl and Michael Sessions do. All have been elected on the local level and are among the youngest ever elected around the country--the same as I was. Same premise and notability standard. Second, I am the owner of the text that was used, as I am the chair of the technology committee which has control over the website, so that is no big deal. If someone wishes to edit the article, maybe trim it down or make changes, that is fine. But I would respectfully ask for the article to stay in the context that entries about similar people and feats have been kept. ChrisDJackson

Have a glance at this before making that argument. And a look at this before you began probably would have been a good idea, too. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom: no particular accomplishments, no strong milestones met, no good reason for keeping this. And the blatant conflict of interest/self-promotion ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as shameless self-promotion. Phil Sandifer 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines of Pakistan[edit]

This 'list' is more than covered by categories, such as Category:Airlines of Pakistan, Category:Aviation in Pakistan, etc Russavia 08:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). For example, the way of organizing this list (current airlines, defunct airlines etc) is impossible to do in a clear way with categories (yes subcategories can be used, but that does not visualize the articles as clearly as this list). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, we have Category:Airlines of Pakistan, Category:Defunct airlines of Pakistan, Category:Planned airlines of Pakistan. Additionally, we also have Category:Cargo airlines, and will be adding Category:Charter airlines. Not to mention, these also already exist, Category:Aircraft_manufacturers_of_the_Pakistan, Category:Aviation in Pakistan, Category:Airports in Pakistan, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan, and Category:Pakistani aviators. Categories are more than doing their job. --Russavia 11:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is beside the point. I am not saying that categories cannot do their job properly. I am saying that maintaning lists as well can be of additional benefit for navigating articles. Again, please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for more information. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). This doesn't necessarily have to be just a list but an article on the airline industry of Pakistan. Indeed the information in the lead cannot be obtained from a category. The article is certainly in need of expansion but is encyclopaedic. → AA ^(talk) — 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could almost substitute any country for Pakistan in the lead paragraph and it would hold true for most countries. There really is nothing in the list that can't be covered quite succinctly by the use of categories. --Russavia 11:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed - you can substitute any country and I would argue they would be encyclopaedic articles. Maybe the title needs changing to something like History of airlines in Pakistan or subsumed into History of aviation in Pakistan (see History of aviation in Bangladesh). → AA ^(talk) — 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see why we have to have only the category system for navigation and for referencing. Mulitple information paths are only a benefit to our readers, and having this list does nothing to harm the project. Categories have a number of limitations, and there's information in this list that would simply disappear if we only relied on the category system. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I would like to see this move in the direction of it becoming an article and not a list. For now keeping this does not cause any harm. However if a year goes by and there is no expansion, then the listish nature of the article would only duplicate information in other lists and it should be considered at that time for deletion. Vegaswikian 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont think this list has a "loose" inclusion criteria unlike many others. Corpx 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This structured list is superior to the category. Golfcam 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I'll try and expand on the article. Still don't see how this article can be deleted I've seen way more ridiuclous articles on wiki compared to this. BK2006 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories do not cover redlinks. Dhaluza 03:53, 31 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. Lots of "keep" arguments tossed due to weak interpretation of guidelines and readily apparent sock-puppetry. A Train^talk 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Elsewhere[edit]

Per this tagging, and the fact that there is no assertion of notability. Giggy _U^CP 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable book by probably non notable author. Both book and author fail to appear via Amazon test and I pretty certain hits on Google do not relate. Pedro | Chat 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SaveThe assumption that this book and author is "non-notable" is misguided. The ISBN for the book is 9781598728156 and the Library of Congress Catalog number is 2007902579. (Either way it meets at minimum the guideline of notability as per stated in Wikipedia's notablility measures.) "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number" --12.227.243.54 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This book was featured was validly featured and reviewed in the Kentucky New Era in an column by Evelyn Boone - July 16th 2007

Also, it was featured in the Todd County Standard, July 17th 2007. The book is also to be sold at Borders, Joseph Beth, and on Amazon - maybe crystal balling but never the less, seems quite valid

Keep google search led to this - http://base.google.com/base/a/2608541/D8324085162532018148 . Book is for sale and is written by notable author. Website defines book as the first ever written on the subject. www.geocities.com/toddcommunityhouse

Keep search checks out. Book non-NN --12.205.202.251 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mere assignment of an ISBN does not constitute notability for books.

Also, if you review the edit history of the unsigned votes listed above, the book itself, and the book's author Matthew Colin Bailey, you'll see evidence that suggests that votes and comments may be coming from a person or persons with vested interest in this book and its subject matter. Since WP:AfD requires disclosure in such a case, I'm hoping such disclosure is forthcoming or confirmed to not exist among those who posted the unsigned votes and comments.

The fact that according to the Google Base link above, the book is published by Sheridan Books, a ~~vanity press~~ self-publisher, doesn't help the cause. What would help the cause would be reviews by well-known critics, published by reputable sources. 68.165.76.202 07:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The book was printed, not published by Sheridan Books. --12.218.199.245 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable book - local/regional interest at best. Just because a couple local sources mentioned it doesn't make it notable. Perhaps could be mentioned in the article on the subject of the book. Vespid 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The book may not be notable to the extent of being a "national release" however, it still meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notable material. The book is obviously a local writing and makes no claim not to be, they only published 500 copies. The value is therefore set that the book, even to a small audience, is valuable because of its information relating to this "community house" which is notably the "first in America. We have no Harry Potter on our hands, but we certainly have no failure either. I also seriously doubt that the author or "anyone" affiliated with the books is using Wikipedia as an advertising tool. There are only two or three sentences and certainly no mention of where the book can be bought or even how to get a copy. Anywho..

Under these two clauses does the book meet Wikipedia's standards

The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.[6] Per this and other articles - [44]

The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

- As stated that the book was reviwed in the Kentucky New Era on July 16th, and in the Todd County Standard on July 18th. --Benny the bureaucrat 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notice that most, if not all, posts supporting this article appear to be either single-purpose accounts/posting, and/or the IP's all trace back to the same small town in Kentucky (Oak Grove). Looks like sock/meatpupettry in use here. Less than 500 copies with local distribution and coverage is not notable. Perhaps just a footnote on the author's page. Vespid 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice that "Vespid" has signed this as "delete" twice making one of his motions void. Since it is a local book, of course there would usually only be local remarks. --12.218.199.245 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not votes that are tallied and I was just making clear my opinion had not changed after reviewing the comments. The fact that I'm the same person is obvious as I'm using my same established account each time. Furthermore, your "local" comments continue to make my point. Vespid 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments by Benny the bureaucrat --74.140.170.80 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vespid. Kayaker 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chappelle[edit]

The subject of the article is not notable and has not fought in a notable organization Thesaddestday 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence this martial artist is notable. Propaniac 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharmboy 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 11:02, 31 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. Discussion to change to a category can take place at the article's talk page. Sancho 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games[edit]

trivial list, mostly research Vespid 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transfer to category, which is more appropriate for such information. Giggy _U^CP 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). WP:OR is mainly referring to articles on specific topics. Lists are a way of navigating through these articles, just like categories. As we are trying to write an encyclopedia for everybody here (not just for ourselves), lists like these serve a purpose, because they are considered easier to navigate than categories by many people. An please realize that changing a list like this into a category does not solve OR issues, if there are any. In fact, lists allow for referencing of the included articles, whereas categories do not. (disclaimer: this post was partly copy/pasted from my own statements at other list-deletion discussions) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Also think a category would replace this better. I think it would be endless to make lists for video games based on common features. (Like list of games that support multiplayer or has force feedback) Corpx 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary contributor to this page has removed the AfD boxes from the article. I'd suggest further UNBIASED opinion is needed.Vespid 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to category or delete I reverted to restore the tag. Removing the tag simply because you are the "primary contributor" is the same as claiming ownership, and in my opinion, is very close to vandalism. Pharmboy 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; convert to category as above. •97198 talk 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or change to category My apologies for removing the AfD boxes, I didn't know there was a protocol to follow in this situation. I mistook the action as a form of vandalism. It won't happen again. To understand why this list is important, you must understand the difference between Gamesharing games and regular WIFI. Unlike most two player games for portable game consoles, Gamesharing games only require one copy of the game for both players to play. Gamesharing allows PSP owners to copy a portion or sometimes the entirety of a game to a friend's PSP. It's not a "trivial" feature but possibly the most important feature a PSP game can have. Neither is this listing "trivial" as this information is not contained anywhere else on Wikipedia. Whether this remains a list or becomes a category, it's important that the information be retained. Transce080 10:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or change to category This information is useful and should be kept. As Transce080 said, it's very different to normal WiFi games and the difference makes this list useful. Converting to a category is probably the best option, though. Iwantanimac 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/change I have to admit, I've come around a little on this one. After more checking around it does seem useful and still seems more appropriate for a fan site, but no one else has apparently gone through the trouble to create such a site (although I still wonder why). It does look like quite a bit of work has been put into keeping it accurate. Vespid 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly move over to a category, but I do not see a problem with this. Burntsauce 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be kept as it is a valuable addition to the already existing Playstation Portable (PSP) wiki article. The PSP article lists technical specifications and capabilities of the gaming system. Having this list proves to be a valuable resource to anyone looking for more information about the specific feature this article for deletion is providing. Additionaly one of the other features in the PSP article is the console's WiFi capability, which has a link to a List of PSP games that are WiFi compatible. That article is not up for deletion, and neither should be. I don't support changing this article to a category or moving it to another category because it will then be included with games that are not on the PSP system. Someone looking for just PSP information, like how it's presented in the PSP article, would then have to view a multitude of games that don't apply. TrackSol 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cotter[edit]

non-notable minor league player Vespid 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Truest blue 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time, this player is not a notable enough minor league or amateur player to warrant an article. --Sanfranman59 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor leaguers are not notable, no notable accomplishments in college ball. Caknuck 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: If this kid does something significant in the minors, or gets called up to the Big Leagues, I would add him back in. Chengwes 07:12, 29 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. I probably would have "voted" delete, but not my place, etc etc. Neil ╦ 09:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art punk[edit]

Little content, two sentences both of which are unsourced. Hoponpop69 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better article: "Art Punk is a non-notable neologism referring to a nebulous series of non-notable bands. Art Punk is also a phrase which was probably made up in the studio in order for a non-notable band to find a trendy niche genre to label themselves in. --Haemo 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is isn't any band list. Did you even read the article? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This isn't exactly a neologism, but more like a musical genre. It has been discussed by the Pittsburg City Paper, giving it some notability.--Kylohk 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article ought to be expanded to highlight some examples of art punk bands, for instance.--Kylohk 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isnt that article about a band and not really about the genre? Corpx
Keep After doing some research, I don't see how this qualifies as a neologism. 184,000 results on Google (not counting Wikipedia) is a good hint. I say that the article must be kept, but greatly improved. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article used to be considerably longer, but the nominator deleted most of the material because it was unsourced. - EurekaLott 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is badly written, mostly incorrect in the origins and unsourced, but Art Punk is a known genre. This article needs serious work, not deletion. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Art punk is just a misleading team people are using Art rock and you can find proof of that here (http://www.answers.com/topic/art-rock-1)-- 65.207.126.47
Merge to art rock.68.114.92.198 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is heavily unrelated. Don't just make assumptions based upon the name. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Genre and bands are well known in Wilmington, Delaware and thereabouts. 68.194.50.41 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google finds a number of music-related websites that identify "art punk" as a genre. Article needs work, not deletion. Kayaker 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was close as status quo; namely, redirected to Oi!. —Kurykh 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streetpunk[edit]

