Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (according to Proto's edit summary on the page being AfD'd). --ais523 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fighters + Lovers

Fighters + Lovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable company --Gabi S. 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for [1] and [2] - multiple sources make it notable. Trebor 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability. There are millions newspapers articles about nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look here [3], an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully the second article you've provided, you will see it is rather about Venstresocialisterne than this company. Maybe we would rather merging this to Venstresocialisterne instead of keep or delete. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be a possibility. But I think there exists enough information for an article on both, neither article would be very short on its own. Trebor 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been able to find just two articles about this "notable" company [4] and [5] which really is not enough to assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, why it fails here Milivoje Bozic. Same situation. You tell me. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can also discuss what exactly is non-trivial published works. Newspapers article is not a non-trivial. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of another article isn't an argument for this one (although I will have a look at that AfD). Non-trivial is a measure of the depth of coverage - a newspaper article can easily be non-trivial, so long as there is enough information on the subject in question. In this case, there is. Trebor 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - There is a case for notability, and the BBC article fits the description of notability for non-trivial published worksin WP:N. If more sources can be found, I will consider a stronger position. 206.213.251.31 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of minutes looking gave [6] and [7]. Trebor 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability shown per BBC, Daily Trojan, and Hispanic, three independent, reliable, nontrivial references. These are in addition to the political websites of leftist organizations, which count les for notability. Edison 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The BBC article and the minor references add up to enough points for me under my scoring system. Notability isn't subjective, it just having enough references for verifiability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/dismissed per rewrite with references, no prejudice against re-nomination on other concerns. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 02:04Z

Bernard Eastlund

Bernard Eastlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article reads like a CV, not notable, no references and no citations. Meno25 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - the referencing has certainly been improved here, and despite the pattern below it would probably be unfair to delete this article. A no-consensus or relisting to consider with new evidence may be appropriate. Deizio talk 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless references are provided. Nick Graves 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cite sources. Articles shouldnt be moved to AfD because they lack sources. There are plenty of Ghits. 203.57.241.67 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
  • References must be provided in order for an article to be verifiable. See WP:REF. In my case, delete per nom. Sr13 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless references are provided, delete per nom. Bigtop 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's the president of a company, got a patent, and was mentioned in an article. None of these constitutes notability. Akihabara 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless references -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. NN and seems like a vanity entry, perhaps.--Eva ^bd 15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, physicist, businessman, non-notable. Keep, looks good but format the refs. Deizio talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Nothing in the article asserts notability. If the article could be improved to show that his research is considered notable by some other sources, I'd change to keep. Tarinth 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarinth. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Akihabara -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete", easily fails WP:BIO, no references, WP:RS. // I c e d K o l a 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (singing lyrics to "You're So Vain"...) Maddy626 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete joining the chorus singing my favourite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH,22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Bernard Eastlund is clearly notable using the primary notability criterion in that he has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." A simple book search at Amazon.com [8] for Bernard Eastlund shows that he was the subject of the following books --

1. Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, August 1998, Page 20.

2. Chemtrails Confirmed by William Thomas Published by Bridger House Publishers, August 2004, Aug 2004, Page 143.

3. Conspiranoia!: The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories by Devon Jackson, Published by Plume Publishers, Jan 1, 2000, Page 330.

4. The Universal Seduction Vol. 3: Piercing the Veils of Deception - Volume 3 by Angelico Tapestra--The Collective, Published by BookSurge Publishing, April 7, 2004, Page 33.

5. Mind Control, World Control by Jim Keith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, Feb 1998, Page 247.

6. Final Reckoning by Ward Ciappetta, Published by Xulon Press, Jun 17, 2005, Page 175.

7. An End to Global Warming by L.O. Williams, Published by Pergamon Press, August 1, 2002, Page 58.

8. Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source by Joan Lisa Bromberg Published by MIT Press, Sep 29, 1982, Index.

In addition, Bernard Eastlund is one of the patent holders (US Patent #4,686,605) that led to the development of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program HAARP which has been sensationalized in many books as a weapon with the potential to destroy the world by creating a death ray [9] and altering weather patterns.

Therefore, Bernard Eastlund is without a doubt a very notable person both in the popular press and as an inventor. --Jamira 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Though not as strong as Jamira. only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index. But there are other possible sources all around. Send back for sourcing. It is sourceable. Going back to Akihabara, the patent and the article are the necessary two sources to keep the article , though more should be done. This time, I am not offering to do it. Jamira? DGG 05:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My understanding of "subject of a book" would be that the majority of the book was about him, not an arbitrary mention on a page here and there. One Night In Hackney 07:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment. This is where the term non-triviality comes into use. According to the primary notability criterion which explains the depth of content needed in the published work, the subject (Bernard Eklund, in this case)needs to be more than "mere directory entry information" and the publication needs to directly address the subject. That is all it requires. "A page here and there," if non-trivial, is all that is needed. It does not require that the majority of the published work be about the subject, only that it is non-trivial and more than a "directory entry" such as a list. In any case, I only used these books as an example of how widespread references to Bernard Eklund are in published books found at Amazon.com.

In addition to books at Amazon.com, searching Google [10] yields an incredible number of hits (about 9,280). This is because Bernard Eastlund is so notable in the popular press. As explained above, many authors are writing about the potential of HAARP as a weapon. I am not saying they are right, only that these publications exist, thereby satisfying the primary notability criterion. For example --

Dan Eden published an article about Bernard Eastlund [11] and states, "Eventually everyone will know about Bernard Eastlund and his work. It will someday be taught in schools. His technology will impact every living thing. But this will have to wait for the military, who own his valuable patents, to release Eastlund's work for humane applications."

Another published article sensationalizing Bernard Eastlund's inventions [12] states, "Hoping to cash in on climate change, Eastlund now says that his company ESEC recently signed a contract with the European Space Agency to review the weather modification potential of the HAARP facility in Alaska. Eastlund is also looking to abort tornadoes using HAARP to turn off these whirling dervishes before wind speeds reach destructive force."

In addition, the Google search yields another article about Bernard Eastlund and the "HAARP Geophysical Weapon" [13] stating, "American scientist Bernard Eastlund is considered to be the godfather of this program. He received the patent for the method and for the device to measure the layers of the Earth atmosphere, the ionosphere and/or the magnetosphere."

My point is that there are literally hundreds of published reports like these about Bernard Eastlund. You only need "multiple non-trivial published reports" (i.e. more than one) to satisfy the primary notability criterion. I am not saying that Bernard Eastlund is a good scientist or even a famous one, only that he is notable by the definition of the Wikipedia primary notability criterion and as such should be included in Wikipedia. --Jamira 19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly a stickler for a person to be the main subject of serious coverage in serious sources. I'm still not convinced about our subject here, but in any case the list of books used as references does not provide much context on what coverage he received in those sources. Anybody so widely covered in these times must surely have been the focus of news reports and other repectable coverage which can be accessed on the internet? I got 391 unique google hits which is a fair number but not really "incredible". [14] Also, the Eden report mentioned above is not on a source which strikes me as "reliable" for establishing notability. Deizio talk 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those books do not seem to meet the primary notability criterion,[15] which states "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject, and is further clarified with a footnote [16] which states Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial. So I'm really struggling to understand your interpretation of the guideline here, perhaps you can expand? One Night In Hackney 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment. To answer your question, the guidelines on non-triviality seem quite clear. If a subject is mentioned merely as part of a list or a directory reference (e.g. a phone book directory), it is trivial. If there is some discussion of the subject (more than it just being listed) it is non-trivial. But I think you will agree that it is not necessary for several books to be written about someone before they are considered notable. Please note that being notable is not the same thing as being famous. One can be notable without being famous. For more discussion on the primary notability criterion, it is best to go directly to the source which is User:Uncle_G. I hope this explains the term non-triviality as used for WP notability. Thanks again for your comment. --Jamira 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamira, I see a lot of your interpretation of the notability / published coverage guidelines, but your tone is that of someone patiently explaining absolute facts to a questioning child. There is no accepted bar for triviality (that's why we have so many of these fun debates down at AfD), hence your assertion that one exists is wrong - "Is the bar low for establishing non-triviality and notability? Yes." Really? I missed that meeting. Given the evidence presented thus far, I think the bar is higher than Mr. Eastlund, and others appear to agree. I notice you have a total of 17 edits, with more than half of them related to Mr. Eastlund, and can't help but wonder if you perhaps lack experience in deletion and policy matters? Deizio talk 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment one Rules of the game: whoever descends to personalities first loses. Obviously that isn't the std WP practice, but it is certainly how I look at the comments here in judging the quality--not just quantity--of support. We are not here to discuss each others' merits, but those of the article.
• comment two When opinion about notability is this much divided, it's notable.DGG 03:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• If any offence is taken from my comments then I apologize as that was not my intention. I would dispute that opinion is particularly divided here, the head count certainly leans in a clear direction. Deizio talk 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even user DGG stated "only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index", which in my opinion can only be classed as trivial mentions. I'm not saying a person needs to have several books written about them to be notable, but a chapter or two might be a good starting point. One Night In Hackney 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Further proof of Bernard Eastlund's notability can be obtained by searching Google News [17]. Bernard Eastlund has been the subject of news articles in the Washington Post [18], USA Today [19], Anchorage Daily News [20], Wired Magazine [21], Current Science, Space News, The Advocate, Nevada State Journal, Fusion Power Report, The Argus (California Newspaper), Telepolis (German Newspaper) [22], and Environmental Magazine. Additionally, he was interviewed by National Public Radio (NPR) [23] on their Talk of the Nation program about his research. Without a doubt, these articles establish his notability as defined in the primary notability criterion.

