Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kozma

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Withrow

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I think it is a bit too earlier for his case to have an article - wait until he does play for club.--JForget 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alderson

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and has decided to instead play collegiately. College players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Many argued in the Allison Stokke AFD that numerous newspaper articles about high school athletes still do not justify articles. Edison 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Main

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and apparently will play collegiately. Collegiate baseball players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, needs serious cleanup. Sr 13 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge creation

An alert editor at WP:COIN identified this article as original research and a conflict of interest. Its content comes exclusively from User:Knowledgemachine, who overturned a prod request. The user page identifies the writer as the same man who is cited in two of the three reference. I don't see how to rewrite the article to a neutral point of view. Yechiel Man 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although the current article needs a major clean-up it appears there is material out there.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though an academically interesting topic, this is original research written in a very vague and non-academic format. --David Andreas 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Cleanup. Hacking through all the verbiage and ignoring the sections about other aspects of knowledge processing, the author states that (a) knowledge creation and acceptance is necessary for society to advance, (b) the person who thought it up can keep it to himself/herself or inform somebody else, and (c) the process can be broken down into five (unspecified naturally) steps. Well, duh. Ironically, for an article about knowledge creation, it does preciously little of it. Still, it does seem to be an academic field, so I'm reluctantly changing my vote. Clarityfiend 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup soon, or otherwise, delete it. Bearian 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless major rewriting is done quickly.--SarekOfVulcan 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a detail or two which can be added to Knowledge Management, but that looks unlikely. — Athaenara ✉ 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Knowledge creation is an important subject, if not to 'knowledge management', at least to the history and philosophy of knowledge (but then is it in a sense so different that it should be another article altogether?). I quote the words of NeniPogarcic in the Talk page on June 26th:

"(...) Polanyi and Nonaka's ideas are widely popularized and accepted. Rightfully or not is a discussion which we can have, but it is probably the most important theory and the widely used one, so therefore it definately should be in it!"

"I think we should revert it to how it was, and elaborate it from there"

So, this is another keep or clean-up that could be added to mine. Robert Daoust 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active NBA Players Who Have Won A Championship

Listed for deletion previously, but deserves discusion first I have informed the original nominator of this and invited him to explain the reasoning ChrisLamb 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks Chris. I'd like to cite: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, would only be of interest to a limited number of people, would be very hard to maintain, and WP:LISTV#Think of the reader. I really don't think it's very encyclopedic, either. <odd conversation with myself> I'll save everyone the trouble: Cool Blue, have you considered that you are violating (the essay) WP:UNENCYC?

<sarcasm>Oh no. What ever shall I do? I hope they don't block me</sarcasm> </odd conversation with myself> Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that it's not historically significant either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Agree with above comment - Fails WP:NOT#INFO - Not the place of sprawling statistics Corpx 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a related story players that did not win any Championship complained about the lack of media attention for them.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Not a necessary article and contains useless statistics. NSR77 ^T_C 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We probably don't need this type of list. They also are high maintenance and (historically) quickly neglected. --Stormbay 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above, and also WP:SYNT. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like to add that the article will not be historically significant. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, several of the keep argruements were invalid, minor league players got deleted via AFD many times before, but the high school award he got gives notablity, making several of the delete ones invalid as well, lets wait and see if this kid makes the majors in a couple of years, if not this article can always be re-AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Porcello

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All baseball players (and other athletes) are getting their own pages. Whether he plays in the MLB or not, he was drafted by a Major League team and is technically in their organization. Since he's on the team, he shouldn't have his article deleted. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's actually not how the MLB draft works at all. If a player chooses to go to college, he can later be drafted by another team. If he goes to Carolina, the draft is the extent of his association with the team. --fuzzy510 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't mean in the organization in the sense that he could be called-up tomorrow or anything like that. But he was drafted by an MLB team, nonetheless. Whether he wants to play for the team that drafted him or not, until he announces that he is gonna go back to college or play for the team, you have to use the assumption that he will play for the team. He was drafted by a team, but could and might go back to play college baseball. "Could" and "might" implies that it is speculation. Since he "could" play college ball, that's speculation and I don't think that can (or should) be used as the rationale for deleting an article. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some sources for him and he was named 2006-07 Gatorade national baseball player of the year. That in itself is "notable" if that's what you want to go by. If there are sources for the player, this article should be kept.++aviper2k7++ 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article is sourced, and the Gatorade connection is another bit of (somewhat marginal) notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also have that same opinion, and think that ALL the articles you've nominated for deletion should be kept. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. Granted, the gatorade thing is mentioned, but I don't see a significant amount of importance placed on that in the world of baseball. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not notable about a player winning a National award? Well, there are articles for professional players. He's on his way to being a professional baseball player. Look, a couple days ago was the 2007 NHL Entry Draft. Most of those players who were drafted that didn't have articles then have articles now because they were drafted.

Yeah, I guess I agree with you, Tecmobowl. Let's delete every single article on an athlete because they didn't win World Series MVP or a Super Bowl. And if they didn't win a Conn Smythe Trophy, let's delete their article, as well. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries.Allison Stokke had lots of press coverage of her high school athleticism (before her notability for other reasons) and the article was deleted largely because editors judged high school athletes non-notable. Edison 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Porcello is not only a first-round draft pick, he has received independent, non-trivial coverage in national newspapers as winner of the Gatorade national baseball player of the year, which is awarded to one -- and only one -- player per year, joining such notables as Drew Henson, Alex Rodriguez and Gary Sheffield, as well as being selected for a national all-star team. Per WP:BIO, notability is established when the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and if the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, both of which are established in the article. Not all players drafted deserve articles. Notability has been clearly established for Porcello. Alansohn 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one (as opposed to the other HS draftees). Porcello has received more independent non-trivial press coverage for his various accomplishments than the others. I would argue that top-10 picks are notable, and Porcello, by most accounts, would have been one except for a "subplot" (draft slot and Scott Boras) that increases his notability and the amount of coverage about him. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd disagree that "first round" or "Top 10" or "Top X" draft picks should be assumed notable. If all the guy is is a draft pick out of high school who hasn't played yet, then no notability should be assumed. It should come down to providing references to non-trivial secondary source coverage on him. In this case, though, those secondary source references are present and have been provided, so this subject clears the bar. Mwelch 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is exactly what it should come down to. No guideline can cover up the fact this article has the sources to be kept.++aviper2k7++ 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most baseball players who are drafted never even make it to the big leagues, talk about an article when and if he did, otherwise start your own baseball wiki. IvoShandor 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does that even matter if there are enough valid sources to write an article on the person.++aviper2k7++ 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP, he is notable. Plenty of secondary sources.. How many persons get drafted at his age? Some of you guys have your standards way to high. If a major team is willing to bet millions on a kid and sport writers across the country write about him. What makes us armchair editors think he isn't notable.. Do a little reasearch before you decide someone is not notable. Callelinea 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jackson

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - no accomplishments beyond highschool and even nothing notable at high school level Corpx 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I say wait until he plays in the majors, then he will meet WP:BIO, even it's just one game he played.--JForget 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per precedent set for other MLB draftees who have yet to play pro ball. Caknuck 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Campanella

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner for 2007. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP, so here it is. Calton | Talk 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every single winner of every single local competition in the world needs an article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as beauty fades in time, so do beauty queens and their notability - unless they win the Nobel Peace Prize or something. --David Andreas 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007 where there is a list of the state winners who will compete. The state pageants receive TV and newspaper coverage within the state, so an argument for inclusion could be made, but certainly mention in the article on the national pageant is appropriate. Edison 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This person has not by any stretch won any national title (eg Miss Teen USA), so fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes she is notable. Callelinea 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same sentence into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Calaway

Contested Prod. Deletion was proposed with the reason "She is the wife of a wrestler who has done little else of note, so she beat DDP once and hasn't been seen on WWE for at least three years, not a reason for an article. Notability is not proven." Has been twice deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance), although i think there was enough of an assertion that A7 probably should not have been used. Sourcing at best dubious. I am bringing this to AfD to get a consensus on the notability or otherwise of this subject. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have no defiante opnions on whether this subject is notable or not. Bringing it here for consensus to form. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Dubious third-party sources (most are misleading links). WWE doesn't list her anywhere. Basically, the wife of the Undertaker.--Ispy1981 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the The Undertaker per notability concerns. Addhoc 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' - per Addhoc. Being associated to someone notable doesn't mean you inherit their notability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Using Category:American professional wrestlers, I searched over 150 articles about wrestlers to see how other Wikipedia articles handle wrestlers' wives. I found 18 articles in which a wife was mentioned; in 7 of those, the wife had her own Wikipedia article. All of the 7 had specific notability within the wresting or entertainment industry. If the wife had no specific notability, there was no specific wife article. On the [8] website, a search for Sara Calaway reveals zero results, meaning Sara is not notable in the wrestling world. Treating her like other wrestlers' wives, she is not entitled to her own article, nor to a Redirect. The information in her article could be added, where appropriate, to The Undertaker article. In fact, much of it is already there. Then this article should be deleted. Truthanado 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the info is at her husband's page. Darrenhusted 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she isn't notable. Nikki311 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the comments made above, this article was on my list of pending deletions actually. Burntsauce 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. --S ^up? 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Forman

Simply a hoax, and not a very good one at that. Sent to AfD because prod removed. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article, from the same author:

Speedy delete - gone. The Rambling Man 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bead game

Completely unencyclopedic and unnotable. Sent to AfD because a prod was removed Iknowyourider (t c) 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably also delete Image:P6060282.JPG, which was used in a previous version of the article. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reeks of WP:MADEUP. fuzzy510 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Nonsense Corpx 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Patent Nonsense, and so is not a proper speedy delete. However, it does not look encyclopedic aor notable either. Delte, unless notability can be established through Reliable Sources added to the arricvle, which i tend to doubt. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. The official Facebook group has all of 1 member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day may apply. Staecker 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has a bad case of made-up-in-school-itis. Only website listed that's relevant is on Facebook - and literally anybodycan create something on Facebook. Not even notable in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong delete per WP:NFT. Also speedy the aforementioned Image:P6060282.JPG. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that WP:NFT although a reason for deletion, is not a speedy deletion criterion. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Idiotic and not notable ChrisLamb 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Delicti (band)

No assertion of notability and completely unreferenced article. As it stands now, fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Not notable.--Bryson 18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - doesn't fail WP:BAND as per point 5 - two of their albums were released on Cleopatra Records. Lugnuts 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note that there are album articles that should similarly be grouped in this discussion. fuzzy510 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but how can you say it's a non-notable group when it clearly meets the crietira on the WP:BAND page. And I quote: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Then check item 5. Maybe the nominator would like to refresh themselves on this criteria. Lugnuts 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you continued further on that same criteria, you'd see that it clearly stated that two or more albums needed to be released on a major label or one of the more important independents. Cleopatra Records is certainly not a major label, and I'm not willing to call a label which is apparently mostly known for its compilation releases a more important independent label. With that judgment, by no means does the band in question clearly meet WP:BAND. --fuzzy510 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is were Wikipedia becomes a victim of it's own policy on Weasel words! As Cleopatra has an article on WP, it makes it important by default. It's been going for "more than a few years" (again, a weasel statement) and has a roster of notable performers (under the Market dominance heading). Again, these performers are notable, as they too have articles on WP. Lugnuts 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Cleo's star has definitely fallen over the years (too many stupid comps), they have published a large proportion of the Gothic scene's major artists and I'd say that having had full albums released by them is a good pointer towards importance in the scene/genre. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read the description it gives as to what constitutes a more important independant label, you will notice that it defines it as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable", so here we have a label with a history dating back 15 years, and having signed Gary Numan, Electric Hellfire Club, Switchblade Symphony, Leæther Strip, X Marks the Pedwalk, Mephisto Walz, Kill Switch...Klick, Information Society, Heaven 17, Download, Noise Box, and Razed In Black. I hope I've made my point. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the fact that they've had two albums on Cleopatra Records. I would think that the label is marginally notable enough (not just because they have a Wikipedia article). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TenPoundHammer expresses a good point; the band has released two records on a semi-notable record label. NSR77 ^T_C 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator is perfectly familiar with WP:BAND. ;-) As noted by Fuzzy, I wouldn't go so far as to call Cleopatra a major label. The criteria is major label or a important independant label. This fails BOTH criteria (major label, or an important independant label). I will conceed, however, that this is dependant upon if you view Cleopatra Records as an important indie label or not. Cover compilations don't cut it, IMHO, but that's why we have AFD debates. :-) /Blaxthos 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first time I've actually read WP:BAND and I was quiet interested with what's in the criteria! Point 12 however, is a complete joke! Lugnuts 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the criterion. It clearly gives a description as to what constitutes an important independant label. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable band in the Goth scene. In the context of the Gothic genre, Cleopatra is a major label and having full-length albums released by them definitely counts. I wouldn't count necessarily being featured on Cleo compilations as being enough, but full-length albums, definitely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by having 2 compilations (including a best of album) released on Cleopatra. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for keeping are based on three main proposals:

Uniqueness and novelty, or historical significance for being first to exploit a new method.
Too new to have acquired fair representative online references via Google.
A notably useful tool for people seeking this function and users in the field have almost certainly heard of it.

Uniqueness, novelty, importance, history, are all claims that could (if notable) be evidenced. If it is notably important to musicians, somewhere there are awards, commendations, reviews, editorials by notable musical magazines, etc which could be linked. If reviews are out of date they will catch up within a short time. That it may be looking to success, is not a comment on its status now, and right now, today, it seems to be new and minor alpha software of a certain novelty, with no verifiable evidence of notability in the music field from any type of sources (reliable or otherwise) being supplied. Claims of notability are not, themselves, notability, and a request for sources by more than one editor did not result in more than statements of editors' own personal views, impressions and opinions ("original research" in Wikipedia terms).

In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- a hope or expectation of future success does not mean that today, it is notable. Until then, hopes of future fame, and this article, are premature.

Tonescape

Delete: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Monzo. The Joe Monzo vanity article was recently deleted and this is a little-known piece of software created by him. It gets only 43 Google hits which is unimpressive for software. Fails WP:CORP, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software Corpx 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The software is notable in that very few programs exist for the express purpose of composing microtonal music. It may be commercial, but it was developed "in the open" with the online community of microtonal composers. The fact that it has relatively few Google hits is probably due to the fact that it is a relatively new program in its first official release. -- DaveSeidel 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite a unique piece of software, with a highly original approach to computer-aided composition. It's also a resource pedagogically when it comes to learning, teaching, or exploring tuning theory. Gene Ward Smith 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not seeing much about notability. Where are the independent reliable sources to establish notability? All I see is a piece of software that few have heard of. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure whether it should be kept, but I've edited some of the more egregious ad-like copy out of the article. And the Google search above currently returns 182 hits. Probably it's not notable as a piece of software, but it may be notable from a music-theory perspective. CKL
Keep It's relevant and important primarily for its unusual and useful nature. There simply isn't other equivalent software. This isn't just another word processor or solitaire game. It's exactly the sort of thing I like to find on Wikipedia -- I may not have heard of it any other way. -71.87.34.189 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's still in alpha, but is looking to be a *very* promising tool for the composition and analysis of microtonal music; it is, indeed, *very* noteworthy, though a little specialist. If you talk to people actively involved in the microtonal community, there's a very, very high chance that they've heard of this and tried it out . -134.226.81.3 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the article be expanded using reviews, or articles about positive or negative features at this time other than from its authors, the Tonalsoft website or different yahoo groups? - Mireut 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tonescape is not only notable for its own intrinsic merits -- it's also historically important as a piece of computer software. It is the first serious music composition software which exploits the use of pitch space, a concept which music theorists have been discussing for centuries, at least since Euler. Tonescape's Lattice window does not just give a simple, static depiction of a tuning's harmonic properties, as do other programs such as JICalc for the Mac and the multi-platform Scala -- Tonescape's Lattice is a 3-dimensional rotatable view that depicts tunings which have up to 7 dimensions in their harmonic makeup, and as a user explores chords on the Lattice, he can then drag them over to the score and simply pop them into a piece. The geometry of a temperament can also be shown in "closed" form, which twist the Lattice into a helix or torus ... i'm sure there is no other music software which can do this, only such applications as Mathematica etc. -Starky32 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Management

Completely unreferenced article that seems like original research. Spam tag has been on the article for a while, and it seems like this article only exists to promote this "philosophy". Article includes spamlinks, and was written by the espouser of the philosophy (WP:COI). /Blaxthos 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator - Promotional material/Original research Corpx
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this business philosophy is not yet notable. --Gavin Collins 08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Moreton, Lord Moreton

I did a little editing on this article based on information in other wikipedia articles that are now wikilinked. Then I went to find Reliable references I was unable to find any. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. Even when this young man succeeds to the barony he may not meet WP:BIO because hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the House of Lords (the upper assembly of the UK Parliament - his father was a member before 1999 and therefore meets WP:BIO). --Charlene 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above argument about notability Corpx 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just a courtesy title at present-- but when he does succeed it will be to a Dukedom, & I think then he'd merit an article for at least the higher nobility will remain N, even if not in Parliament.DGG 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment *cough* to an Earldom, DGG, not a Dukedom. A bit down the line. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best merits brief mention in his father's article, and the Earl of Ducie, which already exist. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His father is just a Earl, but if he does succeed, he will be notable. An Earldom is still the second level of the British peerage. --Bduke 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment *cough* third, behind dukes and marquesses. --Charlene 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mea culpa. You are right, but an Earl is still notable. --Bduke 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No accomplishments or references to satisfy WP:BIO. He does work at a power station, per the article. Is that enough to justify an article in Wikipedia? Perhaps the above commentors who were confused about Dukes versus Earls were just thinking of Gene Chandler, who in 1962 became the Duke of Earl [9]. Edison 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited at this level and I dispute whether any ole earl who hasn't done much or been much in the news is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci

I'm not even sure this article asserts notability, but I could use help wading through the broken English and the (mainly Italian, and not terribly impressive from what I can tell) google results I'm getting. Claims to be a music teacher, composer, musicologist, etc. but none of it seems to add up to much. Calliopejen1 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I speak some Italian, and Emiliano is a known figure in the Italian arts and appears to have significant Italian publicity. Maybe he is not notable in America, but neither is many other European pianists and composers. Culturally and artistically notable. The article's English can be fixed, though. --David Andreas 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Keep The article just need some clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhungey (talk • contribs)
Weak keep per User:Phonemic, he seems notable enough in Italy. If insufficient English sources are found, I'd suggest moving this to the Italian Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, only 317 hits on google.it. Does not seem remotely notable to me but the article is so poorly written that it's difficult to judge. Perhaps reconsider for AfD if appropriate after it's cleaned up.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't want to make a firm recommendation so long as RILM is on yet another of its "Down for Server Maintenance" binges, but I can't see anything so far that passes as notable in the article. There are no notable concerts as a pianist, no notable conservatory posts as an instructor of piano. I can't find any peer reviewed music articles in JSTOR--granted, JSTOR is five years out of date and barely covers anything in Italian, which could completely wipe out Bucci's contributions; RILM itself takes a few years to index the Italian journals and books. Concur with RandomHumanoid's ghits assessment (many of the 317 hits are for other Emiliano Buccis). Could David Andreas add some of the Italian publicity? I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at this point I've done due diligence in searching off WP for notability and couldn't find anything. Given that the article does not assert notability via awards, positions, peer-reviewed publications, or notable albums on which he was sound engineer, I don't think I can come up with any other conclusion than delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- no entries in RILM, but I did searches for five Italian papers published in the last five years in RILM and it only had one of them, so it's not the be all end all of search engines. But I also think that Wales's "Quality over Quantity" 2006 dictum can apply to the deletion of an article which is not yet really in English and for which no one here or there has volunteered to cleanup. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice towards future concrete demonstrations of notability. If this information is truly encyclopedia, then perhaps an alternative method would be adding said information into the Loglan article. —Kurykh 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceqli

Article does not establish the notability of its subject through references to reliable third-party publications. The only sources provided are the self-published Geocities website of the language's creator, and a Yahoo! Groups mailing list. Article was deleted through AfD in 2004 and then undeleted later that year, and there was a second AfD in 2005, with a consensus to keep based on no third-party recognition of the language other than two ISO 639-3 codes, cql and tcj. Both codes now seem to have been removed (see [10]). Searches on EBSCO Host, Google Books, and Google Scholar yield no references to Ceqli in academic or print media other than a one-word trivial mention in a list of minor constructed languages in a 2005 Russian article. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable "language" / irrelevant Corpx 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, I tried to see when the codes were deprecated, and it looks like before 2006, since they aren't listed in the recent change history of the standard. Unfortunately, it seems to verify from the ISO 693-3 website when ~~(or if)~~ these codes were in fact assigned to Ceqli. - Aagtbdfoua 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been discussed and re-discussed. It was deleted, and undeleted, and I do not understand the reason that people keep questioning its notability. It is a language that is regularly the subject of discussions on Usenet, not just by its creator (see [11] for some examples). It is on the LINGUIST list (see [12]), if that might be considered a "third-party recognition of the language" ---BRG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I should point out that an ISO 639-3 code is by no means a requirement for an artificial language to be included here. All that seems to be consensus about is that an ISO code in itself would be a sufficient argument for inclusion. That said, Ceqli is - and has been for quite a long time - a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside. It is also one of the very few engeneered languages we know, probably the best-known after Lojban. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (and yes, how often are we going to have the same discussion over and over again, until finally people don't notice it anymore and the articles gets deleted by three "votes"?)[reply]