Little to no content. Hoponpop69 05:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest redirect this to Oi!, if not deleting it.Hoponpop69 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism that has no reliable sources backing it up. The sheer number of bands making up essentially vanity "genres" for themselves is obscene; art punk, street punk, street core, metalcore, streetcore, art core, horrorcore, art horror punk, punk artcore, core punkart etc etc. --Haemo 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oi!. Punkmorten 09:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree that the article has not been up to Wikipedia standards, streetpunk is definitely not non-notable, a neologism, nor a made-up "vanity" genre (nor is art punk or metalcore). If one searches streetpunk and "street punk" on Google, you will get over 200,000 and 400,000 hits respectively. Spylab 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streetpunk bands. Deor 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oi! as Hoponpop69 suggested. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oi!, its basically the same thing. T Rex | talk 01:28, 28 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 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribe of Judah Band[edit]

No sources, and even if they were sourced, the claimed facts would not pass WP:MUSIC, although there is enough of a claim to avoid a speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The undertow (talk • contribs)
Delete, nonnotable church band. NawlinWiki 16:47, 27 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. El_C 19:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardner School[edit]

Queried speedy delete as {{db-empty}}. The creater said when querying the delete, that he was hoping that people would enlarge the article. Anthony Appleyard 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN preschool. the_undertow ^talk 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. Only one sentence in the whole article --Onceonthisisland 20:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability and we don't need an entry for every preschool. Pharmboy 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was born and raised in the city where the school is located, and not only are there no sources for this article, I've never once heard of it. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:39, 30 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 — Caknuck 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock 2009[edit]

Pure speculation Brianga 04:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Realkyhick 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself states, "being planned by four facebook groups and one myspace group. The location for this event is not confirmed yet." It practically writes its own reasons for deletion. Iotha 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: all those Facebook groups are fairly small; the largest has 449 members, and the other three are in the 100s. Iotha 05:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iothiania. Maxa megalon 2000 05:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't happening. The power of Facebook cannot possibly face down the power that was the horrible mess the last woodstock turned into. As such, it's crystal-ballery. --Haemo 07:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete You're right the power of face book cannot do this. Most bands are minor, and the article is in terrible shape as it is. Oh yeah, it's speculation. James Luftan 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one reference is from a forum! James Luftan 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete The only references are forums, Google sponsers ads for "tickets" (read: fake), This isn't happening. It hasn't been confirmed anywhere by anyone outside of these MySpace and Facebook pages. No bands have been confirmed, no news reports. Hence, only speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Doc Strange 18:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete per above. No confirmation, no reliable sources, and no way that Facebook is going to produce a future Woodstock. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until it's been confirmed by more reliable sources. Social networking sites don't count. — Dale Arnett 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, unless the creator of the article actually has fortune-telling abilities. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as pure crystalballery. The article pretty much admits it's speculation ... a location hasn't been selected yet. I think it's snowing outside ... hopefully an admin agrees. Blueboy 96 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation, probably not even notable when it does occur. T Rex | talk 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:CYRSTAL and it is doubtful that Facebook would do this.--JForget 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article as it is now written is from a different source than the old one. This IS happening, because I have discussed it with land owners, and band managers. Obviously I can't give you all the details because we are years away, but things are going well. Furthermore, there are many big name bands on that list, you might notice.
Don't Delete Even if the festival hasn't been confirmed yet. It's considered a popular rumor. I believe the festival is happening, but most in here are right, we still need evidence. LuigiFan11 —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin close. --Haemo 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kevin Dunn[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 (non-notable person), so tagged. Not at all notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable biography. Even if he were notable, the article would need a complete rewrite. Useight 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that a member of a band that has a Wikipedia article is a speedy candidate, but there is no assertion that he is notable outside of the group. I guess we can redirect to the group's article, like all but one of the other members. Maxa megalon 2000 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The band is notable. Also, he apparently writes vocals. This qualifies him under criteria for lyricists. I'm wondering where the thoughts that band members of a notable band do not inherit notability come from. If there is precedent, please show me. the_undertow ^talk 05:41, 27 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 for the fifth and final time by User:Kinu. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Makers Asia[edit]

Page has already been speedily deleted four times as G11 (blatant advertising), because that's what it is. Re-creation seems to comprise the same text each time; recommend speedy delete and salt. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. This article was deleted 4 times within 15 hours. Useight 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. --Fire Star 火星 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page's creator has been indefinitely blocked; before the block, their userpage featured the same content as Image Makers Asia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:36, 27 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 by Anthony Appleyard per db-author (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virile marketing[edit]

Apparantly a neologism. Google search yeilds a company, but the article isn't about it. There are a few uses of "virile" on google results, but they dont explain what the word is. i ^{(said) (did)} 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely neologism. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. The lack of reliable sources is also a concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...you seem pretty sure of yourself there Siva1979. How can you be sure it isn't a protologism instead. Just kidding there. Either way, if I had been able to find how to delete the listing when I noticed your people were goofing it up I would have saved the rest of you all a few seconds of your life... and just let the rest of your resources catch up with the times on this one. For now though, to point virile marketing at viral marketing is definitely wrong... and deleting it altogether would be less wrong than starting a bad trend there.

Thanks for your help. Adam Hankey ~~ Medical University of South Carolina ~~ College of Medicine ~~ 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable neologism. --Action Jackson IV 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN (and still delete) - a redirect is perhaps uncalled for (see here for a definition of "virile") --Action Jackson IV 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Action Jackson. Does this mean I will get listed on the BJAODN page
with my slew of bad jokes and deleted nonsense?
While you are at it helping whoever you were helping with the definition of virile, you should help them out with spelling "apparently" and "yields" and "Google" and "don't"
Thanks again.
Adam

Speedy delete per author's request. Maxa megalon 2000 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I needed to know how to do.

Speedy delete per author's request. Adam Hankey ~~ Medical University of South Carolina ~~ College of Medicine ~~ 05:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Max.

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slammers Wrestling Gym[edit]

Non-notable wrestling gym that fails WP:V and WP:RS. Nikki311 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no relaible sources for this article. Moreover, the contents of this article is unverifiable as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TIME Magazine is a reliable source. So is Business Wire. So is FOX Television and E! News Daily (check Lexis Nexis if you have a password). Here's multiple abstracts from Lexis Nexis. Sorry for the bad formatting but I can't give a direct link because you have to have an account there.

SHOW: Goin' Deep

September 10, 2000, Sunday PM ET

NETWORK: Fox

MEDIUM: Television

TYPE: Television

LENGTH: 420 words

BODY:

START: 01.54

Teased Segment - Backyard Wrestling. Youth violence has been blamed on everything from Dungeons & Dragons computer games to raunchy Marilyn Manson concerts. Parents across America are adding professional wrestling to that list. The evidence is startling and graphic. It is called backyard wrestling. It is a horrifying do-it-yourself style of mayhem that teenagers are copying from pro wrestlers. Kids are getting hurt. Videos of the matches are being traded over the Internet. John Johnston reporting. It is only a matter of time before someone gets killed. Visual - Vern Langdon (sp), who runs Slammers Wrestling Gym. Visual - scenes from the gym. Interview - Langdon says it is not Mr. McMahon's job to raise your children. It isn't Langdon's job. END: 12.10

SEGMENT-ID: 3

PROGRAM-ID: fsn21000910

LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2000

And so is E! News Daily (check Lexis Nexis again):

SHOW: E! News Daily

June 28, 2000, Wednesday PM ET

NETWORK: E! Entertainment TV Cable Programming

MEDIUM: Cable

LENGTH: 83 words

BODY:

START: 20.00

Teased Segment - Macho Men. The University of Professional Wrestling trains macho men to be pro wrestlers. Visual - Wrestling match. Interview - Hombre De Oro, Dean of Students, Slammers Wrestling Gym says you have to really want it. The school is in Sun Valley, Calif. Interview - Gabriel Valentino, Student says it's tough. Interview - Movie Star Mike says it's not easy. Interview - Verne Langdon, Head Slammer says you have to learn the basics. END: 22.30

SEGMENT-ID: 14

PROGRAM-ID: eetv18300628

LOAD-DATE: August 7, 2000

The Slammers Wresrtling Gym was also profiled on a 1996 edition of Extra TV.

SHOW: News 29; KBAK; Bakersfield

July 5, 1996 6:00Ppm;

NETWORK: ABC

49.05 TZ; Sports. > V; Golfing highlights. > V; Wimbledon highlights. > V; Pepsi 400 qualifying highlights. I; Jeff Gordon says that things are looking up. V; Jeff Gordon's racing suit with Dupont Automotive Finishes shown; GMAC shown; Coca Cola shown. > V; Tour De France highlights. > V; Dodgers-Rockies highlights. Dodgers win. > V; Soccer highlights. > V; Slammers Wrestling Federation highlights. 53.49

SHOW: Live at Six; KERO; Bakersfield

July 4, 1996 6:00Ppm;

NETWORK: CBS

40.04 TZ; Sports. > V; Wimbledon highlights. > V; US Seniors Open highlights. > V; The Slammers Wrestling Federation will be in town this evening. I; Beautiful Bruce Beaudine, Former Champion talks about fighting this evening. > V; Angels-A's highlights. A's win. > V; Daryl Strawberry signs with the Yankees today. I; Daryl Strawberry says that if it works this time fine, if not he'll go home and go to church. 45.23

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbolobo (talk • contribs) — Humbolobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Humbolobo has also not voted in this debate and does not plan to.

Comment, two minor throw-away mentions of the Gym in Time Magazine and Business Wire do not equal notability. The article in Time magazine is about backyard wrestling and the owner of the gym merely comments on it, and the other article briefly and barely mentions the gym, as well. I don't even know how to respond to the other stuff because the formatting gives me a headache, but they seem to be brief mentions, too. Nikki311 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline requires that there be multiple non-trivial sources which cover the subject of an article for a subject to be considered notable. The criteria appears to be met. Stating that these mentions "do not equal notability" is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbolobo (talk • contribs)

Delete Those are trivial mentions. For it to not be a trivial mention, an article must be about the gym or mention it significantly. Nothing here meets that criteria (also think its copyvio for you to paste that here). Press releases also dont count towards notability Corpx 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Enough and poor references Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ah joy, the filibusterings of an SPA. Non notable. Darrenhusted 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above long and badly-written source cannot be used as per WP:EL. Non notable, no outside reference. --SteelersFan UK06 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is lacking, all the sources appear to be trivial mentions. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not an important enough subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbolobo (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 09:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie Henson[edit]

Non-notable wrestling referee. The page has no reliable sources, so it fails WP:V. Nikki311 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Google news turns up nada, plus no notability is established. Also dont think refs are inherently notable Corpx 05:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Enough Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 11:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Mickey Jay or Keep. Most info on him might be under that name since he only started using Henson in late 2005. There was a link in the page history confirming his start date in ECW. Ken S. 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ken S.'s comments. A whole bunch of history has been left out, this article just requires work, not deletion. --SteelersFan UK06 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most wrestling refs are not notable, he is nothing special. Biggspowd 02:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As said above, the article needs a little more work. Chengwes 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in prior AfDs for wrestling refs...the thought was that the refs should only have articles if they had other jobs or were a major part of wrestling history (examples being Theodore Long being GM and Earl Hebner in the Montreal Screwjob). I know Chad Patton was deleted for that reason. Nikki311 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is it that the solution to this article's stub status seems to be delete rather than add content to turn it into a decent article? Clearly this guy passes notability standards as a regularly televised referee and participant in the idiocy that is televised wrestling. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason this fails WP:BIO is that the article lacks any sort of non-trivial third party sources. The pro-wrestling folks are correct on this one. Burntsauce 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have commented above, since there aren't any non-trivial third party sources about this person the article fails WP:BIO in current form. Burntsauce 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Of the four "keeps", two give no reason for retention. The "deletes" are more compelling, based in policy rather than "it is useful". Neil ╦ 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in the 1960s[edit]