Please note that as of 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) the article on Bernard Eastlund has been completely rewritten and references incorporated in order to validate his notability. --Jamira 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the USAToday and Wired articles in particular, would like to see all references better formatted into the article. Deizio talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see "been the subject of" is still being mis-interpreted, also some of the references provided are not free to view. If the references were properly incorporated into the article so it could be verified I'd possibly go for a "Week keep", but not at this moment in time. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sounds like he's notable for the Fusion Torch invention alone, whatever that is -- whatever HAARP turns out to be. If one could expand on why he received the special award for the Fusion Torch, "notability" would be assured, I think, even in the eyes of some of the skeptics.Shawn in Montreal 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; but there appears to be little need to delete, as if a full article isn't possible then it can just be a redirect to Three phase traffic theory (whose notability isn't questioned here). Which is left up to the normal workings of discussion and consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Kerner

Boris Kerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

What is this article exactly?!! Not notable, no references, no citations, does not pass WP:STUB, reads like a CV and much more! Meno25 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless references are provided. Nick Graves 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is mentioned in an article in The Economist. It is always worthwhile to check Google before nominating an article for deletion. --Eastmain 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless references are provided, delete per nom. Bigtop 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge into Three phase traffic theory per WP:PROF: "Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." ~ trialsanderrors 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep after checking his citation record. His 1998 paper is his magnum opus with 114 cites, but he's got a couple of others on traffic flow with ~50 cites each. Notable enough for me. ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Trialsanderrors -Savant45 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but maybe a merge. Seems like a one trick pony.--Eva ^bd 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but include more relevant information and sources Alf photoman 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep One of the standard tests is "publishes more than the average college professor." Since the page on his theory seems well-written, and he appears to be mentioned in places like the Economist, it should stay. However, it is currently just a stub and should be improved to indicate other research he's done and some additional background. Tarinth 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper trialsanderrors--Slogankid 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who on earth would ever want to look at this, besides his friends. Recreate when there's come actual content. Maddy626 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete still no references, ghits appear to be the one article & personal writings (and links thereto). SkierRMH,22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shawn in Montreal 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. Notable enough, as trialsanderrors has demonstrated. Should be expanded, of course, but just about any article starts out as a stub. OinkOink 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:48Z

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable website awards. ArtVandelay13 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No to deletion - the website is very well known in UK comedy circles and the awards, while sometimes too ranting for my tastes, offer an important counterpoint to both Chortle and the 'real' UK comedy awards. as has been mentioned, they *have* received some press attention, and the precedent has been set by other comedy websites having their awards included. i feel it's always going to be a contentious point on wikipedia because most UK comedy entries are seemingly 99% maintained by big fans of the show/comedian in question (i myself have had to battle long and hard to prevent, for example, the inclusion of an award on the Mighty Boosh page that was invented by their own management, or a marcus brigstocke 'joke' that he stole from someone else - his denial was being quoted as fact on wiki!)

• Not only is it notable (as it has had some UK press attention) but it's at least as notable as websites such as Chortle [24] whose comedy awards have been included in the entries on comedians such as Josie Long [25].

• I'd fully support the deletion of this entry so long as Chortle's entry and all mentions of their comedy awards also get deleted.--Mr. Analytical 00:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this article lacks any independent sources substantiating any claims to notability. Nick Graves 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No to deletion - It is a notable website that has had press attention [26] - bingo99 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No to deletion - The Chortle Website lacks endorsements. In fact, there isn't even an entry for the Chortle awards, but they're still included on different entries. The Tumblies have received mainstream media attention, as has its website of origin (including featuring on a recent TV programme).--Mr. Analytical 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No to deletion - give it a chance to work on the page. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that the above users read the essay WP:INN- just because something has an article does not mean that something else deserves one. -- Kicking222 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also suggest that "working on the article", while a noble suggestion, would not improve absence of notability and verifiability if they don't exist to begin with--Dmz5 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you elaborate on what you mean on this? They quite definitely 'exist', and have their own website.
• Furthermore, it's highly unusual three people can come up with the same synonym to "keep", consecutively... MER-C 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let alone the same extremely unusual synonym. --Charlene 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The above accusation of all of the defences being mounted by the same person is baseless, childish and well below the usual standard of debate that Wikipedia is noted for. Shame on you.
  • Comment: So you have nothing to hide if someone decides to check then? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the above is ribbing, but a cursory look at their user pages does not suggest anything underhanded.--Dmz5 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an accusation, it's an observation. I implied it's a possibility, nothing more. MER-C 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's highly unlikely thay they are the same person, more likely simply not knwing that Keep is the standard term and copying the person above. ArtVandelay13 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost nothing on Google, and absolutely nothing that would qualify as non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. -- Kicking222 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article barely asserts notability, which isn't surprising because there is none. --Charlene 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources found that indicate notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No to Deletion: I think this page is notable, and we should keep it. After all, we have pages on the Razzies which is a similar award for films. ISD 08:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And the Razzies are reported on in almost every major media source almost every year. There would be no problem finding reliable sources for the Razzies. -- Kicking222 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial and not notable. DaveApter 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. "No to deletion" is a new one on me. Deizio talk 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In fairness the script of this years "awards" on the website is quality, very funny. Very Brit-centric so don't bother if you don't watch a lot of Channel 4. Still nn tho. Deizio talk 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to deletion per above. AgentPeppermint 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - load of old tosh. --IanIanSymes 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Computer says noooo.... Maddy626 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:48Z

Lili Sahakyan

Lili Sahakyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No independent sources on this person, only notable within the university. Only 217 ghits. Fails WP:BIO. Sr13 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. PullToOpen 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Google Scholar only gives me a handful of papers, nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: g-search reveals wikipedia article and university pages almost exclusively. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well-known, eh? *snort* Maddy626 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V outside of the school. SkierRMH,22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hyland

Michael Hyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Captain of college hurling team. Does not seem to me to meet WP:BIO, but vigorously contested on talk page, so moved here. NawlinWiki 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability asserted but questionable; Quality is low: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (prediction of awards), all written by one guy (wonder who that could be?), Non-NPOV. I am not opposed to the editor (singular) recreating this article in an NPOV fashion that cites sources or as a stub, letting others determine if the subject is notable enough to write more about - Savant45 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't rewrite it but I purged it of the more egregious POV stuff. Perhaps it will be clearer now if there is really an article in there.--Dmz5 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Savant45. Uninteresting person whose notability is questionable. Danny Lilithborne 03:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, coming close to WP:HOLE territory. MER-C 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Perhaps someone from Ireland could take a look at this and advise whether a) hurling is a major sport in Ireland (in which case, as a prominent university athlete in a major sport, he could very well be notable - just because a sport isn't popular in North America doesn't mean it or its practitioners are non-notable), and b) whether Hyland is really an elite university athlete. After all, to 80% of the world, Paris Hilton is in WP:HOLE territory. --Charlene 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is why I didn't want to !vote, I don't know if hurling is a big deal in Ireland, if Trinity College is a notable team, etc etc.--Dmz5 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to have competed at the highest level in Hurling (ie GAA All Ireland competitions). Catchpole 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Catchpole -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure vanity. Maddy626 09:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO, can't find reference to him at the GAA AI site. SkierRMH,22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think it's right that it should be decided by people who don't know or understand Gaelic Games to decided whether or not Michael Hyland is notable. In Ireland, and especially in GAA circles he is certainly a notable person. He has competed in All-Ireland intervarsity championships, although not at intercounty level. As I have argued on the discussion page, the relationship between College and intercounty hurling is similar to the relationship between the NFL and College Football. That he does not appear on the GAA website is more a comment on the poor quality of the GAA website than on Hyland's notability. Now that all offensive material has been removed from the article, I hope it will be recreated on a more encyclopedic basis, and I will help. I can assure you that I am not Michael Hyland, and that it was only written by one person (me) is because it was proposed for deletion within hours of its writing, before anyone else had a chance to contribute. I take particular exception to the comment that he is uninteresting. To people who know hurling, he is an interesting and important character, and that the article appears uninteresting is due to edits. I hope the article will be kept, with a view to making wikipedia relevant to people outside North America. Conboys 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage presented. Passing mentions do not suffice, and promoting a particular cause certainly does not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable group. Despite cleanup this article still reads reads like a mixture of soapbox and advertising. Akihabara 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once you strip out the issue soapboxing, what you're left with is a brief (unsourced) article about one advocacy group, among very many, that doesn't demonstrate that it's a notable group. (Compare GLAAD, for example, which does demonstrate notability and cites references.) Fan-1967 03:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. I think that the references in the article prove that the Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples is notable. --Eastmain 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears both the added references are long, extensive articles about the issue, but with only very brief mentions of this group, buried deep in the articles. Fan-1967 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per 2 independent references, which is about 2 more than 70% of the Wikipedia articles. Previous comment confirm the organization is discussed in the articles. They do not have to be the primary subject. Edison 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the criterion per Wikipedia:Notability is "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (emphasis added). Two brief mentions would not seem to satisfy that. Fan-1967 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Let's not be WP:N nazis about this, this seems to be adequately referenced. -Toptomcat 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The organisation exists, and its purpose makes it notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There still is alot in the way of sources, and the article seems to be soapboxy. Generally, a unique and noble purpose does not make one notable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Just H 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A noble organization working for a noble cause. Maddy626 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was tempted to go through and put {{fact}} and {{pov}} tags throughout the entire thing. Being "noble" doesn't mean notareity. SkierRMH 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable Fabhcún 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Toptomcat. If it's a bona fide public advocacy group, in the news, and it seems to be, it merits inclusion. Shawn in Montreal 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result of the debate was keep. Notability appears to be established, and there is no consensus for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi purpose chemical