Nobody claimed having an ISO 639-3 is a requirement for notability (though I do believe the removal of its code provides some evidence of non-notability). I mentioned it because, between both previous AfDs, the ISO code was the only reliable third-party reference to the language presented, and it seems to no longer exist. The two sources in the article are the author's website and a Yahoo discussion group, both of which are unacceptable per WP:SPS policy. You say that Ceqli is "a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside." Can you provide some evidence for the "outside" part of this claim? Because I see no evidence that Ceqli is used (or even known) anywhere outside of online conlang discussion groups. -- Schaefer (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Linguist List database entry cited (by BRG) above appears to have been generated based on the existence of the ISO 639-3 code. To quote from the website:
"The language codes used by LINGUIST are those of the ISO 639-3 code-set, which is built upon a unification of the Ethnologue system, produced and maintained by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the LINGUIST set of codes for ancient languages. This system assigns a 3-letter code to every distinct natural language known. LINGUIST has supplemented this system with appropriate subgrouping information. Most of the codes you will see, then, are Ethnologue codes, and did not originate with LINGUIST, nor are they controlled by it..."[13]
To answer some of the questions raised above, I think the concern is that the article doesn't meet the first paragraph in the verifiability policy in that it's not possible to check that the material in this article has already been published in a reliable source. (Usenet groups and the "official website" of the language aren't considered reliable sources.) I'd like to see advocates of keeping this article either provide reliable sources or argue why my interpretation of policy is incorrect. Obviously, I can't make anyone do this, but the closing admin is (supposedly) only going to consider arguments with bases in wikipedia policies rather than counting "votes". - Aagtbdfoua 11:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we lost Folkspraak recently (see the number of other languages this still exists on at nl:Folkspraak). I am surprised that these constructed languages dont appear in web/scholar/book/news searches, and as a result are considered not notable. It is a bit sad that Category:Gibberish language has more entries than Category:Analytic languages. John Vandenberg 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. High name recognition, codes, a dead-tree mention and to top it all off, I first added it to the list of languages in 2004 despite not being involved with the creation of this language or even a part of the Ceqli "circle". That an outsider like me would think it notable enough to be one of the few conlangs added to Wikipedia's list says something about its recognition. Wiwaxia 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources (usenet and the LINGUIST list don't qualify as reliable sources, and the Russian article has only trivial coverage). Many of the keep "votes" appear to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. If Category:Gibberish language is overpopulated with non-notable languages, feel free to bring them up for deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of this language despite not being part of any of its groups, and its appearance in Roswell is awesome! Macarenaman 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources proving notability here. Whispe ring 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since 2005, as notability has been established through referencing its use in a science fiction graphic novel by two notable science fiction authors. Bennett Chronister 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, before this your last edit was in November of 2004! Thanks for coming back for this AfD, but can you explain how this language's appearance in a non-notable webcomic establishes that we should have an article on Ceqli? (For that matter, can you confirm that Roswell, Texas is using Ceqli? That's not apparent from a casual look at the comic.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This leads to the question: Is every book published by a notable author notable? Since Strauss and Howe are notable, is Wikipedia allowed to have an article on The Fourth Turning, 13th Gen and Millennials Rising, and even Millennials Go to College and Millennials and the Pop Culture? (I say yes.) By extension, since Tolkien is a notable conlanger, is Wikipedia allowed to have articles on all his conlangs, even Nevbosh? Wiwaxia 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is Rex F. May notable? Can we create an article on him, and merge this into that article ? John Vandenberg 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uaxuctum said, "Haven't you ever heard of famous cartoonist 'Baloo', whose comic strips have been praised and published around the world?" in the first debate. I hadn't heard of Baloo, but I didn't argue with Uaxuctum because I had heard oe Ceqli, even though some people hadn't. An article could be hosted at either Rex F. May or Baloo (cartoonist), on the basis of his strips. Wiwaxia 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The searches that didn't produce many hits were of databases that rarely yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages. Although the code 696-3 was removed, this was under the misconception that Ceqli doesn't have a speaking population, judging from this post. Could we be losing languages basically because they are constructed languages? Matt 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What academic databases do yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages? The notability of Ceqli is not judged in comparison to other conlangs that might now have articles (WP:WAX), so a lack of academic discussion of conlangs in general doesn't lower the bar for Ceqli. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to (WP:NOTE), the search should be one that might demonstrate notability, as I said below in my response to Aagtbdfoua. Matt 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like you're saying "your search didn't demonstrate notability, so you must have performed the wrong search." Hope I'm misunderstanding you. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It just seems to me that people want to set up a higher standard for notability for constructed languages than for a lot of other things. For example, is an individual episode of a TV series ever really notable? Yet we have articles like Casa Bonita (South Park episode) and Two Bad Neighbors (a Simpsons episode). We have articles like Mew (Pokémon) -- is every Pokémon character really notable enough for an article? We have articles like USS Iowa (BB-61), and I really don't think we need an article on every ship in the whole U. S. Navy, but it looks as if we do. Now I'm not nominating these for deletion, because, frankly, this would be inconsistent with my philosophy about Wikipedia, which is that if someone thinks a subject is important enough to merit a Wikipedia article and writes the article, it ought to be included. But it seems to me that Ceqli is at least as notable as random episodes of TV series, random Pokémon characters, random ships in the Navy, and the like. -- BRG 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you want to nominate random episodes of TV series/Pokemon characters for deletion, go right ahead--I'd probably support you on a fair number of them. On the other hand, if you want to demonstrate that Ceqli is notable, please provide evidence of that by citing non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I do not intend to nominate anything for deletion; it contradicts my thoughts about what Wikipedia is, as I have just stated. And in addition, as I've found out in reference to Mew and the USS Iowa, when I try to go into an area in which I have no expertise to decide which articles might be obscure enough to be deleted for non-notability, I can't pick the right ones! I merely wanted to give examples of random Pokémon characters, ships in the Navy, and TV episodes, and in two of the three categories, I obviously selected the wrong examples! -- BRG 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, see WP:Pokémon test. Mew, which you seem to imply is less notable than Ceqli, appears in a series of video games that has sold over 155 million units, as well as the franchise's associated TV show, which is one of the longest-running animated TV shows ever, and at least four feature-length movies. Note also Mew's article cites five published books and an article in an independent, widely circulated gaming magazine. If Ceqli could claim even a fifth that level of recognition, I would never have dreamed of putting its article on AfD. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what BRG is saying is that people are setting one standard for most material and a different, higher standard for constructed languages, and I agree. The passage cited by Akhilleus isn't really about that issue. In fact, it acknowledges that Wikipedia has a systematic bias. I think we're seeing the same bias here. Look at the vehemence with which this small article is being opposed. At its heart, this looks like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not a notability or RS issue. Matt 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that we need some non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources to show that this language is notable. In the absence of those sources, the only argument for keeping this article seems to be some variation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone resorting to the ILIKEIT argument here. Both sides are being good at sticking to the issue of notability, which is a Wikipedia policy. Rather, I see "I've heard of it" arguments. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll#Reputation, someone suggested name recognition as what makes a conlang notable. Most were supportive (even some of our conlangophobes like Average Earthman), with Haikupoet saying, "I would think this the single most important criterion when dealing with conlangs." 67.169.38.224 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that conlangs should have a lower requirement for notability than other subjects is a version of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time posting to Wikipedia, but after observing all these conlang AfD's, I have something to say. When someone makes a website for a conlang she or he invented, other people in the conlang community won't bother making a second website about the language. Even for languages that are well-known throughout the conlang community and talked about on forums and Usenet like Ceqli, people don't make independent websites that meet the scrutiny of Wikipedians who clamor for "independent sources". The only sites like that that I can think of are the Verdurian embassies on several conworld sites. There are no peer review journals for conlangs. Much as people in Papua New Guinea don't publish books or magazines about things that are well-known to them and their culture and therefore have a harder time than people in other countries at getting included. As a result, there is a kind of systematic bias against conlangs. And also, let's face it. NOBODY writes their articles on conlang grammar or novel plots from independent sources on Wikipedia. Is the information on the phonology and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin written from a linguist peer-reviweing Tolkien's work, or straight from the appendices of Tolkien's books? Does the grammar of Klingon in Wikipedia come from journal articles ABOUT Klingon, or from Okrand's book itself? Did the summaries of the Harry Potter books come from newspaper articles about Harry Potter, or did the Wikipedians who wrote them read Harry Potter and summarize the plot from memory? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

In my opinion, your comment confuses the issues of notability and sourcing. Quenya and Sindarin are probably notable because there's a strong array of secondary sources about Tolkien's work, much of which discusses Q and S. Since the languages are notable, Tolkien's work is an acceptable source to use in writing the article. Sadly, Klingon is notable because of broad coverage in a range of media, including major news media. Therefore Okrand's work, which I suppose is a primary source, can be used as a source for its article. The notability of the Harry Potter series is again trivially easy to establish.

On the other hand, everyone concedes that conlangs are not going to get much coverage in independent, reliable sources--in other words, they do not meet our normal standards for notability. I see no reason to deviate from normal practice.

By the way, because Papua New Guinea has been a popular destination for western anthropologists doing fieldwork, I think you'd be surprised by how much material you can find about "things that are well-known to them". Try kula ring, for example. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, if everyone were to concede such bias were real, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Lax enforcement of notability guidelines in other articles does not establish the notability of Ceqli. I happen to think Wikipedia has a systemic bias against coverage of women's issues, but that doesn't make notable every feminist theory with no references in reliable publications, even if its supporters create a discussion group on Yahoo. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think bias is a relevant issue if it is so strong that it actually leads to several articles being nominated for deletion. The points about lax enforcement and every feminist theory being notable are basically straw men - or straw women, not to be sexist - since I haven't suggested that enforcement is lax or that large numbers of engineered languages are notable. Matt 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the notability of the USS Iowa (BB-61) is extremely easy to establish through coverage in reliable sources; just do a google search. Note also that it was the first of a class of battleships, carried President Roosevelt to the meeting at Casablanca, and played an important role in naval combat in the Pacific theater during 1944-1945. Hardly a "random ship". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mew is a strange choice for a claim of a Pokémon being "non-notable". Back when there were officially only "150 Pokémon", kids were talking all about the secret 151st Pokémon that you had to do something special with your game to get. This was when the game only held 151 Pokémon. Looking through the list of Pokémon on Wikipedia, I think Bronzong may qualify as an example of a non-notable Pokémon. (Even though I still support articles on all Pokémon.) Wiwaxia 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I have little knowledge of Pokemon characters, If Mew is a strange choice, replace it with any other. I just selected one at random. -- BRG 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once an ISO language, always an ISO language. 67.169.38.224 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to this. Do you have another source that says Ceqli is currently part of ISO 639? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what 67.169.whatever is saying is that having ever had a code on ISO-639 confers notability on a language, even if the language doesn't have the code now. Wiwaxia 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I think Ceqli was only in the draft, and never in the published version of the standard. ISO_639-3 was published on Feb-05-2007 according to WP (it's included in the list of standards published in this month according to an official ISO document, although the document doesn't give the exact date. [14] The email indicated by Matt above suggests it was purged from the version before this, around the end of 2006 [15]. It's not an active ISO 639-3 code, and it's not in the list of code retirements since at least 2/1/2007 here. I really can't figure out what's going on, because if Matt's email is right, and it was removed from the draft around the end of 2006, it should at least be in the change index here. In any case, I think the evidence strongly suggests this was never in the final version of the standard. And frankly, even if it were, there still are no reliable sources on which to base an article. - Aagtbdfoua 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official document you've cited, the third part of the ISO 639 code (639-3) was published in February 2007. Ceqli was included and later removed from a previous version, not from that one. As a result, the document provides no evidence that Ceqli was included only in the draft stages. We know that it was once in draft form, but all ISO codes were. An omission from the lists could simply have been accidental. As far as there being no reliable sources, WP:NOTE says that the search should be one that might demonstrate notability. This could only be done if sources that might reasonably yield results for the subject were searched. I'm not tremendously knowledgeable about engineered languages or constructed languages, although I do know something about other, non-constructed auxiliary languages. Maybe someone who is closer to the field could suggest some relevant databases. In any case, this type of search wasn't conducted, so we really don't know if there are reliable sources or not. Matt 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a strong argument--essentially you're saying the wrong databases were searched, but you have no idea what the right databases would be. If Ceqli doesn't show up in news or scholarly sources, the usual way we establish notability, on what basis would you argue that Ceqli is notable? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by suggesting that Ceqli was in a previous version of ISO 639? Are you suggesting Ceqli was in ISO_639-2? This doesn't appear to be the case. Searching current version. [16] Change History [17]. The evidence that indicates that Ceqli was never in a final version of ISO 639-3: (1) it isn't in the current version of ISO 639-3; (2) the standard wasn't finalized until Feb/5/2007; (3) it isn't in the list of retirements here [18] which includes a retirement from Feb/1/2007. Aagtbdfoua 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable origional research--Sefringle^Talk 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nominator withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Ried

Despite numerous google returns, none seem to mention her beyond the pornography itself. The one cited reference is about the only source that mentions her otherwise, and winning this single reward does not make her notable Jimmi Hugh 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:PORNBIO criteria 1: "Performer has won or been a serious contender for a well-known award." Tabercil 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you justify calling FAME notable when it doesnt even have an article. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hadn't noticed that... it is only in it's second year. Off to fix that. Tabercil 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tabercil - FAME Award gives notability Corpx 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, she also won a "more prestigious" AVN Award Corpx 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "award" mentioned above is "FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie", according to the article. Not notable enough, and an example of why PORNBIO is pretty shaky indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The FAME Awards are the most notable fan's choice awards, which possibly makes them the best measure of who the most well known pornstars are. Epbr123 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AVN & FAME Awards. Epbr123 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's won notable awards, and thus meets WP:PORNBIO criterion #1. (And I should point out: Just because something's not on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not notable). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for the rushed nomination then... Admin should probably Snowfall Keep this. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just ignore all rules and close it even though I'm no admin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rilladiks

Removed prod. Article is about a very non-notable band formed only last year. Page is riddled with errors. Even though they have been on late-night TV, that doesn't give them any notability. Google gives few hits, and the first is an inappropriate myspace. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I cant find anything on their claims of notability - the appearance on Last call with Carson Daily & pending appearance on SNL Corpx 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof to back up the asertion of late night appearances. They may be on their way, but delete until they are more notable and can prove it. Cricket02 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Rees

Not a notable driver SuitshiptheSecond 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, seems he's been in notable types of racing for about a decade. I don't know if there're any criteria on race car drivers, but I can't see this guy being categorized as non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not a very good driver, but he has driven in international single-seater championships, just below Formula 1. I wonder why someone would bother to register with Wikipedia with the purpose of proposing an article for deletion. --Pc13 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Pendexter

An inventor (possibly?) of a nonnotable product (Superchess). Says the source is inventor.com, but the google search

"Lee Pendexter" site:Inventor.com

brings up nothing. Also claims he's a professional poker player but this site says his ProRank 2 Position (whatever that is) is 5951 and that his lifetime winnings are $2178. I'm pretty sure some of my friends have won more than that at partypoker.com Calliopejen1 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Most websites claim "superchess" was invented by somebody else [19] [20] although this guy has a patent Also, just being a professional poker player by itself isnt notable, since anyone can be one Corpx 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Corpx ↑. --Evb-wiki 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Duran

Extensive gsearch does not reveal notability. External links in article do not show notability. Claim of notability in article, but not backed up with sources. Article was previously prodded for lack of notability and has been recreated. Kathy A. 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research DOES show notability, google search under "John A. Duran" reveals numerous patent links, additionally see link with SEC filling for sale of multimillion dollar aerospace company (and stock offer because of purchase) lisitng Duran as partial owner, also please verify with printed material (Hispanic Magazine Buiness Leaders 2003, Glendorian Magazine for July/August 2007), Duran also listed continually in several charity listings for substanstantial donations ($100k+) annually...KEEP. Bruce12 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as an inventor. Patents have to be exploited to mean anything--numbers alone aren't enough for it's common to patent every conceivable variation. But from his position I would assume that many of they have been. I don't think he qualifies asa philanthropist for these relatively modest sums. I think it would have to be amounts large enough for newspaper attention, not just the charity's websites. Articles about him are claimed in business and trade journals--have they been found? The Glendorian is "A local magazine serving the city of Glendora, a city close to Los Angeles." I don't think that qualifies as a RS for notability I wonder what he did at Boeing to justify that he "was also an intricate figure at the Boeing Company." DGG 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Agreed that anyone can patent anything without justification/reason however all patents are thru respective company's and all products are still being sold see www.avibank.com thus I would argue that all patents both USA and International are notable being that all are still being used/marketed and for various applications some being aircraft-critical. $500,000 to the MS Society and more then $75,000 annually, $50,000 to the Nancy Davis Race to Erase MS yearly, along with donations of $25,000 to $100,000 to other various charities and recognition at various hospitals/structures for such donations seems notable enough. I'm not sure how much would warrent a newspapers attention, $1 million? $50 million? Articles cited in trade journals have been found, such as in Aerospace Magazine among others, also Hispanic Magazine (Business Side). Article in Glendorian Magazine is comprehensive and covers all above patents/business/life topics.. Not sure what more information is needed to justify notability, please advise Bruce12 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Google search for "John A. Duran" does not turn up very many hits, and many if not most of them are for other people than the subject of the article, unless he fought in the Korean war as a pre-teenager. As for the patents, most patents are never turned into commercial applications. References are needed to show his inventions had an impact on society. Looking at the Avibank website is not a substitute for adding references to the article. Perhaps the article can be improved duting the 5 day AFD period to demonstrate notability and satisfy WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re-affirmed I agree with the comment "As for the patents, most patents are never turned into commercial applications" however we can verifiably prove that all patents where used for actual commerical/industrial/military applications and most (if not all) are still in use today. Remember these patents are over 40 years of working at one company and thus continual invention and re-invention is needed because patents expire (with the exception of those classified as secret), it was because of this invention/re-invention that led to his success and the overall success of the company, also keep in mind that to properly submitted patent (a competitive patent with multiple claims) for a mechanical device costs upwards of $5,000 including patent attorney fees, a company will not invest $5,000+ on patents/products it feels will not be viable and thus all patented products where produced. I provided the before mentioned link as proof of continual marketing/manufacturing. As for the other comment of "references are needed to show his inventions had an impact on society" I believe this ties back to notability of said products in the aerospace and automotive circle of products, this person was a research project for myself and I have numerous trade journals detailing various notabile patents and their uses. Keep in mind that this devices range from panel-fasteners (what holds the skin of the airplane on) to latches (to locking devices on exterior panels for instance) to struts, to pins, etc, etc... It was Duran's designs that keep rotor blades attached on BlackHawk and SeaKing helicopters, it is Durans design that attaches the skin of the F22 and B2 and other stealth aircraft to its frame (so shall we argue that stealth aircraft are not notable or that they have not had an impact on our society? Their ability to defy radar is largely due to Durans panel fastener designs). To continue on with my argument; it is Durans design that keeps the nose of the Boeing 767 & 777 attached. It is Durans design that keeps the International Space Stations solar-array attached and easily extendable when installing, it is Durans design that allows for quick installation or removal of wheelchair hubs (wheels) with a ball-lock pin, it was Duran who pioneered the Ball-Lok/Ball-Lock pin as we know it, it is Duran that designed the struts and panel fasteners of the Atlas rockets which transport everything from weather satelites to spy satalites... I can literally go on and on about the mans impact on all these things and I truly believe that these things in-turn have impacted everyone for the shear fact that we wouldnt have many of the things we have today without his ingenuity and creativity. Please tell me what I need to write or say or do to legitimize his existance in this encylopedia of knowledge. Bruce12 04:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An editor who has information on all these patents must also know about technical publications by Mr Duran. The article has no main-line press or journal references, so lacks proof of his notability. Note the statement "He is often written about, in various trade magazines and business journals". He has been included in Category:American billionaires. You don't get to be a billionaire without a lot of press coverage. Where is it? I didn't find him mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. EdJohnston 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, spam article created by banned user evading ban. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centiare.com

The site exists, but the references given to support its notability are not good. Two are internal, the Washington Post site doesn't mention the subject at all, the G4 site seems to be an anti-Wikipedia programme, not a description of the subject. This is a puzzle - is it a hoax, or an attempt to put a spanner in Wikipedia's works, or the real deal? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as it lacks any media coverage and is probable spam. Also, I think its been deleted before, see Talk:List_of_wikis#Centiare for some previous discussion on it. Wickethewok 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above - non notable Corpx 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam, the current scheme of indef-banned user MyWikiBiz. --Calton | Talk 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question- The article uses a "copy" of the site's logo Image:Centiare_logo.png, however it is tagged with pd-self, assuming because the uploader took a screenshot of the logo and png'ed it, rather than saving the original file. Isn't this still a copyrighted logo? If so, considering the implied fair use rationale, the logo should probably be deleted if this article is too. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retagged as {{non-free logo}}. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My own theory is "Freudian slip". --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, that's fine with me. Delete it. I was just looking over the Wikipedia list of wikis, and I noticed that none (?) of those that use the Semantic Mediawiki extension were included. (For more info, see Ontoworld.org.) I picked a couple that seemed to be the largest, and I began to research them. I noticed that Archiplanet is HUGE, and I noticed that Centiare came up on a few of my media searches. I don't know what Wickethewok is talking about "lacks any media coverage", and Kim dent brown must not have actually read the Washington Post article (Centiare mentioned in 20th paragraph), nor actually watched the G4 TV video (images from Centiare are shown liberally, and the guest mentions Centiare at the end of the interview). If the Washington Post and a national basic cable television broadcast are not notable coverage, I'm not sure what's going on here at Wikipedia. But, as I said, if deleting the article makes everyone sleep better at night, be my guest. P.S. I, like wizzard2k would like to learn more about how logos of other wikis get into Wikipedia, if there are such strict "fair use" interpretations? --SilkCow JamBuses 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Mr. Brand-new Editor: if the standard for sources includes "non-trivial", how does a mention in the 20th graf of a news story or a "mention" at the end of a minor cable-TV show qualify? I'll make it easy for you: they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that, Calton. The description at WP:CORP says, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. That's why I provided multiple sources -- the Washington Post and a nationally televised program on G4 TV. Now that you've piqued my interest, though, I'm discovering that the subject of the article has also been discussed in a widely disseminated podcast ("Hobson and Holst Report" yields 47,800 Google hits), thoroughly reviewed (not entirely positively, either) at Pandia ("Pandia Search" yields 82,800 Google hits), as well as written up by a leading developer of the Semantic Mediawiki software extension, Denny Vrandecic (36,400 Google hits). I'll look for your explanation of why these don't "count", either. If you have the time, please explain how the phrase "Centiare.com" yields over 11,000 Google hits, if the entity doesn't qualify as notable. To really sum this up, let's look at how many Google hits return for many of the sites found on the List of wikis:

Lostpedia (49 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
LyricWiki (54 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Memory Alpha (44 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
AboutUs.org (68 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Galbijim Wiki (59 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
WikiZnanie (95 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Jurispedia (86 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Centiare.com (11,100 Google hits but (you say) does not merit an article in Wikipedia)