Purely an indiscriminate list of loosely associated films. I am also nominating these for deletion:

Also per precedent. Sr 13 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as loosely associated topic per nom. Could be hard to verify too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- WP:NOT Loosely associated topics. Saikokira 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated topics. Maybe a category would work Corpx 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geez, is it list-deletion-week or something? First off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). These articles are not "loosely associated", they have a very clear, easy to verify (how can it be hard to verify this?) and in many cases easy to reference connection between them. Yes these lists might get big, but then they can easily be split up further. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is so much easier to repeat the same argument for deletion than to give an adequate defense, that one might be excused for thinking that there is an effort to overwhelm the defenders of lists. As I assume GF, I urge the noms to not encourage such a mistaken impression, and to proceed in a more reasonable way, as I am sure they want a good discussion on each one of them. (I am about to raise the question on the WP:AfD talk page) Things are tightly associated by being produced at the same time -- or by the same author, or producer, or on the same subject, or using the same cultural references. These are all about he same general cultural reference, a specific period in american life. The films are in general set there not as an indiscriminate or trivial choice by the director, they are set there because of presumed public interest in the period, or interest by those in the same generation as the characters portrayed, or as comments about the period. All of these are reasonable, non-indiscriminate associations. the list should be expanded somewhat with available information, such as the particular year or years when relevant. DGG (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all uses above. What about films spanning multiple decades? James Luftan 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per routine practice with everything else, we either include in the predominant one or it more than one place--or--if there are many--we might need additional articles. DGG (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that the precedent about whether 1930s nostalgia films existed as a genre is sufficient to delete a list of films set in the 19X0's; it seems to require an expansion of the precedent to more than it stands for, but this isn't a law courts so precedents are worth what you want them to be. Moving to the matter at hand, other than the temporal setting these have little in common - 1968 was a heck of a lot different than 1961 for starters; presumably many films made in the 1960's and set in the (then) "present" and should be includable, and even films made pre-1960's that were futuristic could qualify. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible that yet additional articles would be justified, but I think this could be dealt with by subarticles.DGG (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. Would this work as a category? James Luftan 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so Corpx 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bryan Seecrets 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I opposed the deletion of List of films set in the 1930s as a Strong Keep. What I see here is that people have a problem with the concept of listing films as being set in a distinct era; and that no possible amount of editing would render it to be acceptable. Cpt. Morgan is right, this has been list deletion week at Wikipedia. The 30s are gone, 60s, 70s and 80s are sharing the same guillotine. I don't think that deletion is the answer.
"JFK" is not a 60s film. On the other hand, "Austin Powers" would be. And the 1967 of "Austin Powers" is far different than the contemporary 1967 of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner". I see no problem in grouping together films that have, in common, their setting in a particular era and the accompanying costuming, props, dialogue, etc. However, students of film generally do not waste their time on the Internet (not when there are so many great films to watch), so we rarely hear from them. Wikipedia's film articles are, for the most part, written and edited by people who have little appreciation for the cinema. Mandsford 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly intelligible criterion and one quite useful, for instance, in researching how the 1960s are presented in film. However it could be better organized and more complete; those are not, however, deletable offenses. RandomCritic 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or convert into a category. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus and WP:SNOW RMHED 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 United States network television schedule[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. The actual factual accuracy of this article is debatable as long as the WGA strike lasts. Will ^(talk) 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since the 1950's, I vote for it to stay. --Yankeesrj12 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Bogus. It has already beaten deletion once. This is my favorite article. Without this article I would be on wikipedia a heck of a lot less. EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP User:Ppoi307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.163.39 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If this is deleted every other year should then be deleted, and as to the factual accuracy being debatable, the WGA strike only changes the season, the schedule will exist in some form or other as long as the networks continue to broadcast. Moheroy 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know how long the WGA strike will last, who cares. It's the most up to date schedule possible, once again VERY STRONG KEEP!, and your also from England in which I don't know why you care about the schedule. --Yankeesrj12 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As long as the WGA strike is going on, we'll be updating it constantly if it changes (and we have). Just because a strike is gumming up the usual works of updating an article doesn't mean it should be deleted. We adapt, we'll source, and we'll follow the proper protocols to keep it accurate. Nate 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the same reasons that older similar articles were kept recently. This isn't a TV guide. Otto4711 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the title "...television schedule" and a table of times and dates of when shows air, it really fooled me. Will ^(talk) 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This page is one page of 60 years of television history that shows how networks competed with each other with their scheduling choices. The WGA strike has little to do with this article because it is alway updated to reflect the important changes. Keep it around, AGAIN. --Mtjaws 19:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasons everyone else has said. I mean, damn.--Josh 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every bit of information is citable and verifiable, unlike many other articles. The previous schedules have been enormously helpful in researching American Culture, or writing period pieces. MMetro 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Why this particular article and not the SIXTY others? American TV seasons are inherent notable, and the current one has additional notability because of the strike. 23skidoo 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto. What's wrong with the page? (Wikirocks2 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be in a dynamic, expansive encyclopedia. Britannica in book form could never do what wikipedia does, and this is a prime example of that. Oops, guess we better delete all the news and current event pages/articles as well, seeing how an 'encyclopedia' isn't a newspaper. :/ Oldsoul 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONLY because of the notability of the WGA strike's effects on television this season Doc Strange 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because, like most of the other people have said, it's just one of 60 articles containing television history. LoveLaced 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you might want to look at WP:NOT#DIR, which pretty much (in actual fact, it does) says "Wikipedia is not an EPG". The reason the other sixty haven't been nominated is because AfD would be massively clogged if they were all nominated at once. Will ^(talk) 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been around since May and now all of a sudden you want to delete it? --Yankeesrj12 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age isn't an indicator of quality. Will ^(talk) 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is useful not just as a program guide, the schedule is not all that useful as a program guide because variation week to week is too great to rely on it. The schedule is of interest because it shows the state of programming during an individual season. For example, it shows how different types of shows and themes change from year to year, it also shows the demographic preferences of the networks, and by extension of the whole entertainment industry. personally I feel this is far more encyclopedic than having episode articles, and these are a well entrenched aspect of Wikipedia.Moheroy 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probaly the most useful article on wikipedia, it is really reliable, and has up to the minute updates. As soon as it's seen on a website it's added with a source. Once again VERY VERY VERY STRONG KEEP!--Yankeesrj12 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is very encylopedic, if this was deleted then all the other seasons would have to be deleted. Rweba 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above this article is very encyclopedic and all the others would have to be deleted. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame)[edit]

Unreleased indie game with no assertion of notability ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ballery. This is a game by an indie publisher with no fixed release date, which may (or may not) come out. --Haemo 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources (such as reputed gaming sites like IGN) could be found in the internet regarding this future game. Hence it violates WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 08:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the questionable nature of the game itself, it is pretty much impossible to have any content that isn't copy-pasted from the preview page on said game's website. Gundato 01:48, 29 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. Raul654 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar (cat)[edit]

Doesn't anyone know the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia any more? Sure its interesting, but it will be forgotten by everyone but us in 2 weeks. We have and article on Canine cancer detection but no articles on the individual dogs who have been reported to do this, and for good reason. Same reasoning applies here. Thatcher131 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. (OPPOSE) Considering that Oscar is featured, not in any run of the mill news story, but the New England Journal of Medicine (the most prominent refereed publication in the medical community), given the numerous submissions from which the Journal could select articles for publication, that should be enough to let Oscar keep his little space on Wikipedia.
Agreed, strong keep. If the New England Journal of Medicine deems it medically noteworthy, there will likely be enough present and future public interest to merit an article on him. special note: cats are not psychic. yalbik 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, if we really want to settle the issue, simply print out the Wikipedia article and see if he curls up around it and sleeps like he does with the Steere House patients. If he does, it would be a sign of its impending death and we should delete it then. Quidam65 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cute kitty. One could make a passing mention in Canine cancer detection as a related/similar case, but no need to have an article about it. WP:NOT#NEWS and all that. Maybe put it up on Wikinews. Maybe. And sorry, Quidam, AfD's are decided on consensus, not sleeping habits of felines. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the average person can tell the difference between humor and seriousness; I'm sorry that the above commenter cannot. And BTW Oscar's story is on Wikinews and has been most of the day; one might want to check things out before making such suggestions. Quidam65 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canine cancer detection or some other related Animal ESP article. The point I would say is, will anyone remember the kitty after his grim reaper status now?--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. WP:BLP1E could be considered to apply as well. Resolute 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is recentism. WP:BLP1E is an excellent shortcut to know. I should have mentioned that in the murder victim afds yesterday. Saikokira 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (OPPOSE) If well agree that wikipedia should be the most complete encyclopedia ever, this there should be nothing wrong with noting a well known cat. I am guessing that most people that are here and are going to be here onwards got here by searching for it. It is somewhat disappointing when we find wiki to not have a specific page. If the cat can be featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, then it should surely also be featured on Wiki. Abhishekbh 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Oppose) Stories on several noted News stations and featured in a medical magazine. (Ghostexorcist 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep (Oppose) Article is not merely the 'cute story of the day', because it is based on an article in a refereed medical journal (New England Journal of Medicine). Should eventually be merged with Canine cancer detection into a braoder article (perhaps on animal smell and human health) once the science is better understood. --Dr.enh 05:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would we merge an article on a cat to an article on dogs? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Oppose) Many people will be searching for information on this cat, perhaps for years to come. Has been featured on almost every global news source on the internet. Xioyux 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Oscar story i featured in one of the most prominent medical journals in the world. --Camptown 08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but cleanup) This wonder cat, mentioned by BBC and CBS is definitely notable. Of course, the article should focus on what the cat can do, rather than its history. Cleanup is needed.--Kylohk 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The New England Journal of Medicine is certainly a reliable source and its write up of most topics is anything but trivial. Considering the media coverage of Oscar I say the cat is definitely notable enough for inclusion. I seriously doubt half the Pokemon characters on Wikipedia meet notability as well as this cat does, no offense to Pokemon. IvoShandor 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yup, there's a lot of crap around here, so what? --Xorkl000 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd thought I'd shared this with you. This cat has even had a half-page report on Ming Pao, Hong Kong's daily newspaper. (It's on the international section, page A22).--Kylohk 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General reply to the keepers. I don't say he is not newsworthy, I say this is a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia entry. Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. It is an interesting subject, and an article on mysterious powers of cats (or some better title) would be a good thing to have, and to note Oscar as one example, but Oscar himself is not an encyclopedic subject. It's like having an article on Child abduction (an encyclopedic topic) but also having articles on only certain individual victims who happen to chosen by the news media. The first makes us an encyclopedia, the second makes us a newspaper archive. Before it was deleted, Shawn Horbeck was over 1000 words, and Michael J. Devlin is 1200 words, but Child abduction is currently only 900 words. That's a problem, and it shows that in general, many editors find it easier to write a summary of some newspaper articles than to write a general article about an encyclopedic topic (that may cite individual cases as examples). There have been other stories of cats with mysterious abilities. A good encyclopedist would research the topic and write a general article covering the whole topic, that would be timeless and interesting long after Oscar is forgotten. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Thatcher131 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, the article shall be deleted because Oscar is a "victim" of publicity? So, the article shall be deleted because other articles (you may consider similar) have been deleted in the past? So just because (you predict that) Oscar may be "forgotten" in future, the article shall be deleted (before he is forgotten)? Seriously, don't you think it's time to drop the request? --Bondkaka 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say he was a victim of anything? Newspaper stories do not automatically equate to encyclopedia articles. Did you actually read my comments, such as "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain." There is no encyclopedic scope to the story of one cat. Thatcher131 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat "it's like having"... but Oscar himself is not an encyclopedic subject. It's like having an article on Child abduction (an encyclopedic topic) but also having articles on only certain individual victims who happen to chosen by the news media. --Bondkaka 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. I object to the fact that Child abduction is shorter and less detailed than articles about individual crime victims because I think Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not a newspaper archive. Child abduction is a serious and complicated topic and deserves a serious and deep article, but what we get instead is barely more than a stub, while individual abductions get in depth coverage, in my opinion, because most editors are lazy, or have no idea what the difference between an encyclopedia and newspaper article should be. Or to take it out of the realm of current events altogether, imagine if IC 10 was a longer and more detailed article than Galaxy. In this case, there have been many reports of cats with mysterious powers of prediction, medical and non-medical, that could form the basis of a good encyclopedia article, if somone would do the research. One particular example does not make for an encyclopedia article. That cats can detect diseases, or death, or predict earthquakes, is interesting. That one particular cat can do this is a newspaper article but not an encyclopedia article. Thatcher131 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all arguments of this form is to write a better article on the major topic, whether it be animals and human disease or child abduction. An ideal encyclopedia would contain a balance of short single topic articles, and longer thoughtful essays. In time, consensus might form to merge some of the short articles into the longer one, or information from them might inform the details of the longer article. If the short articles are deleted, then there's no basis for this method of improvement of the longer ones. Espresso Addict 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - keeping this would be recentism, no way this passes the 10 year test --Xorkl000 12:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sources article, based on an essay in a most prestigious sceintific journal. It's sad to see how the argument of "recentism" yet again is used by people who are short of arguents. --Bondkaka 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not sad at all, i continue to find the 10 year test to be a very compelling argument --Xorkl000 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oscar's the subject of multiple, independent credible sources. An article on the cat doesn't preclude writing a general article on cats with claimed abilities, or animals supposedly sensing things we cannot or whatever. Famous animals, and this is now a famous animal, are as encyclopedic as anything else. Nick mallory 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - featured in nurmous newspapers across the world, reported on televishion, the web [45], and The New England Journal of Medicine. Thats notable enough, isn't it? Think outside the box 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's notable enough for NEJM to write an article on him, then he's notable enough for us. I know it's not a good argument but there are already plenty of animal articles with far less reliable coverage. Espresso Addict 13:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: If this doesn't pass the ten-year test, I'm sure that there are 300000 articles for you guys to whine about (Sorry if I offend anyone). This article is worth keeping because it has many sources (CBC, Daily Mail, etc.), and is a subject of interest that, with time, will become encyclopedic. 142.179.121.11 13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that other rubbish exists around here is not a useful argument to keep. This is at best a small section in an article about alternative methods of cancer detection (such as Canine cancer detection). --Xorkl000 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to many substantial sources. Propaniac 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep did get several seperate mentions in the news, so sounds notable (sources independent of the subject) Will ^(talk) 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And keep that cat away from me. The WP:BLP1E argument is rather undermined by the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine isn't a newspaper. Ergo, it more than meets our notability criteria. Having said that, as I watched this story on BBC News last night I was rather annoyed to hear it get credited as some kind of precognitive feline grim reaper, when the interviewee at the care home explicitly said it was just responding to human cues. --DeLarge 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per all of the uses above. James Luftan 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, although this may be a case of recentism. It is well sourced but I ought to point out that the vast majority of the news outlets carrying this story are carrying what is largely a reprint of the same material. I would prefer some more substative coverage on the topic, however, and perhaps it merits a revisit a little ways down the road to see if anything useful has been said about Oscar or if he's faded away into obscurity. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced, and not to be confused with a certain Wikipedia administrator, I trust. --Oscarthecat 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its certainly become notworthy given the amount of attention this cat has received in a variety of news sources spanning the internet, print news, TV, and medical publications. Alyeska 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solely because Twiggy the Water-Skiing Squirrel has an article. Doc Strange 18:17, 27 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, nominator trying to make a point. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dirkhising[edit]

