Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. Shimeru 06:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reads like something copied from myspace for some kid.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Horwitz

[edit]
Jim Horwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable director and writer of one non notable movie (up for deletion as well). None of the 30 Google hit for his name plus the movie[1] indicate any notability. Pages for Jim Horwitz[2] are not all about this Jim Horwitz, it seems. He is a member of the NCS,[3] but his comic "beef-a-lowe" returns no hits at all.[4] So niether his movie nor his comic are notable. Fram 06:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As with the film's article, unsupported by press or other secondary sources, and no verifiability. Depressingly little to write about this young man too -where he went to high school for one semester, films made an unrelated filmmaker in his county of origin.. WP is not for promotion, nor useless info. MURGH disc. 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disputing Deletion.. - Please note my comments disputing deletion of the film GRODMIN, and the comments of others regarding the prestige of belonging to the NCS and the veting process of having one's cinematic creation listed in the IMDB. In addition, the creation GRODMIN has been worthy of several reviews in the USA and eleswhere. These combined credentials cannot be overlooked when considering deletion. Is Wikipedia turning into a popularity contest? I vote to leave both this listing for Jim Horwitz and his film Grodmin in Wikipedia. 68.72.101.140 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — 68.72.101.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. That you dispute this is duly noted, but please absorb the fact that IMdb listing is not a magic wand of notability. In this process you don't "vote" or "dispute a deletion" but state your reasoning for why an article should be kept or deleted. Please read in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion and see that popularity has nothing to do with the policies, but rather that WP cannot be the first or only place to read about a subject. MURGH disc. 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRODMIN (film)

[edit]
GRODMIN (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable independent movie. No reviews, awards, influence, ... Director, actors, ... aren't famous. Listed in IMDb is not a claim to fame. 30 distinct Google hits[5], most of those IMDb mirrors. Fram 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disputing "Deletion." - "Fame," as per the noted objections, is not a necessary criteria to establish the relevance or informational benefit of an article. Previous users are selectively omitting information that runs counter to the deletion agenda. Users blatantly fail to acknowledge the relevance of the IMDB as a credible, secondary source, dismiss the relevance of "non-famous" industry actors (Richard Paro, Cyra Polizzi, Eef Barzelay) who clearly have multiple acting and production credits amongst them (IMDB), fail to acknowledge well cited review clips in the article (Source: The Onion, Volume 39, issue 44 and Volume 39, issue 46. Reviews by Stephen Thompson), and fail to acknowledge other, credible, "non-IMDB" links that corroborate the history of the film. Users also fail to acknowledge the importance of the "art school," narrative content of the film as relevant or unique, as per the article which states "...Predating the 2006 release of Art School Confidential by director Terry Zwigoff, Grodmin is also one of the few American films whose central narrative documents the lives of students at a university art program." -- This one fact alone (despite the film's lack of "Hollywood fame") seems to make its entry of great importance; to artists, as well as filmmakers. -- While this film does not appear to be a packed with well-known celebrities - as the users suggest is necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, - there seems to be enough verifiable material to leave GRODMIN (film) posted for those users who may find its information of use. There is no shortage of space in Wikipedia, and the merit of this film does have clear and obvious relevance to art students and independent filmmakers whose ideas and contributions are clearly of value in our society. -- User: GrantHyde 18:31, 22 March 2007 — GrantHyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
    • Sorry. As a terciary source, WP is dependent on secondary sources reacting to the existence of article subjects, otherwise, lofty claims cannot be verified. IMdb is not a reliable secondary source but, not unlike Wikipeda, one that relies on contributor effort. Please present The Onion source and other coverage so this can all be settled. A film depicting life at art school is in itself truly not notable. MURGH disc. 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, as well. As I understand it, while the IMDB relies on contributor efforts to compile and submit its information, its different from WP in that all material is subject to official IMDB staff review amid further verification of its authenticity and credibility. Unlike WP where information can be posted and linger until its confirmed, nothing on the IMDB gets posted unless it can first be confirmed. The independent actors in this film (while obscure) do have credible profiles that have already been confirmed at numerous sources (Richard Paro (Richard Paro at IMDb, Cyra Polizzi Cyra K. Polizzi at IMDb, Eef Barzelay/Clem Snide (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7045645/clem_snide_go_south)). If you do a Google search for this film and its "screenings" [6] there do seem to be some articles and related material. While a film depicting life at art school would not be notable if there were already hundreds of movies out there that had already done so, the fact that this seems to be only one of a few that does so, strikes me as notable. I am basing this on the lack of information on the Web about other art school related films. -- As far as the director, Jim Horowitz is concerned, I can't seem to find much on him, but his article doesn't claim much, either. -- He directed an independent film and is a member of this cartooning society. While he may not be a high-profile character on the Internet, I know that the NCS is a very well-established organization, and only high level artists like Charles Schulz and Gary Larson are voted in. That, in itself, strikes me as significant. -- Like you said, these articles aren't wildly significant, but I think they do represent an element of importance. Maybe we don't travel in these circles, but I think those who do would be glad to find this information in place. -- I say we leave them for now and re-visit (if necessary) in another three months. I vote to remove the "deletions".
    • Please don't misunderstand that I suggest IMdb doesn't screen its contributions, but the actual existence of the media is the only criterion. WP however needs sources so the article's descriptive content can be attributed to reliable publication. Otherwise, WP can only ever be another bulletin board of random truth. Mine or your opinion of this film's notability as an "art school" film is irrelevant in WP context, and only comes into play if a reliable secondary source suggests it. As is, this film's internet presence is almost exclusively IMdb and WP mirrors, the kind of publicity 1 motivated person can spread in half a day, and until that changes (or other media acceptable sources are presented), the article should be removed from WP, although there is nothing wrong with userfying the article until criteria are met. MURGH disc. 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disputing "Deletion." - The film Grodmin is a document and a fact, with the proof of existence cited above.

Grodmin's importance may not yet be widely known, but that is due more to economic forces than anything else. Please let me explain. I am owner of Dreamfast Cinema, a Chicago-based label for video and audio releases. I first saw Jim Horwitz feature film Grodmin at the 2006 Lake County Film Festival, and recognized it as a powerful story, a psychological/surreal fantasy, which would appeal younger audiences. I approached Mr. Horwitz for the DVD rights to his film. Although Dreamfast Cinema will not be the label bringing Grodmin out on DVD, I heartily support the film and its maker.

One thing I know about releasing a film with limited festival exposure, is that reviewers are reluctant to review the film until it is available for home-viewing, and reviews are often timed to appear very close to the DVD release date. As there has been no DVD release date set yet, (to my knowledge), it is totally understandable that there are few reviews to document Grodmin.

Independent films come in all forms: those with large budgets and known actors, through those with no budgets, assembled by passion. Grodmin is the latter. To expect every film to have the same resources and publicity, just by virtue of being made, is to misunderstand the entire genre. When Grodmin is released in a home-viewing format, it will be easier for everyone to track, and who knows, there may even be some reviews to feed those hungry for facts.

I vote to leave Grodmin in Wikipedia, whether or not it receives further verification. Bruce Wood 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Dreamfast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Noone disputes that the movie exist, but existence isn't enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. We need reliable, secondary, independent sources establishing the notability of each entry and the correctness of the claims an article makes. Is the film really "groundbreaking"? We have only the article's word for it. Did it fool irts audience into believing its fictional lie? Again, we only have the article to support that claim. Being listed at the IMDb only shows that the movie exist, but nothing more. Yiou can compare this to the requirements from WP:MUSIC: it is not enough to have recorded an album to be listed in Wikipedia. Similarly (per WP:NOTE, it is not enough to have made a movie and shown it once or twice to have an entry for that movie in Wikipedia. If the DVD release happens, and if it then gets considerable reviews (not just in the local newspaper and the University newspaper), then it can be recreated. For now, it's a completely non notable movie. Fram 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disputing "Deletion." - "Is the film really "groundbreaking"? We have only the article's word for it. Did it fool its audience into believing its fictional lie? Again, we only have the article to support that claim." - This is clearly not true. I have found 9 separate reviews of the film at the IMDB [7]; one of which is from someone in Germany. I have no data on whether or not these reviews were written by "professional" writers, but as individual voices corroborating the "groundbreaking" elements of the film, I see no reason why this audience testimony should be marked as invalid, or irelevent? These reviews clearly verify the claims of the article. The points made by the user above, Bruce Wood (a film producer, no less) all seem quite valid. I think the "deletion" users are splitting hairs over the alleged "importance" or so called "prominence" of other sources. As cited above, the film is a fact and has already been reviewed by multiple people. I vote to remove the deletion notices and leave GRODMIN (film) in Wikipedia for another 2 months, pending more investigation into its validity. Perhaps more sources will emerge, as user User:Dreamfast|Bruce Wood suggested. Let's check back on May 23, 2007. If there are no new posts about this matter in 24 hours, I will consider the matter closed and remove the deletions. [User: GrantHyde] 11:52, 24 March 2007
    • Comment. Yes, those IMdb review "voices of audience testimony" are invalid. Again, see the WP:ATT for how WP article presence is justified, and please ease on the lawyerly moves. Removing the deletion notice has no constructive effect. MURGH disc. 10:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No evidence whatsoever that third parties unrelated to the film are discussing it. Without that third-party interest, this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, plain and simple. --Charlene 09:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article as it currently fails encyclopedic inclusion criteria. Mr. Berry 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best totally non-notable and possibly a hoax. Also, while I assume good faith etc, there's a distinct smell of socks in this discussion. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reason to think this is a hoax, just a low-budget independent film that received a few obscure screenings without getting a commercial release or any full reviews in significant publications. The fact that this movie deals with life in art school does not convey notability in itself, nor do the cast members who are not particularly well known themselves. If the film gets a commercial release on DVD, and then reviews start coming out in notable publications, the article can be recreated at that time -- preferably under the name Grodmin since the title isn't an acronym and doesn't need disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Going on lack of notability, no reliable sources to establish notability. Despite the disputes above, unless these are fixed, the issue won't be settled. --Dennisthe2 21:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. As it pertains to this article, how are we choosing to define "notability?" "...No evidence to support third parties unrelated to the film are discussing it," but no reason to think that they are not. Also, what do we mean when we say "reliable" sources? Is the one film festival that the film director above mentioned "reliable?" Aren't the various, small showings above "reliable?" Or, is it going to be our claim that in addition to supporting this article "weakly" (which, in itself, seems vague) that some of these sources may, in fact, be "fake." -- That's a very slope. I don't think it speaks well for what's supposed to be a reasonable and open-minded debate While the consensus seem to be that the film needs more sources to establish its importance (which I agree), I think some of the terms used in the above statements seem a bit off. Can someone please paste the WPs "notability" criteria below. Also, that which establishes the reputability of the third party source? I think it would help us all with this discussion. User:Milo88 21:50, 25 March 2007 — User:Milo88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin + Osa

[edit]
Martin + Osa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement, and contains too much prediction of the future of this company. Richard Cavell 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a clothing brand/store from a notable company, has several locations already, and contains some decent information. It needs to be updated, and some of the crystal balling needs to be removed, but other than that, it has a lot of potential as an article. SuperDT 06:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a new brand from an established company, has very few locations, so it is going to be hard to find people/info to put together a proper entry for now. I was delighted to find an entry here when looking for information on the brand, even through it looks like most of the information was copied directly from promotional material. Hopefully someone can locate more material to revamp the article. 209.155.209.211 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move, I think it make sense and nobody is calling for deletion. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babble

[edit]

Unsourced article about a VoIP provider of which I have never heard even though I have an office in Docklands. No evidence of significance per WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Prodego talk 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurley-Pugh

[edit]
Hurley-Pugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax Eddie.willers 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, not a hoax see http://www.hurley-pugh.co.uk here AlfPhotoman 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in response. Excuse me, the website is a hoax. Also, see the text at the bottom of the source code for the article: hoax|reason=Anything concerning the Hurley Pugh is entirely fictional. The purpose of any related documentation and anecdotes concerning the Hurley Pugh is intended to satirise the British motorcycle manufacturing industry. The marque was invented for the purposes of entertainment only. The article does appear to be suitable for Wikipedia, but more sources are needed to determine that it is a fictional bike
      • Further Comments This is a very clever hoax that seems to have fooled a lot of people. Let's look at some additional 'evidence' from the quoted website and Fisk a few comments...
  • The site claims that the factory archives were discovered in the "Linenhall Thinking Orangemen's Library" in Belfast. There is no such place but this is clearly a reference to the real Linen Hall Library in that same town.
  • The site claims that a military version of one machine, the HP90AM 1600, had a mounting for a Bren Gun. The Bren gun did not enter service until 1938, was a two-man weapon, and only ever vehicle mounted on to conventional four-wheel armoured troop carriers.
  • The site claims to have recordings from the works canteen - assuming that the 'company' ceased trading in 1943 then how were these recordings made in the days before magnetic tape, and the common use of the wire recorder?
  • The rider Sidney "Forelock" Tuggings has a short biography in which it is claimed he served in the Royal Engineers and attained the rank of Acting Lance-Sapper - there is not,and never was, any such rank.
  • Keep, but the article should be clear that it is a hoax, albeit a very clever and detailed one. HokieRNB 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Hurley-Pugh Hoax. Instead of superficially checking the internet I should have checked my brand catalog, sorry. It is interesting just to show how far a hoax can go over the internet. Then again I should have seen that it is a hoax by just reading the page until the 10 cylinder bike. As far as I know the most cylinders ever on a motorcycle were seven (star engine in the front wheel) around 1890 AlfPhotoman 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we have sufficient third-party coverage of this hoax to keep the article? This does not seem so clear to me. But in any case, the article in its current form is entirely unacceptable as it is participating in the hoax rather than uncovering and detailing it as it should. I suggest that if this is kept, the article be indeed moved to Hurley-Pugh Hoax and edited accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Freeze or Die

[edit]
Leave Freeze or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on talk page. Non notable webcomic (plus free local paper print version, plus self published book versions not even carried by Amazon cs.). No calims to notability and Google indicates no evidence of notability among the 14 hits for "leave freeze or die"[8], some of these hits (including the first one) not even about the comic. Fails WP:NOTE} Fram 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desiertos

[edit]
Desiertos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, per article. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skewed View

[edit]
The Skewed View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity, POV, unsourced, NN Computerjoe's talk 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMB Optical

[edit]
TMB Optical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think either this article or the cited sources sufficiently establish this company's notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As with the speedy, i agree. However, since the author may still be able to gather more references, i added {{importance}}.
  • Keep. I am the original author of that stub. (Note: I do not understand why the article's talk page was deleted where I explained the inappropriateness of speedy deletion.) As for the content question, TMB is among the top five or so manufacturers in the high end segment of the amateur astronomy market and is a household name among amateur astronomers like Apple is to Computer users. Give me another day to find sources that demonstrate this, then kindly reconsider your nomination. Kosebamse 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum It has been surprisingly hard to find referenceable information, so I'll keep the stub as it is for now. I still don't think it's insufficient but that's not for me to decide. Kosebamse 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn on Macabre

[edit]
Corn on Macabre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability requirements Hoponpop69 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages nominated by Sigma 7

delete-Hoponpop69 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, aren't the facts that they've got band members from Darkest Hour, and that they played alongside Dillinger Escape Plan and AFI at Krazy Fest contributing factors towards meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines?-K@ngiemeep! 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say no unless there's something notable about them - my sister's in a band with a member of Soft Cell, and supported acts from Duran Duran to Grandmaster Flash, and I certainly wouldn't consider her as meeting WP:MUSIC. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced and consists of verifiable information. Does your sister's band have interviews, reviews and bios that an article can be constructed from? If so, write an article about her band, lol! Meeting some of the WP:BAND guidelines also indicates that even more sources can be found for this article, and thus can be expanded beyond a stub-K@ngiemeep! 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Way Outreach

[edit]
Gospel Way Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, orphan, importance tag since 12/06. TedFrank 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Sommer (aerospace engineer)

[edit]
Alfred_Sommer_(aerospace_engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete article does not state individuals importance other than he owns a company and appears to have been started by the individuals son--Looper5920 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilicus Society

[edit]
Vilicus Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

2nd nomination. The last comment on the previous AfD discussion was made on March 1, and the discussion was temporarily closed pending further verification on March 6. A new Google search for "Vilicus Society"-Wikipedia results in 4 pages (still mirrors of Wikipedia, but they don't say so). Can we please delete it now? ... discospinster talk 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it had its chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yekrats 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no access to the refs listed, but if they hold up (with more than the current, '...legend has it...', then keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I'm a student at Edinburgh and I hadn't heard of this society until very recently. When I first came across this article, I thought it was ridiculous. Recently, I went to the university library. I could only find one of the books (Heckethorn). The book has a short entry on the society and Jacobite connection was mentioned. That said, it's a very old book. I don't know too much else, but there was another mention of it in the editor's comments in the student newspaper the other day. All in all, there appears to be some factual basis for the society. Mangrove22 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Foundation

[edit]
Malachi Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small non for profit corp. Does not appear to be notable Alex Bakharev 11:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's been mentioned in several CNN stories, as well as other outlets. Here's what a Yahoo search yields:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=%22Malachi%20Foundation%22 Rick Ross has some of them archived. Also, this article is only a day or so old--nominating it for deletion so soon is a bit harsh. Blueboy96 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greg Feste is the founder of Malachi, he is also tied to numerous NFl players thru Champions for Christ and one of his companies purchased the Austin Wranglers. This is the first in a series linking all of these and is quite significant as many investors lost money. The article should be kept.Osakadan 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while one editor metioned he might be notable, that editor did not provide any citations to prove notability. NOtability is still questionable--Sefringle 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable. Artaxiad 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable on the face of it. The outside sources given simply mention it as one of his activities. The IRS form proves existence, but, if anything, tends to show the lack of notability-- the claimed financial amounts are way under what a notable foundation would need; though there is no fixed rule, this is beneath the level of common sense. DGG 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG, sources prove existence but not notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Really, what about this article shows that this outfit is at all notable? It collects money, it gives money away. Short of minutiae that you'd find in a financial prospectus, that's all this article claims. If this article is intended for a series on Greg Feste's doings, might it not be a good idea to start with creating an article on Feste first? RGTraynor 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentleman Spies

[edit]
The Gentleman Spies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this band is notable. Also, this article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, e.g. "After a succession of successful if shambolic gigs..." Robinson weijman 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - NYC JD (interrogatories) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inri Cristo

[edit]
Inri Cristo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, or how this particular nutcase is any different from any other similar nutcase. Stub since creation in November, 2006 and no sign of further development yet. If he's at all interesting, there's nothing that says so, or why. Probably should have just added {{prod}}, but I'm half asleep and didn't think of it in time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. self-proclaimed Messiah is not a valid assertion of notability. Cate | Talk 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think we should speedy delete the article. Non notable: appearing in TV program doesn't make him more notable. There are to many self-proclaimed prophets, saints, messiahs, popes, king, emperors, etc, so per policy, I think it is a "standard job", that per se doesn't give notability. I need more assertion of notability and independent references to change opinion. Cate | Talk 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Your Information - translation of the first paragraph of the Portuguese page into English via Babel fish:

    Iuri Thais Kniss (Indaial, 22 of March of 1948), known as Inri Christ, is a Brazilian religious leader who proclaims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Popularly, Inri is seen as a humorística personality, having appeared in diverse programs of TV as the Program of the Ratinho and SuperPop where debate with other people, as the priest Oscar González Quevedo and Toninho of the Devil.