Multi purpose chemical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Falls under the bar of notability in my book. One demo cd, one EP and support slots with bigger bands don't quite cut it. Might be worth an article after the album comes out and they've toured in their own right on a major basis, for now Delete exolon 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I must claim a certain amount of ignorance to the music scene in the UK (being from across the pond and all), but the article contains links to a number of interviews and articles that would seem (to me, anyway) to meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." That having been said, this article needs some work to make it more encyclopedic, starting with the very first sentence ("startling reputation for performing a fantastic live show" might have some wee NPOV issues). Seventypercent 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could someone familiar with the topic shed some light as to whether the references provided are mentions from known reliable sources in the scene? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G11, pretty clear puff piece, else delete. Seraphimblade 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources: Kerrang and Drowned In Sound are as reliable as any music publication, Gigwise may pass WP:RS, the others may not. If one's being pedantic, the Isle of Man would count as an international concert tour for a UK band. Eludium-q36 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another garage band on Wikipedia. Just what we need. Maddy626 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. exolon 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:50Z

Sam Leatherwood

Sam Leatherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a non-notable person. Both this article and its companion article, Biff fines, were created by Samz0r who has only edited in these two articles. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sr13 01:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Musician who plays coffehouses. Article claims two earlier records, yet google search for either title along with his name returns only this article. Failure of WP:MUSIC, WP:V. -- Fan-1967 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I suppose the "Tenacious D" award is an assertion of notability, but it's not sourced. This person fails WP:MUSIC at this point in his career. NawlinWiki 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That one likewise totally fails google search. Fan-1967 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that 101X is a local radio station [27] which I assume had a local contest. This still wouldn't work as it isn't a well-known award simply a local thing. But, well done Sam Leatherwood nonetheless. IrishGuy ^talk 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Delta Tango • Talk 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:REF.--John Lake 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no WP:RS, winning a local radio station's battle of the bands-style contest does not assert anything per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably WP:COI or even WP:AUTO. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure vanity. Maddy626 09:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails MUSIC, BIO, REF, V, well, fails everything. SkierRMH 22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mythology_of_Lost#The_Monster. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:52Z

Black Smoke Monster (Lost)

Black Smoke Monster (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Redundant of better-written Mythology of Lost#The Monster, individual article is unnecessary, fits better in the main Mythology article. Language of new article is inferior to mythology section, new article uses words like 'seems' and 'appears to.' -- Wikipedical 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sr13 02:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This article adds nothing that is not present in the other article mentioned in the nomination. Seventypercent 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Linking verbs make it inferior
  Mythology is superior
  And when I say that, I mean of Lost (of course)
  Get lost would be the best decision, or course!
  «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rillian 02:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per nom. Delta Tango • Talk 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (yet again) as per everybody above.--Leflyman^Talk 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia needs more fan-cruft about TV series. Maddy626 09:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a joke, right? --Leflyman^Talk 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and someone please close this discussion, its beginning to ooze black smoke... SkierRMH,22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:53Z

Thejas Online

Thejas Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally speedy requested as G11 [28], tagged as wikify and importance [29], with tags later being removed [30]. I can't personally verify whether or not it will meet WP:NOTE, but I feel this might not be the case. Sigma 7 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thejas is now tagged for proposed speedy deletion, for the same reason as this article. It was originally requested for speedy delete as well, and that tag was removed improperly. --Sigma 7 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Thejas. Delta Tango • Talk 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Delta Tango • Talk 08:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thejas. No merge needed. --- RockMFR 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per RockMFR. Sr13 (T|C) 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete because Thejas is gone. Sr13 (T|C) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Both articles have been around over 3 months and contain virtually no useful content.DaveApter 11:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thejas is not nominated. You'll have to nominate it first (in a separate discussion). --- RockMFR 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thejas is now prodded speedied, with the prod reason linking to this discussion. --Sigma 7 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --- RockMFR 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, little to no evidence of notability. Seraphimblade 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thejas is now gone, take his brother too. Maddy626 09:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not even worthy of a stub. SkierRMH,22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was categorized at Category:FieldTurf installations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:54Z

List of FieldTurf installations

List of FieldTurf installations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Categorize. Delete. This article was nominated back in March under WP:AD. The consensus was keep. I am renominating it, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (WP:NOT) Lovelac7 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize. Seems to be a useful method of categorization for stadiums. --- RockMFR 06:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, listcruft. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was Kept back in March, you can't just keep renominating it till you get the result you want. Jcuk 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I had nothing to do with the March nomination. I AfD tagged this article on my own, and then I discovered it was nominated back in March. Lovelac7 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What makes it important or notable? I don't see any sources besides the company's web page. It seems like advertisement to me. J0lt C0la 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement. Maddy626 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was created as a result of discusion surrounding the original article in order to seperate the inclusion of the high profile installations. It is not advertisement, and just because it isn't completed yet (other sources for example, doesn't mean you delete it. The contributors to the page already discussed removing the High Schools and keeping the high profile installs only and have begun that process. I do agree with the other user, we had this discusion once, why are we doing it again? --Coz 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider RockMFR's suggestion to categorize the stadiums on the list? We could make a category called Category:FieldTurf installations, and add all the stadiums that use it — pro, college, or high school. Lovelac7 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is a good idea, at the least for the "lesser" installs if not all. --Coz 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have created the category Category:FieldTurf installations, including all but the few high school stadiums on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelac7 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:56Z

Mystery Bus and Mystery Taxi

Mystery Bus and Mystery Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

per WP:NEO, WP:WINAD Jmax- 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• remove it wikipedia is not the place to coin neologisms. -- Drini 03:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, ludicrous, and simply dumb. -- Kicking222 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - slang expression. Wikipedia is not the urban dicitonary. -- Whpq 03:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable neologism. No references. —ShadowHalo 03:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Sr13 (T|C) 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no mystery about it, utterly fails WP:NEO, no WP:RS indicating anyone actually uses these terms. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, to Beer goggles Maddy626 09:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, while trying to hail a Taxi from across the pond. SkierRMH,22:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 give User:SkierRMH an ABD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 01:58Z

List of words considered to be psychobabble

List of words considered to be psychobabble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An example of listcruft that fails WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:NPOV from its title alone. Add in verifiability issues and you have one unnecessary list. Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Who determines what is psycho-babble? POV. Delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this wikibabble. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Inherently POV. Tevildo 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant POV; author was trying so hard to be clever and fell flat on his face. Opabinia regalis 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've been thinking about nominating this myself. Like I said on the talk page; how can it ever be anything but POV? However, if someone could provide some sources (considered to be psychobabble by XYZ) I might change my mind. Maybe. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Considered by whom? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination --Mhking 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move to "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". J0lt C0la 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this authentic candidate for deletion will inspire anger in some, especially those who may be bipolar. This is not even a borderline case, but a concerning example of a dysfunctional article. If we get rid of it and move on, it'll be a win-win for everyone. Seraphimblade 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're getting it. I really resonate the idea that that comment represents the creation of a meaningful relationship between irony and humor. LOL. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion Congruence Breakthrough! This metamodel group takes responsibility, resonating with one another's integration issues, coming to a holistic, non-spaced out, validly facilitated, grounded, authentic, new paradigm. We get it, believing that this is a win-win situation; using the submodaility of synergy in a non-threatening, meaningful relationship, Now that we have unblocked our baggage and stuff, are not longer stressed out, and understanding the consequences of our choices, we come to a non-co-dependent congruence of minds. We now empower and validate an administrator, for the wellbeing of Wikipedia, to have the insight and visioning to bring this to closure. Anyone disagreeing; please deal with your disgnosable dysfunctional anger issues, your bi-polar disorder, Manic-Depressive, Borderline, boundary, or schizophrenic problems elsewhere. You need to move on, find some self esteem, self-acutalize; not be threatened by the transformation of this paradigm by it's memetic infection vector.