At what point does this become ludicrous? --SilkCow JamBuses 13:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I provided multiple sources - How odd: the adjective I actually used was "non-trivial". You might just as well have argued that the article subject isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple for all the relevance it has, Mr. Kohs.
As for the other sources you've scraped off the bottom of the barrel: Not acceptable (I mean, a podcast?), as the slightest glance at the reliable source guidelines would tell you if you had the slightest interest in intellectual honesty, Greg.
At what point does this become ludicrous? - Sometime after you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, perhaps. Argument in a nutshell: So?
Greg -- and it's painfully obvious that it's you, Gregory Kohs, the indefinitely banned User:MyWikiBiz and owner of the site in question -- given your constant sour-grapes reiteration of how you don't need Wikipedia, you sure expend a lot of Wikilawyering energy trying to get yourself listed here. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, unfortunately Google hits is not an indicator as to whether the article is noteworthy or not. Wikidan829 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of google hits aren't the end-all of a notability indicator. I've seen pages of google hits of nothing but garbage, passive mentioning, and proxyspam. What matters is the quality of the non-trivial coverage of the reliable sources covering the subject of the article. Its true, that a few of the links you mentioned deserve some review, but as it has been pointed out, just because other crap exists, doesn't mean more should. This debate is for discussing the merits of this article alone. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the article needs to be rewritten to be accurate. I didn't take a close look, but it did take actions to go against everything Wikipedia stands for; does it mention that? Unfortunately, Centiare is notable thanks to the Washington Post. Changed to Delete per non-notability. Wikidan829 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the "Washington Post" story is a single wire-service story pigging-backing off the actual story of Microsoft trying to buy good PR, and concerning Kohs' efforts to get on Wikipedia: "Centiare" doesn't even get mentioned at all until the 20th paragraph. This is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliable sources. And funny how no one else seems to have bothered to write about the this oh-so-notable venture in the last several months, hmm? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on a second look, the word "Centiare" doesn't even appear in that Washington Post article.. soo.. what's the issue here? I was thinking of MyWikiBiz. Wikidan829 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corpx 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoken academy

Contested prod w/o reason. Non-notable. Although WP:BK is only for books, it fails WP:BK if you were to compare the requirements for this. WP:CRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:COI concerns. It seems to be, also, POV. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Socialist Flash Animation

I originally speedy deleted the page since it consists solely of redlinks and external links. The creator answered with this nice message and recreated the list. So I think it would be good for everybody to chime in here. The list of course is completely inappropriate. It's a random collection of information, the criteria for membership in the list is subjective (who's to say that a flash animation is socialist?), it's not a subject of encyclopedic value, the content of the article is original research which cannot be properly attributed to a reliable third-party source and the article is a collection of internal redlinks and external links. As such it miserably fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:LIST. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Entire classification is based upon Authors personal opinion and the links are all external, adding nothing to wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 'Wikipedia is not a collection of external links' pretty much says it all; there are so few notable flash animations, much less socialist ones, that this list wouldn't be worthwhile. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Deor 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete

Nothing is based on my opinion, the support for socialism is derived by the flash authors introduction as you might have noticed. It has nothing to do with my opinion RedStar1987

Comment

-The support for socialism is derived by the flash authors introduction as you might have noticed. (Read their intros, or the message in their flash) It has nothing to do with my opinion

- Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't a collection of external websites neither. It is a collection of flash, I wouldn't call 2 servers in the references section as a "collection". No one would

RedStar1987

Delete as a pair of external links, since as RedStar1987 points out, there's not even enough here to truly call it a collection. fuzzy510 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if there is information about this sub-genre an article might conceivably be possible.DGG 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<scratches head> You mean like a New York Times article about the sub-genre of socialist flash animations? I'm sure it would be easier to find articles about socialist origami. :-) Pascal.Tesson 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, like something in either one of the left periodicals, print or online or in places writing about animation. I agree that the NYT is not much interested in either. There is more than 1 publication that is a RS. DGG 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah come on, I was just kidding. But I still think that it's highly improbable that any source, even an obscure one, would really have any substantial commentary to make on socialist flash animations. Pascal.Tesson 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Just a list that sites non-notable cartoons that support socialism clearly deserves to be deleted ChrisLamb 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable. Almost all of the Wiki links are red (non-existent). Hu 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why don't you like a collection? If there is a collection on "Fictional Presidents of USA", why shouldn't there be a collection of flash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_Presidents

It's hard to find sources about flash in general, so I say, check what's written there, add more information, if something is wrong, change it and make it right. What I expect is improvemement.

By the way, the collection will grow, the same way as "The list of socialist countries" grew, which has been deleted in the beginnings of its existance. Those who delete relevant articles should spend more time creating than destroying. They should think more. Not only about whether THEY need the information, but whether someone else might need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries Redstar1987

Comment Countries are slightly more notable than the occasionaly viewed Flash animation which may or may not have Socialist connotations. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-noable listcraft Alex Bakharev 02:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayioncrawler

No reliable sources given other than ayion.com; google search shows absolutely no hits. Article fails to assert notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can confirm the Google goose egg. A lack of Google hits won't disqualify a minor 13th century historical figure, but it will disqualify a 2007 software item. Yechiel Man 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable bot/crawlerCorpx 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Infringes WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a Non-notable and also lacks context for the uninitiated (me). --Stormbay 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principles referenced: 1. Articles are deleted or not, on their own merits, not by reference to other articles and decisions elsewhere. Arguments based on other wrestlers or articles are not really evidence for this AFD. 2. Several 'keeps' were just comments on bundling (later unbundled), and didn't provide grounds for notability per se. 3. Of the two "keep" views which attempted to provide a basis to keep this article; one stated he is "very notable", and one stated that he is "certainly notable enough". The claims that someone is "very" or "certainly" notable lack verifiable evidence from reliable sources and hence are effectively just the views or opinions of editors. The final basis (and only factual evidences supplied) -- a few comments such as "ROH regular" or "special referee for one event" etc -- don't by themselves support an impression of notability, especially with a fairly strong feel in the AFD that notability is not evidenced.

Shane Hagadorn

Non Notable wrestler, the article was PROD-ed, then it was removed and so I have begun the AfD. Darrenhusted 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fail WP:N and WP:V from what I can tell MPJ-DK 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all No sources for most. Although notability seems to be given, it is all fancruft and they are completely non-notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom and MPJ-DK. Nikki311 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~First listed~~ article appears to be at least marginally notable; therefore, I cannot agree to any deletions, as nominated. --Evb-wiki 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not believe it is appropriate to manipulate the structure of the discussion, or remove another editor's comments, just because the AfD nomination has substantially changed. Although the purpose appears to be benevolent, as it now exists, the discussion might result in some confusion. --Evb-wiki 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was part of a bundle, it is now unbundled

Keep (or nominate separately). "No sources for most"? So any article with sources can be lumped in to a multiple-article suggestion and be deleted just because most of the others don't have sources? This is a good example of a bad lumping. The article I cam here through, Tamie Sheffield, is sourced and establishes its subject's notability. Striking through now that unbundled. Permission granted to delete this para entirely, if that's not against the AfD policy. -- JHunterJ 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inappropriate bundling; please argue the case for each of these articles separately. That they are all pro wrestlers isn't enough commonality to do this; some pro wrestlers clearly are worthy of encyclopedia articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist separately I can't speak to any possible notability of individuals, but this is not the way to discuss the matter. As the various Notability and other projects get going, there may be a tendency to nominate in mass, which I think must be resisted. Possibly we should clarify the criteria for doing so. DGG 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist separately. As JHunterJ explained, this is inappropriate bundling per WP:BUNDLE. All are pro wrestlers. --Oakshade 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes were made while part of a bundle

Comment, of the two references the first provides the following information about the subject "Height: Unknown, Weight: Unknown, Real Name: Unknown, DOB: Unknown, Hometown: Unknown, Other Names: Unknown, Wrestler Since: Unknown, Finishing Maneuver: Unknown", and yet some still feels this meets WP:V. Darrenhusted 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of yet, Shane Hagadorn has not really done anything notable yet. He was a student at the ROH wrestling school (not notable), held the ROH Top of the Class Trophy (a non notable title) and is the "manservant" of Adam Pearce (not notable), and out of the 18 shows held by ROH this year, he has wrestled only five times (two dark matches, one squash match against Bryan Danielson, a tag match with Pearce, and TOTC Trophy match against Pelle Primeau). Nenog 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wasn't this articled requested on WP:PW at one point ? 72.74.201.85 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was also talked about on the WP:PW talk page (here is the lengthy disscussion). The person who asked if it should be created was the person that added it to the "To Do" section. Nenog 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it was, then the article was PROD-ed and now it is in AfD. Darrenhusted 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hagadorn was a "special referree" for one event.[21] I having difficulty trying to work out whether wrestlers should be judged based on the criteria for athletes or actors. John Vandenberg 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hagadorn is a ROH regular and certainly notable enough for the pro wrestling area of wikipedia. DanZero 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would it be deleted? Shane Hagadorn is very notable. Sometimes I wonder why some of these wrestlers' pages are even being considered for deletion. ThePerfectOne 03:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be because the articles written about these "notable wrestlers" are completely unsourced and filled with original research. --Evb-wiki 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and may be "Perfectone" if you edited more than just Chuck Taylor you would understand [22]. Darrenhusted 12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a brief mention of Hagadorn on a "American Independent Wrestlers" category page, akin to a "List of Minor Characters" or something similar is in order? That could be a compromise between keeping and deleting fairly non-notable wrestlers. --DanZero 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why would we want to keep "fairly non-notable wrestlers". And why would we want to create a category which would be full of redlinks and only encourage the creation of non-notable wrestlers?
- It was my attempt at finding a middle ground between keeping all of the articles and keeping none of the articles, as it'd be a nice gesture by both those seeking inclusion of all and deletion of all said pages. Would it really be that awful to have Shane Hagadorn redirect to a minor American independent wrestlers page? Furthermore, that would probably save work down the line on British and European indy wrestlers, as the scene over there certainly must have produced a number of quasi-notable talents that currently have their own pages.--DanZero 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there are any "quasi-notable talents" that have pages on here then they will soon find them deleted. Darrenhusted 16:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Web-Bot Project

No google results for item, only "Web Bot Project" pages completely unrelated, references no sources. Jimmi Hugh 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On a somewhat unrelated note, it would be appropriate to move a copy to the user's page (note the last three words, "More to follow") in the spirit of WP:NOOB. Yechiel Man 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as suggested by previous comment. Original Research Corpx 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably with a userfy. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cutts, Jr.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this person is not notable other than the fact that he is one of the thousands of alleged murderers in the United States. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Davis for some more arguments. Sean William @ 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been charged with second-degree murder. Until he is convicted, calling him a "murderer" may be considered libelous. --Charlene 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Changed to "alleged". Sean William @ 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long-term notability not established. This would be better for Wikinews right now; we can revisit this if he remains notable in six months. --Charlene 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Or merge into the Jessie Davis article. Clearly, this one case is far more notable than the thousands of other alleged murderers in the US. That is the whole point. Not that Cutts is an alleged murderer, but that the Cutts/Davis case is a notable case. (JosephASpadaro 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete We really can't have articles on every murderer, wether convicted or not. Not notable. See also: Herostratus. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more notable at this time than any other alleged murderer. Davewild 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a significant part of the case, ongoing coverage for several days indicates notability and notability is generally permanent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person charged with a crime. If we get farther down the road from this event and it seems it gets an appropriate level of coverage, it may be time to write an article. Until then, we are left with one event and one set of articles that clearly have the same origin. That's not enough for an article, or else Wikipedia would be filled with true crime articles. My local paper tends to have at least a half dozen articles about any murder case in the area, and they're not the only source of coverage. Despite this, none of those murders are notable. Erechtheus 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Notability in wikipedia is defined by coverage in non-trivial reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. There is in fact a heading in the notability guideline that explains as much. If it isn't going to matter to the world in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years, there is no reason for an article. Erechtheus 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what that phrase means. It means that once something has acquired the coverage, we don't say "that was long ago, it's not notable anymore." We have numerous articles about all sorts of obscure things that don't matter to the world, and maybe never have, but they still meet the notability guideline because they have been covered. Your opinion on what matters to the world is not a criteria for exclusion, the criteria is what the world has chosen to pay sufficient attention to for us to document. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should re-read WP:Notability and particularly the content under "Notability is not temporary". The content is absolutely directed at the meaning I'm assigning the phrase according to the relevant guideline. Erechtheus 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section didn't exist until two weeks ago, and as used before the change that introduced the new section, that phrase was entirely meant as an inclusionary statement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If your point is that recent policy changes shouldn't be relied upon, I cannot help but point out the irony because at the time of that change, this man was not accused of murder and the person he allegedly murdered was still drawing breath. If there is a policy problem, it is my understanding that the issue should be taken up there and not within deletion discussions. Erechtheus 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually it now discusses both, and justifies both of the limits--as it should. The rewrite basically amounts to the incorporation of the already existing policy that WP is not a newspaper. I agree that very brief coverage is not N, but I notice that the numbers mentioned by Erechtheus are his own invention--and would seem to contradict each other as a criterion. whether the coverage here is sufficiently extensive in time is a separate question. DGG 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those numbers are indeed my own gloss on what my understanding of policy (or more appropriately, the guideline) is, but they're not new. I've seen similar arguments made in many such debates. That rationale is why we don't have pages full of temperature observations for various localities, even when they would otherwise be verifiable. Erechtheus 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But which of them do you use when? I can't see how to use 60 years, for WP is unlike to be important as a curiosity in 60 years. Nor do I see how to use 6 years, because all the present articles in WP will have had drastic updating and I hope improvement by then-(cf. WP:UuU for one from 6 years ago). Me, I'm trying to make an encyclopedia for use this year by the many people who use it now (and have a base for future years). (please note that I do not think this article is Notable--I'm not challenging that)DGG 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable as he has not been convicted and in the US we are asumed innocent untill proven guilty ChrisLamb 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kelsey Smith has her own page, who not Bobby Cutts?

I encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sean William @ 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we do not have to argue over this one, since there is an obvious merge target. DGG 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Cutts becomes notable (if that ever happens). The editors have tried to make it look like the case has received national coverage by posting links to the New York Times and the Washington Post, but both articles are Associated Press wire stories that may not have appeared in the print editions of those papers at all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you're in the United States or watch cable, but this case has been covered practically non-stop on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News for the past several days. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Being a suspected murderer is hardly a claim of notability given thousands of such people are charged with the same crime every year. Resolute 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are thousands of legislators, and celebrities, and people profiled in major encyclopedias. "There's a lot of them" is not a counterargument to notability established by substantial media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have boldly merged this into the newly restructured article Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, since there was nothing here that wouldn't better belong on this article and general consensus was that Cutts didn't deserve an article on his own. Even if deleted, it would have obviously been appropriate to redirect the name to the case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Pieces (MÄR)

Contested {{prod}}; the rationale advanced for removing the tag was "Let this page stay, it's a good info about the show's antagonists."[23] Yet as the primary editor of this article himself asserts, this article is "just another 'List of Characters' article."[24] This article blatantly fails to assert notability, despite repeated notifications of non-notability dating back to at least March 2007. In addition, the article has serious attribution deficiencies, as the only citations provided are to fan sites. A Google search reveals no evidence of reliable sources that would establish notability for this topic. This article is just another collection of fancruft and essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let this page stay. We need a page for MAR's antagonists. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:FICT lists of characters which are too long for reasonable inclusion in the article for the series can be created. Otto4711 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query In my reading of WP:FICT, I see no exception to the WP:A, WP:N, and WP:RS policies. Are you arguing that this article meets those guidelines? If the consensus is it does, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. --Nonstopdrivel 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no reason for this specific article's deletion. It's no different from the hundreds of other List of ____ Characters articles, most for series less notable than MÄR. - The Norse 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the points of argument fall solely on this article's failure to keep up with plot summary, source of citations and coverage criterias, remedial solutions are not entirely unavailable. It's still more preferable than deleting the article, which would bring about negative consequences. For the moment I will try to search for more sources. Profet 666 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, the crux of my argument, as I stated very explicitly, is that this article does not assert notability—and that there is essentially no evidence of notability to be found online. The vast preponderance of references to this show are on fansites and an occasional programming guide mention. This has been an ongoing issue since at least March 2007, and still little or no work has been done to rectify this fundamental flaw. --Nonstopdrivel 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Though it may not be germane to the AfD process, I would like to point out that to this point, the only respondents to this AfD have been regular contributors to this article (it is, in fact, these very editors I quoted in my rationale for deletion). Does anyone not closely connected with this article have any objective input that would be useful in obtaining a consensus? --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not contributed anything to the article under consideration or to the article on the show and in fact had never heard of either until this AFD. Otto4711 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my modest offering will sufficiently satisfy your demands of outside input, Nonstop.
First, let us establish some facts: Marchen Awakens Romance is an internationally published 15 volume book series, which has been adapted for television, has an upcoming sequel series, is by an established author, published by notable companies and in a notable magazine. As such, there is no question of the series's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books). The page we are directly considering is a sub-article of the MAR page, split off from the main summary article solely due to length concerns and in accordance with Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, such as WP:LENGTH and Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it is a part of a larger topic and can for all intents be considered as a sub-section of the main MAR page, with its division into a separately titled page being purely nominal.
Lists of characters are an accepted section for articles on Wikipedia on works of fiction that are sufficiently complex that descriptions of their casts will be of encyclopedic assistance to our readers.
With these things established, the question now becomes whether the Chess Pieces are a sufficiently notable group within MAR that their description will aid readers in understanding the subject. It does. Keep. --tjstrf talk 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is far more than merely a list of characters, and appears sourced -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deadline of its deletion being... ? I want to have more time for the reference sections Profet 666 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates last more or less 5 days, so June 29-30 is the projected closing date, but there's no hurry since so far everyone but the nominator says it should be kept. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is essentually a subpage of MAR, which is notable enough (and long enough) to warrant a subpage to cover this set of characters together. John Vandenberg 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several references for the page and there's more to come. Try them out with a translation tool. Profet 666 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Ferret

Clearly States it is new, and completely non-notable Jimmi Hugh 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, absolutely zero reliable sources.--Ispy1981 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy G11, blatant advertising. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable website. Corpx 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable and blatant advertising. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author agrees to the deleting of this article Speedy2206 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 means of withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest airline

Indiscriminate list of information (see WP:NOT). No qualifiers ("largest airline" by what statstic?) -- inherently POV/trollbait. Beyond that, the statistics listed have been disputed in talk. This just isn't encyclopedic content. /Blaxthos 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn -- after consideration of the points made herein, I withdraw my nomination. (Yes, I was wrong. ;-) ). Besides the snowball forming, I can now see how this information is useful and discriminant. I'm unsure of how to formally close/withdraw nomination, but hopefully a skilled admin or editor can take care of that. /Blaxthos 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will this version address your primary concerns for deletion?--Huaiwei 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the subject of the article falls beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, however if the community consensus is to keep the article, I think that the version you linked is much better at categorizing the information and presenting it in a more meaningful and clear way. /Blaxthos 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to claim WP:ILIKEIT, but I do. As to the nominator's suggestion that there is no one way to define "largest airline", the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc. I don't see it as a major problem. Yechiel Man 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But even if it isn't a major problem, and even if it freely admits of all the different criteria, who really cares anyway? ;-) --Nonstopdrivel 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Indiscriminate information.--Bryson 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is encyclopedic content. Per YechielMan, "the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc." It uses real data to show the reader the different largest airlines. This isn't just some made-up "List of tallest people in La-la-land", it incorporates real data into a setting that is encyclopedic content. The POV/trollbait and WP:IINFO concerns are nonsense to me. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't find this list "indiscriminate." It seems to clearly discriminate between the types of "largest" airlines in the world, and it backs up its assertions with reliable sources. It complies with policy. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into two new articles, "List of airlines by number of passengers" and "List of airlines by fleet size". Or alternatively merge with List of airlines. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, sensible, useful. No reason to delete. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The re-created content was limited to song identity and did not include the rambling content of the previously deleted version; however, the topic still fails WP:MUSIC notability tests, notwithstanding use in a Sopranos commercial. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama (My Chemical Romance song)

Recreation of deleted material;Non notable MCR song mcr616 Speak! 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever album it's from. Lugnuts 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with historical references

Delete - another song list, another indiscriminate directory of loosely associated topics. Draws songs from across multiple genres and styles that have nothing in common past happening to refer to some historical event or another. Otto4711 13:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT /Blaxthos 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO and completely unmaintainable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Corpx 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate information.--Bryson 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be an indiscriminate list that aside from being unsourced also looks quite unmaintainable to me (at least in the long run). --S ^up? 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gotta join the boo-birds on this one, and give this a D- in history. The only songs on the list that refer to "historical" events appear to be "American Pie", "We Didn't Start the Fire" and "Sympathy for the Devil". A song like "One Week" or "It's the End of the World as We Know It" doesn't count. I guess I never realized that "Waterloo" mentions Napoleon in its first line... never liked ABBA anyway. There's probably a good list of biographical songs (unless someone has euthanized it) that would be more appropriate, like "Goodbye Norma Jean", "Starry Starry Night", "American Pie", "The King is Gone", etc. Mandsford 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--JForget 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; note: the article's contents contradict its own guidelines. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept here is too broad to be useful. Individual topics might be notable (e.g. if someone were to create songs of the Great Depression, they would have my support), but there is nothing useful to be found in keeping this one. -MrFizyx 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Murray (athlete)

Incomplete AfD nomination by unregistered editor. Reason given was 'Lacks notability'. As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. S ^up? 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Strictly speaking, passes WP:BIO, having played at the top level of amateur sports. --Charlene 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Per that article, only known for one event - failing WP:BIO. Placing third in the "first round heat" is not ver notable Corpx 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was an Olympian and he at least placed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per that article, he placed third in the first heat, so he didn't even advance to the final heat. Corpx 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this debate has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. There is precedent to keep stub articles of Olympians who did not rank among the top few in a particular event at the Olympics. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henning Svensson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Andersson for two examples. Because of this, and the fact that competing at the Olympics is the highest amateur level of competition possible per WP:BIO, I suggest we keep this and any other articles like this we may come upon. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a country can send any athlete to the olympics, the talent level in the first round/heat is usually not very high. Corpx 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But by that logic, why would a country send a poor athlete? In actuality, that's probably the country's best athlete that was chosen to compete, but was just not as good as the other 50 athletes competing in the same event; merely a coincidence, or possible just due to lack of training. I would certainly hope that the United States Olympic Committee doesn't go to a high school track meet to pick the next Olympian! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some comments, for both of you. Generally, it is not true that countries can send "any" athlete to the Olympic Games. Qualification rules are somewhat complex, but the instances where an athlete can compete without having reached an Olympic qualifying mark are rare. Yes, countries can choose which of their qualified athletes to send, but if anyone at a high school track meet has made a qualifying mark, that's pretty damn impressive in and of itself. As for Murray, he was one of 11 runners from Great Britain in the 100 metres in 1908. Unfortunately, we don't know with any degree of accuracy how well he compared to the others, since the race officials only recorded the times of the fastest runners in each heat. Murray was in a heat with a guy who tied the Olympic record twice and won the gold medal that year--it's hardly fair to fault him for not winning that particular race, as nobody else could beat Walker either. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my vote because of his long jump results, which were previously not noted in the articleAthletics_at_the_1908_Summer_Olympics_-_Men's_long_jump#Results Keep Corpx 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BIO. --Sue Anne 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, with WP:RS already in the article . Neier 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies our current criteria for notability for athletes. Andrwsc 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vi är inte ensamma