    - Richard Cavell 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated in the disscussion of this article, Im nearly finished with my eglish translation of his biography, and i hope to have it included this monday. So keep this in mind and please wait patiently for the final product before you all make a final discission.

YOU FUCKING PRICK, I JUST SAID I WOULD HAVE THE ARTICLE FINNISHED, GO FUCK YOUR SELF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.130.215 (talk • contribs)

What are you so excited about? The article is still there; bsnowball simply placed it in an appropriate list. If you put it into an acceptable shape before this discussion closes, it may well be retained. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical economics

[edit]
Physical economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. No secondary sources are cited and the ideas discussed do not appear in standard secondary sources on Economics. A Google search for "Physical Economics" mostly turns up references to the single paper cited in the article and to the Wikipedia article itself. Jyotirmoyb 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two papers cited in the article. Uncle G 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar comes up with various uses of the term, a couple of which seem appropriate [13]. The article has been the subject of some edit warring in the past, per talk. Perhaps there is an older version that is less scarred from these edits? Smmurphy(Talk) 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the standard database on the subject , RePEc, lists 0 articles or working papers with the phrase in title or abstract, some of the GS hits are indeed real & I suggest the supporters of the article add them. The material in the article, as is obvious, is so undocumented and so close to OR that it is easy to see why it could have been taken as fringe social science--especially considering the reported but undocumented origin of the phrase. I removed the most obvious OR portion. DGG 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not sure the GS hits are talking about the same thing. Physical economics in the article seems to be talking at times about emphasizing physical/material capital and de-emphasizing financial market capital, while some of these articles talk about the relationship between physics and economics models.
On the other hand, van Lierop, Wal and Braat, Leon. Multi-objective modelling of economic-ecological interactions and conflicts The Annals of Regional Science Volume 20, Number 3 / November, 1986 p 114-129 mentions that the term is also known as Materials balance models and is used with some success in environmental economics in the 1960s and 1970s. Searching googling and GS'ing for that comes up with quite a bit of stuff, much of it fairly mainstream (this article right now is about a recent left-wing derivative of the idea). I don't know what people who have been editing the article think of that scholarship, but it seems to me that the bulk of the article could easily focus there. That would bring up the question of a change in title("Materials based models in economics"?), which might actually lead to this article being recreated as a discussion of the more recent, radical assessment of the subject. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a relevant ArbCom ruling on one of the major proponents of the radical version of this theory, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. Again, I haven't been active in the article, and don't want to change it fundamentally, but the LaRouche issue makes me want to completely rewrite the article, depending on the outcome of this AFD and the comments of those active in the articles talk page. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Physical economics is real. LaRouche is nutty enough to ruin ideas by association, but he didn't invent physical economics. Why the desire to delete a decent article on a topic of intellectual interest when wikipedia has thousands of pages of trivia on every cartoon character ever? Openman 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite completely The article as it currently stands is not what physical economics is. It is on applying scientific methods to economics, which is a different topic RogueNinja 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be confusion between econophysics and physical economics, which is especially understandable because the article itself is confused. My understanding is that physical economics is a term sometimes used in the field of Industrial Ecology to differentiate between the real physical economy of matter and energy and the financial economy. It seems however that the LaRouche people have hijacked the words as googling for "physical economics" turns up mostly LaRouche garbage. Adding to the confusion, the LaRouche stuff looks like a pasted together amalgam of real concepts from Industrial Ecology, Econophysics, and other fields mixed in with their own absurdist ideas such as building railroads under oceans. Google "biophysical economics" the wikipedia Biophysical economics article is very sparse but imagine it minus the bio. Since physical economics seems too much a larouche concept, perhaps the best idea is to redirect the article to "industrial metabolism" or "industrial ecology" as they are what physical economics should refer to. The Materials based models and Material flow analysis concepts are tools used in industrial ecology, among other subjects.
[14] PDF of "Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: A Comparative Survey Part 2" Uses the term "physical economy" with an industrial ecology meaning.
[15] industrial metabolism is perhaps a better term for physical economics
[16] larouche babble for comparison
[17] A PDF of "Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S." That uses the physical economics concept.
[18] PDF of "On the History of Industrial Metabolism" Gives an interesting history of concepts related to physical economics.--Openman 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wolchek

[edit]
Rob Wolchek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously PRODded for lack of notability or sources; untagged without addressing either of these concerns; besides one instance of vandalism has not been improved for three months. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by research sheds no light on the notability of this news reporter. Note: the creation of this article is the only edit contribution made by the editor since registering. Luke! 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW --NMChico24 00:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron George

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

Notability is not established in this article. Simply holding local office does not imply notability. NMChico24 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. John254 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chennamangalloor

[edit]
Chennamangalloor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced; a means by which to obtain references is not readily apparent. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not readily apparent, huh? Well, to start with, checking the google references (there are more with the alternative spelling of -llur, BTW). Failing that, WP has a pretty enthusiastic group of editors of articles relating to Kerala, so it shouldn't be hard to get some decent info. It's a real place (a reason enough for a keep), and it does indeed seem to have quite a few educational institutes. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be an existing community. Per tradition all physical locations, including villages, towns, and cities, are considered notable. It should also be noted that the word "village" in India may mean a community much larger than a North American or European "village"; a place with (if I read Google correctly) four high schools and one technical university likely has more than a few inhabitants. But we really need to put out a call to Wikipedians in Kerala to expand this. --Charlene 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see any violations of policies in this article. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily delete as pure vandalism (G3). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jev Valles

[edit]
Jev Valles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very obvious Hoax, probably speediable under the "can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous" clause of WP:SD#Non-criteria Citicat 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly opens this file?--Paloma Walker 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Excel. It's just a spreadsheet of a bunch of names with their attendance in school noted. I'm surprised the teacher makes this available to a worldwide public. --Charlene 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital-to-Capital Coalition

[edit]
Capital-to-Capital Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a United Airlines PR piece which was copy and pasted into Wikipedia or written up here for PR purposes. It may have made sense to have it in the wiki before, but since UA now has the IAD-PEK route, it seems like very unencyclopedic content. - Sekicho 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article was written by a group lobbying for an air route. It's their own ad copy. It could have been deleted when created for self-promotion. Now, they achieved their goal. The mystery is why they are keeping their web site up? patsw 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Omohundro (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Steve Omohundro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted biography, restored and cleaned up by User:Zippy. Previous keep arguments leaned on a vanity Who-is-Who entry and his dissertation, which received few cites. I don't see that the new discoveries (17 articles and a patent) change much in notability, but I agree that they're enough to have a second look. best citation count is 28 (Physica D), the rest is mostly in the single digits. The copyvio versions in the edit history should be deleted in any case, but I'll leave them up for now for comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trialsanderrors, how do you do the citation count? --Zippy 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISI Web of science, see WP:SCI. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article has been cleaned up, but I still see little evidence that any encyclopedic information can be found in reliable, third party sources. A single patent is the ONLY third-party verification that he has done anything notable, and still seems to fail the multiple criteria. I could be persuaded to change my vote if I could see that people who were not Steve Omohundro, or friends or associates of Steve Omohundro, have written about and referenced his work. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strikethru per below. Changed vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One problem, I think, is that much of Omohundro's work was pre-web. It's going to take more time to track down cites than it would be for a net celebrity. I agree that the article needs citations, but believe that given Omohundro's publication record (in journals that I've heard of, and not random almost-vanity press ones) plus his involvement in the creation of two computer languages (each of which rates its own article, and which in turn refer to Omohundro in the first paragraph) that third-party cites can be developed. Might I suggest that instead of deleting the article, we flag it with a "this article needs sources" tag? --Zippy 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Surely the cited publications are verifiable? Physica D, for one, is a major journal. And the Dr. Dobb's Journal article is a mainstream media publication. I am surprised that we are discussing the notability of someone with multiple refereed publications (Physica D) and at least one mass-market publication (Dr. Dobbs). These plus the patent plus the creation of two computer languages *Lisp and Sather seem above and beyond the threshold. --Zippy 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no idea how relevant these languages are, esp. given that both articles are wholly unsourced and didn't get more than a handful of edits since creation. Care to offer some sources that establish their relevance and SO's supposed leadership in creating them? ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a source for Omohundro's connection to Sather from gnu.org: "Steve Omohundro was the original driving force behind Sather." [20]. The same source gives Omohundro as one of the co-authors of the Sather 1.0 compiler, and also cites his Dr. Dobb's article on Sather. There are many more references available via a Google query on "Steven Omohundro". I don't mean to claim that Sather is his only route to notability, but instead to show that the claims in the article are easily verifiable, and that I believe the main issue is not so much one of notability as it is one of a question of the validity of the claims. Sather and *Lisp were well known languages within the CS and AI communities in which they were developed. --Zippy 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete How is he more notable than the average professor? Publish or perish; every professor will have some journal publications. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google yields 11,000 matches for Omohundro and Sather. --Zippy 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Author of many well-cited papers (150 total, 4 with over 100 cites, 3 others close to that, according to Google scholar), clear pass for WP:PROF despite having since left academia. "Sather" is also a surname but a Google scholar search restricted only to the programming language found 500 papers on it. —David Eppstein 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely wikipedia specifically says that Google Scholar should not be used. Instead a Web of Science, Scifinder or other search should be performed. So do we have a list from one of these other citation search engines- Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Wikipedia:Search engine test actually says: "Other tools that may be useful for research include Google Scholar, which searches academic literature. ... A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields that are (1) paper-oriented and (2) where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it's dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Thus, Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability." Note that I'm not using it as proof of non-notability and that this is in fact about a computer scientist. —David Eppstein 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. I usually prefer the ISI citation index over Google scholar, but GS favors the sorts of publications which have real currency in CS circles, even if they don't for other disciplines. (Omohundro's ISI h-index is a mere 4). It seems to me that notability is evident, but someone needs to bring the articles relating to his work up to encyclopedic standards. \begin{rant}So many academics with Wikipedia biographies seem to be in fields that have exceptionally poor Wikipedia articles, suggesting a greater interest in putting CVs on WP than on writing encyclopedic articles. \end{rant}. Pete.Hurd 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote changed from above (see strikethru). David Eppstein has provided that his work is frequently cited within his field. That seems to show clear notability. Now a good keep. The article is still stubby, and needs some work though. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is reliable, verifiable sources. Not original research from primary sources. --Bejnar 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, published primary sources are not original research, but I agree, an article has to stand on independent, secondary sources. Cite and Google counts are only approximate metrics of notability, the proof has still to be brought that the academic output has been noted. (A cite can mean anything from a listing as "related research" to an in-depth response. Here we're only interested in the latter.) ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find this need for idealogical purity baffling. Is any of the claims in the article "challenged or likely to be challenged"? In what sense do the easily found primary sources for these claims fail to document them? WP:ATT does not say to avoid primary sources; it says only that they should only be used for clear descriptive claims. But Omohundro's authorship of various primary works about Sather, e.g., cannot reasonably be in doubt. Secondary sources are needed to document the significance of this work, but for that purpose cite counts are I think adequate. —David Eppstein 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His involvement with *Lisp, Sather and Mathematica makes him notable, but verifiable sources are needed. Janm67 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. So far I've found a cite for his involvement in Sather. I could use help tracking down ones for *Lisp and Mathematica. And the *Lisp article would benefit from sources as well. --Zippy 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - someone emailed me that Omohundro is credited as one of the creators of Mathematica in the first edition of the Mathematica book. If anyone here happens to have the first edition of this book, I'd appreciate it if you could verify this. --Zippy 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--trialsanderrors, your request was already satisfied. The citation is a mention. There were 150 of them. SCI is a secondary source of great reliability. DGG 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rework so it doesn't read like a CV. His prior work is notable, especially on Sather and PicHunter but the other stuff is a little bit too much. The homepage for the company he founded is an AT&T user's page and these days he seems to be doing little more than frequenting conferences held by the Immortality Institute. And unless his patent is relevant to Sather or PicHunter, that information isn't relevant to the article. Irene Ringworm 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of quality management

[edit]
Glossary of quality management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia articles are not whole dictionaries, and this one is. - ∅ (∅), 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete early per WP:SNOW. WjBscribe 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godic religion

[edit]
Godic religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has no references. The phrase "Godic religion" has 2 hits on Google, one of which is this Wikipedia entry, the other of which is not a genuine hit, since it has the word "godic" at the end of one sentence and the word "religion" as the start of the next (and it's a transcript of a religious ceremony). Google Books has no hits. A Google search to try to identify "S. Gonzalez" who allegedly coined this phrase, was unsuccessful. This article provides zero evidence that the phrase "Godic religion" is actually used anywhere. Grover cleveland 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to a mirror of Wikipedia. Google Blog search has no hits either. Grover cleveland 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Creek Middle School

[edit]
Walnut Creek Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

totally non-notable middle school with nothing interesting, distinguishing, or above-average DGG 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the World

[edit]
Geography of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an unnecessary fork of Geography. John254 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context-Five

[edit]
Context-Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bumped from speedy. This is a procedural listing, I abstain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Daniel Bryant 05:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Smith (soccer)

[edit]
Tommy Smith (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also:

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 08:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Middle School (Norristown, Pennsylvania)

[edit]
Stewart Middle School (Norristown, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing specific for notability, except the unreferenced program participation from 1981--might possibly be enough if there were two independent sources for it. DGG 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All currently open middle schools that have an well-written article can be included. That's my objective criterion. What other objective criteria that can be applied to all middle schools is being offered for inclusion, or exclusion for this particular school? patsw 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks fine to me. I see nothing wrong with giving a subjective judgment, so long as we try to be fair about it, and that's really what Patsw's and my criteria are in this case -- subjective. I guess I think we should be tougher in our standards for middle schools than high schools, because they are less notable and less important. If someone's going to bother to write an article on one that doesn't have too many problems with it, I'm inclined to want to keep it. Noroton 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the criteria set forth in WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Just because someone bothers to write an article doesn't mean it should be included (unfortunately). Notability guidelines state that the onus is placed on the editor (and the community at large) to produce reliable sources. If notability can be established through the participation in the PDE's School Climate Improvement Project then it may be eligible to be kept but this depends on the size and scope of the project. There may not be a consensus between editors on the notability of educational institutions but until one is reached we must attempt to follow the guidelines set down in WP:ORG which covers educational institutions. Xarr 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In almost all practical senses, a public school's own Web site, minus the gushing and laudatory adjectives, is a reliable source, certainly for basic facts. In the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act seems to require that state governments create annual reports on schools, constituting an independent source of information. Therefore, as commmon sense will tell us, the nature of reliable sources on public schools is fundamentally different from other organizations listed at WP:ORG, and as WP:IAR tells us, we can overrule WP:ORG. Just because someone bothers to write a policy that fails common sense in a particular instance (or even category), doesn't mean we have to march over the cliff behind it. Addressing notability doesn't end the matter of whether a school article should stay or go: If some school articles attract vandalism or don't take advantage of the reliable sources available, they can and should be merged into district articles, letting readers who type in the school's name be redirected to the district article. This does not address non-U.S. schools and private schools.Noroton 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly Notable: school has a community learning center grant, a partnership with Family Services AND a state of the art wireless (computer) network, with plenty of reliable and verifiable sources. Oh yea! Delete as more schoolcruft. Eusebeus 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the objective criteria for including or excluding middle schools that can be applied to all schools? If that cannot be articulated, then delete-voters has no objective reasons for their vote. They are just making it up as they go along (i.e. notability -- I know it when I see it). It's totally lame and arbitrary. One reading these votes to delete would come to no insight into how to write an article that you delete-voters could find satisfactory. This leads me to ask why isn't every middle school with an article nominated for deletion? patsw 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing "notability, i know it when I see it" with "well-written article, I know it when I see it and I want to keep it". Interesting points about the usefulness of objectivity, however.Noroton 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral Most subjects are subjective to some extent--only the general requirements for RSs is always present. There are none here--the district is not independent, and the Penna. report is included within the Great Schools and gives no specific non-trivial information. The reason there are so few newspaper and other articles on middle schools is clear: the media find nothing to write about. Even the criterion of helping readers is unnecessary: anyone who goes to google will find the same sources as used here. WP is not Great Schools. Why duplicate it on a completely unselective basis unless we have something to add?DGG 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, first, you can't be comparing some reader reading an article with trawling through Google to find information. You didn't write that. My eyes are lying to me. And you must not have looked to closely at the Pennsylvania DOE Web page -- that is, their main Web page for the school. If you click on the pyramid-shaped triangles, you get far greater detail than Great Schools provides. So much detail that your eyes will quickly glaze over. There are few articles on this middle school, but there are almost 600 in the Google Archives link I provided at the Walnut Middle School deletion discussion, and many of those focus on the school. Walnut wins WP:Notable hands down; this one, not so much. My guess is that Walnut is the more usual case. Noroton 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete-voters, do you expect newspapers to make a middle school the subject of an article in the performance of its core function of educating the young people of a community? There are no headlines reading "Sun rises as expected" The criterion that a middle school has to have google-able headlines to be included is unrealistic and will excluded schools that should otherwise be included. patsw 12:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Actually, yes, we do expect that reliable, published sources make non-trivial references to the school (as WP:ATT requires) for it to pass inclusion muster. That like most of the rest this school fails our standards doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the standards and that their application is unrealistic; it means that the article's subject fails to pass muster and so should not be included. RGTraynor 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual units of measurement