Do I get a PhD in Psychology for the title of my new dissertation topic? :)SkierRMH 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete no reliable third-party sources fails notability guidelines, WP:COI, "Deletion Request from Subject" was counted as a delete also. Dakota 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director)

J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Essentially this is a vanity article. Much of the directorial/movie information is not backed up by IMDB. What's left that's provable is that he's just a still photographer and camera operator. Not exactly notable for an encyclopedia article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failure of WP:BIO. I would also add Symbiosis System of Acting to the nomination as vanispamcruftadvertising. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with this addition. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note As no notice was placed in the article, there is now a parallel AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbiosis System of Acting. Closing admin take note. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and Dhartung. Danny Lilithborne 04:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, vanity etc.--Dmz5 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per all above. Sr13 (T|C) 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Bigtop 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is verifiable is enough to warrant an article, it seems to me. He's at least as notable as most of the hundreds (thousands?) of politicians, comic-book characters, etc., which fill out so much of Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that the IMDB page on this person has extensive credits listed on major film productions. Do you not feel that the photography for X-Men: Last Stand or Poseidon is enough to warrant leaving this person on this site? I believe urther research into the motivations that this articles was recommended for deletion would find that it is based on a personal dispute rather than on professional integrity. Mr. Steve Magruder aka steveietheman erroneously brought attention to himself in 2004 when he conducted an interview citing Mr. O'Daugherty former business partner as a conclusive candidate for The Piano Man in Great Britain. Mr. O'Daugherty corrected the information and raised question concerning the manner which Mr. Magruder handled the public disclosures on WikiNews. The created a great deal of embarrassment for both Mr. O'Daugherty and Mr. Betts. Although Mr. Gorman publicly apologized for posting erroneous material, Mr. Magruder never once offered any public apology. Since Mr. Magruder was Mr. O'Daugherty's former domestiv partner (registered in California) their break up wasn't on the best of terms. Now suddenly, any article that relates to Mr. O'Daugherty's professional work and career is coming under attack by Mr. Magruder. I think it's fair that based on the fact that the article was suggested for deletion by Mr. Magruder, this is simply a retalitory act on his part for being publicly corrected in 2004, and out or personal issues stemming from their 2004 breakup. I would advise reconsidering deletion at this time to avoid possible Wikipedia becoming caught up in what is obviously a personal domestic dispute, otherwise it may be concluded that Wikipedia isn't as objective as it promotes itself being. There could be legal ramifications if this matter isn't handled in the most appropriate manner.

The entire interview from stevietheman regarding the Piano Man can be found under the discussion for article "Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads which supports Mr. Magruder's unscrupulous motivations. --Ilsonlakosky 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads does seem to have been written solely using Magruder as a source (Magruder is identified as Stevietheman in that article), and did result in a retraction. Whether or not this had anything to do with O'Daugherty is unknown. In any case, the nom made arguments based on Wikipedia policies and O'Daugherty does not seem notable according to guidelines. Finally, it is absolutely forbidden to make legal threats regarding an editor's contributions, as you have. I don't see justification for pulling the nom even if it was done for personal reasons if the article fails basic notability tests. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why this is arousing so much emotional rhetoric; anyone would think that it was about Stormfront or Intelligent Design. Nor am I clear what standard of notability this entry is being held to, as none of the "voters" have explained their "votes" beyond throwing slogans around. This is supposed to be a discussion of an article, not a string of votes under the slogan "it's vanispamcruftadvertising".

So far as I can tell from IMDb, and the facts in the article which no-one here has disputed, O'Daugherty meets the WP:BIO crterion: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (I'd vote against Symbiosis System of Acting, though.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how does this record constitution a "widely recognized contribution":

• two uncredited acting roles
• three gigs as production assistant (which implies anything from gofer to typist to set security)
• three gigs as still photographer
• one gig as a camera operator

He's received no awards for any of these accomplishments. Who has widely recognized them? Also, IMDB is not an "enduring historical record". There might be notability in being a script doctor on a "blockbuster film" but there are no sources for this claim.--Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum for me to respond to all the matters (some true, some untrue) expressed by Ilsonlakosky, but I would ask everyone to evaluate these twin articles the same way they evaluate others, hopefully objectively. I don't believe IMDb supports the directorial assertions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, it would seem odd that we are to create articles for individuals who are just beginning to get cinematic work for still photography. I'm open to convincing on this article, but I don't see anything that's notable for an encyclopedia article. However, I'm 100% certain that Symbiosis System of Acting must go as clear "vanispamcruftadvertising". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another nugget for consideration: The article currently says "O'Daugherty won recognition with his documentary, New Madrid: Tears of a Princess". When entered into Google, Yahoo and Live.com searches, no independent verification of this film can be found. This is but a small part of what led me to nominate this as essentially a vanity piece. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Try MySpace. Maddy626 09:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom --rogerd 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on stevietheman's arguments, I still disagree, however, I will delete the O'Daugherty article myself, since I did contribute it. Although on the "Other Works" page of the IMDB page in question, there are several listings which outline his accomplishments. Still, there is a double standard being used for Symbiosis System. If that article is deleted, then Wikipedia would have to delete the entire catagory of Acting Methods, since Symbiosis is an established acting method. Recommendation to clean it up might be taken as more reasonable, but not deletion. The article does outline and detail an acting method that isn't a copy from other methods and is original. How do you gage the criteria for adding or deleting an "acting method?"

It stands to reason that stevietheman's credibility in this matter would come into question since it's been cited that serious errors have been made within the Wikinews, which should be held to higher standards of reporting. I still believe this to be an abuse of position, however that will be resolved with the deletion.

However, if Symbiosis System is deleted, then every article under Acting Methods should be scrutinized and deleted under the same grounds. --Ilsonlakosky 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search with "Symbiosis System of Acting" -wikipedia and nothing turned up. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened on Wikinews last year (not 2004), it has no bearing on this process. How we gauge inclusion of an "acting method" or any other article is the same -- using notability, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. A method's creator is a [[WP:PS|primary source and not sufficient to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should visit www.jaykofilms.com and review the Acting 101 page that is online. There is an expansive discussion of Symbiosis including the history etc. However, a third party resource... would inclusion in IMDB not serve to indicate that O'Daugherty is a notable person considering that the criteria for inclusion on IMDB is recognizable credentials? IMDB doesn't just post information on their website without a long process of verification, etc? They also have very strict guidelines on what is acceptable, even on their "Other Works" pages. --Ilsonlakosky 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think we're going to reconsider IMDB just to give this vanity bio a pass? Come on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Legal Threats": The statement made was not a direct threat of legal action. It was stating a fact. Were I in O'Daugherty's shoes, I am sure that I'd be exploring my options, as anyone would, especially considering prior abuse and misinformation posted on WikiNews by Magruder that did in fact cause a great deal of embarrassment for O'Daugherty organization. But a "threat of legal action" would be if I stated "I will look into legal option if this isn't handled appropriately". I do believe the exact wording of my previous statement would fail to pass the legal definition of a "legal threat". --Ilsonlakosky 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be dragged into a semantics discussion. If you make another threat, you'll be blocked. I'm placing a warning on your user page so that administrators know you have been warned. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this dispute needs to be mediated by experts who understand IMDB, the film industry, acting, acting methods, acting schools, etc. It's becoming obvious that few in this dispute have any real knowledge of the business and what establishes a "notable" career. This has become a pissing contest with no end in site. I request that this matter be decided by a panel with expertise in this particular field. I'm sure that isn't an unreasonable request. Mediation by knowlegable parties would be the ONLY acceptable resolution to this dispute. Additionally, since pursuant to Dhartung argument in my Talk, I must also request that stevietheman's coments and participation in this discussion be striken as he is O'Daugherty former domestic partner (as previously raised) and therefore by the definition Dhartung has provided me, would be a conflict of interest. --Ilsonlakosky 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "pissing match" or a "dispute". This is a standard discussion of notability, which by Wikipedia procedures may be initiated by any editor. The result is based on the consensus opinion of all editors, any of whom may participate. If you feel that procedurs have not been properly followed, and the article is deleted, you may initiate a deletion review which will determine whether there was any flaw in the process. The result of a DRV is usually a procedural AFD, leading to another discussion like this one.--Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

January 19, 2003 Courier-Journal Article ID: lou2003012007205388: Director hopes film lures bit of Hollywood to Louisville

Included in that article are references to my work on several major films, and supports my status as a professional and NOTABLE filmmaker. The article written by Nancy Rodriguez was supported by interviews and research by the journalist.

Contrary to stevietheman and Dhartung's claims, I have read the article and the definition of "Notability" as provided by Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article is supported the article mentioned above as my reputation as a filmmaker within the Louisville businss community was sufficient to provide me support during my productions, including from major business leaders based entirely on my name recognition. By the very definition of "Notability" whether on a local, national or international level, my contributions to the film communities in Louisville, Florida, London, Los Angeles, NYC have provided me respect based on name recognition within the communities. International recognition will come as a result of the upcoming release of Midnight Snow. However, I have become aware that there is an effort to promote regional and locally related articles. If nothing else, the article would qualify for a Louisville based circulation based on local notability resulting from the article in the Louisville Courier-Journal (which is an internationally recognized publication).