A straight summary of an (untranslated) book that clearly fails the standard laid out Wikipedia:Notability (books). Eusebeus 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Author has a page on Swedish Wiki and English Wiki, plus several sources (Swedish) indicate this book is notable.--Ispy1981 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to assert notability per WP:N. Also, this article appears to be a machine translation in violation of WP:TIE. Finally, I do not understand the relevance of Ispy1981's self-referential argument whatsoever. The book is relevant because the author has a Wiki article? Such an argument ~~seems to violate the spirit (though not the letter) of WP:ASR~~ is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not an indication of notability. --Nonstopdrivel 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me change my keep slightly and restate my point. My keep doesn't rest on merely the fact that the author is in two wikis. It is in the fact that this book has been referenced by several Swedish websites. Whether they meet the criterion for notability or not, I don't know, since I don't speak Swedish. But, what, are we going to go around deleting articles because they don't have references in English? --Ispy1981 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm concerned because, in its current state, it looks like it was translated literally from some information in Swedish (or written by someone whose English isn't so hot), but the author seems to have some notability. I'd rather say clean it up. If it can be demonstrated that there is no notability for the book (i.e., finding that there's a lack of sources to cite), I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be true that the author is notable, but this needs to be separated from the books notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books). That is why the book notability guideline was established. Eusebeus 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Precisely. Notability is not inherited. --Nonstopdrivel 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I understand that, but do we have something we can link to for notability? I mean, if we do a google search and the only ghits are here on WP, then that alone will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the author doesn't have an English language publisher, she is a wellknown pulp-fiction-writer in Scandinavia and her books are usually best sellers. Google hits are decent for a non-English title published before the advent of the internet. [25] [26] --E ivind ^t ^@^c 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Chaos Black

Delete This page has no sources, since it's unofficial it shouldn't have article. How do we know if it is being sould worldwide? No external links to prove it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Unofficial", "in development". Google returns 708 unique hits, but practically all of these are forum postings, many referring to it being a fake - lots of dodgy Ebay adverts as well. I'd reconsider if there were some reliable sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just need to rewrite it. Toasty! | Available at your local store 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite it then, prove that it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. TheBlazikenMaster 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Are you serious? I would vote for a Speedy Delete, except that hoaxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. There are absolutely no references at all in this article. It sounds like someone just making stuff up. There is no way that Nintendo would release a Pokémon game with a Sonic the Hedgehog character on the box. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it exists all right [27]. It's just a fake, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No. Just no. Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re-merge/redirect this info seems to be almost the whole section from the telefang article... if i remember right, Chaos Black used to redirect there anyways. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment actually there used to be a lot of fake pokemon games on ebay. i even had a talk with a lady who had posted a want ad for Jade, i directed her to the official site and here. luckily i think that since then ebay has caught on i haven't seen them anymore. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What article? Please provide link. Otherwise the closing admin can't redirect it. TheBlazikenMaster 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section redirect to Keitai Denjū Telefang#Bootlegged versions as the most accurate placement for this to prevent recreation. if someone comes with a RS that discusses Choas Black we can re-redirect it accordingly. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete This looks like a G1 in my eyes. FunPika 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously not a G1 - that's patent nonsense, and not only is the article not patent nonsense, but it's not a hoax either - link again [[28]. That's not to say it shouldn't be deleted through notability though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having played it thru emulation, I can confirm that it is a ROM hack of Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, and unofficial. It is not Telefang; rather, it is just a ROM hack of FR/LG. And, actually, that was Pokémon Diamond, Zap. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Default keep, no delete votes made (not even by the nominator). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Harris (snooker player)

Incomplete AfD listing by unregistered user who could not complete the process. Reason given was 'Lacks notability'. The original nominator also expressed that the number of major tournament wins in the infobox might be incorrect (or lacking a verifiable source). This is a procedural nomination. I abstain. -- S ^up? 13:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vic Harris's Player Profile, however the league that is named after him seems to have a lot more coverage. Torinir 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know... The relevant stub category for snooker players contains hundreds of biographical entries. This one is average, neither very well-developed nor threadbare. I'd just leave it alone. YechielMan 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD should be based on the subject, not the article. Is the subject notable? Morgan Wick 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep. Nobody has actually asked for a deletion; even the original attempted nominator has not come back to provide their own recommendation to delete. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article does not assert notability. --soum ^talk 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Gil

Incomplete AfD nomination. The original nominator had expressed concern about the notability of the subject. As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. S ^up? 13:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fly the Copter

No independent references (WP:V), almost entire content is POV and original research, no assertion of notability (WP:N). Even if valid sources turn up, it's probably best to scrap it and start again. Marasmusine 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in the absence of sources to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable flash game Corpx 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I have played this game in the past, I do not see how it passes WP:N muster. --Nonstopdrivel 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, unverifiable etc. DarkSaber2k 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Gruff

No non-Wikipedia ghits, and no mention of which book he appears in. Suspected RPG/fanfic character. Katharineamy 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you can't find reliable sources for a Star Wars character, that's bad news. Yechiel Man 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanfic or possible WP:HOAX. --Nonstopdrivel 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no attempt made to demonstrate note or even mention where the character is from. Axe unless swiftly corrected.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, WP:SNOW. --soum ^talk 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Dracula (1931 film)

This entire article is original research and the use of the phrase pseudo-science pretty much says it all as there is no way to prove that any of the events described are related or verifiable as such. This is the only page that this editor has created so there is no history of good editing on other articles MarnetteD | Talk 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - solid mass of original research. Otto4711 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Do we have a policy on conspiracy theories? 'Cause we should. --Ispy1981 12:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all conspiracy theories were destroyed by controlled demolition one September morning... Lugnuts 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what you say... --Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an encyclopedia article. Eusebeus 13:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - were it a notable conspiracy theory, there would be reliable non-trivial sources to support it. This is simply original research by an editor. --Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also has misleading title. Pavel Vozenilek 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misguided OR. A few people associated with the two films mentioned died or had professional setbacks... the article rather desperately tries to shape this into a "curse". A similar article could probably be written about almost any film older than a few years. Indeed, the article itself even acknowledges how shaky its own reasoning is, including (along with a list of exceptions, the following: "Dracula has proliferated in all media in the years since the 1930's and no curse is casually apparent since then. Some of the stars of the 1931 version and most of the stars of Nosferatu escaped this supposed curse." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drive a stake in it. OR ~~that has a non-existent film for a title~~. Clarityfiend 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garlic and Holy Water The Dracula (1931 film) title is correct - thus the title itself is misleading/incorrect (per WP:FILM there should be a film titled "Curse of Dracula" (1931), which there isn't). That aside, unreferenced OR. SkierRMH 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the title bears little/no relevance to the conspiracy theory content, which belongs alongside curse of Tutenkhamen. == SockpuppetSamuelson 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7, non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 48

Nonnotable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, only source is band's MySpace page NawlinWiki 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. You could speedy it. Chris 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable. --Nonstopdrivel 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-band}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Sidebar

Hardly any mainstream media coverage to judge notability, almost all Ghits are freeware mirrors or blogs and SPSs. Written like an ad. soum ^talk 11:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The article seems very sneaky.. it caught me the first two times I read it - it's not the Microsoft product for Vista that everyone would know, but rather a freeware clone. --Bren ^talk 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert-cruft -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Pattison

According to an anon's edit summary: "lacks notability related to Irish politicians and didn't get selected himself- and thats it. not widely known in ireland" I concur. The polician was never elected, but was a candidate who lost in the elections. Sr 13 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per precedent for losers of local elections. In this scenario, history really is written by the winners. :) Yechiel Man 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, normally I would agree with you guys, but since he is a third generation of a political family running for office, I must say to keep it.. In this case I do think he is notable. Callelinea 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sr13 and Yechielman. Being related to a politician is not per se notability, except -- possibly -- being a nobleman. He's a hole in the ground. Bearian 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability in his own right. NawlinWiki 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if he had got election to the Dail I would have said keep - he didnt therefore delete as he is not notable.--Vintagekits 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Naconkantari 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VistaDB

Hardly any mainstream coverage for this, all Ghits are blogs or SPSs. Written like an ad. Tagged with {{Notability}} since May 2007. soum ^talk 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant and shameless WP:COPYVIO and advertising. The text is copied verbatim from the company's own website.[29] Listing prices in a Wiki article? Come on, people. --Nonstopdrivel 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Blatant spam for NN software. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Tagged, complete advertising. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comte d'Alton

An anon placed this message on the talk page of the article: "I can't create the sub-page for deletion as I'm not a wiki user; so I will give my arguments here. I think this article is a hoax. The creation of a count by Hugues Capet in the late 900's is extremely doubtful, as creation of titles of nobility (in their present form of giving a title to someone and not making a fief a county or else) were not made until the XIXth century in France. In fact such a family would be one of the oldest of the french nobility ! There are some french mistakes (as comte du Calais meaning count of the Calais no comte de Calais wich is the correct form). The references to an obligation of being catholic to inherite a title is pure nonsense as many great nobles of the XVIth and XVIIth century (beginning with King Henry IV himself) were protestants. The story of a "d'Alton" going in disguise as "Dalton" is rather pathetic : not a very subtle way to abuse his "debtors". There are several authentical counts d'Alton, namely an austrian general of the XVIIIth century of irish descent and a french dandy of the XIXth century.I think this article (created by an IP) is the work of a named Dalton which dreams to be a count. Forgive my mistakes, as english is not my maternal language." I have no stance. Sr 13 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking over the article's edit history, I agree with the talk-page poster's conclusion that it seems to be "the work of a named Dalton which dreams to be a count" if not an out-and-out hoax. (Note that the "Current Holders/Heirs" section was deleted rather quickly after this AfD popped up.) However, since that's not really a rationale for deletion, I'll use the utter lack of sources and consequent failure of WP:V. Googling for various names and terms used in the article produces nothing relevant. Deor 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources, and probable hoax. A search using google.fr offers no confirmation of any of the alleged facts here. EdJohnston 05:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus There is no consensus to delete here. This is a stub, there is an asserion of notability. Refernces are, however, needed. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sanat

An anon added this message on the talk page of the article: "This page should be deleted. This literature magazine does not meet the criteria of the notability guidelines." I have no stance. Sr 13 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the anon got it right this time. Google gives 20,000 hits, including citations in German and Turkish Wikipedia. Stubs are okay. Yechiel Man 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability for title and no references.--Bryson 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Callelinea 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same vote into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. ExtraDry 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smith Foods

No assertion of notability and reads like an ad for the company. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- mmm spam. /Blaxthos 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, the picture is copyrighted! I was hoping we could send it to BJAODN. Enjoy it while you can. (Delete of course.) Yechiel Man 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy keep and maybe tag with {{advert}} - although this article is about a company, I don't see it as blatant advertising. Dick Smith Foods has been a nationally recognised brand in Australia for years. Although popularity has declined recently, once N always N. WP:ORG. This article does need more sources, and not using just Ghits for my keep vote, [30] a quick search gets me 203 news articles. --Bren ^talk 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article needs improvement, but this is a notable Australian company, started by a very well-known entreprenuer who has been widely covered in the media for his campaign for Australian owned and made food. --Canley 13:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some references which I'll use to rewrite and cite the article shortly: Landline (ABC), The Age, WA Government, B&T Advertising Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age again. This is clearly not blatant spam by the company, and a slightly reverential tone is not a reason for deletion. --Canley 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Cleanup is not a reason for deletion and the company clearly passes WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. Orderinchaos 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the company has cultural importance: apart from its connection to notable figure Dick Smith, its campaigns were very visible at launch in 1999 and "controversies" like Dickheads matches and the legal battle with Arnott's were widely covered in the Australian media. I do agree the article could use more sources and information, as it hasn't changed a great deal since I created it in 2004. -- Guybrush 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. The only reference/link is to the company site, spam.--Bryson 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, seems notable enough per User:Canley. Just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known Australian company founded by notable Australian. Capitalistroadster 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely notable company established in a blaze of publicity by an independently notable person. Sources should not be difficult to find. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recieved wide-spread coverage at launch. I think this is a victim to rising standards, yes the article now needs improving but 2 years ago it would have looked quite OK for a start-class article.Garrie 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also: Tem-p-Tin (Tim Tam clone ) is referenced at Dick Smith.Ga rr ie 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes notability with dozens of secondary sources. I have added citations from some, and removed some unsourced bits. Kevin 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable. Just needs improving. --Bduke 03:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had quite a big impact on the Australian market for a while there, and it was a bit unique in what it stood for (and the profile it achieved) and it attracted quite a bit of attention as symbolic of a new push for Australian owned. Wiki Townsvillia n 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherub (TV series)

Non-noteable internet movie. None of the "references" seem to work. No external links. A possible hoax? Bravedog 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noone had thought to add a references tag to make them show at the bottom, which is why they didn't work. I've done that now so they can be viewed. The article needs work and some cleaning up, but the subject does demonstrate some notability. There's a newspaper article and one at wired.com, which are full articles and not trivial mentions. Polenth 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept the article needs to be renamed so that "TV series" is removed from the article name. That designation is only for articles on programs broadcast on television, not made-for-Internet. 23skidoo 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real assertion of notability, this article is full of weasely POV claims with litte substance ("The response has been positive.", etc.). The only "reliable source" is a blurb on wired.com -- hardly a "notable TV series". /Blaxthos 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable fanfiction. NawlinWiki 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Buffyverse (fan films). There is sufficient information and source support for a section in the broader topical article related to Buffyverse fan films, but insufficient to support a stand-alone article. The redirect created by the merge should be sent to WP:RFD as a misleading title. If the article is kept, it should be moved to more relevant title in use as a redirect, Cherub (Buffyverse). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been referenced by Wired, a reliable source, establishing notability.--Kylohk 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hell (radio)

Dubious notability; likely conflict of interest (note the large number of external links). Yechiel Man 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 10:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, the article is full of POV claims and unencyclopaedic prose. /Blaxthos 11:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some sources are given; but taking a closer look, there is substantial coverage in a college newspaper (not independent), some trivial mentioning (not substantial coverage), and a blog (not reliable). Clear case of COI by User:Elvisdemorrow, even admitted in the edit history, makes me doubt that the show is as notable as the article tries to put it. --B. Wolterding 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The assertion of no notability seems to be addressed with the link to the public radio quest contest in the references section. The host of This is Hell is a finalist in the competition, and people wishing to research the contestants may want as many sources of information as possible on the show, including a Wikipedia entry of course. If the concern is that the show does not exist, please download any of the hundreds of shows archived at the site or check the WNUR broadcast schedule to confirm its existence. If users are concerned about the subjective nature of the article contents then they should obviously offer constructive edits to the body of the article instead of campaigning to delete a perfectly good (albiet new!) article. --daftmunkie 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'm not concerned about the show being real, or about the subjective nature of the article as such. The topic of the debate here is whether the show passes the notability criteria. However, since the article was created by someone closely affiliated with the show, it is even more important than usual to have reliable secondary sources (which the article lacks). Second, your claim towards notability is the award nomination. Actually the show host is one out of 10 finalists in that competition. My concerns about that are: 1) It's the host that is nominated, not the show. 2) For the host, the guidelines WP:BIO would apply; the relevant criterion is: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. It is not quite cleat whether the talent quest can be considered a "significant recognized award". 3) He did not win the award (yet?), he's only nominated. --B. Wolterding 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe your concerns are well placed given that the article was clearly initiated by somebody affiliated with the show. However, this would be more of a concern if the show was somehow for profit (It airs on a university radio station and is almost entirely listener supported) which would be in direct violation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies. That said, Wikipedia is full of articles on radio programs with no independent published articles about them. Even given this disadvantage of being a small college radio program and having few independent articles about the show, a simple google search for ""this is hell" radio chuck mertz" returns approximately 1400 relevant web page hits... mostly listings on podcast directories, blog entries, and references from guests that have been on the show. To me, this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per the notability guidelines). To take your concerns point by point: 1) That there is no Biography on Chuck Mertz the person is irrelevant since he is not a public person outside of the radio show, and so does not meet the notability guidelines for people outside direct reference to the radio show. 2) see 1, it is not necessary that the host be award winning to have an article about the show. 3) see 2. A purpose of wikepedia, as an outgrouth from the wikimedia foundation is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Having a wikipedia article about this radio program is in line with this mission as it gives access to all people to download freely available mp3s containing long form interviews with world renowned scholars, activists, and reporters. In light of this, it seems absurd that the article is being threatened with deletion. --daftmunkie 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable show on a college radio station. No non-trivial references. If the show wins the contest, it might make notability. Precious Roy 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Chicago Reader article now listed in references is arguably non-trivial. Also, I may be a Wikipedia amateur, but the first rule noted on the official Wikipedia editing policy page is "Perfection is not required". Based on this official policy, it appears evident that this entry should allowed to grow and improve as per the stated policy, instead of premature deletion. laddieo 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Chicago Reader goes to a page on the radio show's site that doesn't even mention the Chicago Reader. And presuming a non-trivial article in the Chicago Reader does actually exist, that's only one article on the way to "multiple non-trivial" published works. Precious Roy 14:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Başak

AfDs for this article:

Renominating after previous AfD was closed prematurely, although consensus was strongly to delete. Non-notable academic per WP:PROF with very few publications. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the deletion review discussion is here. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_17 --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While he looks to be having a successful academic career (editorial boards, cited papers, good appointments) I don't see what there is to point to as a sign of special prominence. —David Eppstein 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I said at the 1st Afd, and explained subsequently "adequate article, but asserted notability as a professor. Expanding the article, he is Associate prof. at the London Business School, a part of the University of London, & of similar quality to the best US Schools. An Assoc Prof. can be notable if he's received enough recognition through publication & citation. He has 17 peer-reviewed papers, one reprinted in an anthology. The highest two have counts of 53 and 44 citations. He's associate editor of 2 good journals, which also counts as professional recognition. But not yet a full professor. " That's weak keep, which --at least as I use it--informally means I wasn't going to defend the article further and I considered a delete as a reasonable opinion. It wasnt 53 total cites, it was 53 on those two papers alone. The total count was probably about 100. What also influenced me was the rep. of his current position, where he got the PhD, his associate editorships, and especially the excellent quality of the particular journal he published the two papers in. & I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to 3rd world. If he had not been 3rd world, or the journal had been of lower rep., I might have said Neutral or just Commented.DGG 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I'll repeat my question from the first AfD: Let me ask you: only 17 articles in a field known for highly prolific authorship? 53 citations on his two leading articles??? (You had originally said 97!) Why do you think this is [remotely] notable? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers were 53 on the highest and 47 on the next, as specified in the article. As i said, I think its borderline, balancing slightly to keep by consideration of the nature of the journals and the slight tolerance I do give to third world--as long as the publish in the main international journals. I would consider either result acceptable. I just give the data I find, and say what I think. I don't expect that people will decide according to my judgement, nor do I advocate that they do. Here's the info, here's my rationale, you make your own decision. I mean it literally that I trust the consensus of multiple WPedians at AfD more than my own personal judgment. I see what John V found. He suggests it might be tie-breaking, and I think he's right. DGG 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:PROF and WP:NN --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article is now well sourced, and this is enough to cross the PROF line. John Vandenberg 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a mini-interview with him change his notability? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Look carefully on the page where it says: "A listing fee of US$ 250 may apply"?! [remark removed]. Out of courtesy, I've removed my previous remark and I will rephrase here, since perhaps the previous phrasing suggested the magazine gets the bulk of its income from fees from its authors, which I agree doesn't appear to be the case. Regardless, I think the fact that a fee might have been charged, at least to some of the listed interviewees, in this case makes this set of interviews a non-reliable source. I agree the magazine indicates it used some editorial discretion in mailing the lists, but the intent of the set of interviews appears to be to indicate "the variety of people" working in financial engineering and at least in my mind, the presence of this individual in this set of interviews doesn't advance notability. - Aagtbdfoua 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (modified at 16:45, 21 June 2007)[reply]
    - That is an extremely bold claim to make, and inappropriate without the due diligence. There are only two uses of "listing fee" on that domain, and this instance it clearly says that the fee is applicable for people who wish to be added after the fact to that webpage, and that the editors have the right to reject submissions. As can be seen here, this interview was almost certainly included in the print edition. I have looked through the digital images of the print edition, and there are 25 profiles included; in the online version there are 27, which indicates that only the last two have been added after the print edition. Note that I have written an article for Financial Engineering News. John Vandenberg 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - RandomHumanoid, the interview gives a little notability in that the subject was selected by an expert to include within a sample of specialists. Also, without this interview a lot of the facts regarding the subject are difficult to source. The interview being published in a print magazine means that the details of this bio have been recorded in a reliable manner, and depending on the editing process of this magazine, have also been fact checked in order that the facts are also reliably accurate. My reason for a weak keep is a combination of the scholar results, having worked at two business schools that are easily within the best in the world, being involved in Review of Finance, and having been an editor at Management Science (but that looks out of date so he may not currently be on the editorial board), this gent is definitely not entirely lacking notability. Both journals are held in many libaries[31][32]. I have yet to spend a lot of time on this, as I stopped when I found the interview, and have now been side tracked in order to defend a magazine. An quick look on worldcat.org shows 23 "books" (usually extensive working papers, readers, etc), all with the subjects name first; 22 written for Centre for Economic Policy Research, New York University Salomon Center (part of the Stern School of Business), Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (and the associated Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research); and and one for UMI Dissertation Services. John Vandenberg 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - John, let me just reply about the interview. The linked article begins: The editorial goal of this Special Feature in FEN was to highlight, by use of a highly non-scientific sample, the variety of people working in the financial engineering field. ... Our only disappointment is that, despite contacting hundreds of candidates with an invitation to submit a profile... Thus, they randomly sent out requests for interviews and these people self-selected themselves to be included. The $250 listing is entirely suspect. I have done many, many interviews regarding my work. Had anyone asked me to pay for them to be featured, I would have laughed in shock and shown them the door. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - RandomHumanoid, the interview only added a "little notability" to my opinion, but when weighed in, it helps a lot with sourcing. Why? well it was in print, fact-checked to some extent, and sent to peers. The last one is important, as it invokes academic integrity. If major details in the interview were false, there would be more coverage of it. As a result, we can assume that the majority of the facts in the Wikipedia article are accurate, which is a major factor in whether we should keep an article (esp. a BLP).
        As for the quality of the source, it is one thing to suspect, but it is another to assert those suspicions are likely to be true. As best I can tell the magazine did not make wads of cash out of this as the fee was only for submissions that didnt make it into the print edition, so it is unnecessary to cast dispersions on a magazine. (otoh, if your own inquiry shows that there are other problems, I'll be the first to thank you). "non-scientific" does not diminish the editing that occurred; really it only demonstrates that this is a magazine, rather than a journal. i.e. they didnt want to receive feedback on their poor sampling. The reality is that the sample went onto real gloss paper sent across the globe for free; it is not cheap, and they will have filtered the list down somewhat. John Vandenberg 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No matter how you slice it, this guy just isn't really notable on a global scale. This article is little more than a list of where he works and goes to school. See WP:PROF and WP:N. /Blaxthos 11:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NOTE. Note that "global" notability is unnecessary, especially with respect to a professor and writer from a less developed country. If he's notable in his home country, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Charlene, I'm curious, where does "if he's notable in his home country, he's notable enough for Wikipedia" come from? Is this your interpretation of WP:NOTE or has this actually been agreed upon? It seems like a very low bar to set. E.g., the foremost physicist in Monaco (the world's second smallest country) may have some fame in his homeland but be totally unknown in the scientific world. (NB: Totally made up example.) Is he somehow notable?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By the way, not all refs need to be online. The OED is avaialble in most public libraries. That is enough for verification. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexercises

Has to be a hoax, there are no references! XNYTV 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Original research and a ~~hoax~~ Neologism. There should be CSD for such. /Blaxthos 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is a hoax. The same editor who wrote this wrote Sex Diet which is well-referenced. Needs someone to actually do the legwork instead of rushing to delete.--Ispy1981 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax? No. Neologism? Probably. Google has 17k hits. Yechiel Man 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs more explanation of how to exactly do it, but my hunch is that this isn't a hoax. Certain types of stretching and exercising can increase sexual stimulation, but this article needs a lot of work to make it more legit. --David Andreas 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References need to be added, but it doesn't look like a hoax. Quite a few archive ghits from the likes of Washington Post, Daily Mail and this one from BBC News with reference to NHS Direct. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Sexercises" is an obvious play-on-words, so I would say neologism w.r.t. this article. JJL 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable enough. The article probably shouldn't be pluralised though. —Xezbeth 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it appears to be a blatant (and inexperienced) attempt at vandalism, the article itself is notable. Fine by me. NSR77 ^T_C 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the term is correct (in fact, it sounds more like a sales term, oddly enough), so I'd be inclined to a move and redirect. The problem is, though, that I don't know what one should move it to. So with that, keep, unless somebody can think of a less marketroidish name. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nomination smells a bit pointy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to

Keep I added one apparently well known book, (52 libraries on OCLC, transl into 4 other languages). The singular seems to be the standard name--used in an article title in Lancet, There are others--there's obviously a lot of junk to sort through. The best known example, btw, is Kegel exercise. DGG 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete mainly to combat the obvious bias for keeping this category. But content-wise per Blaxthos Bulldog123 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-rcise per neogolism Rackabello 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Oxford English Dictionary quotes sexercise (singular) as first being seen in 1942, so not a neologism.

a. Sexual activity regarded as exercise.
b. (An) exercise designed to enhance sexual attractiveness or to improve sexual performance.

132.205.44.5 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem is that the page you reference for the quote is a subscription-required page. Can you come up with a better reference? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Push It Along

The reason this article should be deleted is that the song was not released as a single, it has not gained popularity or notoriety, and no video was shot for it. This article is just taking up space. Dan8191 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Notability isn't inherited; each song on a notable album is not notable in and of itself. /Blaxthos 11:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom and redirect to A Tribe Called Quest. There are a few issues with this article already, one being it's nothing more than a "play-by-play" of the song itself.--Ispy1981 11:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kammerer

AfDs for this article:

He is a minor weather reporter for a TV station. WCAU news team already covers this topic. Should be merged into WCAU news team. XNYTV 10:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable. Redirect unnecessary. /Blaxthos 11:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I found plenty of hits on google about Doug Kammerer, I find very few that established his notability beyond being a weather forecaster for the Philadelphia area. Ozgod 14:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. NSR77 ^T_C 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, #7 articles, an article about a band that does not assert significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid pets

Originally sent to CSD, but a different WP:SPA removed the tag. Article on a band that has no reliable sources and doesn't establish notability (SoundClick is not a notable chart). east.718 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Parinoid pets another not-notable band from Pennsylvania, they haven't even recorded their first CD yet! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! XNYTV 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN (Look mommy! We made a band! It's on wikipedia!) ;-) /Blaxthos 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Also, may be COI. The article's only two editors have made contributions solely based around this group. There are two people in the group. Coincidence? No CD, no reliable sources, no cookie for you!--Ispy1981 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. As to what harm is this page doing to anybody. The Paranoid pets are huge here in Northeastren Pennsylvania. There is other bullshit that is worth deleting. They are opening their offical website in the upcomign weeks so chill people. This is for the fans and you denying the fans their information is pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwillgodownwiththisship (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC). — Iwillgodownwiththisship (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete. The notability claim hinges on the SoundClick AAA charts. However, SoundClick does not qualify as a national chart (as opposed to Billboard. Notabilty is not asserted under WP:BAND, so this article meets CSD A7. So deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian photographers

I'm almost annoyed that deleting this article should require any kind of a discussion, as if there were multiple sides to the question. (Sigh.) We already have Category:Iranian photographers, which covers the same territory as this article much more efficiently. As you can see from the profusion of redlinks and external links, this article has become a magnet for ~~buzzards~~ spammers. :) Yechiel Man 10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- category is proper. Boy do I hate "list of" articles... /Blaxthos 11:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amen.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Mississippi license plates

AfDs for this article:

Minor subtopic of a subtopic of a subtopic, we only have a few states with their own licence plate articles like this. The others are up for PROD and the parent article is on track to being deleted XNYTV 10:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theoretically, this info can be traced and referenced like everything else, but at the end of the day, nobody really cares. :) Yechiel Man 10:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The previous discussion can be found here. --S ^up? 14:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous discussion is thorough and I believe that there is suitable interest in license plates to be encyclopedic. So what exactly is the reason behind deleting it, besides it being a "subtopic"? --David Andreas 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. NSR77 ^T_C 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into US and Canadian license plates. Chris 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is worth an article. The license plates identify cars from the state they are registered in, that is a topic similar to the flags of the world which identify a country. Sure all at a much smaller scale. Sure as encyclopedic, as Wikipedia is not paper. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eikaiwa

Term simply means "English school". That English schools exist in Japan is not notable or encyclopedic. Term should be referenced as a dictionary item only. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know anything about the subject at hand but, judging from the article, it appears to be way more than a simple dicdef. Whether some of the content (in particular the links) are encyclopedic is no-doubt debatable but how these private language schools relate to the curriculum taught at private schools might be worthy of encyclopedic recognition. There also doesn't appear to be another article that deals with this topic. -- S ^up? 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep-the concept of Eikaiwa is particular to Japan, and unless or until an article is written on how English is taught in non-English predominant countries, this topic merits a separate article. Chris 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Teaching English as a foreign language (which is mostly specific to non-Anglophone countries).cab 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge with that article is the best solution. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a dicdef, sourced, though "English language education in Japan" or something might be a better title. (As of yet there's no real naming standard for "teaching language X in country Y" articles since so few exist.) cab 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Eikaiwa is it's own particular beast, and not just a brief section of "English language education in Japan". Like many things on wikipedia, this article needs to be improved, not deleated. One could easily write a book on this subject. There are several different kinds, from the major chains like Nova and Aeon, or company-run eikaiwas in businesses that have overseas contacts, or private eikaiwas that might just be a couple of bored old housewives with no real interest in English. Eikaiwa is a major business in Japan, with advertisements and schools everywhere.MightyAtom 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Big or small, Eikaiwa means "English schools". Why is English teaching in Japan (compared with any other country) so notable that it merits an article all by itself? Just because you are a teacher in such a school does not make it notable or interesting ;)-- Sparkzilla talk! 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are likely to be multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources about the teaching of most languages in major countries. Japanese as a Second Language is a much smaller field than English as a Second Language, but articles like Japanese language education in the United States, Japanese language education in Russia, and Western study of the Chinese language, etc. all manage to cite numerous sources. cab 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice try, Sparkzilla, but I am not an eikaiwa teacher. Eikaiwa is big business in Japan, and this could be an interesting article. One could look into the history of the eikaiwa, from Ranald MacDonald, to the establishment of the chain schools, etc, the economic impact...there is a lot to be covered. Like I said, not a great article now, but there is a lot of potential there.MightyAtom 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Still largely unsourced, and has apparently been that way for nearly a year. Can trim to just the truly pertinent bits and merge to the TEFL language article mentioned by Sparkzilla above. MrZaius^talk 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy subject, cultural phenomenon, big business. If it's necessary to rename it using an English title, go ahead (it would be "English-conversation schools in Japan" or something similar, but not "English schools"); the subject would still be noteworthy. Fg2 10:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy, and is distinctly different from other methods of language instruction. Eikawa "aka English conversation school" is pedagogically distinct language instruction. Definately keep the "Eikawa" title. There is (and I have) volumes of sources on the topic of Eikawa (that is...mentioning Eikaiwa as a unique term specifically) and I will add sources at time permits.Statisticalregression 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named John

Non-defining or trivial characteristic. This is a pointless list that serves no useful purpose. It could quickly grow to thousands of entries that would render it unreadable. WWGB 09:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's no more pointless than any other list. Besides, with sections and tabularized (sortable by date of birth and alphabetical), the list is perfectly navigable. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This was branched out of John for no apparent reason, so I've redirected it back. Some of the given names should probably be removed but the rest, like the various Popes, are sound. —Xezbeth 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why do popes get to be on the list but not other Johns? Don't be biased. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because popes are very frequently referred to simply by the single name, and other Johns are not. Listing every John Doe with the same prominence is biased. (Even the popes are borderline on disambiguation pages; it would probably be better to point common pope names to Names of popes.) --Piet Delport 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete. I don't think there's anything here that's not at John as well. I really don't know what would possess someone to create this page. Someguy1221 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fast, strong, hard delete - can this be speedied? /Blaxthos 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as a disambiguation page - NOT! Disambig pages - and that's essentially what this is - only work when someone could reasonably be expected not to know or provide more specific information. Here, everyone knows the last name of whichever "John" they're thinking of. Yechiel Man 12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAST, STRONG, HARD KEEP! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well you would say that, since you wrote the "article". WWGB 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, is there any rationale behind this vote? (of course not...) /Blaxthos 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculous listcruft that could go on for days and days. I also believe some of it is copied straight from John--Ispy1981 12:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - John already disambiguates and there is no need for this page for any purpose. Otto4711 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to John. Duplicates the info of the disambig page. --Bren ^talk 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infinite listcruft and vandalism magnet. -R. fiend 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you people bothered to actually research the history of John, you would see that List of people named John was made up of entries moved (not copied) from John (which someone else reverted). Why should some popes and other religions/"royal" and some generic Johns be allowed on the list and not others? Hypocritical bias. The list isn't an article, WWGB--hence why it's called a list! It should be fairly obvious why this was page was created--to free up John to actually refer to just John articles and not include lists of compound word articles (i.e. people with the first/last name of "John"). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, in case it's not obvious, why we have kings and popes named John but not any old Johnny -come-lately is that very few people are known by first name only. A list of all Johns, even all Johns who have Wikipedia articles, would be too broad to ever be even close to complete, making all inclusions arbitrary. Kings and Popes use one name only; John of England is basically never refered to as Jphn Plantagenet, even if that were a proper last name, hence it is reasonable to disambiguate him at John. Cash, Fogarty, Cena, Carson, Dalton, et al are not known simply as "John" to anyone but close friends. For them, if we use one name, we use last names, and it is at those articles that we disambiguate them. -R. fiend 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft of the very worst kind. WP:NOT. Unfortunately there is no speedy criteria for articles that are just plain crap. MartinDK 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest delete possible, with salt. Pointless list that will never be complete (as I said when I put a prod on the article early on), created by an editor who seems to delight in being disruptive and combative, if his talk page and block log is any indication. Realkyhick 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial Strength Delete This ridiculous list puts another article (John) in danger of deletion. Can you imagine if we had a "List of People Named...." for every name out there? Flush this one down the... you know. Mandsford 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a list at John.--JForget 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom., and all comments in agreement.--JayJasper 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as there is similar article John as told by JForget Jst enthar 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that much of this list was originally moved out of John (which is a disambiguation page, and should only contain disambiguation content). --Piet Delport 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other names have disambiguation pages, why is John so special that it should have this huge list? --U.U. 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Dcooper 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a page full of links to articles that need disambiguation like I need a hole in my head. Violates WP:LIST, as these are only people who share the name John. I'm starting to wonder if the creator of this article is going to create List of people whose names are in the White Pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As the nomination is based on the state of the article after vandalism, which has been corrected, I discount the nom and the opinion that simply says "per nom". Since the existence of this village has been verified, the view "Not verifiable" must also be discounted. This leaves the only deletion reason as "trivial" which is countered by "would be an easy keep if in the US or UK", and the general rule that all actual towns and villages are considered notable per se. Thus the weight of arguments favors keeping, as does the weight of non-discounted numbers. There is not a clear consensus on merging, so that can be done or not done as an editorial action without need of an AfD. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eksar

Unsourced and contradictory article that establishes no notability. Small village with 1 million inhabitants? Author has no other contribs. Gilliam 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax so delete unless it is cleaned up and reliable sources are provided to show its existence. Davewild 09:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Complete nonsense! -- MightyWarrior 09:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Not a candidate for speedy deletion as it does assert its importance. Interestingly, I have taken part in debates about the notability of towns and villages, and although the current consensus is that they are all notable, the missing encyclopedic articles WikiProject says that there are some large towns in the third world which do not have Wikipedia articles yet...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just checked the history of the article and bit about 1 million inhabitants was recently added by what looks like a vandal, it was originally written as 1 thousand inhabitants. Davewild 09:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted the article back to before the vandalism and am striking my previous delete as now believe it is probably not a hoax but verifiable sources are required. Davewild 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information contained herein is trivial (the persons mentioned are definitely not notable) and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The village "Eksar" actually exists in Chapra district of Bihar. utcursch | talk 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that there is evidence that it exists changed my position to keep but clean up, a village of 1,000 people would be an easy keep if in the US or UK so should be no different if in India. Davewild 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed my position). When the non-notable people and POV comments are removed, very little remains in this article. Suggest that it is merged into a suitable article for a nearby place (for instance, Chapra). -- MightyWarrior 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Anwar 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus in favour of this. Non admin closure.. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Conway (philosopher)

Delete. This is just a person who has published a book. The reference given as 'his' blog is in fact the blog of the organisation which employs him. The other outside link is to a review of his book. Otherwise he appears to a be a respectable middle-ranking academic. Not enough however to make him notable for a WP entry. Seems to be a vanity page, therefore and not, in any way, up to the requirements of WP:BIO. Smerus 07:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears he has six books and he was a full Professor in a UK university. I think that means he meets WP:PROF and is notable. However, it does need cleaning up. --Bduke 08:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, no real reliable sources (especially secondary), this is just vanity. /Blaxthos 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there may be the grounds for something notable in the subject, I had a difficult time finding it in google results. I will abstain from voting to delete at this time as I lean more towards Support. If the article can be furnished with more references, any awards or press releases that may help establish hisnotability. Ozgod 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article is poorly written but, if true, the philosopher has a decent academic record with verifiable sources. Unfortunately, most philosophers don't become notable until long after they die. So, is an accomplished philosopher any worse then an accomplished author? --David Andreas 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full professor at Middlesex University in the UK, respectable publication. Certified by official university web site, which is RS for such things. Reviews should be added to show 3rd party recognition, but this is clearly over the bar.DGG 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:PROF, as stated above. The article definitely needs cleaning up, however.--JayJasper 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David and Pauline Conway

Delete: Non-notable, no references, no links, apparent vanity page Smerus 07:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real notability, no reliable sources. Only contribution of substance was an anon IP back in 2005. /Blaxthos 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who?--Ispy1981 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --David Andreas 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We need to see the article completely finished before discussing deletion. Sr 13 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazro (حضرو)

Complete mess of an article about a non-notable town. east.718 07:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article is tagged {{underconstruction}}. Give the guy a chance to actually finish it. There are numerous articles here about small towns. Your nomination is entirely premature and the current outline looks like it will become a worthwhile addition. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article was tagged for deletion 4 mins or so after being created when it indicated it was under constructions. Give it a week or so and consider renominating if it's still a problem Nil Einne 07:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Town

Non-notable record label with non-notable artists, provides no references. east.718 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yechiel Man 09:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above (and below). :) NSR77 ^T_C 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 90-99% of this kid's edits are either bogus or outright vandalism; many of the articles he's created in his short period editing have already been deleted. I know, I know—WP:AGF, but unless there's anything to back this article up, I'm doubting it. Closenplay 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Benelli Nova. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperNova (firearm)

Tagged for speedy delete as advertising, tag twice removed by the same editor (see talk page discussion and history). No sources indicating notability, indeed no independant sources at all. No reason why this particular model of shotgun is significantly different from all other shotguns Wikipedia is not a product guide. Reads like a product flyer, particuarly such details as the lsit of available finishes. Remove such details, and what is left is a nearly empty stuvb, and one that there there seems no prospect of expanding. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom, as not-notable, as per WP:NOT, and as per WP:SPAM. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about a well known shotgun by a well known company, the article should stay, it is not advertising, it is a weapon that is notable. PianoKeys 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it notable for? In what way is it significantly different from othe simialr weapons? Where has it recieved non-trivial published discussion in independant (that is, not by the manufacturer) reliable sources. Yes it passes WP:V, it can be proved to exist. How does it pass WP:N and WP:NOT? Merely because the manufacturer is notable (presuming that they are) does not make every product of theirs notable. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For a brief debate on a closely related article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperNova (Shotgun). DES ^(talk) 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always fascinates me when people that know zero about a subject nominate it for afd, because they personally don't know about it. This is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. PianoKeys 09:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on firearms, no. I do know enough about them to know that they are products, indeed commodities, like any others, and that most particular models aren't in any way notable. I also know spam when I see it. I note that you have not seen fit to answer any of the questions asked above. If you are an expert on this product and why it is notable, please explain it to the rest of us. The article does not do so currently, nor does it have any sources that so much as hint at notability -- indeed it has no sources at all that are independent of the manufacturer. Lets discuss the article, not my level of knowledge, please. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The SuperNova won the 2006 Academy of Excellence Award, which is indeed a notable award in the firearms industry. Evouga 06:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that people know something about a subject on wikipedia to be able to comment on it. The whole point of an article is to tell people something they may not know. If an article doesn't tell you something you need to know like why the product is noteable then it's the editors fault not the readers fault that they don't know. Nil Einne 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Could this fit anywhere? Otherwise, fails WP:NN Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone care to write WP:JUSTANOTHERSHOTGUN? :-D /Blaxthos 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a notable firearm, but the article is just plain advertisement (especially given the "five different finishes" section). All I can gather from the specs is that it has a comfortable grip, a little less recoil than the average shotgun, and it is light and durable. Unless it can see through walls or do something truly amazing above all other shotguns, besides kill better, there is no need for this to have its own article. --David Andreas 18:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a notable firearm, an article on it ought surely to be kept, albeit not in advert form. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Merge/Move if kept, the proper article title would be Benelli SuperNova per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Naming. Merge information with Benelli Nova (I'm assuming that it's the same shotgun line, just different models - the article implies this at this point.) As far as "advertising" goes, please define how this article is advertising? Especially cf. to Hawken rifle or USAS-12, or other firearms listed in Wikipedia. Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not the best way to advocate in AfDs. But how is this different from other classes of firearm articles on WP? LaughingVulcan 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move into Benelli Nova, per WP:GUNS#Naming, and WP:GUNS#"Target" versions. The gun at hand is just a Nova with some slight differences in the stock, and doesn't warrant its own article, but does warrant a section in Benelli Nova.--LWF 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move into Benelli Nova, per WP:GUNS#Naming, and WP:GUNS#"Target" versions. This content would help add more detail to Benelli Nova.-- Yaf 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Benelli Nova, for the reasons above. --SXT40 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Flores

An unencyclopedic article, entirely lacking in references, built upon a journalist's authorship of a book published through a vanity press. While I note the recognition bestowed upon the subject by the Texas senate, I'm not convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO. The book in question garners a total of six unique ghits comprised exclusively of Wikipedia, bookstore sites, blogs and the vanity press in question. Flores is described as having won awards, but none are mentioned. The article is the creation of four single purpose accounts. I recommend his work on behalf of the family of Sgt. Gonzalez be discussed within the Alfredo Cantu Gonzalez article. Victoriagirl 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, and notability is questionable. Author published through a print-on-demand publisher. -- Whpq 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after having read the page, there's little to suggest he really would pass WP:BIO. Likely conflict of interest and major POV problems that exist here are not in themselves reasons to delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above... I just don't see that there is anything worth salvaging here (or any way to do so). /Blaxthos 11:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After running through google I discovered the subject had in fact published this book, but failed to find any critical reviews, press releases or anything else of note. I did, however come across one external link, which may be worth giving a gander before this AfD closes. [33] Ozgod 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the author is arguably non-notable, his work is laudable for its thorough analysis of military related stories and, if the biography is true, has an impressive personal history, relegating him above laymen, worthy of some attention. The article can be easily wikified and grammar fixed, but the real debate is whether anyone should even care for this guy. In my opinion, yes; and arguments that his book is second-rate by second-rate publishers is rather frivolous. Maybe his book couldn’t find any better publishers because of American political bias that doesn’t care to hear anymore about Vietnam or anything else unpopular in societal consciousness – it just probably couldn’t sell. I might just buy this book to see how well he writes, but my hunch right now is that he is more notable then the arguments above give him. --David Andreas 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in agreement that the author is arguably non-notable, hence the AfD. I'm also in agreement that "if the biography is true" he has an impressive personal history - though this in itself is not relevant to meeting WP:BIO. That said, you do raise an important point. While I personally believe that the subject's biography is likely fairly accurate, I note that this rather long biography fails to include a single verifiable source.