[edit]
List of unusual units of measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While interesting, this article is a mishmash of measurements made up in school one day, arbitrary wacky pairings of SI prefixes with unconventional base units, and antiquated measures like the grave and metric inch that are not "unusual" at all except that nobody uses them anymore. Some aren't "unusual" at all: I've got a completely serious, boring software engineering metrics book on my desk that uses the KLOC extensively. The very definition of "unusual" is POV: what makes a unit "unusual?" And most important of all, almost none of these entries have multiple independent reliable sources confirming their notability (and Usenet and webcomics are not notable sources); the few that do already have articles (smoot, jiffy, etc.) or are discussed in the proper context ("Gillettes" at Laser, Grace Hopper's comparisons at Grace Hopper, etc.) This article is just a dumping ground for units of dubious notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing because an overwhelming consensus believes it can be salvaged and cleaned up, but please find a way to deal with the inherent POV issues and sourcing. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

List of humorous units of measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Like I said, I nominated it for deletion because "unusual" is inherently subjective (as is "humorous"; which is why I nominated them together). How would you define an objective criteria for what to include? And, as I said, everything here that is referenced and notable already has a separate article or is mentioned in the proper context. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Subjective and unsubstantiable. Valrith 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it may not be possible to draw the precise line between what is unusual and what is not, most of the units in this interesting list are indeed unusual, in the sense that their use is limited to a narrow circle of people or to a particular moment in time. Others, such as "storeys" are in wide public use, but have no formal status. This is a worthwhile reference. Dennitalk 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps rename to "List of non-Imperial, non-metric units of measurement". It seems that the article's title is subjective but to be honest I don't see that the content is. --Charlene 05:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least has some references and other meritable qualities, not the least of which is being interesting and informative. A much weaker keep for the second nom ("List of humorous..."), not as much worthwhile material, but some entries are informative. Both articles need substantial cleanup and editing/cutting (more so for "List of humorous..."), but neither deserve deletion because they don't really violate WP policy. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While some of the units noted do have their own article, this is far from the norm, and making individual articles would make every single one of them into a stub. I have previously done major editing to remove items that violate WP policies. As for teh arbitary wacky SI-imperial pairings, they may well be arbitary, but that doesn't change teh fact that they exist and are in real use. I concede that "unusual" may be POV, but I am at a loss for a concise term that would catch the essence of such a list (non-Imperial non-SI doesn't work - too long, and ignores traditional units from country xyz). Rhialto 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-standard units of measurement" maybe? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But within their field, some of those measurements are the standard unit in use. Scoville units for pepper hotness spring to mind here. Rhialto 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll withdraw since there's an overwhelming consensus to keep, but "unusual" still has to go. Maybe it could be reformed into a list of "domain-specific" units? Krimpet (talk/review) 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. Natalie 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous kapu

[edit]
Famous kapu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list does not state what the inclusion criterion is. Presumably it has something to do with Kapu (caste), but the information here is entirely unsourced, and appears to be indescriminate. PROD removed without comment or improvement. Whpq 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [22] and so tagged. EliminatorJR Talk 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Hogs 2

[edit]
Wild Hogs 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed the PROD tag because there was at least one source that appears to be reliable (an ambiguous quote in Entertainment Weekly). Since I'm not sure whether it should be kept or not, I'm posting it here, and abstaining from a vote. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. A "proposed" sequel may never happen, and until there's something beyond idle speculation, this can't be an article. Heck, we don't even know if it would be called Wild Hogs 2 - even the title of the article is speculation. --Haemo 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections, 2012

[edit]
United States Senate elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was nominated for deletion once before, and survived. What was not mentioned by any of the participants, however, is that the article contains no references whatsoever. That's a clear violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:V and WP:RS). Furthermore, the existence of an article for an election taking place two cycles after the next one pretty clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL. The corresponding 2008 article is understandable because there has been a lot of notable speculation that can be cited to specific sources in the media; even for 2010 there are some decent sources. Here, there are no sources at all and no evidence anyone but Wikipedia is even talking about this future election. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that the article consists of nothing but speculation. Every single entry, as far as I can see, contains a claim that a particular Senator "may retire." Not a single source is provided for any of these claims. The article arbitrarily lists any Senator over age 75 as "likely" to retire; no justification is given for this particular figure. This article smells a lot like original research. If it's to be kept, any unsourced claims will have to be removed. Removing all unsourced claims would mean an empty article, which would make it a candidate for speedy deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this AFD will attract the attention of people who would be willing to expand the article. If it ends up being an empty article as a result then so be it and it will fall under a different set of criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Real planned elections (by constitutional law) that will directly affect all the 2006 Senate elections winners, whether they step down or run for re-election. --Oakshade 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This election does directly affect current Class I senators. Must have some references to back up all the rampant speculation, though. Sources can be found for some of the senators, and deleting the rest won't result in an empty article, though it may be mostly a shell. If this said "2014", I'd obviously vote for deletion, but that article would be OK to start once the 2008 elections are decided and the landscape for Class II Senators is set for 6 more years. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as pointed out, this is the next election for 2006-elected or re-elected Senators. The intervening Senatorial elections in 2008 and 2010 will be for different Senators. I'm a bit unhappy with all the suggested redlinks, because most of those articles don't need to exist yet, but if these links are used to create them at least they will have a consistent format. The retirement speculation is pretty rampant for any older, multi-term Senator, so it will not be difficult to source this speculation, even though it really shouldn't be there without sourcing. Tag for references, and rein in excessively specific speculation. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; This is only the next cycle after the one we are in; entries for future events one or two cycles in the future already have established precedence. --Mhking 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it has some useful information, but the section on Possible retiring Senators currently contains only unreferenced speculations and therefore must be removed. MaxSem 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Dhartung. It is useful. It for the re-election of current senators.
  • Keep per a lot of people above. I'd suggest that a good rule of thumb for Senate elections is no more than one election cycle for any current Senators - so right now we have 2008, 2010, and 2012, but no later. Natalie 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recognizes an upcomming event--Sefringle 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some Senators already have 2012 fundraising committees set up, per an article I added as a reference. Edison 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as per Mhking. RogueNinja 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above, hopefully we will not need to have this discussion for a third time. Burntsauce 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Haider

[edit]
Faraz Haider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OHL Standings

[edit]
OHL Standings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Information duplicated from season-by-season summary, thus redundant. kelvSYC 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Crête

[edit]
Stéphane Crête (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Acted in around 20 productions over a 12 year span. No WP:RS cited. Valrith 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos patrol

[edit]
Cosmos patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cosmos Patrol doesn't exist - it was created as a hoax by the original author (see http://www.suchland.com/craig/?p=369). Either delete this page or redefine its status as a hoax, but really, there's not all that much important about it in my view. - GTD Aquitaine, Mar. 25/07, 0030

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

The result was redirect to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Natalie 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond kertezc

[edit]
Raymond kertezc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and apparent original research. John254 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shon Holloway

[edit]
Shon Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 04:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Pedro

[edit]
Filthy Pedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No redirect- unlikely search term and not contained in target article. WjBscribe 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkar booty key

[edit]
Kolkar booty key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Horde (Warcraft)-side players of World of Warcraft will recognize this as a key carried by random centaurs early in the game that can be used to open chests containing mostly unexciting prizes. It doesn't get much more trivial. There are signs the article may have been meant as a joke, but not enough to make it speediable as vandalism, and my prod was deleted by the creator with the puzzling comment "hey tihs artikle sux ok?" Delete per Wikipedia is not a game guide. —Celithemis 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive classroom

[edit]
Inclusive classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no citations on this article…there is nothing to be improved on…please help. (Jessica Liao)

  • Keep This article is sourced. The three books listed under references that have actually been written about the concept of the inclusive classroom are enough to prove that it's commonly used in at least one sector of the educational field. I'd think about sending this to cleanup, not to AfD - articles on notable subjects that needs some help should go there first, not here. --Charlene 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete as the first paragraph (at least) appears to be a word-for-word copyvio from [28]. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to mention that much of the first paragraph has been added and copied directly very recently and will probably be reverted or deleted because, as you said, it copies the text pretty much word for word. MrMacMan 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no link to this AFD on the article page. I will try to fix it.Fixed!--Xnuala (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not copyviolation anymore because I put the references up. (209.177.21.6 - talk)
Comment still copyvio I'm afraid unless you've got consent to copy it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The admin who blocked her appears to have been a certain User:Essjay... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I'm taking about Jessica's(/209.177./RainingMySoul) more recent ban on March 29th 2007 by John Reaves... seen here. (you looked at the bottom of the page... which in the checkuser's list is older, not newer). Also can be seen here MrMacMan 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid.com (3rd nomination)

[edit]
Stupid.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prior deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now back here. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just added 3 newspaper references. And, lets get those other references mentioned above into the article.DGG 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • O RLY? Check out this source list from Google News. Major newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post, major wire services like AP, Knight-Ridder and UPI, even some foreign coverage in papers from England, Australia, and Canada. I went ahead and added a few to the article, but you could literally spend hours reading the news mentions on this company... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems tht some of them do, yes. There are ones that cite it as the preeminent website of its type, some that recount the history of the site, and some that treat the founder as an authority on cheap novelty crap as a result of his experiences with the site, all of which seem like articulations of Stupid.com's "achievements, impact or historical significance", per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE #5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#B. I don't see a consensus for deletion, but the argument that the article is currently a dictionary definition does appear to have some consensus. If it is indeed possible to expand the article through use of additional sources, then it can always be split again. Shimeru 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaner (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Beaner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ethnic slur, prior deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now back here. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#B (into which it appears to already have been merged). —David Levy 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's notable enough to exist, and that it's specific enough to have its own article. - Richard Cavell 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is true —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.47.207.213 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2007
  • Redirect as suggested by David Levy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't redirect. Plenty of information available to sustain an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No there isn't. This as it stands is a dictionary article, not an encyclopaedia article. There's nothing here that cannot be said in wikt:beaner, and in fact there are several things that Wiktionary says that this article doesn't. It has zero information to sustain an encyclopaedia article. There's no scope to write an encyclopaedia article about beaners here, for the simple reason that the proper title for writing about Mexicans is of course Mexican. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have separate articles for each individual slang name for parts of the human body, and we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people. We have articles on parts of the human body, and on classes of people, by their proper titles. At best this is a redirect, as stated both above and in the deletion review discussion. Uncle G 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree on most of these points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • "...we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people."
        We don't have articles about the terms "chink," "nigger," "kike" and "spic"? —David Levy 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...yeah, was gonna say, didn't chink just come up on AfD not too long ago with a resounding keep? --Dennisthe2 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, as you'll find, we don't have separate articles for the individual slang names that can be used for those (stereotypical) classes of people. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm...yes, we do. Do you see those links? I'm not even arguing that Beaner should be a separate article, but your claim that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people" was patently incorrect. —David Levy 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, we don't. You appear to be confused by thinking these are the only slang names that can be used. I suggest learning more about slang. A quick trip to wikt:Wikisaurus:chav should prove to be an informative start. Uncle G 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, so we must be on two totally different wavelengths.
                "Chink," "nigger," "kike" and "spic" are individual slang names for classes of people. You claimed that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people," but each of those terms has a separate article. What am I missing here? —David Levy 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll elucidate. Look at the Wikisaurus entry that I pointed to. There are a lot of slang names for this class of people. We don't have individual articles about chavs under all of those separate titles. We have one article on the stereotype, and redirects from a few alternative names (including charva and chavette, for examples). Now look at wikt:Wikisaurus:penis. We don't have individual articles about penises under all of those slang names. We have one article about penises at penis, with (largely preventative) redirects at a few names such as schlong and weenie. The task of writing individual articles on individual slang words, documenting their multiple meanings and when they were in use, and collecting and cross-referencing lists of synonyms, is lexicography, that is the remit of the "lexical companion to Wikipedia" whose goal is to be a dictionary (of slang and otherwise, like other dictionaries) and thesaurus. As you can see from how far it has got with it already, it is a task that Wiktionary can do exceedingly well, far better than one could ever hope to do at Wikipedia (given, for starters, that Wikipedia's article titles are in English).