Regarding Symbiosis System of Acting, this is an "Acting Method" no different than any method taught to actors, such as the Meisner Method. Since I have already qualified by argument for inclusion of this article, Symbiosis System of Acting would qualify by default, just as the articles relatd to Meisner's techniques. However, the category is called "Acting Methods". An acting method by itself doesn't become notable. It is notable through a grassroots effort through teaching. 183 students of acting have been taught this method since 2004. That isn't necessarily a small number considering that it was only developed into a formatted program during the past decade. That doesn't make it any less important than Meisner or Strausberg which has been taught for several decades with an established following. But the definition of Acting Method would qualify Sysbiosis System's inclusion as an article about Acting Methods because it is exactly that... an Acting Method. Exclusion of more contemporary techniques such as Symbiosis System, Dawn Wells Film Acting Boot Camp or Bob Fraser's "You Must Act" programs would make the category on Wikipedia's Acting Methods incomplete since most of the Meisner, Stanislavsky and Strausberg techniques are relevent to stage acting only and are mostly outdated. There are too many qualifying techniques being used today in film acting that under the guidelines you are addressing would be disqualified and would thereby render Wikipedia as an out-dated resource.

Qualification of an article is not left for interpretation by Editors. However, I do feel that the Editors, who are not attorneys, should consider that by interpreting written policy, they are setting a precedence that would have to be followed very carefully on all future articles. As courts are careful about "interpretating" law, Editors and Administrators need to be careful about interpreting policy, otherwise Wikipedia could quickly become an outdated and unreliable source of information based on unnecessary exclusion of so many relevent articles.

Vanispamcruftisement

Vanispamcruftisement (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau term comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.

Contrary to steveietheman or Dhartung's claims, neither article qualifies under the above definition. The J. Kristian O'Daugherty article was written by Ilson Lakosky about a film director. There are no services... no company... no advrtisements anywhere, including on my website at www.jaykofilms.com. What any reader is directed to through external links, are pages discussing the film industry, still photography, an extensive resource on acting under the Symbiosis System of Acting, and ten galleries of original, and obviously professional quality photographic work. Everything that any serious artist's website might contain. The reference to JayKO would be no different than referencing Askew in an article about Kevin Smith. They go hand in hand.

The Symbiosis System article doesn't promote any service which payment is expected. In fact, I've noticed that Ilson provided most of the structure of the system in the article, although somewhat incomplete. All information provided to the public about Symbiosis System of Acting allows the reader to apply the system without having to attend classes or purchase any services, books or materials. In otherwords... Free Use of the acting system by the reader without obligation.

As to my position on the threats of Legal Action, I do find Ilson's remarks somewhat inappropriate. Any legal action would have to be made by me alone and that is not my objective. I'd prefer this matter be resolved without further disruption and in a professional and respectful manner. If it cannot be resolved through these debates, then Wikipedia's adminstrators were wise enough to provide Dispute Resolution when conflicts arise. Hopefully we can all come to a fair agreement on how this should be handled without having to engage futher procedures.

I will stand by my opinion that the Editors need to apply reasonable standards when reviewing articles and submitting them for deletion. What may be appropriate for one category may not be for another. You should consider each topic carefully and apply standards that relate directly to the subject matter being adressed in the article.

God bless and Happy Holidays to everyone this season. --Jkris97 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If all of this turnes out to be true. But if all that can be said for sure is that he is a camera photagrapher, then Delete -- Dasnedius 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be for me to directly cooperate with one of the editors to rewrite the articles to comply with the standards being adressed here. Perhaps the Symbiosis System of Acting article could be rewritten with a focus on contemporary film acting methods covering many of the programs currently available. Just a suggestion... --Jkris97 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jkris97 (assuming you are the subject of the article), while your cooperation would be appreciated if the article is kept, keeping our WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies in mind, the question being discussed here is whether your articles meet our notability standards. If you could supply reliable third-party sources which discuss your film contributions or the "Symbiosis System", that would help us make a decision. Your own defense of your personal view of your own notability is not sufficient, no matter how hard you've worked or how proud you are of those accomplishments. Many people do good work without becoming notable by our guidelines.
  • Nevertheless, we need objective sources, not claims. The Courier-Journal article (registration only) seems to be primarily about the featurette Where the River Ends, which does not have an IMDB entry. (available text: "A murder. A dream. A sense of deja vu. And the bobbing and weaving of a man trying to alter his destiny. It was all captured on film in Louisville last week, as ArtzMo Productions LLC did its first short feature film, Where the River Ends. Yesterday, cast and crew hustled around Primizie Pizza Pasta & Philly Steaks at Theater Square, preparing to") Googling "where.the.river.ends louisville" brings up only your site and somebody's guestbook. There is no "daugherty" or "o'daugherty" anywhere on the Kentucky Film Office website. I'm going the extra mile here and I'm just not finding anything significant that has been written about you or the productions you say you've been involved with, which suggests they are independent efforts that have not achieved notability.

I'm not sure if the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable source either, since according to information on the internet O'Daugherty lives and works in Burbank and West Hollywood. --Ilsonlakosky 20:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Kentucky Film Office does not provide specific information about productions past. Since WTRE was produced in January 2003, the KFO would have no interest in maintaining information on that. The most reliable source of information available to the public for the film industry would be the IMDB. The public, including yourself would not be privy to many of the databases resources that a working professional would be. However, my IMDB page, although not complete in its updating yet, provides clear support that my work isn't simply on a "local" level. The work I've accomplished can be seen by typing in ANY of the titles listed on my IMDB page. As to the documentaries etc, IMDB includes the "Other Works" page where projects that either didn't get aired/released (such as Pilot Episodes) or stage work can be added. Their criteria for submission is very strict (more so than Wikipedia) and can take weeks, months, sometimes years before they can verify and add those credits. Anyone with extensive knowledge of or who works in the film industry would understand this. So the most reliable source that Editors could use would be the IMDB for film related articles. This would be more reliable than Google or Yahoo, since I've done searches myself on my name, and depending on how I spell it, or type it, will come back with different results. But typing my name in IMDB comes back immediately with a one page result. --Jkris97 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Finally, "International recognition will come with the release of Midnight Snow is a fine sentiment, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- in the rare cases that we write about future events, we must have really worthwhile material from very reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhartung, if you actually read the article in the Courier-Journal, although the article is about Where the River Ends, it references other work that the journalist discovered that I worked on, including Script editing on Thelma & Louise, Con Air, and working in production management for Stuart Little and Selena. The work you see currently on my IMDB page reflects work since that article so she would not have had access at the timke the article was published. Perhaps in some ways, Ilson may have miscategorized the article and maybe it should be moved to Photography or Film Photography, since work as a still photographer on Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand, Poseidon, Entourage etc would be considered as notable on such blockbuster films, as confirmed by information on IMDB itself. You don't get hired to do still photography on a $100 million PLUS film unless your accomplishments and your talents qualify you. Still Photographers produce the material that is used for the marketing of a film such as in Billboards, cover-art, Posters, websites, print publications etc. There's too much at stake for a studio to hire anyone in that position without the qualifications and outstanding credentials that would justify risking millions of dollars invested in the production on that person. This is where "reasonable application" of the guildelines needs to be applied. Under these circumstances, this discussion should not be about deletion of an article, but perhaps reclassifying the article appropriately. However, my statement above stands when it comes to the Symbiosis System article. --Jkris97 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to whether I am the "subject" of the article, that is one area that stevietheman would be able to confirm since I have used this user ID even back when he and I were still partners. So that should not be a question needing to be addressed extensively. --Jkris97 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reviewing Wikipedia's category of Acting Techniques, there are just 5 entries (including Symbiosis System of Acting). In reality, there are many more techniques and programs than those 5. Based on the arguments of Dhartung and others, I can understand why there are so few. If these same guidelines are being applied to other entries, then Wikipedia will never become a reliable resource of information on this particular subject. Just the Dawn Wells Film Actors Boot Camp or the Bob Fraser programs would be disqualified as "spam", yet both of those programs are valuable to the CONTEMPORARY film acting community and information about these programs should be available under any datebase or informational resource that includes Acting Techniques or Methods as a category. Each are different, just as Symbiosis System is. But just like Symbiosis System, they lack the history, but that doesn't make them less important than Meisner or Stanislavsky. In fact, for film acting, Symbiosis, Wells and Fraser's programs are more important because they are part of the evolution of acting itself and a part of the history of modern film acting. The arguments being applied to this debate is based on "opinions" rather than an understanding of film or theatre. Just like you wouldn't go to a Psychiatrist if you need brain surgery, you also wouldn't go to a computer tech if you want to understand filmmaking, theatre or photography. When making decisions about film, theatre or artistic articles and categories, Wikipedia needs to use editors and adminstrators who are competent in this fields to make those decisions rather than rely upon editors who lack any true knowledge (or interest) in these areas. Would Britannica hire computer experts to draft, edit or make decisions regarding Film Editing? No, they would hire someone with direct experience and knowledge of film editing. Sorry Dhartung, but your computer experience doesn't make you an expert in this particular category. --Jkris97 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhartung, I regret that you have made this personal with your debates in the associated forum. It's clear that your objective is the deletion of both of these articles with prejudice. Based on your arguments, there's no question of that. You keep referring to "notibility" and yet in the other forum (J. Kristian O'Daugherty) you fail to recognize the reliability of a source such as IMDB which was purchased by Amazon.com but operated as as an independent entity. Read their guidelines, Dhartung. As I made clear in the other forum, if the articles need to be rewritten or reclassified then so be it. But you can not accurately claim that my career hasn't been notable under the definitions you have offered. I would love to see you try and get a job as a still photographer with Warner Brothers shooting stills for any $100 million PLUS film production. You wouldn't even make it past the front gate. I have five of those productions under my belt. So please consider what your motivation is in this, and look a little closer at the source of my credits on the internet (IMDB) and demonstrate to me the reason why IMDb should not be taken as a serious nor reliable source. My work is deplayed on any website that includes X-Men: The Last Stand, Superman Returns, Poseidon, The Queen and Babel. Could you make such a claim?--Jkris97 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Delete per Dasnedius. Just H 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion Request from Subject

It pains me to come to this decision, but I personally prefer not to have Symbiosis System of Acting nor my name associated with these discussions further. I appreciate that Ilson Lakosky considered me accomplished enough to draft an article documenting my film work and my development of the Symbiosis System of Acting. However, based on these discussions, I am request that all traces of my name and my acting program be immediately removed from Wikipedia, including all discussions in these forums. I will also expand that to include future articles that may include my name or my work, even if it passes Dhartung and Stevietheman's definition of "Notable".