non notable as made clear in the first patragraph, and as a murder victim how does this help make a better encyclopedia?, SqueakBox 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep yay! I'm the first vote for this! Nominator seems to have been thwarted from editing efforts so has resorted to AfD process. Subject of article is certainly notable and the murder/investigation got national attention in mainstream media. Isn't that enough? Benjiboi 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Speedy? And you are the second person with a vote not the first. The opening says it has received minimal press coverage. This person wasnt notable otherwise and was murdered through no fault of their own and this article is distasteful. But either way its no speedy, SqueakBox
Speedy keep Nominator trying to WP:POINT. Fighting for Justice 03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop attacking me for the hundredth time and you persist in spite of having been warned twice about it. You are completely wrong about my motives. It would be nice to have a reason wwhy the article should be kept instead of spouting venom which doesnt address the issyue at hand, SqueakBox 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator is obviously making WP:POINT per above users. No solid rationale given for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not attacking you Squeakbox. All people have to do is follow your edits, read your comments and edit summary and they will know you are trying to WP:POINT.

CommentThat is simply not the case, as the warnings re your behaviour towards me make clear. I am enforcing policy and while I understand you dont like that I would suggest you re-read your user page and start living up to those fine words, SqueakBox 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure you are. A policy you invented. Fighting for Justice 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check my contribs, I havent invented any policies. It was WAS who invented BLP and thank God he did, SqueakBox 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jesse Dirkhising is not alive anymore. Fighting for Justice

Comment While it is possible the concerns about this editor may be valid (or they may be invalid), I don't feel this AFD is the proper forum to address them. Perhaps it might be better to reserve comments to the subject of this article and take up that discussion elsewhere? Such as WP:RFC/U? FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if FfJ wants we could go straight to arbcom as I have had my full of this editor, but any user comment will inevitably involve his behaviourm primarily, SqueakBox 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who are out of the loop, the nom is apparently a most valiant white knight crusading for the Dirkhising family's honor, protecting them and others from the terrible shame of Jesse's rape, or rape in general. View this diff, or this thread on AN:I. Unfortunately, our gallant hero is up for a 3RR violation. Speedy Keep, and keep in mind that this dispute should be resolved elsewhere. --Action Jackson IV 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep probable WP:POINT violation. SqueakBox has been warring over articles related to rape victims for some time now. Resolute 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for an incident like this, historic notability should be considered per WP:NOT#NEWS - I think the homophobia charges sustain this. Corpx 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In and of itself the murder would have been less than notable and this could be just chalked up to "yet another senseless crime" but the controversy it sparked pushes this into the realm of a notable case. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:39, 27 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 towards a referenced, non dictionary-definition article being created subsequently. Neil ╦ 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb your dog[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article otherwise not notable. Captain panda 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unencyclopedic in substance. Moreover, the subject is not notable as well. It is also impossible to find reliable sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under the idiom subsection of Wikipedia is not a dictionary CitiCat^♫ 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep "Curb your dog" has been reasonably discussed by at least 2 language analysis websites: [46] and [47], giving it a certain degree of notability. However, the article doesn't have much context, and would need to be cleaned up.--Kylohk 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are actually quite a few sources at Google Books. And apparently even the misunderstanding is sourceable with a citation to H. L. Mencken, a notable writer on language. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 27 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. Arguments for keeping are not very compelling or convincing. Neil ╦ 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wehrle[edit]

nn per WP:N. Never played in major leagues. Minor leagues are full of players with multiple college awards; can't have a WP article for everyone. Truest blue 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. --Truest blue 06:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Look forward to seeing his article created if he should make the majors though. Resolute 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to his achievements at the college level, plus notability Corpx 05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because i'm only making pages for former Nebraska baseball players. There is no other "Ryan Wehrle" in the world for the page to be made for. Thundrplaya 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What? --Truest blue 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda
    - Yes it is. It may not be a good reason though. Thundrplaya 9:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      - No, it isn't. WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:LOCALFAME and WP:INTERESTING aren't good reasons. All apply here.Ravenmasterq 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{wat's sup} 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the number of Google news page hits and his awards and achievements while playing for a highly-ranked Nebraska team. --Sanfranman59 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a non-notable minor league player per WP:BASEBALL and WP:BIO guidelines. The Google news hits are mainly trivial mentions like Wehrle got two hits today, most people who play in college baseball likely gets the same number of hits there. Also the baseball college awards, most people when they get drafted gets them, and I don't think it shows any merit, as he got drafted very low in the MLB Draft (20th round, a couple of hundred of players ahead of him). The odds for him making it to the big time is very low, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys are really picky. What about the other minor leaguers. Go to the category "Minor league baseball players"...there is a good list of players that havnt been deleted. Besides this is the only way i can follow his career and thats the only reason i made it.Thundrplaya 9:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is being picky. If all Nebraska players get a WP article then it's only fair that every minor leaguer should get a WP article. If every minor leaguer gets a WP article then I should get a WP article because I took out the garbage today and the garbage was really heavy. Get my point? --Truest blue 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW a lot of the players in the minor league baseball players category have recently been deleted for the reasons said here. Those that remain are either 1) notable for non-baseball reasons 2) first round picks and have had heavy coverage by baseball publications 3) articles that I have not nominated yet.-Truest blue 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of notability. There are numerous athletes in baseball and other sports with more Google hits whose wikipedia pages were deleted. Dmirkin 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough accomplishments at the college level to warrant notability. Chengwes 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's in the GCL, so if he continues to do well, he'll merit a page when he makes the bigs.Ravenmasterq 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, I realize there were delete votes, but they were for a prior revision, and the article has been thoroughly rewritten since. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margolis Brown Adaptors Company[edit]

Non-notable corporation, reads as promotion. Seems to have been speedied before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact it was speedied three times, as (in order) G11, G12 and A7. ~~I recommend salting.~~ Downgrade to weak-delete, some notability cracking through. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying not to sound promotional with this stuff....i want to build a clear page that will illucidate the lineage left behind by the great theatre master etienne decroux.......obviously all of the material that i have gathered that is relevant to put on the page is from the typical laundry list of accomplishments that artists give to news paper reporters....it wouldn't do to try to describe a theatre show that is reviewed in those articles, or the training summary in the Allworth Press book...so i thought it best to use "general information" about the Adaptors Co. Zena0727 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt If it were only recreated twice /w the creations being spread out I would'nt say so, But THREE TIMES!?! on the SAME DAY?!?! Especially since wikipedia is not an advertising service. James Luftan 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.....i've realized that i should have used the sandbox to see how this stuff would look as a wiki page......not actually submitting it...yes, three times, to see how it would look and , "oh gee.....it got deleted again!???! what the heck??? well, i guess i'll change some stuff around and try it again." i'm trying to get it right this time....... Zena0727 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone perhaps compare/contrast this article with another of similar content...say, this one: Furious Theatre Company...to help illustrate its failings? BTW, there's more than one person working on perfecting this page, which should help explain the frequency of updates. Zena0727 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, erik, thanks for the reference to Furious Theatre....thats a good point. Zena0727 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt thoroughly. Advertising, and meets at least two of the three speedy criteria it's been deleted under. Take your pick. By the way, could one person use the account so we don't get a split-personality thing going on? Thanks. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising is defined by Wiki as: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."- i imagine that there is "innapropriate content" on this page that qualifies it for deletion....could someone please cite an example for me in my article so that i can make some choices about editing? Zena0727 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i've made some edits in an effort to make the article look less like an advertisement. this included removing the external link to the margolis brown company website as well as removing information related to the touring history of their ensemble......any feedback would be much appreciated!! Zena0727 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:RS. Add some sources to verify it and I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've cited three newspaper articles and a book published by Allworth press as sources...is this sufficient??