                  Now an article title in Wikipedia denotes its subject. An article entitled beaner should be about beaners. But "beaner" (considerations of "Beaner" being a surname and our having a name disambiguation article here aside) is simply a slang name for a Mexican. We shouldn't have an article on Mexicans under beaner any more than we should have an article on penises under weenie. Similarly, we could have an article on the amelioration of slurs. But that, too, doesn't belong under beaner because (a) the subject of the article would be amelioration of slurs not beaners, and (b) "beaner" isn't the only ethnic slur that people are attempting to ameliorate, by a long chalk, and such a scope is a ridiculously narrow one for the overall discussion. Uncle G 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                  • None of the above is relevant to fact that your claim was false. We do have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people.
                    Of course we wouldn't write an article about Mexicans under the title "Beaner." That's a straw man argument. The "nigger" article isn't about black people, nor is the "kike" article about Jews. These articles document the words themselves (and can extend far beyond the level of information appropriate for a dictionary). I'm not implying that we should have such an article for every ethnic slur (or for "beaner"), but it's patently incorrect to claim that we have articles for none. —David Levy 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Rubbish. It's entirely relevant, because it's what I have asserted right from the start. No, we do not have separate articles for all of these slang names. I've given you several examples of where we have just one article, for things that have lots of slang names. Your straw man argument, saying that I asserted that we don't have articles about these stereotypes at all simply in order to rebut it as "patently incorrect", is no more than that: a straw man. "We have articles on parts of the human body, and on classes of people, by their proper titles." was in what I wrote right at the start, too. Uncle G 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Again, what the hell are you talking about? It certainly isn't the same thing that I'm talking about.
                        1. When did I say that we have separate articles for every slang name? On the contrary, I explicitly noted that "I'm not implying that we should have such an article for every ethnic slur." In fact, I don't even believe that we should have an article for "beaner."
                        2. I did not claim that you asserted that "we don't have articles about these stereotypes at all." In fact, I made no reference to articles about stereotypes, and I don't know why you keep referencing such a concept. The articles that I cited are about the words themselves (just as the "beaner" article is), not the people that the words offensively describe.
                        Again, you claimed that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." WE DO. We don't have one for every ethnic slur, but some have had enough cultural impact to warrant such write-ups. Is "beaner" one of them? I don't believe so, but that's beside the point. —David Levy 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I've explained what I'm talking about at length. When you said it was just above in this very discussion. (Your very words were "Yes, we do.".) You most certainly did create that straw man which you then proceeded to knock down. (Your very words were "claim that we have articles for none".) And we do not have separate articles for the individual slang names. You can see this for yourself, and your continued assertions to the contrary are flying directly in the face of evidence that we can all actually see. Just look at the things that I said to look at above. Uncle G 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • We do have separate articles for the individual slang names. You can see this for yourself, and your continued assertions to the contrary are flying directly in the face of evidence that we can all actually see: Chink, Nigger, Kike, Spic.
                            I'm trying to assume good faith, but you aren't making it easy. —David Levy 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Once again: Look at the lists of slang names that I've already pointed to; and note that we don't have individual articles for each individual name on those lists. You can actually see for yourself that we don't have separate articles for each of the individual slang names for these classes of people/parts of the body. I've even pointed out some of the redirects. Just look at the things that I said to look at above. Uncle G 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Once again: Look at the list of slang names that I've already pointed to (chink, nigger, kike, spic) and note that we have individual articles for each individual name on that list. You can actually see for yourself that we have separate articles for each of these individual slang names for classes of people. Just look at the things that I said to look at above.
                                You've listed words for which no articles exist and cited them as evidence that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." That claim is false, as are your claims that "an article entitled beaner should be about beaners" and that a hypothetical weenie article would be about penises. Again, the articles that I have cited are about the slurs themselves, not the ethnic groups to which they offensively refer. The fact that many slang terms lack the societal impact to warrant the existence of standalone articles does not mean that we shouldn't have articles about any slang terms. —David Levy 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • You've listed words for which no articles exist and cited them as evidence that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." — That's because the non-existence of articles is evidence that we do not have articles. I'm not sure how much plainer that fact could be. And if you don't think that an article entitled "beaner" should be about beaners, then you clearly need to read our Wikipedia:Naming conventions and other help pages. Article titles denote what articles are about. Uncle G 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • 1. You've provided evidence of the fact that we lack articles about many slang terms (which is not in dispute). This does not establish that we don't have articles about any slang terms. (I've provided evidence that we do have articles about some.) What you're doing is comparable to naming people for whom we have no articles and citing this as evidence that we don't have articles about people.
                                    2. Again, the article's subject is the word "beaner." Hence, the title is "beaner." Similarly, our "kike" article is not about kikes (an offensive term for Jews). It's about the word "kike."
                                    But again, I'm not arguing that we should have a standalone "beaner" article. I'm pointing out that your rationale is 100% incorrect. —David Levy 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I suggested when I first listed this. Dicdef at best. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't fit Wikipedian guidelines. Artaxiad 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and now it's more than a dicdef. It's now a stub. Keep, and improve from its current state. --Dennisthe2 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are confused about our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. We don't keep dictionary articles simply because they have more than 1 paragraph. We keep encyclopaedia articles. There is still no encyclopaedia article content in this article. All that has happened is that more dictionary article content has been added. More usage information has been added, on the point of whether the word has pejorative connotations or not. This is canonical "usage note" territory for a dictionary. The article is still a dictionary article, only longer. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is basically simple: damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I keep, we have a dicdef as an article. If we delete, a technicality causes us to remove content that is otherwise documentable. It is this case that I think WP:IAR is for, thus my changing my mind to a keep. --Dennisthe2 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G: I'm guessing by your style of English that you're hailing from outside of North America; I think in your hastiness to condemn this article as being unworthy of an encyclopedic article, and being merely a slightly expanded dictionary entry, that you're failing to realize that his term does indeed carry quite a bit of cultural significance in the southwesten United States, particularly in southern California. Yes, as the article stands now it is only a stub, but given the nature of this specific term there is unquestionably the capability for it to be expanded substantially. Certainly to well beyond the scope of the ethnic slurs article. --Bri 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, the page's text already has been merged into the List of ethnic slurs article. Per the GFDL, we cannot delete the revision history while leaving the merged text in place. Does anyone actually advocate removing it from that article? If not, the only GFDL-compatible solution (other than keeping the article) is to leave the revision history intact and redirect the page to List of ethnic slurs. Such a redirect was in place before the article was restored purely for the sake of discussing its existence here. —David Levy 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#B - you can't democratically remove forms of speech with which you disagree. --Phrost 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As David Levy said above, why are there articles for "chink," "nigger," "kike," etc. but beaner is inapppropriate? Sure, the article could use some more information, but I don't understand why a delete is necessary? --Bri 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per above, and per WP:WINAD. >Radiant< 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Strong Anti-Delete - More than a dicdef. Not much more, but more all the same. I have no idea if it could be expanded more, but at the very least it is an acceptable Wikipedia stub. Regardless, the information should be retained in some form, as it is verifiable, and Wikipedia is not censored. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You, too, are confused about our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Adding more dictionary article content to a dictionary article does not make it "more than a dicdef". You are conflating "dictionary" and "short", and your rationale is erroneous as a result. Please read the policy. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Yes, that's right, call me stupid. Excellent way to hammer your point home. Now, ignorance of WP:CIVIL aside, let's address the issue of "adding more dictionary article content": the article contains a brief, expandable summary of the term's history and subjective impact. All these bits of information are outside the scope of a dictionary definition; a dicdef would be limited to the meaning and useage of the word. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no statement that you are stupid anywhere in the text above. However, you are continuing to conflate "dictionary" and "short", and your consequent argument about what is within the scope of a dictionary article is erroneous as a result. Once again: Please read the policy. It tells you what the actual scope of a dictionary article is. Uncle G 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per David Levy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per David Levy. Edison 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a mere dictionary definition. The content remains a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of the word. I see no possibility of expansion past that. I have no objection to a transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think that a redirect to a list article really solves anything, though a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page might. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you advocate removing the merged content from the List of ethnic slurs article then? —David Levy 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the short term, I don't really care. In the long term, that page should also be moved into Wiktionary. The growing consensus across both projects is that Wiktionary appendices are better suited for list of slang (or list of pretty much any other set of words) pages. We can easily create cross-wiki links wherever that is appropriate but, in general, the editors who frequent Wiktionary have better skills and tools to write, source and verify lexical content than we do. Since the content of Beaner has already been transwiki'd, there would be no remaining GFDL issues once the slang list is also moved over. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reason has been presented to delete, and I certainly see no reason. ReverendG 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per David Levy. This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Gobonobo T C 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The article for "nigger" contains substantial information on the word's changing usage (especially in public discourse), its representation in literature, and so on. I found that article useful. If someone wants to expand the "beaner" article with information of that quality and scope, I'm all for it. DoorsAjar 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion simply doesn't make sense. Even if this is determined to be a dicdef (which I'm not certain it is) it still should be merged with Wiktionary, since no one's arguing the content isn't suited to Wiktionary. If this is to be redirected, again, simply merge the content.
  • As for whether this is dictionary or encyclopedic content, the main issue seems to be what constitutes usage notes. According to the standard presented in "Wikipedia is not a usage guide", "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words should be used." Which is basically the standard, prescriptivist usage writing philosophy, as enunciated by Geoffrey Nunberg[29]. There is also the descriptivist view, which simply "records the facts of how a word is used and presents it in a neutral way". Which is the only way I can see this article being construed as a dictionary article. The problem with this definition of a dictionary article is that there isn't a very clear line between encyclopedic and dictionary content, since both try to "record the facts and present them in a neutral way". If you hold that WP:WINAD is talking about descriptivist usage notes, even though WP:WINAD is clearly talking about usage notes under the prescriptivist model, then the logical consequence is that all articles about words ought to be deleted, since there isn't anything to write about a word other than how it has been used historically and how it is perceived, all of which can be parts of a descriptivist usage note. However, since WP:NOT doesn't forbid articles about words, and even explicitly states that articles about slang terms are acceptable, and since WP:WINAD describes usage notes as "describing how a word should be used", we shouldn't impose outside conceptions of what usage notes are on Wikipedia and just follow policy. I would say this should be merged into List of ethnic slurs, but the size of this is getting to the point where it should be in a separate article. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The N word is on wikipedia, and this is prevalent as well. As for the tone of the article it should not espouse hatred toward Hispanics, as a general rule.Bakaman 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. Shimeru 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One string less

[edit]
One string less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-noteable band Owlofcreamcheese 05:45, 25 March 2007

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Agle

[edit]
Tanner Agle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN autobiography of a 15yo. Note that I deleted the obviously unencyclopedic content; previous version is here. Contested prod and previously broken AfD nomination by Donignacio (talk · contribs). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also notable that this page was already created and deleted at a previous point in time. --Donignacio 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation methods

[edit]
Meditation methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant violation of WP:NOT. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past life healing. JuJube 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Platt

[edit]
Bill Platt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
OverlordQ 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Kapoor

[edit]
Vicky Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self promoting vanity page. WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:NN, all the usual suspects. Peter Rehse 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoenpanism

[edit]
Theoenpanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources are given, and there is no evidence that the word in question has ever been used outside of this article. This is original research and a neologism. — Elembis (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional obese characters

[edit]
List of fictional obese characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete subjective category that demands a wide range of POV for inclusion. Doczilla 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the creator's defense, wasn't Elmer Fudd a pig? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking Porky. Elmer's a human character. Doczilla 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right... Long night. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For one, obese is a technical term for individuals with a BMI of 30 or greater and we can't calculate the BMI of these fictional characters. Also, how is this encyclopedic or in anyway useful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.187.181.70 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Zombies covers

[edit]
Marvel Zombies covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nature of the article, as a gallery of copyrighted cover images, is not in line with Fair Use guidelines - and without the images, article doesn't really serve any purpose --Mrph 08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make this a copyvio, wouldn't it? And copyvios can be grounds for a speedy delete. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Carabinieri 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senior G8 leader

[edit]
Senior G8 leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For one, "Senior G8 leader" is a neologism. No google or google book hits for this term. The article would have to be moved to List of past G8 heads of government by time spent in office or something similar, which would be nothing more than a really trivial statistical list. We don't have List of G8 heads of government by height or whatever either. Carabinieri 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn.--Carabinieri 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an important argument for the terms notability, and should be included in the article. Also, there should be some source verifying both the concept and that this title goes to the holder of this honor (of course multiple titles could exist). Smmurphy(Talk) 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 08:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at those sources, I'll withdraw my nomination. But the title you suggested also is not really correct. The article does not list the longest serving heads of state/government by the length of time they served, but the heads of state/government who were the longest serving in powere at the time they were in power, which is really confusing.--Carabinieri 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gunslinger (film)

[edit]
The Gunslinger (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any evidence that this film actually exists, let alone its notability. It has the potential to be confused with any of many other films of similar or same name that do exist and are rather more obviously notable. See here Gaius Cornelius 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, already moved per consensus. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platonic Lovers

[edit]
Platonic Lovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I feel that it is not a CSD candidate as there is sufficient context for an article (lack of content in itself is not an indicator of CSD). Also, I don't know if the play is notable enough to be kept, or just another play that someone saw and decided to write an article about. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. A play written in 1636 that's still being put on today, and which (inaccurately, as it turns out) created the term Platonic love, may very well be notable. I'm going to see what I can find about this play and see if I can expand this. Note: Changed vote to Strong Keep - play is on syllabi of courses of at least one major British university (the University of Bristol) and (possibly) Manchester University, and has over a dozen Google Scholar hits. I wish it were available online, though, but it looks like it isn't. --Charlene 11:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I listed this for deletion because it doesn't assert significance or importance, and I thought that was one of the sufficient criteria according to WP:CSD. I still think it should be deleted; it's very unremarkable. 76.178.95.219 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it's quite remarkable; it's just not known to modern audiences. One interesting thing I've just found is that it's being taught at a major university, and is often referred to in books when discussing the pre-Civil War court of Charles I's wife. Apparently it has both historical and cultural significance. I'm going to have to take a trudge to the university library to pick up one of the 5 books directly about this play or the 74 others that refer to it extensively. --Charlene 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Charlene above, plus the fact that it's still in print 400 years later implies importance within the field. I agree the article needs to be better sourced and referenced, and possibly moved-and-redirected to "The Platonick Lovers" if that was the title used. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Platonick Lovers. Davenant was a notable writer and it's possible to have an article on this play - but please somebody add some more information to this feeble stub. Somebody already has- great! A definite keep then, but re-title it. --Folantin 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved, and keep - seems entirely remarkable and is certainly by a remarkable playwright. Looks like there are sources available. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle, as mentioned. JavaTenor 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 21:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smith (music industry)

[edit]
Paul Smith (music industry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I feel that the subject of the article is notable enough. However, I'm creating this AFD on behalf of the CSD nominator. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet As Techno Dudes

[edit]
The Sweet As Techno Dudes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although the article asserts high notability ("millions" of listeners, praised by Anthony Kiedis, public political controversy), a Google search for "Sweet As Techno Dudes" produces a mere 9 results. Although the band itself has a website and seems to be real, I suspect that the claims made about it in the article may be a hoax. Regardless, it has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" (WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles). EALacey 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce

[edit]
Tim Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Pierce with concerns about notability and sources; closed as no consensus. Over one year later the article remains unsourced except for the primary, unreliable sourcing from Google Groups. Delete. kingboyk 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Shreshth91 (G4). --- RockMFR 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akadémi Basong

[edit]
Akadémi Basong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akadémi Basong. The new page is a mere re-post of the deleted material. Recommended for DELETION __earth (Talk) 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Sunu

[edit]
Gilles Sunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A 15-year-old youth football player who is not a professional and has never been in the first-team squad of either LB Châteauroux or Arsenal. Delete as non-notable, according to WP:BIO's rules on sportspersons' notability. This article has already been deleted four times, three speedily and once via prod, but is continually recreated, hence an AfD to settle the issue once and for all. Qwghlm 11:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10 - attack page. ^demon[omg plz] 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Assemblies International

[edit]
Christian Assemblies International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • This article is essentially an unsourced attack page. This organization may actually be a cult - I have no idea whatsoever and had never heard of it prior to this morning - but as it is, the article is completely unsourced and numerous allegations against the church's leader. Also, if there really are only 500 members of this church, there's no reason to have an article on it to begin with. Born2x 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nonnotable, unsourced and contains offensive material. YechielMan 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls. do not delete.the article matches just the truth about this cult. There's really no offence and it just reports facts. There is really no reason to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.168.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete. Blatant attack page. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete As much I read in the internet about this cult the article is really harmless. The "chruch" is a dangerous cult and the report just the true situation. If people are not aware then there are a lot of links in he article. I would vote not to delete this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.168.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Attention: The cult is such a *dangerous potential as the Waco cult [[41]]. This page can help the cult members to flee out of it before that leader will freak out totaly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.168.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete as an attack page. So tagged. Wikipedia is not a cult awareness site, it is an encyclopedia - we are not here to have such articles. --Dennisthe2 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, page has been blanked by the above IP address. Deletion notices are all that remain. I say we now nuke and salt the earth. Thoughts? --Dennisthe2 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of science fiction film and television series

[edit]
Lengths of science fiction film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - third nomination for this list. First nomination closed keep and the second closed no consensus. It should be noted that many of the !votes to keep the article in the second AFD were based solely on the article having survived the first AFD. This ignores the actual arguments offered in the AFD and also ignores the fact that consensus can change. The arguments against the article as presented in the second AFD, especially the arguments offered by Serpent's Choice, continue IMHO to be much stronger than those offered in favor of keeping. With re-releases, director's cuts, newly-released deleted scenes and the like the running time of a number of these projects is open to debate. Much was made in the last AFD of a BBC article about the running time of Doctor Who, however, that reflects a misreading of the article. The BBC was talking about what show had been on the air longest with the most number of episodes, not what series, if all the material was run one after the other, would take the longest to get through. Note that two similar articles, Lengths of fantasy film series and Lengths of superhero film and television series, have been deleted for just these sorts of concerns. Otto4711 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - For the same reason as the last two times: it is a list that people are finding useful. All the information in it can be found in other sources, such as imdb. The only thing that might be called original research is the math done to get the final number. If we can't do simple math equations, then we aren't allowed to calculate how long someone lived given their birth and death dates. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not someone finds the list useful is not only not a strong argument for keeping, but the utility of the article is not offered as a reason for deletion. Otto4711 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument is that "the running time of a number of these projects is open to debate". Well that came up on the talk page and the community came to a consensus of how to list both originals, directors cuts, remakes, and whatnot. The list has largely stabilized on those issues. Problem solved. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, "consensus can change" has nothing to do with "I don't like it" and your suggesting that I'm arguing IDLI by pointing out that people can change their minds borders on an accusation of bad faith. Secondly, what's changed is that of the three similar "lengths of" articles, consensus on two of them has changed against such articles and "consensus" on this article changed from "keep" to "no consensus." It is not at all unreasonable, in the face of two of three articles of a kind being deleted and the third closed with no consensus, for discussion to continue on the third. Finally, if I were trying to ignore prior results it's pretty unlikely that I would've talked about the previous results extensively in this nomination, don't you think? Let's try to make this about the nomination and not the nominator, OK? Otto4711 16:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're saying this article should exist because there's a whole category full of similar articles. Which is not compelling because anyone can write an article on anything and it will stay here until it's deleted. That's the essence of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And frankly, having looked at the Indy 500 list if it came up for deletion I'd !vote against it as meaningless data and the only reason I wouldn't vote against the Hail Mary list is because the extreme rarity of the play being successful makes it somewhat notable. There is nothing, on the other hand, notable about a TV show having a running time and the biggest piece of evidence you cited in supporting the article last time, the BBC article, doesn't support your argument at all. Otto4711 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC article was about what the longest-running science fiction series is. That can be determined in several ways: by years on the air, by number of episodes, or by total running time. All three are addressed in this list. Would it help your concerns if the list were reorganized into a list by number of seasons, like List of longest running U.S. television series? —22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment — the superhero and fantasy lists were deleted in part because they were not being regularly updated, and because some editors felt the genres were ill-defined. Science fiction on television and in film is a well-defined genre, and this list is regularly updated. Thus, the deletions of the fantasy and superhero lists should not necessarily be taken as precedent.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but it is simply not true that lack of updating was a major concern in the deletion of either article. Only one editor mentioned it and no one else !voted to delete per that editor's comment. Otto4711 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that was one of the two comments that applied to the superhero list and not to the science-fiction one. Since the admin who closed the debate decided that the superhero list had a "delete" consensus and the science-fiction list had no consensus, those two comments seem important. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep as per above. The nominator mentioned Serpent's Choices argument as why another AfD was necessary. He said: "the original AFD primarily addressed the topic of WP:OR rather than WP:NOT." I'll repeat what I said in the last AfD: "Actually the last AfD brought up WP:NOT and people calling it (in exactly the same words) an "indiscriminate collection of information". And the consensus has been to keep. Nothing has changed in the meantime." Makgraf 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, consensus did move from "keep" to "no consensus" so that argument is a bit on the faulty side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
My argument is not on the faulty side, unless you misread it (as I think you did). I said "I'll repeat what I said in the last AfD" I am referring to the article changing between the 1st AfD and the 2nd. The 1st AfD did cover WP:NOT yet an argument saying it didn't was favourably cited in the 3rd AfD opening. Makgraf 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So long as an article does not blatantly fail an aspect of WP:POLICY, it should be considered in a positive way. And when it is informative and useful, as this one is, it should be kept unless there are wholly compelling reasons for erasure. Which I think there are not.--Anthony.bradbury 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all saying "speedy keep" - Speedy keep does not apply unless you are suggesting that my nomination is vandalism. Otto4711 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or disruption. It's not vandalism, but an argument could be made that repeating an AfD nomination so soon after the previous one closed is disruptive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An argument could be made that making veiled accusations is disruption and uncivil... Otto4711 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that disruption is an acceptable reason for speedy keep, and this could be viewed as disruptive. No veiling intended. Otto, I'm sure that your intentions are good, but it would have been more civil to wait a few more months before renominating this for AfD. You probably didn't intend to be disruptive, but the effect is one of disruption. Hence my speedy keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to acknowledge that I "probably" didn't mean to be disruptive. As there is no requirement that any length of time be allowed to pass between AFDs, the notion that there is any incivility in this nomination is crap. Otto4711 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is your interpretation. Personally, I consider just about all nominations claiming that articles are "indiscriminate" or "trivial" to be far too subjective to justify erasing anyone's work, at least where (as here) the article shows signs of skill and care. These labels are unhelpful, and lead to unnecessary friction, which is perhaps what you are finding out now. I merely pointed out that a nomination that closed in February was too recent to make a convincing case that "consensus had changed." - Smerdis of Tlön 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that consensus did change on one of the articles in that time. And as far as "indiscriminate" rubbing you the wrong way, considering that WP:NOT#IINFO is Wikipedia policy, voting against AFDs solely because they mention that policy strikes me as demonstrating a lack of consideration of the actual nomination. Otto4711 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm undecided as to the merits of the article, but I have no choice but to vote keep since this AFD is coming too soon after the previous one. 23skidoo 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new AFD for the superhero list came a week before this one and somehow that wasn't too early for it to be deleted. There is no policy or guideline requiring any set timeframe between AFDs. If the best reason for wanting to keep an article is "it was nominated before kind of recently" than maybe you should judge the article on its merits instead of the timeframe. Otto4711 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the best reason for wanting to keep it. We've given you many, many reasons why it should be kept based on its merits, but you ignored all of them and renominated it anyway. --24.235.229.208 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I addressed the reasons offered, and explained why I found them wanting. My comment was addressed specifically to 23skidoo in response to his claim that he had no choice in his vote based solely on timeframe. Otto4711 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. The total running times of these various films/series has no significance at all. About as pointless as Lengths of science fiction novels by number of pages. Croxley 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely significant collection of valid information, and I'd honestly not mind this list being expanded to cover a wider variety of film and television series. I wouldn't even mind a comparable version for book series if somebody wanted to develop it. This is valid information which would certainly be included in the pages on the various series in question (or are you saying that say, Star Trek shouldn't mention how many episodes are in each version? This is merely a collation of information that will be elsewhere on Wikipedia. Why that's so objectionable, I don't know. BTW, try to be civil folks, all of you, both pro and con. I see some bitter words, and those are possibly a good reason to close this nomination and wait a few months instead. FrozenPurpleCube 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or if not, then transwiki to Wikibooks; it would be a shame to lose all this carefully compiled information. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should either include EVERY science fiction TV series and movie, or not exsist at all. The general rule of thumb that I try t use is "would this list pass a FLC?" I would vote No to this list in any form, and I think it is also a violation of WP:NOT. The Placebo Effect 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So any list that is not featured status should be deleted? That makes for many, many thousands of overdue AFDs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, this list should include more tv series and movies. Incompleteness is not a reason to delete, and this could be completed with enough work. This is really no different than having a list of playstation games, or chess openings, or olympic medal winners. It may not be finished today, but then, neither is Wikipedia. I've got a book with several dozen television series listed by length. FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overkill. In reference to FrozenPurpleCube (above), we wouldn't have a list of 'time it takes to play each playstation game to its conclusion'!, would we? The globetrotter 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is reference material which is what you find in a site like thisJackillsfrm 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One thing I think the article is missing is enough justification for its existence. The BBC article on Dr. Who is certainly evidence that length of running time is notable, and I think should be cited (perhaps from the introduction) to help establish that the topic is one that is of interest. Other similar evidence would be good to add: in other words, I'd like to see just a little more text, supported by citations where possible, talking about the significance of the list in the eyes of fans (and the networks too, presumably). With that, "keep" seems the right answer: deleting the article would lose information that's clearly encyclopaedic (in the sense that it's the sort of thing one would go to an encyclopaedia to find out) and which is notable in that it's been the subject of at least one media report, and more are likely to be found. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There was an extraordinary amount of *puppetry (likely meat), almost none of which gave arguments based in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The consensus revealed that the article was primarily composed of original research and inherently unverifiable. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Blueprints