At this time, I am finding ABC, CNN and MSNBC's questions concerning the value of Wikipedia and WikiNews more accurate than I prefer based on two very unpleasant experiences I've had, both centered around the decision on one of this organization's editors. Therefore, I ask that my request be immediately implemented without delay. --Jkris97 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am sorry you have found this unpleasant. There was never any such intent, of course. As a matter of policy it is impossible to erase your username and associated contributions, and an articles for deletion debate is permanently archived for maintenance purposes. It is also impossible for us to honor your request that you never appear in the encyclopedia, for instance, in any future film credits that may be included in articles, or to guarantee that no article will ever appear in the future. Nor do we have a process for deleting articles at a subject's request, otherwise it might be impossible to write articles about notorious or unpopular public figures. I am certain that the closing administrator will count your request appropriately as a delete vote. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and subject's request. Montco 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:02Z

KPLC TV Tower Fenton

KPLC TV Tower Fenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Viacom Communications Tower Duette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Towers Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Generation of Iowa Tower Van Horne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Waterman Broadcasting Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WBBH TV Tower Tuckers Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Telemundo Tower San Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fort Myers Broadcasting Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WPBF Tower Martin County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Channel 34 TV Tower Palm City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nebraska Education Tower Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Texas Tall Tower Elmendorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating another 12 radio and TV towers on mainland USA which are below 465 meters tall. None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 03:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as none are notable. Did a small group of users embark on a project to document every radio tower in the USA on wikipedia? How did these all get on here? --Dmz5 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. They seem to be getting taller, but still the articles lack multiple published references to show they are notable, and just are cut and pasted stale data circa April 2005 from a government database. Edison 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Not much else to add that hasn’t already been covered Fledgeling 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Obina 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as a big yawn. Maddy626 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom... and moving onward and upward... SkierRMH,23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 except WIS TV Tower. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:04Z

Raycom America Tower Huntsville

Richland Towers Tower Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Morris Tower Perkston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pacific and Southern Tower Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Capstar Radio Tower Mooresville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mississippi Authority for Educational TV Tower Mchenry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malrite Communications Tower Green Acres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ime Media Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Raycom America Tower Huntsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Outlet Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WIS TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating another 10 radio and TV towers on mainland USA which are below 470 meters tall. None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all per above --Dmz5 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. One of the biggest reasons that I have begun spending quite a bit of time editing Wikipedia is I have seen its potential place as a great asset for retaining the knowledge of humanity for years to come. However, it will fail to be anything more than a large collection of words, if the articles it contains are not weeded out carefully for important, or useful knowledge. I do not see how the inclusion of articles such as these advances the mission of Wikipedia in any way, unless that mission can be understood to include "encapsulating all facts in the world," in which case Wikipedia will be a perpetually incomplete, and increasingly useless and pedantic project. Charlie 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WIS-TV, delete the rest I added to the WIS-TV article the claim to notability that when erected it was the tallest manmade structure east of the Mississippi, with a ref. Edison 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WIS-TV, per Edison, Keep Raycom America Tower per recent local notoriety, Delete rest Maddy626 09:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but WIS-TV as it does have a modicum of notability. SkierRMH 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recurring characters in The O.C.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:07Z

Frank Atwood

Frank Atwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor character that's only appeared in one episode of The O.C. so far. Speedy tag removed by User:CanadianCaesar and prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Atwood should be allowed to have his own page. Sophie Cohen (also known as "the Nana"), who only appeared for two episodes, has her own page, and the page is not being discussed for deletion. More minor characters, such as Charlotte Morgan and Jess Sathers, just to name a few, have their own page, yet they didn't appear in many episodes and didn't have much, if any, of an impact on the show. I say we give the Frank Atwood page some more time before we go ahead a just delete it, especially when there are other O.C. characters out there that did just as much as he did, maybe even less, and they still have a page. RYANonWIKIPEDIA 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that there are other ridiculous articles does not mean we should keep this one. It may be a matter of time before all the examples you cite are also nominated for deletion or just merged. Please check out WP:INN.--Dmz5 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 06:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From WP:NOT: "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." This article is almost entirely made up of plot summary, and thus represents the kind of thing that Wikipedia is not. Charlie 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced. WP:POKEMON does not impress. WilyD 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of recurring characters in The O.C.. GassyGuy 00:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Give this page time to grow before just deleting it. RYANonWIKIPEDIA
• Delete. Already deleted once before, yet it comes back, like a bad garage band. Maddy626 09:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's come back because Frank Atwood has finally made an appearance on The O.C. and will be making more in the coming weeks. RYANonWIKIPEDIA
• Comment An anonymous user removed the AfD notice from the page. Reverted and replaced. Danny Lilithborne 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:11Z

Serena - TeamTrack

Serena - TeamTrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Spammy article about some non-notable software. Google throws up some reprinted press releases. Contested prod. MER-C 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely non-notable, spammy. Opabinia regalis 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no WP:RS indicating this meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, wonderful spam... Maddy626 09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE and Spam - the original! SkierRMH 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:12Z

Sliemm Masloysex

Sliemm Masloysex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Looks like nonsense, unencyclopedic at best. Not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegX (talk • contribs)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V, only 3 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — what a load of pretentious puffery; unencyclopedic at best, and most certainly not verifiable. Rosenkreuz 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, puffery and chuffery. Deizio talk 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh great, another garage band. Maddy626 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cheesy & poofy - cheesypoofs! WP:V and MUSIC, and BAND, & etc... SkierRMH 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:12Z

Quaker's Hill underground music movement

Quaker's Hill underground music movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Looks like nonsense, unencyclopedic at best. Not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegX (talk • contribs)

• Delete - non-notable. Nothing on Google. MER-C 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems to be just self-aggrandising. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sounds like good times. Deizio talk 15:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lol. It's not a garage band, it's a "short-lived artistic clique"... Maddy626 09:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable WP:V clique? WTF is that? SkierRMH 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and unverifiable "artistic clique", as much as that phrase amuses me. —ShadowHalo 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 far as alternatives go, merging appears to have been covered and categorising lists that have been created from listified categories seems like an exercise in futility. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 300 passing touchdown club

List of 300 passing touchdown club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

PROD was contested (probably properly, insofar as the reason I provided was likely not the most persuasive). This was listified in view of a 17 August CfD (the disposition of which was, IMHO, quite wrong), but is not particularly useful qua list. In contradistinction from, for example, 500 home run club, this is not a club to which a single appellative is often ascribed (and not itself notable; each of "300 touchdown club", "300 touchdowns club", and "300 passing touchdowns club" returns fewer than 35 non-WP Ghits) and the article ought properly to be constitued as, e.g., List of National Football League passing touchdown leaders and List of Canadian Football League passing touchdown leaders. What is here, though, need not to be merged—these are plain statistics, a recitation of which does not require GFDL attribution, and this content is readily available—and this would make a particularly worthless redirect.

For the same reasons, I am nominating:

• List of 400 passing touchdown club
• List of 50,000 passing yards club,

each of which was listified in view of the CfD and similarly comprises very, very little. Joe 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename The titles are abominable. I acknowledge total lack of familiarity with the sport, so if these achievements really are the sort of thing you'd want a list of, move them to sensible titles (perhaps optimally as a ranked rather than an undifferentiated list). Otherwise, delete. Opabinia regalis 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Charlie 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you were looking for WP:LIST and misunderstood WP:NOT, which doesn't apply here?
• Merge/Rename To NFL Passing records or similar. I hope someone familiar with American Football can perform this, afer this the existing articles can be deleted. Catchpole 08:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose it should be observed that this information need not to be merged, insofar as any passing records article will not need to incorporate any of it. I gather that it is suggested that until such time as someone creates National Football League passing records and Canadian Football League passing records these should remain, but I'd submit that they serve no encyclopedic purpose at present, such that we need not to preserve them as essentially a reminder that we create the broader pages; I imagine that WP:RA would better serve the latter purpose. Joe 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notwithstanding that, I have created the requisite articles at List of National Football League passing yardage leaders and List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders. Joe 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Turn into a category Just H 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wikipedia isn't the Guiness Book of World Records. Maddy626 09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator). For now, I'm going to make it a redirect to there; the current contents will still be visible in the history, so anybody who wants to merge material can find it there. If, at some future time, the term gains more widespread use, especially in the mainstream press, it may be worthy of its own article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular_progressives

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

The page refers to an invective neologism created and used by only one author. While people can consider themselves secular and progressive, there are no political or social organizations or commentators that use the term "secular progressive" to refer to themselves. As such, this term is similar to femi-nazi, in that the only current use and discussion of it is from a biased source.