That's a little better, but are those sources directly about Margolis Brown Company or do they just mention it briefly? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three newspaper articles are DIRECTLY about Margolis Brown Co.... they are reviews of their theatrical productions that include interviews with the artists, chronology of their training and past artistic experience as well as mention of their conceptual approach to creation. The "Movement for Actor's" Book is an academic text....Kari Margolis authored the chapter on "Schools of Thought" in physical theatre...specifically dealing with the theatre ensemble's training methods. a good read. your thoughts? Zena0727 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith in you that these sources truly are valid, but I'll wait and see what others think. I can't withdraw since others have voted delete, however, and I'm still not fully convinced of the notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, i will work to give notability by putting this article into context with others of a similar nature through citations, etc. is there a specific period of time that this debate will continue for before a decision for deletion/validity is made? Zena0727 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days is the default length. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i'll plan on using that time to get something accomplished that would help. i'll search out some other verifiable sources...adding citations to articles of a similar nature....etc. do you have any suggestions? i realize the article looks pretty rough and bare naked now....but i suppose that information that is verifiable and as you say "notable" is better than content that looks promotional or "random." i am going to go to bed now- thanks for your input and i look forward to any other suggestions you may have. Zena0727 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you have anything else please move it to my talk page so this discussion doesn't get clogged up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewrite. Internationally-touring performance art group really says it all. Press-releasy article still asserts notability so an A7 deletion was out of bounds. (G11 is standard for PR writing that appears to come from someplace else, though.) Sourceable through reviews in the MSP City Paper, Philly Inquirer, Washington Post (a full profile and history), and more (mainly Twin Cities during the time they were based there). Seems to be reasonably notable as an arts group, too bad they don't know how to write a Wikipedia article that doesn't get speedied. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is looking much better now. It still needs a lot of work, but by now I'm pretty much convinced that the Adaptors Company is notable. I'm closing this as a withdrawn nomination -- yes, I realize other people voted delete, but those "delete" votes were for a prior version of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williams[edit]

nn per WP:N. Never made it to major leagues. Led non noteable college team in some statistic isn't enough. Truest blue 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons--Truest blue 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to your nomination, he IS in the major leagues. The article clearly states that he is the bullpen catcher for the Cleveland Indians. I believe a strong precedent has been established for inclusion of major league personnell including coaches. The bullpen catcher is a coach. If he wasn't, they would hire any high school or college kid to squat and hold a mitt. There is a reason they hire men with as much experience as Williams for such jobs.

Even if he wasn't notable for being a major league coach, he would still be notable as having been a minor league coach. The powers that be here have ruled that minor league PLAYERS are not notable, but there has never been such a ruling on minor league coaches.

Even assuming that minor league coaches were one day dropped from wikipedia, Mr. Williams would still be notable since the pitching staff he coached in 1991 led the Kinston Indians to a Carolina League championship and his closer, Mike Soper, established a Carolina League saves record that still stands to this day. Certainly this is above and beyond what the average minor league pitching coach has accomplished.Kinston eagle 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

1. Just because they can't just hire anyone off the street to be the bullpen catcher does not mean that the person that they hire deserves a WP article.

2. If minor league players are not noteable then, a fortiori, minor league coaches aren't noteable.

3. He is noteable because the closer on his team broke a record? That sounds like desperation.--Truest blue 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look at his OFFICIAL BIO clearly shows that the Indians consider him a coach. "Enters 13th full season on the Major League coaching staff..." Are we to delete all major league coaches?Kinston eagle 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment #2 seems rather backward. The players aren't notable so the people who are in command of them and instruct them aren't either? That's like saying that an enlisted man is unimportant so obviously his officers are even less important.Kinston eagle 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are going to be in the habit of nominating articles for deletion you may want to learn how to spell notable.Kinston eagle 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look. Every single major league team on wikipedia has bullpen coaches with linked bios included on their rosters. Are you proposing that all these men get deleted? Obviously, all those wikipedians felt that bullpen coaches were notable. Were they all wrong? Some like THIS have far less going for them than Mr. Williams. One wonders why you chose to single Mr. Williams out.Kinston eagle 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I noticed you are getting personal. I guess you feel that I insulted you. If that is the case, I apoligize.

2. The Indians considering him a coach, should not make him notable. As far as I know there is no article on Bullpen Catcher's, nor any bio on any bullpen catchers. If you do find a bio on a bullpen catcher, I guarentee he will be notable for other reasons.

3.I am not, nor did I ever, propose that all coaches are not notable. I am proposing that bullpen catchers are not noteable.

4. Your bring proof from "[e]very single major league team on wikipedia has bullpen coaches with linked bios included on their rosters." However, that is not true. Most teams do not have a link to their bullpen catcher. In fact, I think only the Reds and the Indians(article under discussion) have a link to their bullpen catchers. Most teams have links to other coaches, but not to their bullpen catchers.

5. Ask the average "die-hard" fan - "Who is the bullpen catcher on the team that you root for"? An overwhelming majority will not know.--Truest blue 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kinston Eagle. The Indians consider him a coach. That's good enough for me. Resolute 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I count 7 Major League teams that list their bullpen catchers with the coaching staff: Cleveland, Kansas City, the Angels, Colorado, the Dodgers, San Francisco and Cincinnati (the Royals' bullpen catcher is not currently included on their WP roster page). Others do not. Those that do obviously feel that these individuals fulfill a role on the team that warrants identifying them as coaches. Major League coaches are certainly notable enough to have WP bios. Therefore, these pages should stay. --Sanfranman59 06:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just re-read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and I fail to see how this person meets the guideline.--Fabrictramp 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific standard for notability of baseball people is found HERE. It clearly states that "Baseball executives, coaches, and managers are also notable." This person happens to be a major league coach, but, for future reference, the guidelines make no distinction on this point so articles on minor league coaches and managers should also be notable. I don't think there is any argument that Wiliams qualifies under that standard of notability as well.69.68.238.142 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to edit the sports section of Wikipedia:Notability (people) to let people know that baseball has a special case. Spreading notability guidelines all over WP isn't very user friendly. --Fabrictramp 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above uses. ~~Just being in the coaching staff (only 7 Majors teams?) does not garner you a Wikipedia article~~. Your other arguments completely fail to convince me that he is notable. James Luftan 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the Guidelines, just being in the coaching staff of a major league team does garner you a Wikipedia article. As noted above "(b)aseball executives, coaches, and managers are also notable." Unless that policy is changed at some point, this article meets that level of notability.69.68.238.142 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, but he is not a coach, he is a bullpen catcher. James Luftan 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is listed on the official Indians site as a coach. The point I was trying to make earlier is that although most teams do not identify their bullpen catchers as coaches, ~~seven~~ eight teams do. (The White Sox also list their BP catcher as a coach. I missed them when I did my count last night.) If the team considers him to be a coach, it seems to me that we should also. If we don't, then we open the can of worms as to which coaches are worthy of an article and which are not. --Sanfranman59 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP Baseball notability guidelines. IMHO, as long as a major-league team has listed him as a coach at any time, he qualifies for Wikipedia. — Dale Arnett 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources call him a coach, making him notable. T Rex | talk 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, the Indians consider him a coach, which meets WP Baseball notability guidelines. Chengwes 06:29, 31 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 — Caknuck 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicodia[edit]

Non-notable wiki. No sources, none found via searching (no google hits). Delete. Wickethewok 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-strong delete, only GHits are for the Wikicodia site itself. One of the least notable wikis it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the super-strong - Generally, "How to contact us" sections = a majorly promotional article. No claims to notability, no independent sources, no context to begin with... this article violates so many deletion policies it can probably be speedied. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete spam for non-notable web site. -Steve Sanbeg 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a SourceForge clone with all the code in the Wiki instead of CVS or SVN? 132.205.44.5 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does this make it worthy for deletion? -- Jimmi Hugh 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google Hits, Completely unknown and written like an advert, even with contact information on page. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:21, 28 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Wilson (baseball)[edit]

nn per WP:N. Isn't even doing well in the minor leagues! Truest blue 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons--Truest blue 20:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASEBALL's criteria of appearance in at least 1 MLB game to be notable Corpx 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable career minor leaguer. --Sanfranman59 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when you make the bigs, kid. Blueboy 96 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blueboy96. Pharmboy 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thats a lot of wild pitches. T Rex | talk 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as, well, apparently my article doesn't stand a chance. Alex 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe if he sets a record for most batters plunked... Chengwes 06:31, 31 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 — Caknuck 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie plan[edit]

Minor pop-culture idea, making appearence in a few shows/films. No sources, no assertion of significance. Mainly original research. Drat (Talk) 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the worst cases of OR I think I've ever seen. Someguy1221 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR, the fact that we will never get any reliable sources and it almost borders on Ideas I made up during a schoolday. Pedro | Chat 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see getting good sources on this (any Zombologics here? anyone?). Rather OR. Would make an interesting site, but that doesn't make it encyclopedia material. Pharmboy 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have a zombie plan, but unless people start writing books about them or congress starts hearings about Zombie possibilities, I doubt it belongs on Wiki.Ravenmasterq 03:22, 30 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. Neil ╦ 09:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social media[edit]

Appears to be a marketing buzzword of limited currency. Current sources are not reliable and appear to be marketing fluff. Violates WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS. Pdelongchamp 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

'Social Media' appears to be a marketing buzzword of limited currency. WP:NEO provides: 'To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.' The current references of this article contain nothing that qualifies as a reliable source (WP:RS), and in fact they all appear to be marketing fluff. Does anyone else agree that this article should be nominated for deletion? EdJohnston 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The term seems to be getting widespread outside of marketing and investor types, and is not much different than "Web 2.0" and other similar fuzzy terms. The danger is that it's defined so broadly that it can cover just about anything on the web. I'm not attached to the article in its current state, and would be happy to see a more critical discussion — in the meantime, I've added a link to Robert Scoble's discussion of the term. David 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See my comment above at #'Social Media': A marketing buzzword and a neologism (WP:NEO). Social media seems to be a term used by marketers to promote certain kinds of advertising. It is not clear it has any neutral descriptive meaning for which there is general agreement. After all the time that has passed, this article still has no reliable sources. A line from Scoble and a web site created by Dion Hinchcliffe that claims the name 'Social Computing Magazine' is not enough to go on. Note this quote from policy: 'To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.' Can anyone explain why we should retain this article and allow new non-referenced material to be added to it? Isn't deletion a logical option? EdJohnston 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Comment mmm, what is this? I'm perplexed as to why such an article would be written by social computing magazine. Are they trying to give notability to this term by talking about and expanding on it? Corpx 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term certainly goes beyond "limited currency" -- see current Google News results (1000+), and Google News Archive (3000+). One can take the skeptical position that it's a buzzword with no universally-agreed definition but I think it's pretty clear that it's the intersection of social networking with user-generated content at base, that is, media that is created by or presented by peers (rather than marketers), and recommendation networks that replace search engines. Of course people want to make money off of this but it's a valid business term that describes an emerging sector and as such is somewhat in flux and has many instances of co-optation. I don't see why we can't get a decent definition, though. Irony: Wikipedia is social media, but hasn't a clue what social media is. --Dhartung | Talk 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also further research for rewriters: BusinessWeek (100+ uses), CNET, CNN, SFGate, and of course academic imprimatur through the Center for Social Media at American University in Washington. --Dhartung | Talk 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no doubt that buzzwords like this can achieve a great deal of published circulation. That still doesn't mean that, in Gertrude Stein's words, there's any there there. This one seems about as vacuous as they come: about the only thing that World of Warcraft, Wikipedia, and YouTube share is that they are online, and people interact with them.
This does suggest ways to improve Wikipedia. I think we should have a PvP arena. And, an epic flying mount. There should be some kind of reward for grinding rep here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Bearian 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Pdelongchamp was so astute as to reproduce my comments from Talk:Social media and include them as part of the argument for deletion, I need to weigh in now, and say that I do agree with those comments! Please be sympathetic to those of us who are keeping this article on their watchlists, and having to rush in each time a new and even more zany contribution to this article occurs. I trust that the other participants in this AfD have heard of spam magnets? Since the whole thing is a marketing buzzword, there is no substantive content that could be added. If you disagree, please give us a clue where we can find the true references that would explain and justify Social media as a field of study. Even better, give us a clue how you would rewrite the article, so it was defensible. Be aware that if WP:V were enforced, almost the entire article would disappear, because there are no reliable sources. EdJohnston 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much of the talk about social media is taking place in the marketing and communications spheres because those groups are immediately impacted by changes that are occurring as a result of social media trends. While some are looking at social media as a new venue for advertising, that is a very limited view of the field. Much of the current discussion focuses on how social media affect public relations, customer service and other roles, because the new environment either challenges old ways or enables interesting new ways. The definition is unsettled, with an "I know it when I see it" quality, but most knowledgeable observers would likely agree on the basic list of examples. The Center for Social Media at American University, however, is not relevant to this topic. - N Gilliatt 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break for convenience[edit]