[edit]
List of Star Trek Blueprints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates No Original research; plus violates Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff; Delete --Mhking 13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jackillsfrm, originally, you could have put a {{db-author}} at the top of the page and had it removed. It looks like the consensus will be delete. Please incorporate the changes and see if you can find a place for the article at Memory Alpha. And please don't be discouraged. --EarthPerson 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Memory Alpha has a policy unless the information is 101% form the show or a licensed publication they do not list it on there site. Since most of the items listed on this page are fan produced (and not sanctioned by the show) this page will not work on there site. So this is the death of this information. Like I stated earlier I have already tried to remove this page but the bot will not allow it.Jackillsfrm 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note :: There is also a non-canon ST-Wiki on Wikicities -- would it go there ? -- Simon Cursitor 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! Keep this article. Star Trek is as much a part of modern culture as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or Wica.

Perhaps much more relevant to today's culture and our future then any of the above; as it's tenents teach acceptance of all and what can be done to make humankind worthy of future survival and space colonization.

Any info that disseminates information on Star Trek's Pardigm of the future should be welcome in any circles that are not anti-intellectual. Cpat36 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC) — Cpat36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I'd like to make a few points about what you just said. First, even if we accept your basic premise, the thing is, the article isn't about all that stuff. It's not about the tenets of universal acceptance or the Utopian future of Star Trek or the paradigm of the future, it's a list of blueprints of the ships. Not even the blueprints themselves, just a list of blueprints that were made. Some fine information for sure but whether it should be here is another question entirely. Second, that last sentence is pure BS. It equates to "If this is deleted, then Wikipedia must be anti-intellectual." This with reference to an article that's nothing but a list of obscure art pieces done in connection with the show - and not even as part of the show's production, just as fan candy. More than a bit of a stretch, and an almost comically exaggerated "all or nothing" kind of argument. I think the list should find a new home. There's plenty of free web hosting out there in the world. Zaku kai 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I do feel that this is a valid article and an important research tool, author of pageJackillsfrm 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The Star Trek blueprints are no more or less important that many of the obscure stuff floating around wikipedia.--MPaquette 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with MPaquette.--chrisweuve 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek "WikiProject Star Trek was formed to foster the creation and improvement of Star Trek-related articles, and to establish guidelines for those articles. Its members endeavor to produce an authoritative reference on Star Trek materials (canon and non-canon), which is easy to read and has a consistent style." This article should not be deleated it should be moved over to this area.Jackillsfrm 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all of the members of WikiProject Star Trek believe that articles need to be well sourced. This article is not well sourced at all. In fact, it has no sources. So, it clearly fails WP:V. What's more, I know parts of the article are unsourceable. "Many of the Blueprints are fan produced publications and do not have a publisher listed" (from the talk page). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a image of each cover (thumbnail) be enough to show that the object do exist. If you are not allowing self published items (which often don't have a publisher) then you are not allowing non-canon, since most non-canon do not have an official publisher. If needed I can provide a link to a pages or ebay listing for 80% of the items on the list. I did not list this since I did not want this to be a shopping list and I did not use this as my basis for the existance of an blueprint. The purpose of this page is to allow the collectors to know what has been published. If you want me to I will provide a list of the lookup sites for people to look at if it will help, I would prefer not to have it on the wiki page since I feel that this would be a COI since I am one of the self-publishers on this list.Jackillsfrm 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would still fail WP:V. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." If you're referring to an unpublished document, then something must be published about it in a reliable source. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again these are not unpublished documents they are self-published documents that many do not list a publisher, it does not mean that it does not have a publisher, and many of these items can be looked up on the web, I will provide a list for many of them I just don't want it posted on the page in question since it would turn that page into a shopping list, which I think is bad. When you say reliable sources who defines what is a reliable source, the fact that many of these things are referenced on the web and also for sell on the web shows that they exist what is not reliable about that. I have never tried to coment on the content of each item just the fact that they exist. I would think that the fact that a number of them are for sell on ebay would prove the fact that they exist. If I was to quote something out of them I could understand the importance of what they say are factual, the fact that they exist is all the list states which can be proven for at least 80% of the list.Jackillsfrm 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When you say reliable sources who defines what is a reliable source"? Good question. Can someone else please help me answer this question? Obvious examples of a good source would be like the Washington Post, or CNN.com, or something like that. However, there's a huge grey area and policy is clear when it comes to allowing questionable sources for claims that are not exceptional. I've looked through WP:RS and WP:V (and the new WP:A) and I see where sources of questionable reliability are defined: "sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". But, like I said, sources of questionable reliability are considered acceptable in non-exceptional circumstances. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From WP:Verifiability of self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field...Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. (or in other words, just because someone puts something in print themselves or creates a website doesn't automatically make them a reliable source; the self-published works you cite certainly fall in that category. Nothing you have presented here is compelling enough to make me reconsider my earlier cited decision.) --Mhking 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment If I was using information from inside the documents then your statement would be correct. The list only states that these objects exist not on the validity of their content. Example: The Unabomber's Manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future (which is listed on this site), while you might not be able to use what he says in the document as factual you can take the fact that this document exists as factual. The comment of the WP:Verifiability of self-published sources only works is you are using citing information from the content of the document, it does not work if you are only stating that this document exists.Jackillsfrm 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a very worthwhile guide to help those who are interested in such information. It won't "dilute" nor damage this site any more than a number of the TV Show or Movie pages here dilute the site. This list will be a great boon to those of us who are interested in such esoteric non-canon Trek items. Griffworks 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Griffworks — Griffworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - Your implied all-or-nothing argument is flawed. Let's supposed that article X does, in fact, dilute and/or damage this site in a way that goes against the site's true mission. Now, this list of blueprints doesn't damage or dilute the site more than article X. Is the proper decision then, to A: keep the list, because it's no worse than article A exists? B: delete both articles? If you chose A, then what happens when someone AfD's article X, and then the same argument is used, citing this article as an example of why it shouldn't be deleted? Remember that this process doesn't need to be fair - not in terms of being fully even-handed in terms of what is and is not deleted. Zaku kai 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zaku kai, Stop attempting to label everyone you don't agree with as making "implied all or nothing arguments." You cannot argue with the person's points, so you attempt to label them and turn what they are saying into some convoluted straw-man argument that only you are making.

Respond to specific points - don't waste everyone's time in the transparent exercise of trying to turn someone's argument into something it is not and then explaining why your own contrived arguments are wrong.

Desist from putting words into people's mouths and "explaining" what they are "really saying" in their "implied arguments." Stop telling us why "what they really mean to argue" is wrong. Stop twisting their words and then trying to prove why your own twisted arguments are wrong.

You cannot argue with the person's points, so you attempt to label them and turn what they are saying into some convoluted straw-man argument that only you are making.

Cpat36 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)— Cpat36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]



Comment: I did provide a list of sites that showed that these blueprints did exist, they were not listed as reference since they were not used in creating the list. Also part of my concern was that if I posted this list on the page it would make the page a shopping list which is not the intent. I can prove that the majority of the objects exist but putting that on the page dilutes the fact that the page is for reference and not shopping.
This is what I originally provided on the Discussion page of the List of Star Trek Blueprints
Here is a few web pages that I found using "Star Trek" blueprints on google in about 15 minutes that I thought might help, I did not list these in the reference section since I did not use them to create the database. After that all I can think to do is send you a set of pictures that show the large pile of blueprints that I have. I eventually want to scan the covers of all of the blueprints and add them to the list, but this will take a little time
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints
http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/FAQs/reading-faq.htm
http://www.jackill.com
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture_Blueprints
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/BLP.php
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Maps
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Geoffrey_Mandel
http://search-desc.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&query=%28blueprint%2C+blueprints%2C+schematic%2C+schematics%29&cgiurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%202F&ht=1&from=R10&currdisp=2&itemtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&category1=152&srchdesc=y&BasicSearch
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Michael_McMaster
http://www.answers.com/topic/francis-joseph
http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/FAQs/blues_reviews.htm
http://www.the-blueprints.com/index.php?blueprints/startrek/

and here are a few new ones to look at that were not on the original page

http://members.aol.com/FdFrontier/
http://www.federationmodels.com/
http://www.intergalactictrading.com/shop.cfm?SearchFor=blueprints
http://search.stores.ebay.com/Starbase-Atlanta%20Inc_blueprints_W0QQfciZ6QQfclZ4QQfsnZStarbaseQ20AtlantaQ20IncQQfsooZ2QQfsopZ2QQftsZ2QQsaselZ2473121QQsofpZ0
http://stores.ebay.com/ksy-graphics

The problem with putting this information on the List of Star Trek Blueprints page is that it would turn it into a shopping list. So as you can see with just this quick search that the blueprints do exist at multiple sites. This total list was compiled in about 20 minutes just using "Google" searchJackillsfrm 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to your own website above is the only link that is broken. :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I used a comma in place of a period :oJackillsfrm 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


REBUTTAL - List of Star Trek Blueprints

Lets look at the original reason listed for deletion:
"Violates No Original research; plus violates Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff;"

Indiscriminate List Rebuttal - List of Star Trek Blueprints

Lets look at "Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff" since this is the easiest to disprove.
First if you look at the Term Indiscriminate here is the defintion from www.dictionary.com:
in·dis·crim·i·nate
1. not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships.
2. not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter.
3. not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colors and styles.
So this argument does not work for this list since it is not lacking in care, or just thrown together or jumbled.

Now lets look at the page that "Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff" here is the exerpt from the page:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
    ------Its not a list of FAQ
  2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
    ------Its not a travel guide
  3. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
    ----Its not to honour a friend
  4. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks.
    ----Its not an instruction manual
  5. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
    ----Its not an Internet Guide
  6. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource
    ----Its not a text book
  7. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction 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.
    ----Its not a plot summary
  8. Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics are protected by copyright. Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource.
    ----Its not a Lyrics database

From what I have seen for the claim of Indiscriminate list does not hold based on what is on this page and the definition of Indiscriminate.A list of the works of Shakespeare is not an Indiscriminate list, an indiscrinimate list would be a list of things, no order no relevance to each other each, chosen at random to be in the list

Original Thought Rebuttal - List of Star Trek Blueprints

Now lets look at the page that "No Original Thought" here is the exerpt from the page:
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.

----This is not Proposing Theroies and solutions
----This is not an original idea
----This does not define terms
----This does not coin new words
----The only Semi-Valid part here is - Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. I have already added a Reference list and a number of links that prove that these exist. As the quote states "please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable" which I have done by stating where the documents can be looked up at. It also states that "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals" which allows reference from sites that show the objects exist. The main reason that I did not put it on the main page is I did not want this reference material to become a shopping list. I address Validity on the third section of this rebuttal

  1. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
    ----Its not an Invention
  2. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
    ----Its not an personal essay
  3. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
    ----Its not an opinion
  4. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
    ----Its not a discussion forum
  5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.
    ----Its not a news report

    So this does not conflict with Original research statements except for the "Verifiability", but only to a point as discussed below.
Actual Issue with this document is "Verifiability" - List of Star Trek Blueprints

The only thing that has anything to do with this document is the Verifiability which was not the original claim for deletion. I can add links that show the majority of these Item exist, the only problem is that it would make this a shopping list which is not a good Idea and would not match what Wiki is for. So the problem is having verifiability on the page itself, not that they can not be verified
Jackillsfrm 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Ghafourian

[edit]
Mehran Ghafourian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 13:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. John254 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stavanger Station

[edit]
Stavanger Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 13:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 100 year old rail station? Sounds like a specialized topic, but one that could be verified. Mr. Berry 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh it's if no reliable sources can exist that we delete an article. We don't delete just because none are cited at the moment. --W.marsh 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nominating an article for deletion 22 minutes after creation is ridiculous; looking at the creator's edit history, s/he's clearly adding a list of Scandanavian stations as stubs, then expanding them. Should never have been nominated since 30 seconds looking at a rail timetable proves the place exists. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's a world of difference between no sources existing, and no sources cited. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serves Norway's 4th largest city, over 100 year old station and terminus for several lines. And per W.marsh, the nom seems to be confusing a topic with nonexistence of sources with one that has sources but not currently listed in an article about it. 22 minutes is not adaquate amount of time for editors to gradually improve an article and add external sources on a topic. --Oakshade 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. John254 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Baoyi

[edit]
Lin Baoyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. John254 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen benton

[edit]
Stephen benton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I point out that AfD'ing new articles is not good faith. Despite this, the article actually looks almost speedyable in its current state.--Wizardman 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Radhakrishnan international school

[edit]
Dr. Radhakrishnan international school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the idea that the article is still being created and nomination is not thought out. (see other copy/paste noms above). Mr. Berry 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominators should not submit newly created articles to AfD. Just because an article created sixty seconds ago isn't fully sourced ab initio doesn't mean it won't be fully sourced in the future. Articles are often created first and expanded and sourced later. The meaning behind WP:ATT is to delete articles that cannot be sourced, not those that are not sourced at this very instant. --Charlene 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. Any article needs to show evidence of notability or at least an assertion. This includes stubs. There is no requirement that an article be allowed to exist for any period of time before it can be nominated for any kind of deletion. Vegaswikian 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. Note to Clown: "not notable" is not acriterium for speedy deletion. Sandstein 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyatt wood clay pit

[edit]
Boyatt wood clay pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable clay pit. John254 14:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check Records, Inc.