Until such time as a political or social origination or commentator takes up this label or, like the term femi-nazi, it becomes widespread enough that commentators other than Bill O'Riley can use it, I suggest this term cannot meet Wikipedia's standards. Maria Caliban 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not to mention that it's horribly POV without any real response included from the other side, the use of direct quotations tells me that this probably wasn't meant as an attack at all by the author, but including only one side of a definition tends to carry a strong negative connotation. That, and it's a neologism used by one author (apparently), until it's reported on in it's own right, it's just not notable. Wintermut3 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike the current spirited debate about Santorum (sexual slang), this one doesn't really have much to talk about - no uses at all beyond O'Reilly.--Dmz5 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current article is completely one-sided, yet any attempt to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV would be original research, because the term is not widespread enough to have attracted attention from those representing other POVs. -- Cat Whisperer 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article represents one person's(Bill O'Riley) point of view --- Safemariner 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, but cite cultural/political effect Quick google search of the exact phrase has ~82,000 hit, most of them from political blogs, but some from verifiable news agencies. The problem with the argument of "neoligism" in this case is that a) it passes notability and b) the two words are both weighted ones in politics so will be put together at least occasionally, whether by Bill O'Reilly or not. In this case, as much as it personally pains me, O'Reilly's use of the term has been a part of the political discourse of the last several years. I'd like this article cleaned up, given minimal POV, and focus on the effect of the term on the political culture than on strict "definition", but it IS a term currently in play and I don't feel we can hide our heads in the sand about it. Regarding the two previous delete arguments that refer to POV: Remember that NPOV is NOT an argument for deletion in AfD debates, since POV issues should be taken care of by editing an article, not deleting it. -Markeer 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote for delete, but in the meantime I will be editing the article using these 82,000 hits to provide the opposing POV. -- Cat Whisperer 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some opposing POV to the article, but seeing how most of the 82,00 hits were blogs, that's where the opposing POV came from. I've also taken a look at the main Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article, which already mentions Secular Progressives, and which already details O'Reilly's political views, and I don't see what this new article adds to the subject. -- Cat Whisperer 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the primary author of this article, I am disappointed with the arguments in favor of its deletion. I support the existence of this article NOT because I wrote it, but for two, very sound reasons:

1. As stated above, the perceived POV of the article does not add to its "deletability." The term "secular-progressive" highlights a viewpoint of a particular political group: of course the article will be one-sided.

In fact, if we were to extend the arguments presented on this page, ANY article on Wikipedia could be deleted just for having a point of view! What kind of intellectual climate does this create?

2. The Wikipedia guidelines on neologisms state that such articles "should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability." This article uses no original research, and has been verified to an extensive degree. Having a CBS news article talk specifically about the term surely indicates that this is not a "school-child" phrase.

Remember, also, that the guidelines on neologisms are, by definition, guidelines. Official Wikipedia POLICY states that subjects must only be verifiable to have a page on Wikipedia. As previously demonstrated, this article is verifiable.

As such, I support the keeping of this article on two grounds: one, that perceived "point-of-view" discrepancies are not grounds for deletion, and two, that this particular neologism is verifiable and notable.

• Delete. O'Reilly-cruft. No different than phrases made up by schoolchildren. --- RockMFR 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bill O'Reilly said it, so it was obviously made up at the spur of the moment and forgotten by everybody else a minute later. Maddy626 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's already listed as a neologism on his article, no need for the cruft here. SkierRMH 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the test required by the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. We need reliable sources about the term before we have an article, not just sources that use the term. GRBerry 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I would find a place to merge this information and leave this as a redirect, possibly to an article on O'Reilly. Like him or not he is a notable figure who is affecting our culture. To ignore him would be an oversight.
• Unless it can be shown that someone significant other than Bill O'Reilly has adopted this term, and that this also is a subject with encyclopedic content and not merely a dictionary definition, this material belongs in the article on Bill O'Reilly.--OinkOink 10:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bill O'ReillyBMan1113VR 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep O'Reilly is making this a popular discription of a political affiliation. It will probably end up in the ditionary and the use of it will go up. May as well keep the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.96.245 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:13Z

KPDF-CA

KPDF-CA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A low powered station, not notable. Lacks independent sourced information wp:v#Burden_of_evidence. If it contains no sources, the information is Original Research. What encyclopedic value does it contribute? Alan.ca 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Much of the information in the article can be verified through the link to the Federal Communications Commission. --Eastmain 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent source, please include it in the article. I wonder if you could find an independent source supporting notability. Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article already contains a link to the FCC database entry on KPDF-CA here, which verifies most of the information in this article. The history section appears encyclopedic in tone and contains information someone who was looking up info on the station might find useful. I don't find any evidence of advertising, blatant or otherwise. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information would we find useful in this article that is not in the fcc link? Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If someone could please answer how this article meets WP:CORP#Criteria for companies and corporations I may be able to withdraw the nomination. Alan.ca 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Spanish-language Class-A TV station which, as it states in the article, is seen both over the air and on cable systems, and which serves the 5th-largest city in the U.S., which is 34% Hispanic, seems notable to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I will be adding references to the article. Low-power stations are not automatically non-notable. This is especially true for Class A stations, which have met more stringent criteria in order to have primary station rights during the DTV conversion. dhett 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that a low powered station cannot be notable, but given that they have limited broadcast range, it would seem more likely. When you refer to citations to come, are you intending to meet the WP:CORP guideline? Alan.ca 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Phoenix, a Class A station with a 40-mi signal radius, reaches nearly the same number of households as a full-service, full-power station with an 80-mi signal radius. And yes, I do intend to meet the WP:CORP guideline, although I question its relevance to a television station. Since reports by public agencies are part of the criteria for notability, each FCC application and notice concerning the station contributes to that station's notability. dhett 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition every publically traded company would be eligible as well as they are all registered with the SEC. Alan.ca 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributes to notability, not creates it. I still debate how applicable WP:CORP is to television stations, and for that matter, to all print and broadcast media outlets. They generally do not provide in-depth coverage of their competitors. You may find many passing references, but the only time a media outlet gets attention from other media is when one does something extraordinary, such as changing affiliations, or something controversial. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find anything significant written about CIII-TV — it's a full-power station (actually, network of stations) but unless they're writing about themselves, or Global Television Network is writing about them, or the CRTC has business with them, you don't hear much about them. On the other hand, because of Jan Pachul's antics with the CRTC, you might find several independent articles about Star Ray TV. Which is the more notable station? I submit it's CIII-TV. dhett 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts there. You may want to start a discussion on one of the policy or guideline talk pages. According to policy wp:v, no third party sources, no article, how else do we verify the statements? If it's just a simple reprint of FCC info, why do we need an article? Alan.ca 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've been putting together secondary sources to complete the Class A stations in the western US, but there have been several stations for which I can find nothing else but the FCC info. I will not author those articles for just that reason. However, television stations often get third-party mention as part of a larger article. See, for example, World staying tuned to Mexican telenovelas, an article which makes mention of KPDF in a couple of paragraphs, but the article is not about the station itself. The same is true for Spanish-language TV outlets boost power, viewers, which devotes the last few paragraphs to KPDF and Azteca America. You'll not likely find more than this kind of reference. The question is: is it enough coverage to satisfy the "non-triviality" part of the notability guideline? I contend that it is, due to the reasons I stated in my previous response. However, I would judge the one-sentence reference to KPDF in MediaWeek Market Profile: Phoenix as trivial, and would not cite it. Note — I am adding the first two references to the KPDF-CA article, as external links now, but will refine the article later. dhett 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per User:dhett DHowell 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please be aware than an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. Stating per user or per nom serves the process no benefit. See Wp:afd#How to discuss an AfD.2FWikietiquette for clarification. Alan.ca 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, television stations are notable by default. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We established the same consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUNP-LP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTFL. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Class A television stations tend to be considered notable, especially those serving the sixth largest city in the United States.-- danntm ^T _C 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, low-powered non-pirate radio stations are by their very nature notable. Maddy626 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only significant independent coverage appears to be in the FCC license, which is routine and does not show notability. Apparently the current revision of WP:N disagrees with me on the point that routine reports never show notability, but WP:N does exclude trivial coverage, and I would call the FCC license trivial because it's nothing we can use to write an encyclopedia article. Dhett (who is to be commended for finding the sources that he did) raises the interesting suggestion that (at least some) media outlets should be considered "platonically" notable even without significant independent coverage. But I think we should be practical -- we need significant independent coverage to fill up a reliably verified encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 15:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. I intend to raise this issue at WT:N, but I want to put together a cogent opening statement first. I do find it ironic, however, that none of the external references for Platonic idealism provide any coverage of that philosophy, let alone signficant coverage. :-) dhett 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying official records are "trivial"? They're VERY reliable, especially for companies that go by the book, like KPDF's owners. They give the technical information: FCC data never will list affiliations unless it's an O&O, and still so indirectly. Websites will mention programming, not technical aspects like FCC records do. We need both in a Wikipedia television station article. Right now, I'm going at WXSP-CA: I want to get at least one WP:TVS article to GA before the end of January, and for GA, we need references. There are secondary-source-relying projects and primary-source-relying projects. We happen to be the latter, because there are no reliable secondary sources on most stations, but reliable primary sources exist. Same with WP:PCP: secondary sources do not exist, as anything close to one just repeats the information in the game, and most of the description and other parts are from the games themselves. Thank you. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: As indicated by similar "keep" comments above, all TV stations should be represented, no matter how large or notable. -- azumanga 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Structuration. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:16Z