The fact that Flores' book is self-published is in no way a determining factor, but it is relevant to the discussion as the article is built on this authorship. Eight months after publication, the only ghits the book garners consist of Wikipedia, bookstore sites, blogs and the vanity press through which it was published.

I won't join the speculation as to why the book was self-published, but will point out that an Amazon.com search for books on the Vietnam War published in 2006 gives a return of 266 titles. Victoriagirl 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reasonable claim to notability. (not to mention an outrageously self-indulgent article) But I think it's reasonable for people in this generation to write a great many books about Vietnam, before Iraq overtakes it altogether as a subject for memoirs, and some of them might be notable. DGG 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was considerably improved. -- Y not? 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Pest Control

Not significant, vanity section at the bottom, no citations. Adam850 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst their Big Blue Bug is notable and adequately referenced, the company is not. Google News articles discuss the big bug ontop of their roof rather than the actual business below. Redirect Tony DeJesus having a spot on an AM talk show is also not notable. --Bren ^talk 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you looked at the page after the recent revisions, adding citations to national and local media coverage of the company and the individual employees? The three delete votes were made prior to the addition of those citations. RogerWill 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking in Category:Pest control, I found exactly one other pest control company, and I PRODded it. This line of work is not notable, barring exceptinal circumstances which are not present here. Yechiel Man 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Yechiel, and BB. /Blaxthos 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company as an individual entity is extremely well-known and notable (at least in Rhode Island and southeastern New England). RogerWill 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia cannot take one person's (or any number of people's) word for this company being notable without the provision of multiple, independent reliable sources to verify that it satisfies the notability requirement. Someguy1221 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Apologies. What I should have said is, both local and national media have covered the company as a business separate from its mascot, indicating the company is individually notable.RogerWill 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking for them now, I am unable to find anything but trivial mentions, advertisements, and discussion of the bug (only looked through the first ~40 ghits). All you (or anyone) has to do to make sure this article is kept is actually provide information on that media coverage. We could always turn this page into a redirect (and preserve the history) to Big Blue Bug as an indefinite solution until sources are provided. Someguy1221 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've added to the article several citations to media coverage of the company as a company, as well as an article profiling Tony DeJeusus specifically. That article doesn't mention the mascot expect to say that DeJesus joined the company before the mascot was created. RogerWill 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that we have refs that (claim to...would be useful to have some that are available on-line) support notability, so it's notable per WP:CORP. Strongly disagree with Yechiel: "company X that does Y is not notable and we have few/no other pages for companies that do Y, therefore company Z that does Y is not notable" is not sensible...the issue is the company Z itself not a page or category for task Y. DMacks 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously deleted as non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Malley). It's now reappeared and makes various dubious claims of notability. Examples:

"He was crowned the 2004 grand prize winner at the prestigious World Comedy Laugh Off in New York City." — "World Comedy Laugh Off" gets only 15 Ghits; it can't be that prestigious.
"His 2004 and 2005 stand-up albums, Coming of Age and Children's Party Songs, are all currently in high rotation on XM Satellite Radio." — I can't find these albums on Amazon.com. Do they even exist?
"He is also the author of The Great American Novel" — Can't find this on Amazon.com either.
"He starred in the movie movie, Crushed which will be released soon." — No such movie listed in the IMDb.

The only remaining claim to fame is the podcast "Keith and the Girl", and I'm not in a position to judge its notability. Even if it is notable, does that mean that Keith Malley is? —Psychonaut 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no valid assertions of notability beyond the podcast. NawlinWiki 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. —Psychonaut 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person Corpx 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bren ^talk 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup stub article. Just added references. Keith Malley has been featured on national radio show the David Lawrence Show, and papers such as BusinessWeek, WSJ, and New York Observer, thus making him notable. Original AfD nom was in October 2005, only a few months after his podcast was launched, though this time around he does have sufficient coverage in the media. Albums are not sold though Amazon but are available through his podcast's website [34], and used to run through CD Baby previously. Great American Novel and Crushed have been removed per WP:CRYSTAL, but I believe he now does meet WP:BIO. --Bren ^talk 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the podcast Keith and The Girl is notable (based on its downloads/audience), then Keith Malley is notable, since he is the podcast! (Although I agree that not everyone can be notable by association.) If in 6-12 months this podcast dies out, maybe the articles should be removed then. -- MightyWarrior 09:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Keith is the podcast, then this article should be merged into Keith and the Girl. —Psychonaut 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. I also note that the article was relisted as "needing further consensus" with four deletes, no keeps, and the nomination itself... the relisting admin added his "keep" vote and then relisted as "needing consensus"... that is pretty bad form. COI, anyone? /Blaxthos 11:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Debate was raised due to notability and verification issues of the article. I have relisted today as since the initial 4 delete votes were cast, article has been worked on to address these issues. The relist tag was put in to differentiate the former and the newer votes. If this is not the correct way to handle such a case, please feel free to remove the relist tag, or alter to a correct one. --Bren ^talk 12:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would note that consensus appears to have been reached before you decided to imply that it was not (and use as a justification to relist). I also note that, at this time, consensus appears to have become even more clear (4-0 before, 6-2 now). Of course, this isn't a simple excercise in vote counting, but the consensus remains (at the time of this writing). I would note that the AFD was listed, and the opinions were issued, based solely on notability, not verifiability. Despite your claims, you can't "work on" notability -- it's either there or it's not (which was always the issue). /Blaxthos 13:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I apologise for relisting if that was not the correct procedure. What I am trying to explain is that Keith Malley is notable as he has been the subject of multiple secondary sources, and citing helps establish that. The 4 initial votes were cast without this information, the folling were. Since the AfD nom included "makes various dubious claims of notability" then verification of claimed facts is required. I also don't see the point of the nom argument "was previously deleted as non-notable" as between October 2005 and now there are sources to establish his notability per WP:BIO --Bren ^talk 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be obstinate here, but the article had included dubious claims about nonexistant projects to try and assert notability (the movie, the novel, etc.), and there has been some underhanded mischaracterizations within the AFD discussion as well. Without throwing out WP:AGF completely, I think that there has been a considerable effort at giving the appearance of notability (not the same thing as actually being notable). /Blaxthos 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Of the sources you've pasted, the WSJ source doesn't even mention the subject of this article at all. The BusinessWeek source only talks about the Keith and the Girl video, and mentions Keith Malley en passent. More dubious claims... the sketch may be notable, but the harder I look the more I see smoke & mirrors. /Blaxthos 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Keith and the Girl podcast article, until his other work has seen notability. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ...but with thanks to the nominator for flagging this. The article's original over-the-top promotional quality is separate from the issue of whether or not the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. The podcast, the mention in a Wall Street Journal shortlist of top podcasters, and the comedy prize seem to add up to enough notability that you can imagine somebody looking for info in Wikipedia. Without the comedy prize, I'd agree to just merging this into the podcast's article. bTW, I came here expecting to want to see the article deleted, after some anon claiming to be a pro-Malley partisan was trying to stir up trouble in the talk on Adam Curry.betsythedevine 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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). The central concern of the nomination is notability, and the keep "votes" do not adequately answer this concern. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Flight 815

Does not meet notability requirements - this is a fictional airplane flight that happens in the TV show Lost, and should not be documented as if it were a real crash. Any information that's important should go into an article about the show. The rest is not notable. Cheeser1 06:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're absolutely right, but if we delete this article, the Lost fans will get very upset. Better to leave it alone and let them enjoy their fictional world. Yes, the fact that this flight never happened should be made clearer within the article. Yechiel Man 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain which policy dictates that we shouldn't upset the fans of a particular show? This is not, after all, a vote, it is a discussion of policy. Thanks. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't one. This is an example of the Better here than there argument, which is explicitly deprecated in in WP:ATA. --Nonstopdrivel 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the Lost TV Series article. We don't keep NN stuff around just because tv show fans will get upset. /Blaxthos 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICTION. This article is far, far too in-universe, and of course using the {{Infobox Airliner incident}} doesn't help differentiate fiction from reality. Possibly merge into broader article Oceanic Airlines, if independent sources can be cited. --Bren ^talk 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment to YechielMan. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a central element of the show and just as notable as the space ships of Star Trek or the recurring characters of the Die Hard franchise - all of which have articles. Rillian 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My question is how central is it? The article seems to be lacking notable information, except what would only be notable from an in-universe perspective or what is already in other articles pertaining to the show. A list of people's seat numbers? A fake, inconclusive, and highly-dubiouis explanation of the the technical details of a fictional plane crash? The notability and out-of-universe relevance of articles have to be established. You can't just cite the fact that some other fictional spaceships or airplanes have articles, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This airplane doesn't seem to merit an article, as I see it, because there seems to be no information that can't be merged into other Lost articles, discarded as nonnotable, or discarded as in-universe. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: the article is fine, and should be kept, per Yechielman, but the infobox needs to change. As said by Bren it uses the actual plane crash infobox, and it needs to be noted (preferably in the infobox header) that the crash is completely fictional, and in no way represents a real crash. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment to YechielMan. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have specified in the article that this is a fictional accident. That's vitally important.Imagine a user who doesn't read English as a first language and who is accessing Wikipedia from a country that doesn't show Lost (and who therefore doesn't have a clue that such a program even exists!). It's quite possible that without clear and blunt notice that the accident is fictional that such a user could believe this is a real accident, and perhaps even write an article or report on it. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not one just for Westerners or for people who speak English as a first language. When something is fictional, it should be blatantly obvious that it is fictional. Edited. --Charlene 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, stating in the infobox that it is fictional doesn't change the fact that the rest of the article has an in-universe tone, or that most of the information is only relevant in-universe. While it is important that people know it is fictional, you can't fix that by simply writing the word fictional in big letters at the top. The fictionality (that's not a word, is it?) of the subject of an article must be apparent from the contents of the article, not an infobox or a "note: this isn't real" sort of a thing. --Cheeser1 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be salvaged into the article on Lost and Delete the rest. This article suffers from a serious case of in-universitis. --Nonstopdrivel 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are far less notable elements of fictional series in Wikipedia, some of which are even featured articles (e.g. Spoo). — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid justification. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and keep in mind that you must justify this article in its own right. Unless the notability of this airplane can be established, according to policy like WP:N, its contents should be delete-merged with other Lost articles, depending on their relevance. --Cheeser1 22:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree there. I did read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I still think the argument is justified here for the simple reason that the "whatabout" to which I am referring is actually a featured article. As far as I can tell, Oceanic Flight 815 is far more key to the plot of Lost than spoo is to Babylon 5. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to feature articles too. You must establish the notability of this article 100% independently from other articles you might consider analogous. "far more key to the plot of Lost" is your opinion and is in no way sourced or justified. You might think it's correct, and I might even agree, but that still is not a way to meet WP:N. There has been no justification for this article, in its own right, that I've seen. The sum total of its content is a mix of in-universe/irrelevant "facts" about a crash that didn't happen and repeated information from articles about the show and its characters. --Cheeser1 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wikilawyering here, but in any case I have raised this point on the talk page for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I think featured articles should be an exception to this rule. The examples that that policy gives are when pointing out articles that are themselves of questionable or borderline notability. And featured articles certainly do not fall into that category. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 10:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add a couple of other things. First, I note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is neither a policy nor a guideline on Wikipedia but merely a part of an essay that only expresses the opinion of some Wikipedians and does not have universal consensus. Secondly, this article has survived a previous deletion nomination where the consensus was to keep it, but to rename it to what it is today. It may need some cleanup and some more sources, but that in itself is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Finally, as far as notability is concerned, I am surprised that there would be any doubt whatsoever, as the entire series of Lost is about the aftermath and the survivors of this very plane crash. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this article needs is (1) any single piece of non-in-universe information and (2) justification based on WP:N. Your point about featured articles is irrelevant. Articles must stand on their own two feet, figuratively speaking. If an article is established as notable, then it would not be an issue of whether or not one is less notable than another. If it is your opinion that one is less notable than another, you'd have to back that up by pointing out why your preferred article is notable at all (regardless of what featured article you think it is more notable than). Articles need to be established as notable - this one has not been.

As for a previous AfD, that is not relevant. I see no evidence of notability in this article, and that means I'm going to nominate it for deletion. It doesn't need cleanup, it needs any shred of encyclopedic content. The content I see here is either (1) repeated (or could be repeated) in another Lost article or (2) fancruft about a plane crash that never happened. Nobody needs a step-by-step technical analysis (especially when it boils down to a really drawn-out "we have no idea what happened because it's just a TV show and they never bothered explaining it very technically") or a list of seats and their passengers (put the passenger number in each character's page, if it's even worth mentioning). The information in this article can be summarized and integrated into existing articles on Lost, or discarded as meaningless.

Finally, if you're surprised that there's a question of notability, then why don't you do something to establish notability for this article, rather than make extended analogies? Notability is not inherited from the show, nor is it inherited from spoo. I was hoping somebody would just satisfy WP:N, so I wouldn't have to AfD this thing, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. Even if it's an important plot element, it would be listed as such in the Lost article (it is, I'm sure of that). That does not mean it needs its own article unless you can establish notability based on WP:N. I've been waiting for someone to add something to that article or to this debate that establishes it as notable enough for a freestanding article, but no one has. --Cheeser1 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that while I'm not going to debate whether you're using "wikilawyering" as a pejorative or not, an AfD by definition is a discussion/debate of Wikipedia policy. I can't think of a better word for that than "wikilawyering" and would ask you to keep policy in mind in whatever response you have, if any. --Cheeser1 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Integral part of an extremely notable television series. Stop harping so much on notability, it really isn't all its cracked up to be. Tarc 13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would thank you to assume good faith, and not presume that I am "harping" on notability, when I am, in fact, asking that the notability be established. Everyone keeps referring to it, by inheretance or analogy, but such notability can simply be established by means of an actual policy: WP:N. That's the standard way to easily and amicably resolve this issue, and I'd love it if you could do so. Instead, I am accused of "harping" because I'd like to make this a policy discussion? --Cheeser1 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that notability isn't the be-all and end-all of criteria to keep an article. Tarc 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not the be-all, but it is the end-all. Notability requirements are, well, required. Just because more things are required to make a good article, doesn't mean it isn't required. See WP:N. I understand the importance of being generous with policy, but policy is policy, despite essays and opinions to the contrary. If something isn't established as notable, it needs to be. If it isn't or can't be, it should be merged, moved, or deleted as necessary. Hence the AfD. --Cheeser1 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I dont see any real argument for deletion. As far as fictional flights go, this one is one is very notable: its a major plot element in a long running TV series. The series has many articles, so it is appropriate to have an article that provides an overview of the details of the fictitious flight. John Vandenberg 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the whole point is not that there is some argument for deletion, but that there is no argument for inclusion. The series having many articles probably means it doesn't need another, when that article has not met WP:N, by not establishing notability or having a single outside source. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been tagged as in-universe for quite a while, no one has fixed it. I tagged it a while ago as lacking a justification of notability, no one has provided any. If everyone is happy to jump into this argument by asserting that notability could be established or that an out-of-universe article could be written, could you please actually establish notability or rewrite the article to be meaningfully written? It seems like everyone is perfectly happy to let an article sit there, with no notability justification, no outside sources, nothing in it but in-universe "facts." An article like that does not meet WP:N. It's clear as day to me, and I'm scratching my head as to why nobody's providing arguments that don't involve inheritability, analogizing, or "the fans will be angry." None of which meet WP:N. --Cheeser1 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, are you saying that it needs cleanup? I'm sorry but that is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If you have any problem with the way the article is structured, and whether it does not cite adequate sources and references, and whether it is written from an inappropriate perspective, please use the appropriate tags in the article, such as {{fact}} or {{weasel word}} where appropriate. If your problem with the article is that parts of it are written from an in-universe style (this may be true of some sections but it is not true of the whole lot) please tag those specific sections as in need of cleanup as appropriate, and explain what your concern is on the talk page. (I see no rationale or discussion whatsoever for the in-universe tag on the article's talk page at present.)

If your problem really is notability, however, I think we have already established here that there is no case whatsoever for deletion. The crash of flight 815 was a major, central event (perhaps even the major, central event) around which the whole premise of the series was built. If the article does not make that clear enough we should edit it to say so. There you go: no inheritability, analogising or worries about causing anger.

As far as analogies and comparisons with other articles--particularly featured articles--are concerned, they do have the distinct advantage that they are easier to understand, as well as giving us all some idea of the kind of standard of notability that is considered sufficient to allow an article to be kept. So don't write them off entirely. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup? No. Establishing notability is not cleanup, it is an essential part of creating/maintaining an article. The fact that it contains no sources and no out-of-universe information simply reinforces the fact that it is not justified under WP:N. Justification under WP:N is not clean up. It's a crucial part of policy. Justify it, and the AfD is over. It will still need clean up, but clean up alone will not satisfy WP:N. As for your argument about its centrality to the series - if it's the central focus of the series, shouldn't this content be in Lost (TV series)? Most of it already is, apparently, and the stuff that isn't (list of seats, meaningless analysis of the mysterious and unexplained mechanical failure, etc) seem to be unremarkable. Make them remarkable, by sourcing them or providing analysis (not your own, per WP:OR), and then you've got something. The article, even after your revisions, provides nothing in the way of outside sources. Despite the revisions, this could all still easily be trimmed up nicely and merged. --Cheeser1 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT, anything noteworthy should already be at Lost. Next we'll have an article on the airline, its inflight menu, the adequacy of the seat flotation devices, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already do have an article on the airline. But I do draw the line at the in-flight menu. That is definitely non-notable. (And non-verifiable.) — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article on the airline is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or if anything, more reason to consider scaling back the number of articles we have about fictional airplanes. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nonstopdrivel. J-stan 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: Many people have been speaking to arguments that boil down to "this plane is important" and "other planes and spaceships and stuff have articles." I'd like to point you to the following: Firefly (TV series)#Set design and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Notice that Serenity does not get its own article, and while the Enterprise does, but neither could be mistaken for this one. This article reads like a newspaper, including a flight manifest and an analysis of the crash. The Serenity article talks about the ship as it is a part of a TV Show, and the Enterprise article does the same. The crash in Lost is simply a plot device, and as such, could be included in the numerous articles (the article for the pilot episode and the show's main article, for starters). Unless some other notability is established per WP:N, and content is added to the article that merits mention out-of-universe, I still see no valid argument for inclusion (since, as I see it, the article and its contents fail as it is now WP:N), neither by analogy nor by inheritance. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was meuh...speedy delete? Sr 13 07:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meuh

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary Haemo 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and WP:SNOW. --Bonadea 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense, WP:NFT. Corvus cornix 06:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, utter nonsense. WWGB 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities with large Polish American populations

~~No firm criterion for inclusion; any criterion will be totally arbitrary.~~ Withdraw nomination, it's been fixed. --Eyrian 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it exists provides a list of communities ranked by percentage, with an appropriate source provided. Criterion is provided and is rather specific. Alansohn 06:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should be moved to "List of U.S. cities by percentage of Polish population". Large is inherently subjective. --Eyrian 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll leave the title up to you. The content establishes notability and provides a clear and objective criterion for inclusion. Alansohn 06:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the precedent established by the related articles in Lists of U.S. cities with large ethnic populations. We should either keep them all or keep none, and I think the choice should be clear. Yechiel Man 09:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While a precedent has certainly been set, the fact remains that there are literally thousands of ethnicities in the world. How many of these kinds of articles do we need, and what purpose do they serve exactly? Wikipedia is not a directory or a travel guide. --Nonstopdrivel 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup I haven't a clue what the numbers next to the cities mean, they are different in each category. I am also not sure why they are grouped the way they are. Is it looking at Poles as a percentage of the population or as a raw total number? It needs to be a table with total number of Poles and the percentage of Poles, in just one category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now two separate lists one by Polish population, one by percentage. Alansohn 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Poor Robins

No sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't assert notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much boilerplate among deletions of muscial groups. No evidence to support inclusion. Yechiel Man 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music Cricket02 05:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Naruto

AfDs for this article:

The article is entirely plot summary. Main article contains a plot summary. WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#IINFO,7 states "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Bolding is my own emphasis. This article is an aspect of the larger Naruto subject and was forked in a natural wiki process of keeping the core article concise. WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not rule out this article existence by default. Please ensure all "delete" comments take this into account. –Gunslinger47 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article may not contain only plot summary no matter what else going on. This article is designed to fail policy. Whenevr an article is "Plot of X" it fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7. The part of the larger topic means when the article contains real world information. In this case it is impossible. Any result other than delete is a violation of policy. There is no argument to keep, and there will never be one. Jay32183 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to help me understand this, because simply reading the section and #7 doesn't make the argument for deletion without prejudice very clear. This article was created as a fork of Naruto and is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto. It is possible for articles containing just plot summaries to be appropriate. If I am misunderstanding this, please direct me to where your point is explicitly mentioned. –Gunslinger47 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question would be answered if you read the first part of statement. It very specifically says that an article may not be only plot summary. The ending says that plot summaries may be included when talking about other stuff. This article does not talk about other stuff. You should also read WP:WAF. "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." This article contains no out-of-universe perspective and there is no means to correct this problem. Jay32183 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded. –Gunslinger47 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that truly was the logical extent, then it would make sense to merge this, not to delete it. However, it seems pretty clear that the spirit of the rule is to make sure to include non-plot info about a work - that is, not that plot summaries are forbidden, but that when they are the only coverage of the work on wiki, they are not allowed. You know, part of that whole WP:Ignore all Rules, thing, instead of being needlessly bureaucratic.KrytenKoro 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jay, did you look at the previous AfD nominations for this topic? Unless you really think there will be a different outcome here than there was 2 months ago on Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, you may just be wasting our time here. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure plot summary. Wikipedia plot summaries should be "treated briefly" (from WP:WAF). A summary detailed enough to require a spin off is too detailed. --Eyrian 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a plot summary, and as the nom points out, violates WP:NOT. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per clear violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 06:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not apply in this case, as I explain above. You'll need to explain yourselves more fully or your comments will not count. –Gunslinger47 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete as a mere plot summery. Also taken care of by List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 5-6), and List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 7-9). --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. There is no need to go that in depth into a plot. It can easily be covered by the main article in general and the season articles can be used for giving details. TTN 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN and Farix. We're better off working on List of Naruto chapters and List of Naruto episodes than keeping an unmanageable plot summary that is contrary to a number of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOT). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Additionally, this nomination also should've included Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, which continues on from this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Including that would have almost certainly resulted in a no consensus. IPs and new users are much more defensive of the Shippūden summary than they are the Part I summary. ~Snapper T o 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jesus Christ this article is long! --Potato dude42 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a neutral party, I suggest a move to migrate whatever is written in this article into any established Naruto wiki licensed under GFDL. Deleting so many months of work is a plain waste. If this isn't acceptable in Wikipedia, at least hand it over to specilised websites. - 60.50.54.92 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that notion. Good idea. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Overly detailed plot summaries are not GFDL compatible. They serve as a replacement for experiencing the copyrighted work. Jay32183 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never stated any retention of everything. The purpose of the migration was to preserve at least a basic outline of the plot, and not necessarily every little detail in between, details which could affect the ability to market the copyrighted material. Cut down this article's size and remove every nitpick detail if you're not satisfied that it won't pass criteria of GDFL licensing; whatever is done after that in the destination Naruto wiki (expansion and return to overly detailed plots, deletion, etc.) is no longer our concern. Better yet, merge this article with the episode guides (as one has stated earlier), saving only plot overviews. - 60.50.54.92 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      - There are already reasonable plot summaries in all the places that would be suitable targets for a merge. A merge is therefore innappropriate as it would only cause over bloating of the target article. Jay32183 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A merge doesn't always mean copy and past the information. In this case, it would require that people look over the salient details that might have been missed in existing plot summaries, and moving them there, while keeping the entire thing manageable. This series does not need this much plot summary. Wikipedia is not about plot summaries. Those summaries are merely there to give context to the discussion of real world impact. --Eyrian 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't suggest it would be a copy and paste. I said adding more plot details to the potential target articles is a bad idea because there would be too much. Jay32183 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For the record, I still endorse a migration to a Naruto wiki only if dramatic trimming is made on this article to summarise this whole mess. I'll leave it to others to develop a consensus on the fate of this article's merit in Wikipedia. - Two hundred percent 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably would have voted Keep a while ago, before the individual season articles were that well developed. I still think there needs to be a central summary (maybe not as detailed as this) of the Naruto plot, since we're kinda moving away from that on character articles... But I understand why this was nominated again. Right now, I think I'm gonna stay neutral, at least until I can collect my thoughts on the matter and express them more coherently.
This being said, I'm surprised that a massive influx of anon IPs and new user accounts havent already flooded this AFD... Maybe there's hope yet... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ther is no real reason to delete this article. It gives information, and is not destructive. It might be 95% plot summary, however, If the only way to tell the readers of wikipedia about this manga\anime is through a "Plot summary", then so be it. I don't think masshi Kishimoto is losing any sleep over the "Plot summary" anyway.busboy 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why have a article on a plot summary? --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We should SPLIT the articles instead. That way, we can still retain the information and keep articles to a minimum size. Mind you, there are various articles on characters of a TV series or a particular episode that are quite long yet they are not being nominated for deletion. -Omghgomg 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about length, it's that the article is nothing but plot summary. The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT by design. If we split the article then we have multiple articles that have nothing but plot summary and we've made things worse. Jay32183 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Furthermore, the article has already been split. As for the various single-episode articles for other works, they really shouldn't be there themselves unless something was especially notable about that particular episode. They exist, but that does not mean they are justifiable. You Can 't See Me! 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think we've had enough time to transfer the info to other articles.Sam ov the blue sand 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyerite

I thought it was edging it when people started making articles for each of the races of EVE Online, but now we're seeing the beginning of a series of articles about individual minerals in EVE Online. This is absurd, and makes a joke out of notability and verifiability, but most of all they're filled with original research.
Also included in this nomination is Tritanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Dark•Shikari^[T] 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm a little heasitant about calling someone else's information deletable when it's a phenomenon outside of my own pet interests, but I'm not feeling particularly more enlightened about EVE Online after reading this bit. It MIGHT make a point or two in articles related to game currency or resources or things of that nature, but otherwise one might as well write 'Meat (Kingdom of Loathing)' to discuss the use of that game's currency. And that's NOT a call to make that article! IL-Kuma 07:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information better suited to the main article in summarised form and we don't really need to be kept informed of the fluctuation of virtual markets--The internet is serious business 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Pyrite - reasonable misspelling. (Edited.) --Charlene 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and move to EVE-Wiki) and/or merge to Economics of EVE-Online, minerals section (if such article is created). As for Tritanium, since it is indeed a name also used in Master of Orion, and Star Trek, I would 'week keep' if it was referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EVE doesn't need to take over the whole of Wikipedia. I don't believe there is enough independent references to even create Economics of EVE-Online, I wrote much of the economics section of EVE Online and there is nothing academic and little in the press about the economics, most useful references are interviews and red's dev blogs. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). – Steel 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kige Ramsey

The subject is a YouTuber with 1,132 subscriptions and slight, though promising, sources. He might eventually be notable, but I don't think he's there yet. Ichormosquito 05:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sorry, Youtube doesn't count for establishing notability, and the appearance on sports illustrated is blown way out of proportion. Vanity, I say, vanity! Yechiel Man 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the WP:Notability guidelines. Should he become a pop culture phenomenon at some point in the future an article may be suitable then. At this unfortunately I feel the subject is not suitable for an entry on Wikipedia. Ozgod 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1,132 I have now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.113.39 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 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; if not applicable, snow delete. Clearly non-notable. Sr 13 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud (jazz band)

Speedy deleted once, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 04:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability whatever. Is there a reason we can't speedy again? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The db-repost tag says only that the article has been deleted via an AfD, and when I've tried to retag previously speedy deleted articles in the past, I've been told that isn't the right thing to do. Corvus cornix 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Let this AFD show the consensus of the community, then :-) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7, as original deleting admin. Naconkantari 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 per above.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of reggaetón artists and producers

This list has no strong criteria for inclusion, and is thus inherently unencyclopedic. It is not a list of notable artists and producers, but simply a list of them. As such, it contains almost exclusively redlinks, and many of the "blue" links are in fact links to articles unrelated to the topic. It has reached the point of no return, where it would be easier to recreate from scratch, with inclusion criteria (if it is needed at all) so I have sent it here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An incredible number of redlinks there, but could potentially be a valid list if reduced and sourced. Again it's a subjective list, furthering the argument for its deletion. Perhaps better as a category.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete - As in most cases, this would be better served as a category. /Blaxthos 12:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just from the 'A' Section, you'll see that A & A is a link to a computer virus, Amaro is a DAB page, Aniel redirects to an article about an angel, Audi links to the car brand, and Arsenal links to the "weapons" usage. Not only is the notability of the subjects listed in question, but just about all of the links are bad. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Most links go nowhere and the author is a non-member, leading me to believe that most of this is cheap advertisement for little known underground artists. --David Andreas 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Plus, "reggaeton" and "artist" should never be used in the same sentence. JuJube 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Blaxthos --Pc13 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was about to nominate for deletion as well, but started going through the names one by one - a time consuming task... much easier to recreate per Echuck215's suggestion. Sfacets 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JuJube, who is hilarious. --Tellerman 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Joseph

Suspected hoax. Google search for "Abel Joseph Dawson College" gives only this article as a valid hit. Videmus Omnia 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he is real, Canadian college basketball players are not notable. Canuck85 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, WP:BIO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. /Blaxthos 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search brought up very few direct hits for this particular Abel Joseph. I found one external site that attested to his actual existence, but nothing to establish his notability. Ozgod 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability Stwalkerster talk 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Abel Joseph actually played at Marquette University, as well as some time professionally overseas in Swtizerland, so this article (while obviously factually inaccurate) may not be as much of a hoax as previously thought. fuzzy510 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Davis

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the subject is absolutely not notable without the fact that she has been missing since June 13, which has nothing but news sources. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. I have speedily deleted this article twice under CSD A7, but decided to bring it here after it was abundantly clear that people disagree with me. If you don't have sources that would allow you to write a full biography on the person, then an article should not exist on them. Sean William @ 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak Keep Subject is definitely notable but the body hasn't been confirmed as her's yet so as far as we know she could still be alive even though it's doubtful. MAKAVELI 87 6:25 am 24 June 2007

Keep While the article itself may not contain much information, it has some relevancy to other articles if it's linked and cleaned up properly.
STRONG KEEP are you kidding me? this is a notable article! this is a perfect candidate for a wiki page. just needs some work and cleaning up! laci peterson, and all those other missing women's pages should be deleted as well then. BigCoop 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read through our Policies and guidelines and you'll find that this is not the "perfect candidate" for an article. Sean William @ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ this is most certainly a notable subject. The page just needs work, but it should not be removed, or in this case even be considered for removal. Like I said all it needs is some work. BigCoop 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are welcome to comment at reasonable length, please refrain from adding multiple "keep" or "delete" declarations within the same discussion.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-06-24 09:39Z

KEEP This is relevant to other articles related to missing persons and those that search for them, as well as law enforcement updates related to that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP This is quite a notable article, and thus it deserves its own Wikipedia article. However I do agree that it should be more elaborated and properly cleaned up. I predict that more information will be added to the article as the forensic investigations are slowly unveiled by the Canton Police Department.Cal Poly Pomona Engineer 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think bringing this to AfD was the right move because there was a sufficient claim of notability that meant CSD was inappropriate, but I'd agree with the analysis of Sean William above. There is a place for this information, but it doesn't appear to be this project at this time. I think the relevant guideline is the multiple and independent coverage standard in the biography notability guideline. This is all coming from one place. If Ms. Davis had been a heavily reviewed modern artist or had done something else that could contribute an additional independent bit of sourcing, I could see a better argument for keep. As it is at the moment, I don't see anything like that. Erechtheus 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is obvious that this story will grow as more is learned. If this should be deleted then so should Laci Peterson et all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Backohead (talk • contribs) — Backohead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Pointing at Laci Peterson exposes precisely why notability here is lacking. If this case captures the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did, it may be a subject worthy of inclusion here. Until that happens, you're just looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hasn't this case already captured the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did? (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Not even a drop in the bucket. There haven't been one ten-thousandth the articles on her as there were on Laci Peterson. I'm guessing that 99% of Wikipedia editors haven't even heard about her yet. Laci Peterson was internationally known; this woman is barely known outside her very small local area. --Charlene 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are comparing apples and oranges. Pound for pound, I am sure that this case has captured attention equal to, if not greater than, the Laci Peterson case. You have to remember that the Davis case has only been in the news for a week or so, while the Peterson case was in the news for a good year or two (as the investigation and court proceedings dragged on). Naturally, in absolute terms, a case in the news for 1-2 years will have more articles (in absolute numbers) than a case in the news for 7-8 days. Your comment that "this woman is barely known outside her very small local area" makes no sense. Has not this story been the topic of major and constant news coverage all over the nation (and not just in the Ohio locality) for the past week or so? (JosephASpadaro 16:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Again, you have highlighted why this article is not appropriate at present. If there is the volume of coverage in a year or two that there is now for Peterson, it would be appropriate to write an article on Jessie Davis. Until that coverage actually exists, an article is not appropriate. Erechtheus 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you read my above posted comment, I said that indeed the volume of coverage is (proportionally) similar to (if not greater than) the Peterson case. If you are suggesting that we wait 1 or 2 years to add this article, that is just downright silly. (JosephASpadaro 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing silly about it at all. It's the same principle that suggests we shouldn't have articles on films that are stuck in development hell. We have 3 news articles that obviously have the same sourcing about the same event. To compare that with the coverage of the Peterson case is absurd. There was a moment in time when the Peterson case had this level of coverage, and it wasn't notable at that point. As I said before, this case might catch fire and be the next Peterson case. If that happens, that's the time to write an article about it. That's the way it works. Erechtheus 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point in having an article for every missing woman in U.S. history which is exactly what's happening. Michelle Gardner-Quinn also disappeared and was later found dead. She didn't get as many headlines as Davis and yet we have an article for her as well. If anywhere, these belong on a Crime-pedia of some sort. Not every one of these women is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The event is notable. (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is why we have Wikinews. --- RockMFR 06:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable individual who recieved much attention and media coverage. I do not understand the "not a newspaper" argument. Firstly, the article reads nothing like a newspaper entry. Secondly, how does mass media coverage reduce a person's notability for an article when it should do the opposite? Also, if events in the news were not significant to Wikipedia, there would not be an "In the News" section on the main page of the site. And as more information comes out about this woman's life prior to her disappearance/murder, that information can be added at that time. Just because it may not available at the time does not reduce the notability of the individual and the story though. --musicpvm 06:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If you don't like articles like this being included, go try to find consensus to change the notability guidelines. She, having received in-depth coverage in multiple media sources, easily and unquestionably satisfies the current requirements. Evouga 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This person has received coverage in a couple reputable news channels but may still need more sources to help make it more notable. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another example of MWWS. Who, other than family and friends, will remember her after a few months? Not notable before her death, notable for a short while only on account of her disappearance. WWGB 07:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This victim is practically all over the news (local and national)...thus notable. Deserves a place in Wikinews and Wikipedia. Jumping cheese 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to DISagree with the citation of coverage, as the first I'd heard of this sad story was ... coming across this article in AfD. And while not everyone is blessed with watching the news at all hours, I hadn't seen this story splayed luridly across newspapers or breaking into broadcast news. It's a sad story, but Wiki can't be a repository for all of them. This is a subjective assessment of notoreity, I know, but if the main defending point is how it's known to everyone, and someone in the middle of the US with normal media reception hasn't heard of it ... is it that well known? IL-Kuma 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I've never heard of it" is not a valid reason for deletion; see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Notability is established once a subject has received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, which she has. Evouga 10:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete transwiki to wikinews if they want it. Only notable for being a murder victim like thousands of others. Wikipedia should not become a memorial for murder victims. Davewild 08:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews uses a different license than Wikipedia, so transwiki-ing is not possible. It would be perfectly OK to rewrite the article over there, though. Sean William @ 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Murder victims are routinely memorialized on WP. And if you are that exercised about the topic being deleted, wait a few months. And I have improved the article. As for a true crime article for your disputative natures, I suggest viewing Garlin case, a rather unvisited but ongoing article (Google has not picked it up).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Telephone (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete Absolutely no reason to keep such a non-notable article. Being murdered does not make you notable and there appears to be no public knowledge beyond a few routine News Articles. I know it is sad and people like to think all sad stories deserve a place here, but we can't allow every death a page. Wikipedia is NOT a Memorial. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for the oversaturation of coverage and the media criticism that follows the case. It fits the mode of Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome. LILVOKA 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying we whould have a wikipedia article for every white woman who goes missing in the United States? --Ozgod 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a memorial. There is no long-term notability, and doesn't rise above any of the other missing or murdered persons. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Never fails to amaze me how many people want to keep articles liek this "just because." /Blaxthos 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a news source, but this is very notable. While I realize that most murder victims aren't kept here, this is notable, and it doesn't fail WP:MEMORIAL because it is all encyclopedic content that can, will, and is possibly already covered by independent reliable sources. I live in Canton, Ohio, and this is very notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I sit on the fence with this issue, is Wikipedia really here to serve as a encyclopeda for all missing persons in the U.S. and abroad? How many cases go unnoticed every day or covered in the news? In particular, what makes this missing person case unique in that it requires an encyclopedia article? When I look to victims of crime, I look to Kitty Genovese in regards to notability. Her murder became quite well known, as I believe it is called the Genovese Effect (where people watch a crime occur but do nothing). I do not mean this to sound rude or judgemental, but I feel it is too early for this article. People are killed and kidnapped everyday - but do we need an article for all of them? Some just get more coverage in the news than others. Ozgod 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 100,000 missing persons in the US alone. One Hundred Thousand. The total missing persons worldwide is likely close to twenty million. Do we have articles on all of them? --Charlene 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not the same thing as popularity or short-term news coverage. If she's notable in six months or a year, we can revisit it then, but now she's no more than one out of the millions of missing persons and (alleged) murder victims in the world. This would be much more appropriate for Wikinews right now. --Charlene 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A burst of media coverage does not make one historcaly notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Nabla 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People need to know about Jessie Davis on wikipedia not wikinews. The article does not sound like a newspaper article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.161.114 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep Why would this article be nominated for deletion any more than an article on Laci Peterson? This is most certainly a notable subject. --Realdiamonds 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - To many of the commentators (above): No, we do not need an article about every single murder victim in the country. No, we do not need an article about every single missing person in the country. No one here is arguing that we do. The "keep" votes support the notability of this victim and this case. While there may be many murder victims and many missing persons in the country, clearly some cases are more notable and others are less notable (if notable at all). The argument is not that Jessie Davis is a murder victim just like the countless other murder victims. The argument is that, rightly or wrongly, her case is notable while many of the others are not. (JosephASpadaro 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why is this case more notable than any other murder case? EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this case is more notable is not the issue; the fact that it is more notable is the issue. The "why", I am sure, is a complex sociological question. (JosephASpadaro 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, that's arguing by assertion. To re-word the question, how is this case more notable? EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment We don't know it's highly notable until it has run it's course. Such as the time when Amber Hagerman case evolved to what is now considered "Amber Alert" system instituted around the country and also helped launch the Texas EquuSearch organization. But all this was a result of the kidnapping that occurred several months after the fact. It's impossible to know what future organization will evolve from this incident.--Hourick 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So write the article if or when notability is established. We don't write articles looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Remember all of the article about VA Tech shooting victims? Being killed and then written about in the news doesn't really make someone notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though suitable for Wikinews. Was she notable before her murder? No. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability prior to death is not in issue. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that she was notable prior to her murder. (JosephASpadaro 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In that case she's undoubtedly NN, because her death doesn't make her notable. Notability has to be permanent - as I said, short term news coverage is what we have Wikinews for. Yes, this doesn't apply to all murder victims, as there may be a wider real-world notability involved in the circumstances of their death, but that doesn't apply here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - here's another way of looking at it: Will "Jessie Davis" be an answer to a school or game-show test question two years from now? No. Why? She wasn't notable before she was killed, and her death itself had no lasting impact on our society. Sad but true. Contrast this with, say "Name the woman who refused to give up her bus seat..." Notability isn't measured by lines in the press but by whether or not the subject made a lasting impact on the world around her. Our notability guidelines need updating. Rklawton 18:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to unilaterally ignore policy. Go get consensus to change WP:notability and then renominate the article.Evouga 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I hardly think that the feasibility of "game show" type questions serves as a litmus test for notability. (JosephASpadaro 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Consider the "notabliity is not temporary" section of WP:notability guideline. I'd submit that there is no need for any policy change in order to argue for deletion in this context. Erechtheus 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Story is getting press only because of its similarity to the Laci Peterson story. It is a textbook example of missing white woman syndrome. - Brian Kendig 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the people who said we shouldn't have a page for every single missing person in the world and also the obvious case of missing white woman syndrome.
- Delete per the two editors above. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People gotta die - outside of the murder case that has been hyped up by the media, she is unnotable. However, it's the fact this case is so covered means she stays for the time being. Therefore, Keep. Guroadrunner 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She falls under notability standards, but many of the arguments here are indeed raising a good point: she is only notable for being a murder victim by her SO's own hand and being found days later. So her case isn't all that unusual, but even then, unusual is not unto itself a criteria for inclusion. My own thought is that, since she's well covered, it is notable enough for our standards and therefore should be kept. I say "weak" though, on account that there's not much to work with right now - but then again, it is still a current event. A side note, her family has my condolences. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a significant event. I cant believe some have brought up MWWS. Anyone who goes on national news for a few days is significant enough for an article to be made about her. Besides, Kelsey Smith has her own page, and that was a similar incident.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auno3 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 Jue 2007 (UTC).
Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for stuff like this. Resolute 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - Is the Jessie Davis murder case "notable"? Per WP:notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... So, (1) significant coverage? yes; (2) sources? yes; (3) reliable? yes; and (4) independent of the subject? yes. Since the Jessie Davis murder case satisfies all four of the notability guidelines, what exactly is in dispute here? WP:notability further defines these four criteria as: (1) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. (2) "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (3) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. (4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Furthermore, WP:notability states: "Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article." So, once again ... what is in dispute here? Which of these 4 criteria is not being satisfied? (JosephASpadaro 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- For me, it fails the logic test. Quite simply, if you use this logic, then every single murderer, victim, most robbers, and a lot of various irrelevant people who get written up in the newspapers would be considered notable. That is why the "Notability is not temporary" section of WP:N is currently written as is: This is the current media flavour of the day. In a month, this case will be forgotten, if not sooner. Further, Jessie Davis' biography consists of this: "Jesse Davis is a murder victim." That is all that is actually written about her in this article. The rest of it belongs on Wikinews. Resolute 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which logic test is that? Did you unilaterally decide to add a fifth element to the four guidelines of “notability” as defined by Wikipedia? If not, when (and where) exactly was your fifth guideline approved or incorporated into the Wikipedia definition of “notability”? Furthermore, you state that: “Quite simply, if you use this logic, then every single murderer, victim, most robbers, and a lot of various irrelevant people who get written up in the newspapers would be considered notable.” First of all, it is not “logic” as you put it, but rather it is the Wikipedia definition of and policy on notability. Second of all, if every single murderer, victim, etc. fulfilled these four criteria, then – yes – they all would (by definition) be considered “notable.” Third of all, I suspect that “every single murderer, victim, etc.” would fail the first prong: “significant coverage.” One tiny little article on page 14 of the ‘‘East Podunk Gazette’’ does not constitute significant coverage. I suspect that most ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety criminal cases lack the element of significant coverage. Such, however, is hardly the case with the Davis murder. (JosephASpadaro 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I find it comical how you attempt to trivialize my argument by reducing murders in the news as being covered on "page 14 of the East Podunk Gazette". Pick a major crime, it will have significant coverage in major newspapers. It is quite unlikely that you do not realize this. However, this is really beside the point. Appearing in the news - be it local or national - does not necessaraly establish notabilty. It simply makes it a news story. This is the logic test that it fails: not everything that appears in the news is notable, despite this guideline. Even if the news story appears on CNN, or whatever. Resolute 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is sad that a missing woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant, and that perhaps she made an unfortunate choice as to the father of her children. But she was eminently non-notable before being murdered, and Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to write a nice article about people who got murdered, or a true crime story archive, or a newspaper. There is nothing encyclopedic about some non-notable person disappearing and being found dead. It happens millions of times a year. Per Wikipedia is not a newspaper this may be deleted even though she was a missing white woman who gained some coverage on the news channels, and even though the story appeared in several newspapers. There is also the WP:BLP consideration for her surviving 2 year old who may have witnessed the crime. Edison 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider many murders and murder victims notable. I don't consider this one notable in any intrinsic way, and I cannot think of the basis for the press interest unless it was the near-term pregnancy--it isn't just missing white-woman, for this is much more coverage than usual. I don;t think the 2 RS test for coverage has much point any more, except in cases where we cannot think of a better standard. But I must admit that the extent of coverage does make this notable, as a press equivalent of an internet meme. I've suggested elsewhere merging the material on the alleged murderer into here. As she was apparently notable when just missing, we really can't use "Murder of J. D." as a title, though I think that would make sense most of the time for such articles, rather than the name alone. DGG 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, there is no rule that says we cannot have an article on the event, and there's nothing keeping us from moving this to "Disappearance and murder of Jesse Davis" if what the article needs is a refocusing. The disappearance and murder have obviously received massive nationwide coverage, even if the rest of her life hasn't, so there's perfect cause to have an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have been Extremely bold here, and restructured, merged, and retitled the article to be about the event, rather than have any pretense of being a biography. It is now at Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, and it includes descriptions of all the facts of the case, though more information on the scope of the media attention needs to be added, and the redundant article on the boyfriend has been merged in. I'd like to ask that everyone who was opposed to this for being a 'biography of a non notable person' consider it as what it really is, a documentation of a notable event. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support Night Gyr's actions. (JosephASpadaro 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Changing the format of two non-notable biographies into one non-notable article about a blip on the news radar does nothing to change the character of this article/these articles in my book. I'm not certain whether or not this sort of boldness is appropriate or advised in the face of dual AfDs, but that's really a question for another forum. What counts here is that we're still dealing with a news event that will be forgotten the next time the producers of nighttime news magazines need a new tragedy to peddle. Erechtheus 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I support Night Gyr's actions. I also support deleting this non-notable event article. I also think we need to tighten up our guidelines regarding what constitutes a notable event. Lots of news coverage may serve as a good indicator for Wikinews, but it does little (in this case) to indicate encyclopedic notability. Now, if some laws are changed as a result of this event, I'd certainly change my vote, too. Rklawton 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and delete. — Ocatecir ^T 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Portable web browser