[edit]
Reality Check Records, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-verified sources, Spam? Pigmandialogue 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm convictions about deleting these pages but strong suspicions. Um, I just realized perhaps I should bundle them. I guess this format could be seen as attempting to circumvent the AfD process. Not my intent but I have to go do something else right now. Tell me if this is a wrong approach. Pigmandialogue 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a very well written article. The Evil Clown Please review me! 14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article looks good and is fairly well written. However, my concern is because of the lack of third party sources and the very low G-hits for the company and the principle participants. It seemed to me that promotional materials often look good but lack depth or substantiating sources. If I had found enough info/sources to cut it back to a stub, I wouldn't have put it up for AfD. I don't think it comes close to WP:ORG. --Pigman 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computed Tomography Laser Mammography

[edit]
Computed Tomography Laser Mammography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This device cann't get the PMA from FDA in the course of four years [43]. First attempt was made at April 2003, second is still planned. There are more successful devices for optical breast imaging, such as SoftScan (ART, Canada [44]) or ComfortScan (DOBI, USA, [45]) Alex Spade 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to be a straightforward technical article, it is not down to Wikipedia to assess whether other technologies are more successful. Iridescenti 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional information. The style of current article is close to information-advertising publication, there is no adequate science description of techinque for image reconstaction. The most of publications about CTLM in press and web was also wtote in same information-advertising style. There is no adequate description at company web-site, the most its pages is "Coming Soon - Under Construction" from the summer-fall 2004 (when I was defending my PhD-thesis). Early the company-creator was caught on falsification of results (several reconstractions was enhanced via photo image editor). Alex Spade 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A medical device that is not yet used cannot be notable, unless it for some truly exceptional reason has received actual public attention and coverage, and no such sources are provided.DGG 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daft SSS

[edit]
Daft SSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed; appears to be a hoax: no references or evidence of notability; zero Ghits; only two editors have done nothing else on Wikipedia. TedFrank 14:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect (already done) by consent. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Minnesota Territory

[edit]
Governors of Minnesota Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

obsolete by List of Governors of Minnesota :: ZJH (T C E) 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISUCF"V"MB

[edit]
ISUCF"V"MB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clubs are not notable. We do not have articles for every band, orchestra, choir, etc. at every university, nor should we. Adm58 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallah (band)

[edit]
Ramallah (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Plainly fails WP:MUSIC; no reliable sources cited; chief editor keeps removing notability and references tag, so I assume it's not going to get any better than this. TedFrank 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They can be as political as they like, and I will sympathise with anyone with personasl problems, but they still have to satisfy WP:MUSIC. And they don't.--Anthony.bradbury 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPlease read TedFrank's user talk page history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TedFrank&diff=prev&oldid=117720240 for recent drama between him and me (I authored the recent version of the article). This appears to be a spillover from that page, though I thought that the dispute was over. TedFrank has repeatedly added the "notoriety" and "citation" tag to the page, and I attempted to fix the problem (to his liking) to no avail. If there are problems which need to be addressed, please explain more clearly how I can do so (i.e. notoriety) instead of simply trying to get the article deleted. I have found the band's CDs for sale at various stores near my residence, so the band seems notable, though I don't know what I can cite or write on the page to accredit the band as notable. TedFrank has also attempted to remove an addition to the "Racism" article I made and described it as "vandalism." Racism Dean Sayers 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No irrelevant personal attacks, please. I explained multiple times that WP:MUSIC criteria needed to be met. After I saw this vandalizing edit and this response to the warning, I deleted an edit Dean made anonymously to the racism article because it violated WP:NOR, and self-reverted when I saw the whole article had that problem. I can be the worst human being in the world, it doesn't mean your pet article meets WP:MUSIC. -- TedFrank 15:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a personal attack, and that was all I was attempting to point out. in other words, the article is only being targetted because you dislike me, not because you actually have a concern for quality. I have been working on making the article better, and you have not been any help - rather, you have simply attempted to delete it within an hour or 2 of adding the tag that called for a notability reference.Dean Sayers 15:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, this isn't my "pet article." It was created by others, and I found it and decided that, because I enjoy the band, I would make it better. for that it faces deletion, even as I am attemptign to fix the problems by asking for suggestions on the discussion page Dean Sayers 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being targeted because it fails to meet Wikipedia criteria, and I brought the AfD because you repeatedly removed a legitimate notability tag. If you wish to attack my response to your vandalism on other articles, take it to WP:DR, because this is not the place for it. If you don't want the article to be deleted, you need to talk about the article and why it complies with Wikipedia policies, not about me. -- TedFrank 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly clear that you have directly sought out the page in order to continue the drama. You can argue all you want against that point, but I frankly don't care, and anybody with sense will easily see that you are, basically, trolling. I can do drugs instead of dick around with some worthless scumbag who loves Israeli Apartheid. Adios. Dean Sayers 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With comments like that one and this one, I can't imagine why you're surprised that an editor thought your edits needed scrutiny. You best hope an admin doesn't see you calling someone a "worthless scumbag" if you want to stick around to fix the article. -- TedFrank 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't believe me. Whatever I am, I'm not a liar. bye.Dean Sayers 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The band meets the following criteria:
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (Thorp Records)
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.(Blood For Blood)
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.(Boston Hardcore scene)
While not all of these are clearly cited in the article yet, I can add information to support them.Dean Sayers 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly these are parameters specified in WP:MUSIC. They need to be added to the article; we cannot deduce their existence otherwise. If appropriate qualifying standards exist in the article, then clearly the article attracts support. But they have to be present in the text in order to be considered.--Anthony.bradbury 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wont disagree with you, Anthony, but the fact of the matter is that I have only been working on the article for less than a day or two, unfortunately my attempt to revise it simply attracted TedFrank's attention. If given time I can modify the article (the US tour is cited in the article already, for one thing).Dean Sayers 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. I do not feel that I am in conflict with you. You have at least five days to get the qualifying statements into the article, whereupon it should survive.--Anthony.bradbury 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May as well delete it then. Since my mom just died yesterday, I've been fairly fucked in the head, and I doubt I'll even want to deal with the pressure and antagonism here. I tried making amends with TedFrank, and the fact that he has been cynical to the point of attempting to get rid of the one page I cared for (as seen on my userpage) actually really got to me. Maybe I'm being a wuss, but...whatever. Bye. Dean Sayers 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Thorp Records and Thorpe Records are red-linked. The Blood for Blood article also fails WP:MUSIC; I've tagged it. Ramallah has next to no mention in the Boston hardcore article, except in a bulleted list of about 80 bands. The Ramallah article says they cancelled their international tour (and I question whether such a tour would satisfy WP:N). Every one of Sayers' claims flunks scrutiny. The article has been tagged since February, and Sayers was the one who removed the tag indicating that he didn't wish the article to undergo any further scrutiny. -- TedFrank 16:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, I felt that I had solved the problem, so on multiple occassions I changed the article and removed the tags. The discussion page clearly shows that I am looking for suggestions and how to better the article.Dean Sayers 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internest

[edit]
Internest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly original research and nonsense. --- RockMFR 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 10:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Scrabble references in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance or mention of a particular board game in every medium regardless of how important or trivial the appearance is. Strongly oppose merging any of the content back to the Scrabble article. Otto4711 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan and the Elastic Caveman

[edit]
Alan and the Elastic Caveman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a film which does not appear to exist, with no returns on google or IMDb. It also seems to have been created without any attempt to make it even a believable hoax and is very badly written. Dbam 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Party

[edit]
School Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a film which does not appear to exist, nothing on IMDb and no google hits Dbam 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson

[edit]
Chad Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable: no other sources found Wsanders 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight sciences

[edit]
Fight sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find any sources that use this term in this context in a non-trivial way. The only source provided in the article is to the apparent coiner, Alain Delmas, who also happens to be the author of the article. Delete because it's just not a [[WP:|notable]] term. ... discospinster talk 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interest representation: Academic overview

[edit]
Interest representation: Academic overview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about Interest representation is very encyclopedic. It is made as an "academic overview" which lists random people's views on the subject. Its very awkward compared to other articles.YaanchSpeak! 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wannabe-goth bands

[edit]
List of wannabe-goth bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear listcruft, inherintly POV and comes very close to being an attack page, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This one is remarkably straightforward. Aside from being OR, POV, and fancruft, this list provides no useful information. A quick check shows that most of these bands are considered Alternative Rock, therefore any discussion about their respective "goth-ness" belongs on the respective talk pages of these bands - and with appropriate sources to backup any claims. Wolphii 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note similar POV concerns at another article by the same editor: Pop goth. This contains way too much "some would say" and "may have influenced", and of course the opinion of the "elder goths" on younger adherents to the subculture. I will contact the creator on his talk page to stress the importance of NPOV, verifiability and reliable sources. --Canley 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of the Black Cheetah Man

[edit]
Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of the Black Cheetah Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing nom started by User:Tamajared. —Celithemis 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Earring. WjBscribe 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stud earing

[edit]
Stud earing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant (to Earring) and is also spelled wrong. Furthermore, it's an attempt by anonymous user 24.192.149.147 aka (suspected) sock puppet User:Nina90 to plaster a child's image with an earring all over Wikipedia. Earpol 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I also created Hoop Earrings with a different image. I was in the middle of improving the article Stud earing, when I had to help my dad and eat. Please check out the improvements to the article, that I create.

Add Hoop Earrings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the same author as well; I've tagged with both {{tone}} and {{merge}}. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Margaretha Guidone

[edit]
Margaretha Guidone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: non notable outside of Belgium. We can't have an article on every single participant in the Nairobi climate conference. The lack of international or even English references in the article is a sign of its relevance. Nick Mks 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This AfD appears as WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Not having references in English or that are outside the country of topic orgin are NOT reasons to delete an article. If a topic is notable in a certain country, it is worthy of inclusion in English Wikipedia. Covering non-English language based topics is the fundamental goal of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. On a side note, while the nom is claiming the topic is unknown outside of Belgium, many of the references in the article are from The Netherlands, which is a separate country from Belgium, and coverage in the 2 countries fit the definition of "international." --Oakshade 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that a lack of English language references in itself is not an argument for deletion. However, if the lack is because there exist no English references, I feel it does say something about being notable. An English language Google search yields 101 hits, most of which turn out to be Dutch language after all, the rest from blogs and other all but primary sources. As far as internationalism is concerned, there is exactly one non-Belgian reference (from the Netherlands), which focuses on Mrs. Guidone's Dutch ancestry. Nick Mks 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Oakshade. Enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of England, America, Canada, and Australia, and "Lack of English references" is not a sign of anything; I see multiple instances of non-trivial coverage (judging by the fact that the subject's name appears in the article in the lead paragraph) in reliable sources (judging by the fact that the source in question, De Standaard, itself has a Wikipedia article) from multiple countries. Please do a bit of research before taking stuff straight to AfD --- why not ask a speaker of the language in question to read the articles??? Never mind, I see you are a speaker of the language in question. However, that doesn't change the fact that English sources are in no way a requirement for establishing notability. cab 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've seen a lot worse articles. She's notable in Belgium and the Netherlands and is bound to become even more so. The article in the Dutch wikipedia was mentioned in the press, but en. wouldn't want it? Looks like she passes the Google test as well. She's not only notable for speeking at the convention, but for all here environmental actions, which is of course a hot pollitical topic.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: don't worry, my motives here are not political. Also, please don't take it personal that I nominated your article (I'm not saying you are, and I also didn't mean to suggest that it is a bad article). I'm only trying to help identify content that (I thought) was redundant. Nick Mks 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Much of this rests on accepting the argument that further expansion is possible, given the article's young age. Shimeru 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templar History Magazine

[edit]
Templar History Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Quarterly magazine in existence since 2001, no independent hits. Given the other articles written by the same contributor, very likely a COI violation; namely, the publisher writing about his own magazine. MSJapan 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same individual and is even less notable, being in existence only since 2005:[reply]

Masonic Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This magazine has been around for six years, and is the only magazine of its kind on this subject, attracting the best researchers and authors in the area of Templar history. That alone makes it notable. I strongly disagree with your request to delete it.
The WP entry was not written by the publisher, although I have contributed articles to his magazines. If that disqualifies me from putting a listing up about them, so be it. But if that is so, trawling through the listings of Canadian and American Magazines reveals far less notable publications, if housecleaning is really all you're up to. I would argue that EVERY WP article about magazines are little more than advertising. However, an argument can be made that as WP grows as a reference source, such listings are indispensable for writers looking a home for their articles. The webpage this listing links to is a gateway site to more than 100 past articles from the magazine under history, speculation, modern Templars and book reviews. So what's the objection? And I do contend that the Templar History website providing its past articles is a great research resource for WP readers looking for research on the Knights Templar, and not just a mere shill for pimping the magazine subscription. If an offer to subscribe is the barometer of unsuitability for WP, same argument can be made for any magazine's website. So if you have a personal gripe about it, I call a foul.
Frumious Bander 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep You seem unsure about whether the article should be about the magazine, or the site, with a link to the magazine. could you comment? I would strongly suggest rewriting it as an article on the site, with a link to the magazine, but I want to see what else there is on the subject, since your claim to N is that it is the only magazine. I can see a list of articles--is there a list of authors? DGG 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only brought up the website for the magazine here because MS_Japan had expressed a complaint elsewhere that the mag's website only sold subscriptions, which is not true. Sure, it's got commerce on it, but so does every other magazine's website. No, I don't think the article should be about the website, I think it needs to remain about the magazine. I don't see a list of authors on the mag's site - might be buried elsewhere on the site. I'll look around.Frumious Bander 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. It's a "new" article and maybe there's more to say. THere's quite a few Ghits... so I'm tempted to say, let's keep it for now and see where it goes. - grubber 17:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discord of perception

[edit]
Discord of perception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOR. Note that this editor has a history of creating bogus articles. greenrd 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Of The North

[edit]
Knights Of The North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable group that also violates WP:NOT an ad service. It is claimed as a think-tank with numerous papers published, but only one is known. The anon who removed the prod seems to think WP (rather than at the end of their "numerous papers") is where to tell readers about KOTN. As the same author created Masonic Magazine (also nn) where KOTN publishes, there is a likely COI here as well, as MM is a self-published magazine. MSJapan 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KOTN has, in fact, published almost 30 papers, not one. As the author of the WP article, I am NOT the publisher of Masonic Magazine, although I have contributed to it, and I have put these entries on WP without the permission, guidance or knowledge of Stephen Dafoe. Also, in spite of your comments above, masonic magazine is not a self-published magazine of the KOTN. Dafoe started it under a different title at least five years ago, long before the KOTN was formed. He had no association with the group until a year ago.
With the paper Laudable Pursuit rapidly circulating in Masonic circles and being used as Masonic education in lodges across the US and Canada, more Grand Lodges are looking to the paper for legislation (Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin have all implemented concepts directly out of Laudable Pursuit in 2006-2007). The writings of this group individually and collectively certainly meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Because the KOTN issue papers as a group, it is important that regular, recognized Masons know they are dealing with regular, recognized Masons. In addition, as a group of published authors in widely circulated Masonic magazines and books published by mainstream (non-Masonic) publishers, the KOTN collectively are notable for that reason alone for their membership and leadership. You might argue that they should not be categorized as a Masonic Organization on Wikipedia, but the listing should remain to inform readers of their papers just who and what they are (and are not).
The KOTN has actually done a lousy job of promoting themselves, but LP has done a pretty good job of making its way around the country on its own steam without their self-promotion. While the initial group was less than 10 members, there are at least 28 at this point, and the overarching group's name has always been used as a shorthand way of referring to them, and not as a way to hide. Members have readily identified themselves for years. Your comment on the KOTN discussion page that they are "unaware that their ideas don't work for everyone" screams to me that you have a personal bone to pick with them, not a reasonable reason for removing the article. You may not like or agree with their opinions, but that's no reason to remove this listing. Grand Lodges, Grand Encampments, the Cato Institute, Proctor and Gamble and the Democratic Party are "unaware that their ideas don't work for everyone" too. That's a specious contention.
I put up the article because there is a natural reaction on the part of people who come across the paper to want to know if they are dealing with regular, recognized Masons, or with some bogus bunch of "we'll make our own Grand Lodge" upstarts (i.e. the UGLA). I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a Masonic encyclopedia, but part of it's mission is to provide up to date, topical information. The KOTN has nothing it is "selling," but its articles and authors are influencing Grand Lodges and individual lodges in the US and Canada. Now, if you think the article is one sided, or that it needs to identify the known members to lend it credibility, that's fine, I'll go digging for them. I was avoiding that, partially, for privacy issues, and partially because it would look like ego stroking for them to mention them by name. In a report like "It's About Time" from the Masonic Service Association last year, the MSA was the author, and no one tried to make sure they listed the individuals on the committee every time it was discussed. They are listed if anyone wanted to really find out, but MSA issued it as an organization.
Again, one paper does not make the KOTN notable, but as a group they seem to be making a sudden splash in the Masonic world, and Masons who fret about their sources being regular and recognized get very concerned about knowing who they are and where they came from. I simply thought Wikipedia was a good place to inform them of that. The KOTN has nothing to sell, and is not open to solicited members. It is by invitation only, charges no fees, has no elections, and gives its papers away for free. I am unsure what tangible benefit this article brings to them, apart from clearing up questions that are asked by Masons about their origin and regularity. Frumious Bander 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Masons fret about regularity, why do the KOTN not say who they are in their own works? Wikipedia is not appropriate for "clearing up questions"; it is for encyclopedic material that can be found elsewhere. I don't think it's an accident that Hodapp (a KOTN from Indiana) can get LP used as a basis for use in his own jurisdiction. I would think that many of the other KOTN mebers pushed their work in their own jurisdictions - that's false notability. It's used in those jurisdictions because members of those jurisdictions wrote it. I'm also not convinced this isn't self-marketing; when there's no names attributed, and someone goes "hey look at this" on an ML, how do wwe know they didn't write it? I also don't think 5 jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic qualify as "a big splash", out of 50. Lastly, considering you want this article to "clear up questions" that apparently aren't answered anywhere else, it violates WP:OR as well. Did you even read the relevant WP policies before you made any of your articles? If you did, you might see why I nominated this for AfD, and it's not personal at all; WP has very specific guidelines for articles, and this one does not meet them. MSJapan 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Indiana's the one place they really seem to dislike these guys! I dunno, having a measurable influence on 10% of US Grand Lodges in two years sounds pretty good to me, but I guess you're the judge. To my knowledge, they don't have members in those states listed above outside of Indiana, but I'll see. To my knowledge, apart from the original paper LP, they've been signing their work and identifying themselves ever since. Again, I'd be happy to put the names I know up on the WP article - I didn't before because I figured that was violating WP guidelines for notability. Yes, I've read the guidelines, but as I look across WP, they seem to be applied with great variation, and what I see doesn't always jibe with what the guidelines say. So I am confused. I'm not part of their group, but I put the article up because they seem to be notable by my reading of the rules around here. You seem to disagree. I'm not fighting you on it. You want to dump all of the articles, feel free. I have no real dog in this fight, apart from trying to be informative about some folks who seem to be having some positive influence in the Masonic world.Frumious Bander 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to chime in as one who stumbled onto this article through a link. Frumious Bander above has made the points I would make, but might I add that there seems to be a considerable amount of disagreement within the Masonic world about where Masonry should be heading in the future. The KOTN are clear in where they think it should go, from a review of their material, and they are therefore attacked on spurious questions of notability by those who do seem to have a dog in the fight. Yesterday, several friends were speaking about the Algonquin Round Table, which is clearly notable. It is much like the KOTN in that there is a lot of talk and not a lot of structure, and would have been questioned as to notability in its day by those outside the circle, who looked on with dislike or, most likely, envy that they were not invited to join in. Wikipedia gives those disposessed medicrities an opportunity to spitefully make claims as to notability, and to push organizations such as the KOTN, which have nothing to sell and are gaining nothing from such a listing, out of the limelight in the small ways open to them. I would note also that MSJapan was a key in deleting an earlier article on the KOTN in September 2006, and "traditionalized" several other Masonic entries.68.148.178.158 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but since you're writing your own bio on WP as-is, and you are a member of KOTN, don't you think you have a bit of a COI in commenting here as a supposedly innocent IP? I say this because the only articles you've ever worked on are R. John Hayes and SportAbility Alberta which Mr. Hayes was executive director of, plus you know he's a member of KOTN, as well as what KOTN is, when the members apparently don't identify themselves (hence the supposed need for this article). MSJapan 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP To coin a Reagan-ism, "Well, there you go again." The members do readily identify themselves, beyond the initial internet presentation of their first paper. Its continued circulation in its original form has taken on something of a life of its own, so the anonymous nature of it lingers. But in other venues, such as Masonic Dictionary articles, no one is hiding there. And in my experience, I seem to see their open identification throughout various online forums. As for notability, I have to point to their being invited to speak around the country outside of their jurisdictions on the topics their papers address. As I said before, if the anonymity thing is your big beef, I'll dig up the members' names that I can, but I figured there'd be a storm of criticism over that as some kind of improper notability violation or shameless pimping for speaking gigs. You tell me. These guys aren't selling anything - hell, they don't even seem to be promoting their papers. Instead of just dumping the listing, you don't see a compromise on this? And if not, I can't help calling foul again. I can understand shutting off irregular, unrecognized and clearly agenda-driven destroyers like the bogus UGLA or RGLE that are masquerading as massive movements when they are nothing but three angry guys in the back of an Atlanta Starbucks. By contrast, the KOTN guys seem to be operating within regular, recognized Masonry, and attracting notice through little (or no) self-promotion. If your gripe is simply over their message, then I really question your clearly biased qualification in making a judgement for WP. Frumious Bander 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle with Deer Head