Sources: See the academic/research conference International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media and the papers presented at the first conference last year (posted to the conference blog but also published in the proceedings). The New Influencers: A Marketer's Guide to the New Social Media (Paul Gillin, Quill Driver Books, 2007). A Google Scholar search on "social media" turns up a few relevant papers (and a lot of noise, for some reason). "A Contact Recommender System for a Mediated Social Media" (Vignollet, Marty, Plu, and Franco, ICEIS 2004: Software Agents and Internet Computing); "A Framework for Modeling Influence, Opinions and Structure in Social Media" (Akshay Java, Univ of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2007). - N Gilliatt 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concrete suggestions of how to source the article. Two questions: (1) Can you find a definition of social media in the conference program? (2) Do you think there is anything in common among the definitions of social media used by the different presenters? EdJohnston 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Not in the ICWSM program, which takes social media as a given as it goes a step farther by focusing on social media analysis (a topic for another day). I did, however, find a bit of definition in the description of a spring 2008 symposium of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Social Information Processing (also here). I also see that Akshay Java's "Framework" poster was presented at AAAI-2007 about a week ago.
(2) ICWSM presenters would have skipped over defining social media, since an understanding of its meaning is implicit in their topics. I do think that the definition is stabilizing, but I don't know that any one attempt to define it has reached consensus. The basic outline is pretty well accepted (and the AAAI symposium description captures the major elements). - N Gilliatt 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to N Gilliatt for the new info. It seems that we have marketers to thank for the term 'social media.' In fact, on his user page N Gilliatt identifies himself as a consultant who follows social media services. The problem I still have is that the marketers have chosen to use this term so vaguely that it's hard to see how to build a reasonable article. For instance the first link he provides above gives this definition:

The label ’social media' has been attached to a quickly growing number of Web sites, such as blogs, wikis, Flickr, and Del.icio.us, whose content is primarily user-driven.

As one of the characters states in Through the Looking Glass, you can use words to mean anything you want. But we need to have an actionable definition to write an encyclopedia article, and the definitions from the above marketing-oriented sources are not usable, in my opinion. So I'm still voting Delete. EdJohnston 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by B per CSD G10 (attack page) (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir mitchell wilkinson[edit]

Hoax. No Google hits at all. Many typos within. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hoax. I did LMAO, however. The killing of his mother is mentioned in passing, and the end is tragic. the_undertow ^talk 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as complete junk. Exxolon 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, no basis in reality. --Bongwarrior 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Resolute 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resolute and TPH have tagged this article as speedy for patent nonsense. While I agree the article should go, it does not fall under nonsense. WP:PN specifically excludes 'implausible theories, or hoaxes.' the_undertow ^talk 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as avoids being speedy-deletable only via a technicality. Nihiltres^(t.l) 05:11, 27 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. Sourcing also seems loads better than when article was nominated. Neil ╦ 09:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours From Hell in Britain[edit]

Delete ~~This article seems to have been created without due attention to WP:COI by a single purpose editor directly related to the topic.~~ I also cannot see how the topic meets WP:NOTE. A single reference has been posted to halt speedy deletion (which is fair enough, obviously the matter merits full discussion), but somehow I doubt if a single, passing, reference in the Property pages of the Daily Telegraph, two years ago, constitutes true, encyclopaedic, notability? --User:Zeraeph 01:44, 27 July 2007

Comment This nom was malformed, I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing - Google news turns up nada Corpx 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional References have been added to the article page and there are more to follow over the next 24 hours. NFHiB 15:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the references are still just passing mentions of the site; WP:NOTE asks for 'significant coverage' which addresses the subject directly in detail, and I don't think any of these refs do that.MartinBrook ^talk 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-known support group that is regularly mentioned in UK media (e.g. [48]), and which is frequently listed by official government sources as the best way of getting advice on this kind of issue (e.g. [49]]). I fail to see the relevance of the age of the source, or a google news search (which would, I believe, only find articles from the last month or two). JulesH 11:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced article. Addhoc 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Addhoc (Mind meal 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete COI, only mentioned in passing Will ^(talk) 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete coverage is mostly just passing mentions on BBC and in newspaper articles. MartinBrook ^talk 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC
Comment - I am continuing to add more appropriate referencing to the article to demonstrate that this organisation is worthy of a continued reference on WikiPedia and more references will be added as they are found online (where an online and verifiable link currently exists). NFHiB 15:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have struck my concerns about conflict of interest, it seems to me that they do not apply here. I have seen many people create accounts to create articles about their own topics, but I have never seen another editor in such a case take a step back, LOOK at the policies and guidelines suggested to him and make the effort to adapt to Wikipedia impartially and with WP:NPOV. --Zeraeph 19:31, 30 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. —Kurykh 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Resident Evil characters[edit]

Basically, every Resident Evil game has its own character page now and most of the more notable characters has been merged to their own lists. Delete or merge with List of Resident Evil characters. Jonny2x4 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to List of Resident Evil characters. No need for AFD for the best solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per above. James Luftan 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)See Changed vote[reply]
Speedy Redirect Parjay 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Resident Evil characters and others. I don't think all the information of this article should be lost. --Alexlayer 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information to List of Resident Evil characters as mentioned above. Useight 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.James Luftan 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge Jessica Trevor, John, both Ashfords and The Merchant into the List of Resident Evil characters. It's reached the point of silliness when the "itchy... tasty" journal writer is listed as a character. Likewise, 'Mike' is a name who flies a chopper, Leon's escort are two lumps of meat with fewer lines than the ganandos. QuagmireDog 10:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a few of these were a little silly; like the mayor's daughter, whose entire role is as a corpse in one scene. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge, losing the minor-minor characters. Reinis^talk 10:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Alexlayer. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Merchant already has a section in Characters in Resident Evil 4, all of three small sentences, so he can be merged there. George Trevor (another minor character) has his own article, as does Lisa Trevor who has a much more prominent role - Jessica Trevor could be merged into either (preferably both parents could be merged into their daughter's article). Sir Edward Ashford is part of Umbrella Corps' history, so the Umbrella Corporation article seems a more relevant place for any details on him to be placed. Alexander Ashford is a boss from Code Veronica, he's already listed here so again there's somewhere to merge the more detailed information. All the lists, links and redirects seem to be in something of a muddle, hopefully this info can be merged and then some sorting can be done o_o QuagmireDog 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and since John is part of Ada Wong's story, why not merge him there? QuagmireDog 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge removing Minor Characters Harlowraman 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above. The information listed here is certainly a relevant part of the game. Chengwes 07:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only characters here that is notable enough here is probably Alexander Ashford, who is more or less featured in his monstruous form as Nosferatu in the List of Resident Evil creatures. Edward, John, Jessica and Warren are just part of the backstory related to on-screen characters. The keeper, Leon's police escort and the mayor's daughter aren't even that notable as minor characters (on-screen or not). Mike is just a helicopter with a name. Jonny2x4 23:16, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles owned by Jay Leno[edit]

This list qualifies as Listcruft Listcruft, and as such is not suitable for an encyclopedia Kanamekun 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, list of trivial things. Not needed at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article was nominated for deletion earlier by User:Kanamekun who didn't add this afd to the log, so I've done it now. While I'm here, I'll say delete because even though the collection itself might be notable, a list of every single car and year of manufacture is indiscriminate information. The link to http://www.jaylenosgarage.com in his article is OK. Saikokira 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong and speedy delete per Kanamekun. Jonny2x4 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no importance here although some of these may be "notable" for being reported in the press. It's sufficient to talk about his collection and highlight some of the more notable vehicles in the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Jay is notable, his car collection is not. This list is most definately listcruff. Besides, whos to say en route to this, people won't start the "List of so and so's guitar collection" article. James Luftan 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very definition of trivial listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps if it is one of the largest individual car collections in the world it could be deemed notable, otherwise it is trivia. Useight 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Oyster guitarist 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, it is an interesting fact that Jay Leno collects cars. It is not interesting, and indeed trivia, to have a list of all the cars he's collected. --Haemo 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Obviougly trivial and non-notable. Perhaps it could be elaborated on the Jay Leno article, slightly, however listing all of his owned vehicles anywhere on wikipedia is pointless and trivial. P.S. I'm very jealous. :) Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete agreed. Non-notable. Doc Strange 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/weak delete Merge if there's anything not covered in Jay Leno, but otherwise delete. Jay Leno's auto collecting is certainly a reasonable part of his biography to include, and is certainly something very notable (It has been subject of several magazine articles and other documentaries: [50][51]. Still, I guess a full list is objectionable to people, so perhaps an external link to a site with this information would be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 27 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 (per consensus and precedent) — Caknuck 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1982-83 United States network television schedule[edit]

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. This is part of a vast directory of old TV schedules, and Wikipedia is not a repository for random directories of things.

To head off "What about [one of the many other directories in this collection]?" at the pass, this is the begining of removing all of these inappropriate directories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about the other 61 related pages, 1946-47 through 2007-08? I'd say delete, but it'd be pointless to delete this one without nuking the others as well. —Travis ^talk 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this were deleted for problems that are systemic, I'd nominate the others too, sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past discussion on this subject. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) probably a couple of others. This is a representation of the nationwide broadcast schedules, in a historical format. It's really not a tv guide. A tv guide tells you what's on week to week. This merely recounts the programming schedule, something which is the subject of numerous news reports like [52] or [53] or even [54].

This is the best way to represent the information, and you can think it a TV guide if you want. But it's really no different than listing the dates a battle occurs in a war. This is not random, it's very specific and has reasonably limited criteria, namely network television. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles are individually notable and are individual historical events, whereas televisions schedules change on a rough cycle and are routine events.