This article is continually going back and forth, definitely past 3RR by now. Putting forward as AfD to get some centralised discussion going. Options would be keep, merge with PlayStation Portable#Web browser, or delete as original research. Bren ^talk 03:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I just copied and pasted the text into that section, the history needs to be retained. hbdragon88 04:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it gets some sources, otherwise delete as WP:OR. east.718 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monty Python sketches

I'm not sure, but I believe this article is redundant. Currently it is just a list without any additional info, and there's a category for Monty Python sketches that provides access to all these articles, therefore this list has absolutely no point. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 03:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Ministry of Silly Lists deal with it. What? There isn't one? Then, delete per nom. Clarityfiend 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's redundant and violates WP:NOT#INFO. I fart in this article's general direction. east.718 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's a category for this, the list is completely redundant!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Duplication of List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Tevildo 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to above. Pavel Vozenilek 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pavel Vozenilek.--JayJasper 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above (note: this could have been done without an AfD). -MrFizyx 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:MUSIC (WP:SNOW). --soum ^talk 11:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pseudo superheroes

NN band, but asserts notability in the article. Most ghits are myspace pages. Kesac 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because: Band's album

Delete both Does not meet WP:MUSIC at this stage. --Bren ^talk 04:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Non-notable. The Amazon page for the album doesn't list it as being published under a major label. Google search under the band's name doesn't turn up anything but self-published sources. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. I don't do this often, so here it goes: Out of the two references, one is a self-reference and one is a blog. Reads like an essay, a neologism, original research, unnotable, and lacks verifiability. Definitely no chance in hell that this will be kept. Sr 13 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of participation

Neologism, original research, more Web 2.0-related crap. --- RockMFR 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Really takes the piss, the only reference doesnt even put the words together jokingly. I feel sorry for the English Language, this decade has not been kind to her. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I feel so sorry for my old friend English. Oh well-Nonsense is as nonsense does. --tennis man 01:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, etc. east.718 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, neologism per discussion below (WP:SNOW)) --soum ^talk 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participation Age

Neologism, original research, more Web 2.0-related crap. Everyone's in the business of coining their own Web 2.0 buzzword these days, it seems. --- RockMFR 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not a notable term, used as a subject title on one of references (does not make it valid term) and not even mentioned in numerous other sources. Comment I must add that i agree entirely with RockMFR, if i hear one more word being mixed with "blog" i might just give up my use of the internet. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: which speedy deletion criterion are you suggesting this falls under? --Pak21 10:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - mere marketing. commercial buzz. mindspace spamming. This says "Sun Microsystem's "Participation Age" which is what Cisco ripped off for its Human Network campaign got into Wikipedia first, and also looks likely to be deleted. How much more "commercial conversation" does Wikipedia contain?" - WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant usage. --Pak21 10:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NEO

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam per discussion below and WP:CSD#G11. William Pietri 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human network

Advertising phrase being edited into Wikpedia to legitimize it as a real idea. I don't think we should carry water for an advertising company. First brought to my attention via an entry on the blog Valleywag. [35] waffle iron ^talk 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertising; the following really topped it for me.

"...and this Wikipedia entry was created as part of that advertising initiative..."

-- Jimmi Hugh 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per both Advertising and WP:Notability. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 00:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire. Absolute crap. --- RockMFR 01:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising, and salt to prevent re-creation. -- Arthur Frayn 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pull out and nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure. JJL 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Market manipulation is not conversation -- Seth Finkelstein 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. --Haemo 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete See above. Ichormosquito 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet operating system

Article makes numerous contradictions, clearly exact details are unknown because the term is niether accepted nor used. It defines itself as both an Operating System and Web Application depending on section of article read, both these instances are covered by Web Operating System and Web desktop articles, which incidently need to be cleaned up. This page has never had cited sources, is clearly original research. --Jimmi Hugh 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be original research, reads almost like a persuasive essay in the beginning. "Why have we written this article, you ask?" Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, reads as an essay, claims are unsourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, even if we ignore for a second that the article reads like somebody's 2000 'presentation to the VC people' keynote speech, there just isn't that much there. It looks like OR because large parts of it are and it appears to be self-contradictory because its just not a single clear and concise concept: even the definition is overly broad and simply doesn't make sense (most socket APIs could be considered an 'Internet operating system' under that definition). WebOS is a real concept which a corresponding real-world implementation of that concept. This article, on the other hand, looks like it's taking real-world applications and trying to apply an umbrella concept to them for no good reason at all. --S ^up? 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced original research, improper tone, etc. /Blaxthos 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Web operating system. Pavel Vozenilek 14:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --David Andreas 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP. Gold♥ 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be (band)

unsourced, notability is claimed but not supported, and the article is a COI and is so strongly POV and stylistically flawed as to be unsalvageable. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Dubious notability, some claims, but unsure whether these amount to WP:N. Record label seems non-notable. Press reviews may not necessarily be big publications.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the press releases look like reliable sources to me. The definition of "non-trivial" press mentions doesn't weigh on how big the publications are, but how relevant the reference to the band is. Meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 11:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unreferenced article. Contrary to Zeibura's claim, press releases and other self-published sources are not considered reliable, and certainly don't rise to "non-trivial press" as required in WP:MUSIC. Fails notability guidelines, unreferenced claims of grandeur, and COI == put this puppy down. ;-) /Blaxthos 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep but this is very borderline, some of those reviews really need to be sourced properly. However, reviews on Popmatters [36] and InMusicWeTrust [37], tip me slightly towards keep. Nom is right that it needs cleaning up badly though.EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The band has apparently been around for over a decade and is arguably notable, but the press section is ridiculous for Wikipedia since it is obvious self-promotion commonly found on official band websites. Unless it is quickly fixed, I think this should be deleted. --David Andreas 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article in its current form is also a candidate for a G12 Speedy Delete. However even if article were to be cleaned up I am not satisfied from what I can find on the Internet that this band meets WP:Music. A1octopus 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, info on this band is so scarce any source is precious

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DP/SFV)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DP/SFV)

disputed PROD for local alliance of local political groups; no assertion of notability & no references; fails WP:ORG delete Cornell Rockey 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Political organizations are notable if they have a voice in the areas they reside. However, this article is rather poor in quality and needs much work, obviously needing sources. Dependant on how long this has been sitting without change, give the author some more time to fix it. --David Andreas 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that every county democratic & republican party deserves an article on wikipedia? Cornell Rockey 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, since I have been deeply involved in politics both in Russia and the States, yes. If countless notable authors and filmmakers deserve a place on Wikipedia, why not organizations that exert political sway? Politics has much more lasting effects than most authors do. But this, obviously, is just my opinion and I gladly would hear other opinions on this. --David Andreas 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "organizations that exert political sway" is a meaningless distinction, since pretty much every organization on Earth that ever hosts a politician for a speech or writes a group letter to any local political authority can be said to "exert political sway". Yes, for an organization that that has had measurable impact on national or perhaps state policy or politics, as noted by multiple, non-trivial, not--purely-local reliable sources. Here, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Delete. Local political group, only a subset of a subset of a major political organization: too far down the political foodchain to rate an article, not mention the whole lacking-of-assertions-of-notability-or-references problem. Wikipedia is not a directory of local political groups. --Calton | Talk 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how to handle county parties, and many US counties are so small that county as a fully automatic criterion does not make sense, though it will make sense in many cases, such as the NJ counties. As I understand the geography, this is sub-county. The possible lack of notability in this case is shownby the utter lack of notability of the people mentioned. The article would be stronger with them out, so I have done jsut that--if not approved of, it can be reverted. DGG 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced; no secondary sources are evident on Google or Google News. -- Visviva 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent, reliable sources can be provided. From WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." I think that basically says what the problem is here: The reliable sources are, so far at least, lacking. Noroton 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm confused. If Wikipedia is designed to put information in, then why not keep the article? Isn't the point of this to keep a living version of an encyclopedia? (CoffeeAddictMike 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If there are not multiple, independent, reliable sources, then how can we keep up the quality? We obviously need to do more than provide m/i/r sources, but we should at least be doing that. It's a standard that at least helps to keep up accuracy. Noroton 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rosen

Non-notable author. Prod tag removed by original author without comment. Delete'. DMG413 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Author does initially appear to be rather non-notable; however, he does seem to have an involved career in the liberal arts which makes him notable in my book. If this article were wikified it could pass, but it is questionable whether this is self-advertisement by the author himself. Since there are some verifiable sources on Google, I think this page could stay if improved. --David Andreas 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Author certainly is notable. He has generated a significant amount of public awareness to the Off-Grid campaign in the UK - including BBC TV news & radio interviews in May 2007 - and he has indeed had a colourful career in the liberal arts. Nick Rosen is an award-winning producer and an esteemed journalist - I believe he wrote several articles on the dawn of the Internet for The Times newspaper in the early nineties. I respectfully suggest that this does indeed makes him notable. One has only to conduct a search for "Nick Rosen" on Google for verifiable sources. This link points to an article for the Daily Telegraph: [38] and an article by the Times Online [39].

I propose that I edit article is edited for neutrality, to remove any suggestion of self-advertisement. Thank you. Nightfly1 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agreed with Nightfly1 above: he's notable enough so the article should stay provided its style is significantly improved. -- Hux 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think its passable, sufficient varied aspects, though perhaps none of them by itself would qualify. DGG 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The body of the article itself is tripe. And as to existence, I can't say that anyone has demonstrated that "forced foo-sexuality" is HARD SCIENCE. I am sure someone out there does these things, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should have an article about them.

Forced bisexuality

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Forced bisexuality (2nd nomination)

Original research; no sources; non-notable. Previous deletion discussion is here, but note that the page was recently moved from "Forced homosexuality" to "Forced bisexuality." Exploding Boy 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the last Afd, it was suggested that time was needed to find sources to support this OR mish-mash. Time has passed, and somehow no previous Keep voters have surfaced to add sourced info. Anyone voting Keep on this page is invited to contribute a source for this entry. IronDuke 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though it initially may seem to be original research, this article seems to be filled entirely with conjectures without any scholarly sources, making it far, in my opinion, from legitimate research. Since the subject is highly debatable (what really is the root of bisexual tendencies [forced or not]), I would leave such research to the academic experts who can scientifically backup their claims. --David Andreas 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see that the question of what is at the root of such tendencies is relevant to keeping articles about them, but see further comment below. DGG 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More like a fetish. There are 1000s of them! Doesn't deserve it's very own page. A paragraph somewhere would suffice. Gold♥ 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 100s of video games. Irrelevant argument. DGG 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Exactly... this is yet more biphobic behavioral reaction. This subject for some reason apparently threatens many, especially male. TednAZ 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the more appropriate solution to lack of sourcing is sometimes to add {{sources}} or {{OR}}, there reaches a point when it's simply time for it to go. Someguy1221 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something like this both requires strong reliable sources and, if true, should have plenty of them. Not one single source of any kind is here. This is 100%-pure original research. --Calton | Talk 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This probably exists, but without sources, should not be an encyclopedia article. Would revisit if sources appear. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Sourcing this will be easy enough to source, at least as a fantasy, depending on what sources are accepted. I think it would be enough to show that it occurs as a common theme in works of the imagination, just as other themes are documented. This will however be called OR, unless one can find a RS talking about such works of the imagination. They are talked about often enough, but typically on web sites and specialized forums-- other sourcing depends to a considerable extent on chance finds. I've succeed in 2 or 3 cases, and failed in an equal number, all with great effort --& sifting through sites I do not really want to be associated with-- that I am not about to repeat article by article.

As an event in real life, there is similarly no need to demonstrate that it occurs in real life, just that it is thought to occur. But the sourcing problems are at least as great, and even more so for actual occurrence. The mainstream sources still avoid the topics.

A specialized wiki that will accept the sources that do exist is one obvious solution (accepting that in practice there are exceptions to not censored), but we removed the link to one such, wipipedia, now london fetish forums. There is also a wikia Forum:BDSM (I have deliberately not put in links, or even written out the links. I don't do things against consensus, even when I think the consensus a little short-sighted.) DGG 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Lack of sources is not a reason to delete", particularly when a Google search indicates forced bisexuality does exist as a phenomenon. If we deleted all the articles on Wikipedia just because they didn't have any sources. We'd be left with the FAs, Jimbo, and Daniel brandt. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been tagged as needing sources for quite some time. Anyway, the reasoning is never simply that sources are not provided, but a suspicion that reliable sources might actually not exist at all. If the content is not verifiable, it simply doesn't belong here. Someguy1221 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one tried google scholar. is the search: " On the prevalence and roles of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: Report of an empirical study" and "The prevalence and some attributes of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: A second report" both make reference to forced bisexuality. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, on those I can't comment, having no access to the relevant journals :-( (or is that a good thing? I really don't know...) Someguy1221 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, you dont need to access the journals. Simply reading the titles of the journal articles and the google result summary is often enough to determine whether academics are in fact talking about this subject. If they are, that is often good enough to establish the topic as being notable. John Vandenberg 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I gave up too early. (grin) . For biomedical stuff, one can go on more that titles, because PubMed will have abstracts for anything substantial 1965+. And I and others can email articles from most journals, or post extracts. DGG.

Keep I've added the refs, with PMIDs. There seem to be more, and also some for other articles. ASB seems a useful journal. DGG 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move The content of the article describes generally consensual, not "forced", activities. At the very least the page should be moved and given a more accurate title. Neitherday 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the term is called "forced" because it is a roleplaying thing. The person being forced has to agree to it before hand, like BDSM, but after that pretends they really, really don't want to. If that's what the term is called then we should go with it. Shall we renamed Guinea pig because they are neither porcine nor from guinea? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That IS the name, Neitherday... you cannot change the name simply because YOU do not like it since you deem it an oxymoron. There are many such anomalies in our culture - we cannot redefine that which has already been defined and like it or not, Forced Bisexuality aka Forced Bi is strongly defined in today's culture. TednAZ 09:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Forced Bi is beyond a fetish and according to many psychology therapists, it is not all that unusual, as many are saying here. Forced Bi is becoming one of the fastest growing experiences or services from dominatrices and becoming quite prevalent in marital cuckold relationships. The passage that says these acts (MMF) are consensual is partly correct. There are, however, numerous instances where forced bi is used via dares, bets, blackmail, punishment, proof of loyalty and even reciprocation for a bi female encounter (FFM) or request - sauce for the goose, so to speak. I came here to get a definitive expository view of of Forced Bisexuality, which until recently, here on Wiki, didn't exist. I even considered birthing an article about this cultural phenomena myself. It is biphobic to delete something so prevalent amongst bisexual, bi-curious or even straight men as well as women. TednAZ 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have sources for all of this? It's not biphobic - plus I'm not sure how this would be relevant to bisexual people, since in their case, it wouldn't be "forced"... Mdwh

Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insufficient sources. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Variance of sexuality and sexual practices may make some folks squirm but that's hardly a reason to claim someone else's sexual interests are not notable or beyond research and sourcing. This practice seems to be within a minority of a minority and mostly closeted or underground activity that will take more time than mainstream articles to fully develop. Instead of finding reasons to dismiss and delete such information it might be a good use of energy to provide research showing the article is not notable and non sourceable. Benjiboi 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, but see above, it seems there as been a previous AfD, and still no one has provided the sources. Mdwh 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Certainly this phenomenon exists, but this article seems to be original research, and there is no evidence that this is classified as a paraphilia. Note that I have no objection to an article on the subject matter that is backed by sources, and my vote here should not be taken as support for speedy-deleting any future article that shares a similar name. Mdwh 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mushtare

The article, covering a bowler who bowled two certified perfect series under controversial circumstances, has serious problems. There are no sources, and except for a few isolated newspaper articles, there isn't much else to go on. A Google search for 'Robert Mushtare bowling' receives only 172 Google hits, many of which are forum discussions arguing about whether his scores are legitimate or not. It may be worth noting that there is no article on Jeremy Sonnenfeld, the first bowler to ever throw a perfect series (though I admit that that's a horrible argument for deletion on its own). Nevertheless, the general lack of reliable, unbiased sources makes me believe that the article should be deleted. Delete. Ral315 » 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are borderline BLP problems (the claims that he cheated). This wouldn't normally be as much of a problem, since a citation could be provided for the claims, but since the article as currently written is designed to emphasise the controversy rather than the achievement, I see that as a very big warning sign. For the record, Ral inadvertently removed the AfD template on the article. I've re-added it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Moeser

Per WP:BIO, city councillors do not merit their own articles unless they have received significant press coverage. This fellow has not. RedRollerskate 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. All the article states is his elections, but no other WP:RS for WP:N. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaget High School

~~Makes no claim of notability; only one source cited BassoProfundo 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~~ After discussion, I would like to withdraw my nomination. BassoProfundo 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It was named after first bishop of Kentucky and used home of notable person. Also, there's a tradition in the Wikipedia of keeping all school articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are numerous other High Schools with articles on Wikipedia and this High School has historic significance that can be verified. --David Andreas 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5 (and a half) state championships is a claim of notability, as are two notable alumni (actually 5, but I just listed the ones with articles under "notable alumni" since the other 3 are notable only in the non-Wikipedia sense, as notable local figures). Beyond the championships and alumni, the school is historically significant as a prime example of the dramatic changes that occurred in Louisville during the 1970s. As for sourcing, The one source referenced so far is a 200+ page book on the school's history. The school was also certainly profiled in a 1989 book on Louisville's neighborhoods called "Places in Time". Despite being closed for 30 years, the school gets 76 results in a search of the past 8 years of Courier-Journal stories and 109 results on Google News archives [40], and so many more reliable sources could be cited. This is not a school about which we could never say much more than "it existed and its school colors were..." and I think the article already shows that, despite being AFD'd within 5 minutes of creation. So uh, keep. --W.marsh 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article as created made claims of notability, and as improved it has ample reliable sources to establish notability by any objective standard. Creating an AfD for an article that makes explicit claims of notability, ten minutes after creation, is evidence of a deep and fundamental flaw in the AfD process. Alansohn 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps misunderstanding or ignorance of the process is the flaw, but the process itself seems rather well structured if followed properly. --David Andreas 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no restriction on anyone nominating any article for AfD. An editor with 279 total edits, a whopping 90 in the mainspace, who has never created an article, has little business starting AfDs. It's not that they're being created as a WP:POINT, it's that there's no point for them doing so in the first place. I'd love to see a requirement that an individual must have created one article that would pass AfD before they can start creating AfDs on anyone else's articles. Alansohn 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I secede that those with more experience on Wikipedia may be more readily capable of initiating the process correctly. However, the whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone contributes, not just the editorial elite. What you are desiring, out of legitimate frustration, is a sort of inappropriate stratification that would ultimately inhibit the process of weeding out bad articles. Given the sheer amount of articles on Wikipedia, how would the really bad articles come to light if only a set amount of people who have earned the right were given the ability to nominate? Perhaps better, in my opinion, would be a restriction that forces everyone to read and agree to the guidelines before they can nominate, instead of basing it on editorial merit. Given that I am new to Wikipedia, and don’t yet have a “whopping” amount of edits myself, I feel I have a relatively strong handle on the process simply for the fact that I perused and understand the guidelines. --David Andreas 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GFDL violation. If the consensus is that articles of this kind are to be merged (which it may be, I don't know) then they can be merged using history merges. Copy paste moves violate GFDL. --Deskana (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zangoose and Seviper

Delete. Article has no proper intro, is a copy of two other existing articles, almost verbatim, and doesn't link back to either. Information is repeated on separate sections and overall. structure is poor. It even seems less informative than the Zangoose and Seviper articles are by themselves. At best, it's redundant to those articles. At worst, it's a confusing, unnecessary secondary listing for information. There are and will continue to be other "blood feuds" in the fictional world of Pokémon. This connection is not notable enough to deserve a separate, third article. It would be akin to making a Batman and Superman page, made solely from the content in both the Batman and Superman articles. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The user failed to note that articles such as these have passed the AfD on multiple occasions. And not on any conditions. This is a merge in progress, and I'm tired of people jumping the gun to delete them without spending five minutes finding out of they should do it in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What familiarity I have with the Pokemon project is that each character should get their own page. Unless someone can demonstrate a change that would have these paired up, my !vote will stand thusly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have limited familiarity with the project, then. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason I can see for these two Pokémon to be lumped together in one article TJ Spyke 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're a pair. Seviper and Zangoose are enemies (Viper, Mongoose). Just like Lunatone and Solrock, one appears in Ruby, the other in Sapphire. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delete and the point of the article is? Unlike the Lunatone and Solrock article, which has a much stronger relationship, I can't see the relationship here. Of course, the person who made the pages made the other two pages redirects, hence the weakness. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the redirects. Also, I think it's a pretty clear connection - mongoose vs. viper? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- All other Pokemon have articles, even though these two are not connected posiblly split into two articles ChrisLamb 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not enough coherence between the two halves of the article to justify merging them together like that. It's just two separate articles pushed together. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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