[edit]
Eagle with Deer Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event. GregorB 18:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people who have had a heart attack

[edit]
List of famous people who have had a heart attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a list that would be unmaintainable, and this is probably unencyclopedic anyway. The list isn't verifiable either. sunstar nettalk 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Broken Dreams

[edit]
The Land of Broken Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Website. Not entirely clear what it is about. No attempt to assert notability. -- RHaworth 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The website is an artists site where people from all over the world can come and share their poetry, art, photos, and other personnel media they have created. As well there forums for members to join in on, as well as games and other great features. As well its one of the internets oldest website which has been resurracted. The site has been brought back and there were thousands of members of the orginal. This just states the history and what its about and it should not be deleted. This would be like deleting a piece of history. The wiki page is under construction and will be finished in a short time. User: EmenyZeroSkater, 3:43 PM 3-25-07
  • Delete unless improved Advert. Or nonsense. Or both. The whole article reads like a mix of The Silmarillion and a TRS80 instruction manual. I am uncomfortable with this being AfD'd only two hours after it first went up though, especially given that the edit history shows the creator still clearly working on it; if the page is in better shape when the 5 days are up I'll happily change my opinion. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just sit tight, I'm still new to the coding and and other aspects of Wiki. I'm working on making the descriptions much better, after all since I am new at this I would rather make small updates and saves then make 1 and lose everything. I'm glad to see Wiki memebers are so kind and understanding of new memebers with their comments on users and pages. User and page editor/creator: EmenyZeroSkater 4:10 3-25-07

Comment This discussion will stay open for five days before any decision's taken - if the article's cleared up by then, rest assured it won't be deleted providing you can give show why your site's notable enough for inclusion. And not wanting to provoke any kind of edit war, but the only message anyone's left on your talk page (you should have had an automated note re your page being nominated for deletion as well, but the bot doesn't seem to have done it yet) is from me, asking why you were leaving anonymous unsigned abuse on my talk page... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: More inprovements have been made Since I was able to figure more wiki code. More updates will follow to make sure its up to Wikipedias standards. User: EmenyZeroSkater 5:18 3-35-07
EmenyZeroSkater, please do not delete other users comments from an AfD discussion, particularly from a discussion of an article you created; I have reverted your edit. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not and I don't believe you should be pointing fingers at me. I only made my update. I still do not know why you are targeting me for this abuse. User: EmenyZeroSkater 3-25-07 5:49

Unfortunately, the wiki sees all: [47]. Please don't mis-represent yourself - the editors here are willing to help if you edit in good faith. As for this article, its super difficult to google search, since its a commonly used phrase - but only a few of the links I found even go to this website, let alone to any reliable sources. There may be sources out there that are lost in the noise, and if so, I urge User:EmenyZeroSkater to put those into the article with no delay, otherwise, I say this is a Strong Delete' for failing all of WP:WEB. - CosmicPenguin (Talk)
  • I am the creator of the site's new revision (so I won't edit the article). However, it will be hard to find many notations since most links have been removed since the original site's shutdown in 2004, and as far as I know, there has been no published print articles written about the new or old versions.

I would also like to apologize for Emeny's behavior, it was uncalled for. --Ensellitis 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I as well could not find any other links. I agree with Ensellitis and am sorry, I felt threatened and it was wrong. But the page is up and will have anything we missed added as well. User: EmenyZeroSkater 7:39 3-25-07

  • Comment as this page is obviously being substantially reedited by the creator, can I suggest it not be speedied, and left up for the full 5 days to give a chance to improve - at the moment I'd still say delete (sorry!) for failing to provide notability. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oddly enough, i have to agree with a speedy delete. in the near future, we will have some notablitiy as we will be publishing book of the poetry submitted on the site. lobd is one of, if not the oldest, social networking sites out there. however, i am unable to provide any evidence of this, since it even predated webarchive. and the original host/server it resided on is now long gone.

for future reference, what exactly would qualify as valid notability? --Ensellitis 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment see the message I've left on your talk page. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bam the game

[edit]
Bam the game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible Hoax. No information on google can be found about this game. Game description sounds unlikely ("As the game goes on you can travel the whole world.", "This game has a free skate mode, similar to a Tony Hawk game, once you complete the game." "There are also secret skaters too, including all of Margera's crew and the Jackass crew, Phil and April Margera, Missy, Borat, Jon Hedar, Panic! at the Disco, and lots more.") No sources are provided to back up any of this information. Even if any of this might be remotely true, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ocatecir Talk 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Reece

[edit]
Somaya Reece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources which back up the assertions of notability. Lots of picture galleries and blogs but not much else. It seems odd that she would be named the #3 Latina in music when she's currently working on her first album. I question whether having huge numbers of friends on MySpace can be used to establish notability. Otto4711 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Edit" is the wrong word, but it is still modified based on user input so as I understand it is not considered reliable. Regardless, her IMDB entry shows her in such roles as "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music video girl" which are not really the sorts of roles that would qualify her for an entry under WP:BIO. And again, there do not appear to be independent sources which establish notability. Otto4711 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, leaving that aside and while I still may disagree with it, the balance of the issues remain as far as the quality of the IMDB credits in establishing notability per WP:BIO and the lack of other reliable sourcing establishing notability. Otto4711 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Artaxiad. Epbr123 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, only because of the mainstream appearances (Girlfriends & Entourage); as an aside, simply because someone appears on MySpace is not a measure of notability. --Mhking 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Artaxiad. An aside for Mhking's aside: Existence on MySpace or other social networking is not notable, but reaching high levels of whatever measures the sites use might be. -- JHunterJ 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Latino Entertainment TV" is a made up source. If you google it, the only items that come up are the three that Ms. Reece has put on the internet talking about herself. Nothing on her page can be substantiated. How can she name herself the site's #1 latina? Has myspace announced that? She claims on her myspace page that her song has 2.8 million plays. If you go to her music page, you can see that is far from the truth. She has had less than 50,000 plays. The 2.8 million number somes from a file that she has embedded in all of her bulletins on myspace. Anytime anyone opens up the posting (including herself), the number increases. --- Jessie620 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it's made up. Daily Variety included "Latl-Latino Entertainment Television" in their "opt-in" listing of production companies on 11 September 2006. The website given there, http://www.latinoentertainmenttelevision.com, appears to be offline now, though. It appears the claim for "#1 Latina" is made based on the number of MySpace friends; I made a few searches for Latinas with more than 100000 friends, and it appears to be correct, with Christina Aguilera coming in second. -- JHunterJ 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if that is true (isn't it a bit odd the website is offline now), Somaya has put "articles" up on her website claiming to be from other journalists. None of these publications could be found and none of the writers are notable enough to be taken seriously. It could have been her neighbor writing it. The bottom line is Somaya notoriously self-promotes. It's what she does. Unfortunately, she uses made up sources to back up her false claims. In all honesty, outside of myspace, the general population does not know who she is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jessie620 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I remain unpersuaded. I uploaded every scrap of information from here and not a word of it was changed by anyone at IMDB. It all happens to be true, but that's beside the point. I've uploaded trivia, goofs, credits information, "also known as" and other sorts of information to IMDB and none of it has ever been changed, not even typos. Absent proof that IMDB engages in the sort of editorial oversight of material uploaded as "publicity" required by WP:RS I can't accept it as a reliable source. Especially in light of the campaign of self-promotion that the subject of the article engages in. And even if one were to accept unquestioningly that IMDB is reliable, it does not support, and indeed no sources yet offered support, either the claims made in the article or the notion that this person passes WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Otto4711 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:SELFPUB: "The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all." The subject has a reputation for inflating her alleged notability by doing things like inserting links in posts to boost her stats and that can certainly be considered. Under WP:SELFPUB the default on self-published sources like MySpace is that they are not acceptable as sources especially in the absence of other independent sourcing. It must be said yet again that there are no such independent sources that establish that the subject passes either WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Otto4711 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reliable source for asserting this reputation exists? In any event, I still feel that the combination of IMDB-documented modeling & acting work and MySpace statistics (just the friends/hits/counts that the site records objectively) could meet WP:NOTE. -- JHunterJ 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you shouldn't have any problem finding the substantial independent sources that WP:NOTE demands. Where are they? And why is it that credits for the deleted Jason McMahon noted below with credits like "Baseball player" and "Janitor" wasn't notable but somehow credits like "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music video girl" are so stellar that they establish notability. And please spare me talk of her modeling work on IMDB, because anyone, including her, can upload it and IMDB doesn't vet it. This person does not pass BIO, does not pass NOTE and you have yet to offer one word that supports the notion that she does. Otto4711 19:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting you ignore it. I'm suggesting that you try to grasp the fact that any Tom, Dick and Somaya can upload anything they want to it and IMDB does not exercise any degree of editorial oversight. I could go right now and upload a notice to Samoya's IMDB page saying that she was on the cover of the August 2003 issue of "Cat Fancier" stroking her pussy cat and in a week or so it'll appear on her publicity page. I do not get whether you actually do not understand this or if you are willfully ignoring it in the name of WP:ILIKEIT. Nor do I get why you cling to the notion that credits like "Harlot (uncredited)" do anything to establish notability. Do you know what "uncredited" usually means? Extra. In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear why her credits are superior in that regard to those of the actors mentioned elsewhere on the page but for some reason you keep refusing to answer that, I can't imagine why. Otto4711 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten emails from the IMDB editors asking questions of some of my submissions and refusing others -- oversight. In the meantime, try to keep your tone more civil. -- JHunterJ 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ever notice how often, in AFDs, when someone's avoiding answering a question they fling out an accusation of incivility? I've never gotten a single email from IMDB asking me a question about anything I've ever uploaded. No oversight. I trust my experience more than I trust yours, and you still haven't answered my question regarding why playing "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music viceo girl" confer notability when playing "Baseball player" and "Janitor" do not. Show me anything on Wikipedia that indicates that being a glorified extra confers notability that gets past WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Anything at all. Otto4711 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point you keep bringing up, Otto. I am curious to know the answer as well. Why is Somaya lauded for being a "notable" extra when other wiki pages of people with similar credits are deleted? Jessie620 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's pretty much no verifed content in the article. Agree with EliminatorJR. As per WP:ATT, If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Cloudz679 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. POV issues will need to be addressed through careful edits. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson

[edit]
Pamela L. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this particular entry although I'm not so sure how the community will see this case. Mrs Johnson is a doctor who's had a troubled history of malpractice accusations. The article itself has decent, multiple sources whose reliability cannot be questioned. What I do question, however, is whether this really has any encyclopedic value: the article exists primarily to disparage its subject (although, of course, it's not like there seems to be much positive to be said about this doctor) and is transforming Wikipedia into a sort of watchdog. I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia being used in this way although I'm not aware that any of our policies really discusses the issue in a meaningful way. Pascal.Tesson 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (as I'm undecided): there don't seem to be many news articles about Johnson outside of four WaPo articles, part of a series on similar cases, where she is used as an egregious example. [48][49][50][51] I think this does suffice per WP:N, but there's a problem with so many primary references being used and some of the language isn't as careful as it should be per WP:BLP. I certainly hope in the larger scheme of things that being run out of four states is unusual enough that this makes her notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment. Indeed, by the criteria of WP:N she probably does satisfy the requirement of sourcing. So would someone who got busted for multiple DUI or child molestation. However, I'm not sure having Wikipedia entries for them satisfy much purpose besides the rather sad satisfaction of permitting public scorn. Pascal.Tesson 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She does pass WP:N. The article seems a bit bias though. Epbr123 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The article seems also a good deal unspecific about important facts--education, etc.. current state of things in Texas, and so on. It does not violate BLP, as it reports official actions. As for POV, I wonder a little what could be said on the other side? DGG 06:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteThe article is extremely POV. I consider the one Washington Post article a reliable source, but I question some of the others. The "The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy" is self described as an advocacy group for licensing of physical therapists, and so I question their meeting WP:ATT with respect to their criticisms of a medical doctor. They are the source for blatant POV phrases such as "she lied." There is "Texas Watch," self described as "a non-partisan, advocacy organization working to improve consumer and insurance protections for Texas families" which also might not satisfy WP:ATT. There are citations to state licensing boards, which are primary sources, where I would prefer secondary sources such as the one newspaper article to explain, interpret and evaluate the sometimes cryptic actions of the licensing board. The article originally had a section on the general problem of which she was just allegedly an exemplar, of hospitals avoiding creating bad publicity about problem doctors and shuffling them off to another unsuspecting hospital or another state. An article on that problem would serve the public interest better than this attack article about one doctor. Is Wikipedia the right forum to present complaint articles about doctors, plumbers, and car mechanics, even if there is a single newspaper article and state licensing actions as sources? I favor deletion if no additional newspaper or similar sources can be found. Likewise, we do not need dozens of similar articles on the dozens of other doctors listed in the Washington Post series sourced only to that article and the licensing board actions. Edison 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As for "notability", she passes. The Washington Post article and the other sources demonstrate exposure. I have no problem with a POV tag. --Oakshade 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. - Bobet 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opel Rekord (2008 version)

[edit]
Opel Rekord (2008 version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be hoax, no ghits for this, or indeed any of the other cars mentioned. I am also nominating the following related pages because I suspect them to be hoaxes:

Opel Valiza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toyota Axina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sunstar nettalk 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all pages beginning with ...Class B, subclass. Wikibooks has determined that this information is inappropriate for their project. The following articles will be deleted:

And Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion as well. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And all other articles beginning with "Library of Congress Classification," save the parent article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible

[edit]
Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Library of Congress has a detailed cataloguing system, which it has revealed in full on its website, here. Some editors have undertaken to copy all this information to Wikipedia, and are in the process of doing so.

My concern is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm okay with having library classification categories for each letter, but once we get into the numbers it's too specific for my taste. (Of course, nobody said I had to go look at it in the first place.) I am nominating the entire class of similar articles for discussion; there's nothing special about this one, but I wanted to see what others thought about it.

The following suggestions seem reasonable to me:

  • Delete all articles on this level of specific classification (my preference).
  • Transwiki them to Wikisource, which is "the free library".
  • Keep all articles on library classification because they are sourced, notable, and useful.
  • Move this discussion to an appropriate talk page.

Let me know what you all think. YechielMan 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support actions suggested by nom. The sample article provided is just data entry... if there was any encyclopedic context this would be a different case. Also, this information is duplicated by the Library of Congress, whose facilities would do a far better job of maintaining and updating this information. -- saberwyn 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment
  1. Actually both the table here and the tables on the LC site are summary tables. The actual ones are a great deal longer and more complicated and not available on the web for free (and ditto for Dewey--the ones in the articles referred to are an even more concise summary ). The tables at this level of specificity do not change very much, the way the more exact ones do.
    1. The full LC tables are not copyright, but they are very large--I will check the size and license status of the electronic version. ; the full Dewey tables are copyright, and that copyright is vigorously enforced.
  2. To see how a similar problem was dealt with , see unicode and its dependent pages and links/.
  3. Any way will do, as long as we do it consistently and don't fuss with it letter by letter and let whatever is decided be. Disk space is cheap. Time spent in argument is not.
  4. Personally, I'd keep them in WP space as information important to the construction of articles.
  5. Otherwise here, organized as a category.
    1. Wikisource is a place to put text, not a place to put code--I do not see anything remotely like this there
  6. other ideas??
  7. Unless by some chance we all reach a agreement right now, the only practical thing is keep on this AfD, and discuss it elsewhere.