This is raw source material, and there's little to no possibility for this to be anything but a grid of routine data. There are other projects more suited to this,and it long hasn't been part of Wikipedia's goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television shows are individually notable as well(witness the many with articles), and I'd certainly say that the network, as well as the time of their airing is information that is valid to include on the article pages. Many episodes of television shows which also have articles (or lists of them) also include the original air date. (This information is also frequently included on things like the DVDs) Thus your argument there is unpersuasive. This is not raw source material, that would be the actual shows themselves. This is a representation of the published schedules and is no different than say, including election results. If you wish to have something besides the data, then you can more closely examine this page which provides examples of several of the things that could be included. It would also be possible to add further analysis such as is found in the articles I linked to. I'm sorry, but I find your objections to be unpersuasive. If you wish to suggest another project, go ahead, but I consider this completely encyclopedic. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we can easily mention in the articles of the shows when they aired and where. A directory of television schedules is raw source material duplicating content better placed elsewhere, and can easily be disposed of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. If I am interested in television shows that screened in 1982-83, then this article is an extremely good place to start. Just because an index covers stuff you're not interested in does not mean it should be deleted. Rebecca 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an organization of information that is also valid to place elsewhere. In a sense, it's like [List of United States Presidents by date of birth] which duplicates the information found on individual pages because the organizational value is higher than the duplication cost. Which is close to nil for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete the entire directory.James Luftan 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly useful index to the television shows of a particular era. We need more, not less of these - this is another example of some Wikipedians' strange tendency to try to destroy the indexes. Rebecca 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have a separate project for this kind of stuff? Wikisource, perhaps? This isn't really an encyclopedia entry. Moreover I find it improbable that the broadcast schedules of an entire nation were as predictable as shown over the entirety of a year. Which brings us to verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This is completely inappropriate for Wikisource, and moving it off Wikipedia would defeat the purpose of putting it here - which is to act as an index to all the television series screened in that particular year. Rebecca 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it improbable to believe that they are that predictable, but the fact is, that's how it's done. Yes, there are exceptions for things like the State of the Union or unexpected important events, or even sports rain-outs, but by and large, the schedules are not changed without good reason. (In fact, noting the changes during the year would be quite valid in expanding the coverage of these pages) This is because of the advertisers who want predictable audiences for their dollars. See studies like [55] or [56] FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per all keep uses above. Past listings of TV shows are no less encyclopedic than, say, a list of number-one country music songs from any given year. Many TV shows are notable, and this is a perectly acceptable method of detailing them (especially the airdates of specific notable episodes). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of WP is not an "electronic program guide". Why not expand this list to every time slot and every channel? I dont think WP should be the place for old program guides to go. I could copy yesterday's program guide from titantv.com and make a "Television schedule for July 25, 2006". This should be archived somewhere else, just not here Corpx 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument makes no sense. This article, as with the others in this series, is about a year. It makes for a good index, and no one is arguing that we should create pages for every day. This argument is like arguing to delete a city article because we could have articles about streets. Rebecca 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because every timeslot and channel would be excessive detail, as would individual days. To use an example, we list the actions of 96th United States Congress in only a limited fashion. It would be possible to list every single hearing and act of legislation, but such would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean zero coverage, it just means limiting the coverage to what is acceptable. In this case, it's the official schedules of the network television broadcasts. If you want to argue for including something else, feel free, but this AFD discussion isn't the proper place. FrozenPurpleCube

Keep Excellent navigational device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube and Ten Pound Hammer. Maxa megalon 2000 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is this not a tv guide? Punkmorten 10:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hadn't seen this series of articles before. They are excellent navigational tools. Deletion would be a step backwards for the encyclopedia. AndyJones 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a TV guide, in the sense that Wikipedia shouldn't be a TV guide, unless you're a time traveller. Television has a huge impact on our culture, especially network primetime, and these pages enhance our coverage of that by providing a chronological view of the history of TV shows. Pinball22 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. You want to delete this article for no reason or I have not given "The A-Team" its timeslot yet? United States network television schedules cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. As soon as thw #7 show in the 1982-83 season The-A-Team, is put on this schedule, the discussion will be over and the deletion message on that schedule will be removed. The A-Team was a midseadon replacement that season. Jim856796 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an "electronic program guide" unless someone plans to travel through time back to the year covered and watch TV. It documents a well known part of culture and society. Each TV program listed has multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, whether presented in the article at present or not. So does the prime time lineup of each of the networks, with discussions of the wisdom or foolishness of putting a particular program up against a particular other program. The subject of the article satisfies WP:N and WP:A. The arguments of TenPound Hammer and Mr Manticore are effective ones. Edison 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know I wasn't planning to travel back in time to do just that, hmmmmmm? What happened to assuming good faith? ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My earlier comment was influenced by the fact that I almost never watch network TV. Other editors have made some rather compelling arguments here. —Travis ^talk 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is little more than an out of date and now-useless TV Guide listing. Burntsauce 17:36, 31 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 Overall consensus for the article was keep. Acalamari 23:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell Overture (Mike Oldfield single)[edit]

Delete - prod removed with the addition of a source, but the source is not independent and therefore not reliable. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this song. The notability of the artist does not automatically confer notability on every song the artist records. Otto4711 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge to album. If it didn't "make much of an impact" on the charts, that would imply that it charted. Regardless, there's not much to be said about it, so I'd lean towards a merge to the album it's on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have redirected it to the album but the article doesn't mention what album it was on or if it was even on an album. I'm fine with a redirect to the album article if there is one. Otto4711 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Alternative arrangements of the William Tell Overture - It was not included on any albums, which is why I believed that it should have its own page. TubularWorld 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included a little bit of information about the music video, which used complex video techniques. TubularWorld 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included details of the worldwide track listings. TubularWorld 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems slightly notable. Needs to be expanded. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from the single release, the track has only been available on compliation albums, as it was not released with an album at the time. Seems notable as far as Mike Oldfield singles go and could do with some expansion. Mankind2k6 19:25, 29 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 — Caknuck 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFHV $100,000 Grand Prize[edit]

List. Delete per WP:NOT#INFO ~ Wikihermit 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.167.121 (talk • contribs).

Because? ~ Wikihermit 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia about the internal structure of a non-notable competition. --Dhartung | Talk 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any sources that attest to the notability of this prize? Corpx 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very trivial trivia. Resolute 04:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable comp. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to suggest this is a notable prize. WjBscribe 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I'm missing something, but article listed for deletion is a redirect to America's Funniest Home Videos. Why are we bothering to delete it?Horrorshowj 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if that's all it is. Nobody will ever look under "AFHV $100,000 Grand Prize" without looking somewhere else first. Mandsford 01:08, 30 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 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Cabe[edit]

Pure genealogical article, making minor claims and weakly sourced by genealogical data. PROD tag added with the reason "Article does not establish notability of the subject, and gets just 53 results on Google, most related to this article", with tag removed by the article creator without addressing its defects. Calton | Talk 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The party does have some basis in history, but I'm not seeing what makes him notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a short mention of him would be appropriate in the article for the folk song (which is at least arguably notable), but doesn't lend him notability directly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source # 1 merely says "possible". Bearian 16:17, 30 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. Non-admin closure. Bduke 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Ramsay (actor)[edit]

Most of the filmography seems real enough [57]' the rest appears to be nonsense or unsourced claims from a blocked editor. Article should be deleted until an actual sourced article can be produced. If the article is kept, the unsourced claims need to be oversighted out of the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor seems notable and I was able to follow all of the links given. The bit about "antinazi" activity was hard to follow in the original source, so I deleted that section. I attempted a general clean-up, for better or for worse. :) Moonriddengirl 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while not exactly "famous" in the US, he has done enough work to be notable and justify an article. More importantly, English wikipedia isn't USA only. Pharmboy 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn due to article cleanup. Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:33, 27 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 — Caknuck 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Zainab Binte Ali in Islam[edit]

This article is simply a collection of original research that could hardly be considered encyclopedic. In addition, it seems to be pushing a POV. Hemlock Martinis 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even explain who or what Zainab Binte Ali is, links to nothing, and provides no context, other than that it's related to the Islam faith somehow. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this article is even talking about; perhaps one of our Muslim contributors could chime in? --Haemo 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think her roles are covered adequately at Zaynab bint Ali Corpx 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. As a g'daughter of Muhammad, she has differing importance in different strains of Islam. But she is not so important a figure as to need two articles explaining this. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly turn it into an article on "Bibi Zainab Binte Ali" if no such article exists. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered in main article, probable copyvio. --Soman 11:37, 31 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, which is dedicated to User:Bishzilla _ROARR!! El_C 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant animal (fiction)[edit]

WP:NOT loosely associated topics (just a list of animals and species in fiction that happen to be big), and original research (attempting to define "Giant animal" as if it's some kind of known term in fiction.) Saikokira 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Very subjective, as well; "giant," in this usage, is a relative term. —Travis ^talk 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Loosely associated topics Corpx 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a list of loosely associated topics. Half of the article consists of a huge list of half the Pokémon. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Giant Pokémon" an oxymoron? —Travis ^talk 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Iotha 05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikidudeman. Tim^{speak} 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of giant Pokemons is not made more intelligent by throwing in a reference to Moby Dick. Mandsford 01:14, 30 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 CSD:A7 and salted. -- Gogo Dodo 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean dempsey[edit]

Author recreated article after several deletions; possibly a conflict of interest. Anas ^talk? 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and salt. Very much non-notable. Yikes, this was yanked four times as an A7. (Side note: An anon removed the AfD tag -- their only edit -- and has been warned.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, some just can't give up. I only wish they could do that a little less obviously; I mean creating an article with the same grammar mistake four separate times, and using sock puppets (check my talk page for the other one) is just too much. Honestly, this is no fun at all. :-) —Anas ^talk? 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, explicit non-speedy - this is the first AFD, and after four recreations it's time to make it official. New musician, not notable. Only distribution mechanism is iTunes, has an official site. If he's signed and makes it big, no prejudice at that time to recreation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very much non-notable; appears to totally fail WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability, this didn't need to be taken to AfD.--P4k 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just making it official... :-) —Anas ^talk? 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A possible autobio, and not sure of it's notability.--Hirohisat ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed an autobiography; Dempsey himself has revealed that in my talk page. —Anas ^talk? 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and Salt. Probable autobio, considering the author's username. —Travis ^talk 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent speedy delete and warn creator. Wikipedia. is not advertising, Sean Dempsey is not notable, the article's title dosen't even have the correct usage of capital letters , and the fact that the creator made this page several times, means that he should be warned. James Luftan 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Note that James Luftan's first edit was a little over two hours prior to the above !vote. —Travis ^talk 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Luftan seems to have made ~~entirely~~ at least some good-faith edits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. His only edits are to AfD's, he keeps saying "warn user" at AfD's, and he has knowledge of checkuser and sockpuppet policy, which is, in my opinion, very unusual in a new user. --Boricuaeddie 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt not notable. Oyster guitarist 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability, probable COI as well. --Bongwarrior 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Geez, somebody snowball this already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:34, 27 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 — Caknuck 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Maclean[edit]

There appears to be no notability about this person and it may possibly be a hoax, though unikely. While there are several real people called "Scott Maclean", some of whom may be notable, such as the Canadian who came up with TimeTrax, or the man who started one of Northeastern Ohio's most respected chain of dry cleaners, this Maclean is not one of them. While not definative several google searches under "Scott Maclean", "Scott Maclean" inventor, "Scott Maclean" scientist, "Scott Maclean" musician and "Scott Maclean" Boardman Ohio did not produce any evidence of this person. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator: notability has not been demonstrated. Probably a hoax, although an amusingly written one; I'd be intrigued to read more about "grandmother/pool-sharp 'Esther the Molester'" in particular. --DeLarge 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom has it right, here. NN, delete please. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nominator. Nothing else I can say to be sure. Non notable, prob hoax. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nominator. James Luftan 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WITPTSAC (wikipedia isn't the place to start a cult) Pharmboy 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DeLarge. Hilarious. Bearian 16:13, 30 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. Feel free to recreate, only with pertinent citations, however. El_C 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent insurance practices[edit]

Unsourced. Appears to be an essay and original reasearch. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my previous PROD. --Tikiwont 10:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. James Luftan 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely OR, agree with nom. Pharmboy 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to False insurance claims as OR. Nate 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced original research. WjBscribe 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague description of mechanisms to combat practices, with no identification of an actual fraudulent practice. Please note that this is different from False insurance claims in that the practices are considered the work of the insurer, while the claims are the work of the insured. This article isn't good enough to merge into another insurance industry article. Mandsford 01:22, 30 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. Will give a day or two to transwiki. El_C 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim urdu names[edit]

Just doesn't seem encyclopaedic to me Xorkl000 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because as they are all pretty much the same thing:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, Wikipedia isn't an arbitrary source of random information. If we had articles for lists of surnames or first names for each language or nationality and each latter, that would take up hundreds of thousands of pages. It's not feasable and is a slippery slope. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Moonriddengirl 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto above. Oli Filth 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DIR and per nom. Pharmboy 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Moonriddengirl Harlowraman 04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Transwiki - I have added transwiki to Wiktionary tags to these articles, which is where they actually belong. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:22, 29 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 04:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N per lack of significant coverage. Temp cleanup3 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC) — Temp cleanup3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep There are two reliable sources (Lansing State Journal and Wis10) with coverage that just barely qualify as non-trivial. I can't attest to the GamePro articles, but with GameTZ being mentioned in the title of one, that would seem to qualify as well. As such, it seems to meet the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Further, I note that the nominating user is an SPA who's only contribution is to nominate this article for deletion. That in of itself is not a reason to keep, obviously, but given the AFD history for this article, it does bear consideration.-Chunky Rice 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except from WP:WEB - This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, except for the following: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. 216.163.40.100 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)— 216.163.40.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, those are the criteria I applied. -Chunky Rice 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both references are trivial mentions, per guidelines cited above. Each mention is no more than one sentence, or a basic description of the site's function and features. Again, as a reminder: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address ... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site ... 216.163.40.100 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While they're certainly borderline cases, your statement is factually false. One has two sentences, the other has it's own section. -Chunky Rice 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lansing State Journal reference does not discuss GameTZ as a main focus of the article in question. It is neither a reliable source, (required per WP:WEB) nor does it pose any significant notability in itself. My guess is that this trivial mention was written by an editor who likely stumbled across the site and wanted to give it a quick shout-out. Please review the references more carefully before promoting false information. 216.163.40.100 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, whether or not it's the "main focus" of the article or not is irrelevant. The only question is whether the coverage is trivial or not. Second, in what way is the Lansing State Journal not a reliable source? Per WP:RS "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Finally, I'll thank you not to accuse of "promoting false information." We'll overlook the fact that you're the only one who's stated an outright falsehood.

My opinion on the matter stands. I'm not going to devote any more energy to arguing with an SPA. -Chunky Rice 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and take time to go over WP:CIV. Personal attacks will do nothing to accomplish a consensus. 216.163.40.100 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the operational defination of a single purpose account. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yet another bad faith nomination by someone to scared to use their real account. This is getting ridiculous. See the previous arguments in the previous noms. This article meets WP:N and WP:V. These endless AfDs are becoming very disruptive and pointy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NPA, from an administrator no less. Let's not turn this into a flamewar. We're here to discuss why the article is / is not a proper candidate for deletion. I'm going to ignore any further personal attacks here on out and go straight for disciplinary action. 216.163.40.100 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was hardly a personal attack. These nominations are coming from single purpose accounts who have one agenda, and that is to delete this article. Feel free to report him, but until you apply the proper templates and give him the proper warnings, they will be ignored; faceless threats do not bode well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. How can it be a personal attack when you're anonymous? Nothing personal about that. The previous three AfDs clearly established why this article is not a viable candidate for deletion. Obviously someone (we'll likely never know who as they keep hiding behind anonymity) has a vendetta against this article as barely two months goes by without it being nominated again. Why don't you go actually improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly rehashing the same old arguments over and over and over. As I wrote above, this smacks of WP:POINT and WP:DE. Sorry if I sound frustrated, but this is really getting absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Two reliable sources and great article. This deleting nonsense for this article is getting old, and is being implemented from editors who have no prior contribution histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder The point of this AfD discussion is to discuss the article in question. Let's focus on this, please. 216.163.40.100 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should recuse yourself from making false allegations and threats of reporting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should note that our friendly anon (or some of his/her friends or IP socks) had fun with my talk page here, here, here, here, here, and here. Nice job keeping things on topic. Now lets try a little of "practice what you preach", shall we? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go as far as to say strike this AFD as it may be a trolling attempt, seeing as how this single purpose account came onto Wikipedia and "discovered" GameTZ.com's entry. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Prev AfD discussion ended just 2 months ago, similar pattern of IP sock abuse emerging, likely bad faith nom. Caknuck 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly Reminder I'm not sure what's going on with previous noms and abuse, but please leave that out of this discussion. Again, the point of this debate is to discuss the article in question. So far, everyone has been hung-up on the possibility of SPA accounts. Let's not get hasty about entertaining bad ideas. If this is a case of suspected SPA, please use the appropriate tools to deal with it. It does not belong as the focal point of this discussion. Please discuss the article's reasons for AfD. Thank you. 216.163.40.100 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the use of socks and SPA's is done to try to countermand the result of a previous AfD that was resolved only two months ago, then it's certainly a cause for concern. Nominations not made by trusted and experienced editors are usually suspect, as it usually points to sock manipulation (a violation of WP policy) or demonstrates a poor understanding of the rules regarding content around here. And considering that the previous socks were utilizing open proxies and dynamic IPs, it's doubtful that checkuser will accomplish much. Caknuck 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD discussions are not a popularity vote, which is precisely why I put up the template reminder above. Regardless of how many votes are cast toward the article's status, the administrator responsible for overviewing the deletion must take into consideration the merit of each point made. So far, absolutely no progress has been made toward this. Again, I ask that contributors discuss the article's references in depth, and detail how they do or do not sufficiently meet notability guidelines. I see no reason for me to continue stressing for this when it is supposed to be the entire point of this discussion in the first place. 216.163.40.100 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why haven't you gone about improving the article yourself? It seems since you are here just to pinprick around GameTZ.com and nothing else, you would have all the time in the world to improve on it instead of bicker and file useless AFDs (a fourth in a short period of time). Along with that, your not-useful reminders that we are "entertaining bad ideas" that do not follow along with your viewpoints, essentially, and your threats of calling in some admin is quite contridicting. You have not made a strong case of why it is not notable, and while we have to continue to bellow out the same explaination time and time again, you just pull up some mangled template to show us that you care more about controlling the discussion rather than improving the article or adding reasons why you believe the article is not notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article fails WP:N, and therefore cannot be improved upon. It would be better to remove it, since it the subject lacks any encyclopedic significance. Scroll up and address my original case in regards to the Lansing and syndicated TV references. I made a strong case here, but the discussion quickly derailed into a flamewar. 216.163.40.100 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N. Craw-daddy 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like things aren't changing much as my userpage was just vandalized by User:69.10.36.3. Looks like you anons are still all talk when it comes to just staying focused on the topic at hand. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^ Blocked. 69.10.36.2 has similar edits and was reported to AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was the one who blocked 69.10.36.3. AIV likely won't do anything as s/he's stopped for now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was blocked for 3 days. I made the passing that it was a continuation of .2 Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that works, too. 216.163.40.100 has made the claim that noms 2, 3, and 4 are bogus and made only to garner attention. I don't know if it's true, and I don't know if there's any way to prove the claim. I thought it should be noted here, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep again, since the nominator's assertion of "no significant coverage" is easily found to be false. For renominations, it would be nice to see a more detailed argument based on the previous discussions. — brighterorange (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have semi-protected this discussion as the anons who were participating can't seem to behave like adults. They are free to make comments on the talk page, however, and I encourage the closing admin to look there in case they do. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a bad faith nomination from an SPA. However, the article does cite plenty of reliable third-party sources to convince me that the website can passes WP:NOTE. It's unfortunate that most of of these sources can't be checked out online, but that's not a reason to delete the article. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close this AFD due to bad faith nomination, similar to the last try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The rationale for deletion is patently false, and it appears that the account was created solely for re-nominating this for deletion to begin with, leading me to believe this entire charade was done in bad faith. Burntsauce 17:47, 31 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 first two keep arguments are not grounded in policy or guidelines; another one is invalid because the previous AFD was properly referenced by another user. Aside from those there appears to be a clear consensus to delete. --Core desat 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback Mountain parodies[edit]

unsourced, one of the only links makes no mention of Brokeback Mountain, sounds like OR, not a directory. Will ^(talk) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mostly uncited trivia. Oli Filth 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I recalled seeing this article here before, and yes my memory isn't failing me (yet). This article was listed before at afd on March 14, 2006 with result no consensus; in looking for the archive on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_14#Brokeback_Mountain_parodies I found that the archived debate had been removed and moved to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokeback Mountain parodies (old). Not disclosing the prior debate (even though it ended with no consensus) is bad form; but moving archived debates around so that it will be difficult to find them is worse. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia list. Pharmboy 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited trivia. If any can be referenced as notable due to non-trivial third party coverage, then perhaps those could remain, but doubt enough to justify ~~an entire~~ a separate list. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As trivia list, although some content can be merged to various articles mostly notably the main article.--JForget 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just don't get deletionists. What an interesting treasure trove this article is. Why not keep it? Scarykitty 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting treasure troves belong on Geocities; this is an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a media trend, has some references (although lack of references is no reason for deletion). --Qyd 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yes it is. Will ^(talk) 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think there is yet a workable definition of "trivia" that has community consensus. Without such a consensus, I think calling an article "trivial" is not a reason to delete. Even the page at WP:TRIVIA mainly focuses on trivia sections, and recommends that they be integrated into articles whenever possible. I am not opposed to deleting things, I am a deletionist at CfD discussion. But at AfD, I only believe an article should be deleted if it is clear that there is no way to create a reasonable document. To my way of thinking, that means, pure drivel, a POV rant, a subject that is inherently impossible to cite, etc... This page is none of these. In order for Wikipedia to succeed, we need to be tolerant of content that does not fit into our own image of what constitutes an encyclopedia. One person's view of trivia will be another person's dissertation topic. As Wikipedia is not paper, we can make a home for virtually any topic that can be cited and presented in an NPOV way. The alternative, deletionist approach will just create rancor and bad feelings while diverting all of our attention from more important tasks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of films and TV shows are parodied all the time, without their own parody lists. As mentioned above, just about everything in here can be merged into different articles or the main Brokeback Mountain article - if completely necessary, which most of it isn't. •97198 talk 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep due to the nominator's failure to properly reference the original AfD discussion. Andy Saunders 11:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to assume good faith that the nominator saw the need to rename the previous discussion to make room for this new one, and didn't know to disclose its existence. The error was promptly corrected by another editor. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ugh again! Its a well known phenom and here are a few sources I found after one, yes one minuet of searching google news let alone anything else! The history of viral video and Film review: Cowabungle! both are from This month (July 6th and 25th 2007 respectively). Hell just google "Brokeback Mountain" parodies and you will see what one means.

p.s. why was my comment removed??-- UKPhoenix79 09:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was removed - looks like you first left a comment on the previous debate's page [58]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—there are articles on viral videos, but this particular topic does not seem to be the subject of any non-trivial coverage, at least not any referenced. As such, this is irredeemable OR. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parodies are old news, as is the case with the film. It's been, what, two years since "Brokeback Mountain"? Nobody says "I'm Batman!" anymore either. Mandsford 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]