DGG 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • As fas a copyright goes, I believe the Dewey Decimal Classification system is owned by OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) but I do not know the degree they enforce their copyright. NielsenGW 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is just another sad exercise in taking something from some database and compulsively stuffing it into Wikipedia, creating a stale copy of what would be better looked up at the source database. There should be a master article on the LC classification system, and a link to where the curious could find current classification information. (I have always found it curious that they classifiers put the Bible in a section called "BS")Edison 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles at the subclass level, per Edison. I'd also suggest merging the class level into a single article; there's no searchability benefit from the current construction, and in fact there's a loss of readability. Mike Christie (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The level to merge would be the individual letter (B)--the entire classification makes an extremely long table. There are also several levels of summary tables, and once this article gets Kept, I will undertake to organize them.
I have asked at Wikibooks [52] what their feeling is on the question. DGG 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hall

[edit]
Gavin Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is simply the curriculum vitae of a web-developer. He worked for some websites, but that doesn't makes one notable. Apparently, it was written by himself and a close friend that also wrote a (now deleted) article about himself. Google returns a great number of results fo "Gavin Hall", but just because it's a common name. Abu badali (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete 85021, TC Smith, Trey Snow and Young Tighteyez, and revert City Boy and TC (Artist) to versions before User:Cityboy85021's edits. Timmy C was speedy deleted by Feydey. utcursch | talk 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Boy

[edit]
City Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is created by a user under the same name as the person depicted. Autobiography. He is ultimately non-notable. His album is a hoax. Got a fake semi-protected template. His picture is a self-shot one. The whole "article" resembles a MySpace page rather than a lexicon entry. Lajbi Holla @ me 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This nomination was made while the article was in a state of vandalism. It has subsequently been reverted to its pre-vandalism state. Sancho (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. I created a category to keep them under my scope. I'v brought up the idea of fromattin those pages in WP:Albums and WP:Music and noone seemed to bother. If you want to help me with them please contact me on my talk page, because this Afd debate is about something completely else. Lajbi Holla @ me 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the "rap crew" and their "mixtape" or whatever:

85021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also with fake multilanguage links)
TC (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timmy C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TC Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trey Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young Tighteyez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
and all related images

Votes count on all from this point on. Lajbi Holla @ me 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already done it. "Only" creating these fake articles. Lajbi Holla @ me 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert City Boy to the version identified by Iridescenti. Weak Revert OR Delete TC (Artist) to this version (which may also qualify for deletion anyway). Delete all other articles and related images. Self promotion, conflict of interest, and apparent failure to meet WP:MUSIC. If kept, TC, Timmy C, and TC Smith need to be merged, they appear to be the one individual. -- saberwyn 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert - Yes. I've just come to the same conclusion. The TC page has a previous version but that is also completely non-notable but has to have its own separate debate. Lajbi Holla @ me 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the page describes the charted UK band, I hope the page will stay. I just listened to my "City Boy" album and wanted to learn more about the band. The page answered all my questions. It should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolph Yehudi (talk • contribs)

Comment - Done. To the admin : please don't count this vote on the stacked multilisting. Lajbi Holla @ me 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Boy has been denominated from voting (and reverted). To the admin deciding to close the debate : please consider to block Cityboy85021 for serious vandalism for overwriting the article (unless we couldn't be sure it won't happen again when we put out the article from our watchlist). Lajbi Holla @ me 08:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

85021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also with fake multilanguage links)
TC (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timmy C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TC Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trey Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young Tighteyez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
and all related images
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Corner

[edit]
Comedy Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another article about a non-notable student comedy group. I don't really see anything notable here: No major accomplishments, no famous alumni, etc. They hired some people, but that's because they have college activity fee money. It's unreferenced, and it reads like an ad for the club. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Epbr123 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Howell (footballer)

[edit]
David Howell (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is no different to when it was speedily deleted ten days ago. This footballer has only played and managed minor football clubs. Epbr123 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep this Article is much improved from my original and better reflects his time as a profesional footballer. "the honour of being the first black England National Game XI captain" I think this also make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrow Red (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del West

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

Company (valvetrain supplier) with no assertion of notability or sources other than company website. Originally listed for speedy deletion, but an admin thought it did not quite meet the requirements of WP:CSD#G11 and would be better to go through AfD just to be safe-- so here it is. Note possible violation of WP:COI, since the entire article was written by several single-purpose accounts, each named similarly to the son of the company president, Alfred Sommer. May violate WP:SPAM too, since its only source is a link to the company website. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Sommer (aerospace engineer). --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sounds like spam, some references would help. Artaxiad 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Supplying Formula 1 & NASCAR cars demonstrates slight notability. The company doesn't sell straight to the public so its not an obvious case of spam. Most articles are written by people with a personal interest in the subject. Epbr123 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep But only if there are references. There should be references and reviews of their products in technical magazines, and possibly articles about the business. Those who wrote the article will know better than I where to find them. I wish we could get contributors to actually realize the importance, especially when there is apparent COI. If they did that convincingly in the first place they wouldn't have to be concerned about the likelihood of having to defend the article here. There is a reasonable presupposition that those with COI who don't find them might not actually have any. DGG 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I watch Formula-1 and never heard of these engines in the broadcasts (the commentators usually speak on technical specs during a race when no action is seen on the circuit). Also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Sommer (aerospace engineer). If its owner-creator-main engineer gets deleted I say no way his "product" could stay. Lajbi Holla @ me 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobman

[edit]
Mobman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a guy whose only notability is writing an obscure piece of software called Sub7. Info about him is already in the Sub7 article. Edrigu 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. If you guys want to merge it, discuss that on his talk page.--Wizardman 13:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Chambon

[edit]
Edouard Chambon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability criteria (no sources given, but even if there were, it's unclear that this would meet the criteria). It was tagged as a speedy delete, but it does at least claim significance. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by me. It's pointless to have an AfD discussion about this - it's nonsense/attack/vandalism. The author was not warned last time - I'll warn him this time. - Richard Cavell 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE DANY

[edit]
THE DANY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Patent nonsense, very probable attack page. Has already been deleted two days ago with the exact same content. I am sending this to AFD to be able to apply {{db-repost}} next time, and to protect the page against recreation if necessary. ReyBrujo 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - satisfies CSD criteria A1. Aksi_great (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu kingdoms in West Asia

[edit]

This history article, based on a religious site [54] (that include other amusing articles like "Vedic Indians of Ancient Greece"), goes one step even further by substituting Vedic with Hindu. Although Mitanni was an Indo-Aryan kingdom, and they had deities like Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins), calling it "Hindu" or even "Vedic" is not quite accurate. The other group, the Kassites were not even Indo-European. Delete as Original Research. deeptrivia (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. (The addition of references to press releases by the developer does not constitute the addition of independent sources.) Shimeru 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Marketplace

[edit]
Providence Marketplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and probably WP:NOT#SOAPBOX as well. - Cyrus XIII 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment this should does indicate notability The building of Providence MarketPlace was identified as as a key element in establishing the area on the interstate 40 exit as a satilite community of Nashville. source [55] Gnangarra 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It helps, but as per WP:Notability, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Providence Marketplace is mentioned in that article, but is not the subject of it; the subject is the city's development in general. Also, the more local a newspaper's coverage, the more sources are needed. One article about the marketplace in the NYT or WSJ would be sufficient, but once you get down to The Tennessean, I'd expect 2-3 articles, with more substantial coverage than three short sentences in a 1500-word story. Is there any other coverage you can find that'd help? --DeLarge 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think I am opposed, on general principle, to articles on shopping malls. However, this one does seem to be of significant impact to the local economy, and I found some other coverage that squeaks it through the notability requirement, IMO.[56] [57]--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Abdulla

[edit]
Zahra Abdulla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability requirements. She's member of Helsinki City Council. Zzzzzzzzzz 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Perez

[edit]
Joey Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion with invalid speedy reason "fan fiction". This is a procedural nomination; I abstain. Natalie 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - he's 'set to make his debut' in April, according to the article. - Richard Cavell 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly speculative article about a wrestler who has yet to achieve any real notability. Allegedly won the "hWs (Huntsville Wrestling Society) World Title", which sounds self-contradictory; Huntsville is a city, not a world. The Huntsville Wrestling Society doesn't even have an article, so I don't think that titles they give out are enough to make someone notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Nothing else in the article resembles even a claim to global notability. On top of that, there's zero references. Xtifr tälk 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malorie Marx

[edit]
Malorie Marx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable porn star. Epbr123 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: keep, non admin-closing. Issues here have been sorted out and the nominator does not object to closing. No one suggested deletion. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Oaken Bucket

[edit]
War of the Oaken Bucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page created by a blocked user, no references anywhere, etc., etc. Jouster  (whisper) 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's just possible this war might have happened, improbable as it sounds (compare the War of Jenkins' Ear). There certainly is a mock-heroic poem on the theme by Tassoni, La secchia rapita (usually translated The Rape of the Bucket because it influenced Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock). The article seems to have taken some information from this site offering Tassoni's tongue-in-cheek epic[58]. But "La guerra della secchia" itself only yields 8 Google hits, one of them a forum user asking whether it really existed (sadly there is no reply). Needs more research. --Folantin 08:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested solution It's hard to tell if this was real or just a popular legend. I suggest we create an article on La secchia rapita and merge this page there. There is already some information about the poem in the article on Tassoni (unfortunately none of it is referenced) so we could use that too. Any unsourced material about the war could be moved to the talk page until references are found. In fact, I had just gone ahead and created a page for La secchia rapita. --Folantin 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination)

[edit]
List of Mario Party 2 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced game guide content that is both listcruft and fancruft. While sources could be found I suppose: that doesn't change the fact that it's a game guide. Mini-games are basically the levels of the Mario Party games: Wikipedia isn't the place for level guides or mini-game guides. This is much better suited for a gaming wiki, or a wiki made by fans: known as a fan wiki.

Actually, there is. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft and look closely at the opinions of most editors that voted. If that's not a consensus, what is? Henchman 2000 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me for saying, but I am getting reeaaal tired of hearing this BS "can be encyclopedic" arguement when eeeeveryone knows that's not going to happen. Also, just because an article survives an AfD doesn't mean it's impossible for it to be deleted in another AfD; that's happened to thousands of articles and it's a useless argument. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/Strong Keep: Why can't the nominator just accept these articles, and how many afds will they have to survive? It would be silly to delete a minority and keep the majority of these articles. Seeing as the majority of these articles are being kept, all of them should be kept. And did you get a new deletion reveiw for this article, if you didn't, I don't think this article should be being nominated again. Henchman 2000 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have to keep an article just because another similar article exists. I think anyone who believes that this article should be deleted would agree that all of the lists need to go. --- RockMFR 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, Speedy Keep is only an option for an article that has either been nominated in obvious bad faith (which this hasn't) or an article where nobody is advocating deletion and the nominator has changed his mind.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "add a brief description of the types of games to the Mario Party 2 article or a discussion of changes in the games from a prior version"? Bowsy and I will do our best to find you some sources. Will that be OK? Henchman 2000 08:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a one-paragraph summary of a couple sentences in length, saying something along these lines: "There are four basic categories of minigames: shooting games (7), fighting games (13), racing games (5), and matching games (9). The sliding block games from the first Mario Party were originally also included in the sequel, but were discontinued after they tested poorly in focus groups." (Note: That's not intended to be an accurate summary of the game; it's just an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.) We don't need to know the name and level of every minigame, but a few general statements to place them within the context of the other Mario Party games (and video games as a whole) would be useful. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the prose in the main article is there for, this article is here for those people who want precise info, like me. Henchman 2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into other Mario Party minigame list articles - Instead of deleting all the lists of minigames in the Mario Party series, I think it would be best to merge all the games into ONE article, "List of Mario Party series minigames" or something to that effect, with sections for each. --Bishop2 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One article or many: it's still cruft. RobJ1981 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruft" would not be factual information, so... not really. --Bishop2 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruft" is excessive amounts of information about a topic, not a term dealing with factuality. That these mini-games exist and that the article is factually accurate is not the issue here. The Kinslayer 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is an abstract concept that is only used to get content that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT deleted. Also on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft a consensus has been established that cruft votes of any description, not just fancruft, should be ignored. Henchman 2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they don't explain their reasoning. I mean, if someone simply said "Delete as cruft", then yes, that opinion shouldn't count as much as others. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Middle School

[edit]
East Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not notable, nothing distingushing, poorly writen article Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High schools are generaly kept, not middle schoolsTtttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I have figured out, wikipedia is a place for selfish wikidrama-queens. I was just trying to be fair. Sorry if I have offended you, Noroton. but Delete this is one of the most un-notable articals I have ever read.Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was angry about walnut creek being NfD. But I have taken a stand that all middle schools should be notable.Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) I now say no contest[reply]
I don't understand your position. Is your opinion is "keep" because of the contribution history of a Wikipedia editor? Sancho (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that the nominator was defending to the death Walnut Creek Middle School (Millcreek, PA), which the nominator created and is scrambling to save while stating here: "High schools are generally kept, not middle schools". I think anyone voting here should ask themselves whether the nominator is violating WP:POINT. I think one good way of not rewarding this [...] behavior is voting to keep. Since editors other than the nominator have voted to delete, WP:Speedy Keep doesn't apply, unfortunately. Noroton 05:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from the Walnut Creek Middle School (Millcreek, PA) deletion discussion:
I get the impression [... well, forget my impressions...] I'm changing my vote because I have reason to doubt the editor's motives and don't want to reward the behavior that seems to come from them.Noroton 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neither because it is poorly written (that should have no bearing on a decision for deletion), nor because of the contribution history of Tttrrrreeeeyyyyyy, but because I don't believe the article can satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Attribution. "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" may be used so long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources". In this case, the article is based solely on self-published sources (the school website). Thus, those sources can not be used. Without those sources, this article is left with no sources. Sancho (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC) - uncivil comment (sorry) struck out by Sancho (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:A, or WP:RS, whichever one counts nowadays. (I can't keep track.) Also, as I noted in another recent school AfD, these discussions are supposed to be about the content of an article, not its editor -- or nominator, for that matter. I don't want to come off as holier-than, but it's a lot easier to be civil when the topic is an article. (And I'm not referring to Noroton when I say that.) --Butseriouslyfolks 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because for this school there is something notable, namely the mural. But it must be documented. Surely it is possible to find a local news account of it. A school or public librarian can help. DGG 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources and no apparent notability (making it hard/impossible to find any sources). Pax:Vobiscum 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Farmington Public School District, which could use expansion (and cleanup, but that's another story). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on changed !vote After thinking about it and thinking about some of the comments from other editors, I don't think I should be voting one way or the other except on the issue itself (not to do so would always leave room for being manipulated). I'm not going to vote at all on this one. I apologize to Trey and withdraw any statements about Trey's behavior other than to say it's unusual and worth looking at. He's given a plausible explanation, and I'm removing certain words and statements from my comments above and crossing out others (that may make the discussion look a little confusing, but not on anything that bears on the issue of whether to delete. Sorry for the inconvenience, everybody. Noroton 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even the mural isn't notable. We don't need to cover ever mural to important people. There's a mural in the Engineering center of the University of Colorado at Boulder that lists all the students that graduated there that later became astronauts and what missions they went on. While cool (and aside from the fact that CU is notable for other reasons and known to be an astronaut school), a mural doesn't purport notability. Even coverage of it doesn't help. --MECU≈talk 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's not notable for a university can certainly be notable in a middle school.DGG 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffor Ullah

[edit]
Jaffor Ullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This scientist appears not eligible for inclusion: the major criterion is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and not necessarily "has written many published works". To prove this, sources claiming this should be provided. Peter O. (Talk) 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers are not looking in the right place to see where Dr. Jaffor Ullah had published his peer-reviewed articles. These could be found in NIH's PubMed database. One has to search using the name Abul H. J. Ullah. Dr. Ullah had written news analysis on Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Islamic Fundamentalism. These could be searched using Google, Yahoo, and other search engine. [user:Jaffor Ullah]

  • Advice:It is the job of the eds who wrote or who are supporting the article to find those articles, pick the 5 most recent or most highly cited, and put them into the article. As PubMed is freely available, you can do it. You can also go the the sites you mention and select a few particularly long or important non-technical articles and put in links to them. I am, frankly, tired of finding references for article eds. who can do it themselves. When it's WebofScience, then I don't mind, and others will help for the ones they can access.
It is also the job of the ed. who wrote or is supporting the article to make sure that the alternate forms of the name have been added to the article. The place to put them is immediately after the first sentence. Write the article on the article page, not here. It is the article that has to show the notability, and then it will never be nominated for AfD in the first place.
Once the information is in the article, then people here can judge if he seems important, using the appropriate WP criteria for authors for the non technical papers, and scientific authors for the technical work. Assuming they do show that, I can help explain to people why the publication of an appropriately high number of science journal articles in major publications that are cited by secondary services is notability. PubMed (and WebofScience, etc.) are authoritative edited non-indiscriminate secondary sources including only material that has been peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the subject.
I apologize for sounding a little snappy. DGG 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs produced by Scott Storch

[edit]
List of songs produced by Scott Storch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion by anon with invalid reason "indiscriminate list, unencyclopediac". This is a procedural nomination, I abstain. Natalie 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_25&oldid=1116721771"