Structuration Theory

Structuration Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is either nonsense or legitimate postmodernism, I can never distinguish between the two. If the latter, it appears to be covering much the same ground as structuration, with an added element of original research. Opabinia regalis 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to structuration. Term itself is widely used e.g. 62,300 hits on google scholar [31]. This is an OR essay fragment though. (btw, Giddens is not a postmodernist and if anyone's interested, his article really needs some help (I've made a start on a particularly problematic section - but its years since I've read him) Bwithh 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bwithh and call in a language pathologist; frankly, I'm not sure structuration is much better, but it at least has references. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect possibly ask the creator to merge. It is just sociology, nothing postmodern about it. --Buridan 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is about as intelligible as most of the spam I get in my inbox each day. Maddy626 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be an essay fragment and probably original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, don't see much there worthy of a merge. SkierRMH 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 except Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma, for which there's no consensus. Conscious 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpectraSite Tower Holopaw

Paramount Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WVFJ Tower Saint Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Viacom Tower Riverview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Towers Tower Riverview-33569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tampa Tower General Partnership Tower Riverview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Media General Tower Saint Ansgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Red River Broadcast Tower Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mississippi Authority for Educational Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hearst-Argyle Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Augusta Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hearst-Argyle Tower Watsonville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Media General Tower Forest Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Towers Tower Cedar Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SpectraSite Tower Holopaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Boykin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NYT Broadcast Holdings Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Media General Tower Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joint Venture TV Tower Bithlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Towers Tower Bithlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WWRR Renda Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QueenB Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sinclair Television Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NVG-Amarillo Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating another 24 radio and TV towers on mainland USA which are below 500 meters tall. None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 07:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Gordon Bennett, how many of these articles are there??? Bwithh 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 08:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all per nom--Dmz5 10:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. First, I don't like the Easter egg links sprinkled throughout the rationale, with additional information beyond that stated in the one that got me here. More importantly, these fit absolutely none of the criteria listed in the cited WP:NOT#IINFO. They fit none of the criteria in WP:NOT#DIR either, so there's a good reason the nominator wasn't more specific about that. Mast height is one of the least significant discriminators once you get below the top 10 which are interesting because of their height alone. The terrain is a major factor in that, and the demographics. Gene Nygaard 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Watching the AfDs for the mast articles I believe that, faced with a huge number of articles, the submitter has organised them by height as a way to break down the task. This is likely because they are sorted that way on the list of masts page. I doubt the submitter is intending it be taken as a primary reason for deletion, other than low-height masts do not have their height as a reason for notability. Akihabara 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. There may not be a line stating "Wikipedia is not a collection of unremarkable masts," but the spirit of WP:NOT#IINFO is certainly maintained by deleting these articles. I have yet to see a coherent argument for why articles like these should be included in Wikipedia, and if every manmade electronic structure is given its own page, then Wikipedia will be unreasonably bloated, and beyond control. Charlie 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't covered there in those guidelines, so a mere unadorned reference to them is not sufficient. At a minimum, there would need to be a showing of what the rule is and how this fits under that rule, and there have been no coherent arguments along those lines.

There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are episodes of one long-running soap opera. There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are no-name soccer players whose fans think they are famous enough to get by with only one name. There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are links in the "What links here" of some one sentence articles about no-name villages with three page navigation boxes linking to all their neighboring no-name villages. There is no more room for growth in the tall masts, but there are several million villages which don't yet have Wikipedia articles, and likewise a few billion people and twice as many manga and anime characters as people. Gene Nygaard 13:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the things you say are true, and none of them represents a reason why Wikipedia needs these particular articles. In addition, the nominator pretty clearly states that none of the towers "are notable in any way whatsoever". This seems to be a fairly coherent argument, to which you have not provided a response. Charlie 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These arguments don’t establish notability, which is the nominators main argument for deletion. And there are more fish in the sea than manmade structures over 400 m tall. These statistics mean nothing- not every structure over 400 m tall is notable. Fledgeling 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the nominator cited for the reasons was "per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO" with no citatation to any notability criteria whatsoever, just a bald claim.

Every one of the towers in all these articles (all American), however many are listed, are taller than the Empire State Building, the second tallest building in America, including the antenna which adds 204 ft (62 m) to its height. That in itself gives them a certain degree of notability.

Every one of these towers listed is also higher than the roof of Sears Tower, the tallest building in the United States, though they don't reach quite as high above the ground as the antenna on top of it. Gene Nygaard 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, the list of masts, if I counted right, details 132 masts over 500m in the US alone. I don't think that makes them notable. I do believe that (say) the top 10 in the US may be notable, perhaps the top 20 at a push. Once you take into account masts in other countries, those nominated for deletion certainly become non-notable based on their height alone. Of course something else may make them notable. I do accept that we're getting close to a point where they cease being "just another mast", when it needs to be considered more carefully. Akihabara 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to count up all the masts in other countries that are over 500 m tall: there are exactly zero of them. The one in Poland that was once the tallest in the world collapsed.

It's pretty easy to count the other structures of any other type anywhere in the world that are taller than 500 meters: Taipei 101, CN Tower, Ostankino Tower, and Sears Tower when you include its antenna. Even if I hadn't had good mathematics teachers, I'd probably be able to figure it out: that's four. The only difficulty is in deciding whether or not to count the mostly undersea drilling rig Petronius Platform, which would take you all the way up to five. Have I missed any? Gene Nygaard 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how many masts are there outside the United States which are taller than the shortest one on this current list nominated for deletion? Zero, isn't it. I didn't double-check all of them again; all of these were over 443 m, and I'm pretty sure they are all over the 460 m of Balashikha Transmission Mast, and that that is currently the tallest one outside the United States. Gene Nygaard 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If you actually look at the list of masts, you see well over 50 in the 600 m + range. NOT… “five” as you say, and this is in the US alone. Thats makes these masts non-notable height-wise by comparisonFledgeling 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed four (also zero) as I say (I don't count Petronius Platform). What exactly is it that you don't understand about 4 "structures of any other type" over 500 m anywhere in the world including the U.S.A., or about 0 masts "outside the United States" taller than the the ones nominated for deletion here? That list at list of masts is a worldwide list, not a U.S. list. Gene Nygaard 08:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is here in any case? Only non-trivial press coverage or other third-party sourcing makes a thing notable, so regardless of who's correct on height, if feature-length pieces have not been written about the structure, it's not notable-even if it's several thousand feet high. Seraphimblade 08:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are thousands of feet high. Two thousand, to the nearest thousand. Same as the tallest structures ever made by man, when rounded to the nearest thousand feet. Gene Nygaard 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Comparisons against any other type of structure mean nothing! Notable amongst other masts is what we are looking for. If you again, actually look at the list, all the 600 m + structures that are listed are in the US- hence that’s what i said. And you haven’t addressed Seraphimblade’s point: Only non-trivial press coverage or other third-party sourcing makes a thing notable! Height is not the only reason unless it is in the top 10 or so. Just because its tall doesn’t mean it meets the criteria.Fledgeling 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Some might be notable for something, but it is hard to find any newwspaper article based on the corporate name of the company which owns it. Edison 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. What else is there to say? Fledgeling 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and repeat as collection of non-notable structures. Seraphimblade 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobody will miss them. Maddy626 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma, It was the tallest structure in the world at the time it was built. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:20Z
• Delete all except Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma. As a part of this cleanup, can someone create a sucession box for the highest towers in the US and place it in the appropiate articles? I think it is clear the this fact is notable and the towers replaced by and that suceeded by the specific tower are notable and should be listed in the article. Vegaswikian 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Nominator has misstated the facts with respect to American Towers Tower Cedar Hill which is over 500 m tall (two towers, one over, one just under). Gene Nygaard 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gene, I would like to ask you to step back for a moment, and look at this from a different angle. Forget the exact heights of various masts, or whether the nominator has all of his facts straight. You certainly seem to be adamant that these articles be kept, despite the number of those who disagree. This is admirable, and I would hate to think we are bullying you, or any others in a (seemingly) minority view. Therefore, I would like to ask: Why exactly do you think that these articles about various masts should remain in WP? If you think they add to WP's mission, I would really like to hear your reasons. I want to see WP cleaned up, but not at the expense of articles that support the mission, and I make no pretenses to omnicience. Charlie 10:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't created any of these articles, and don't have any significant time invested in any of them.

I haven't created any of the lists, either, though early on I did quite a bit of formatting of the tables in a couple of them.

There probably were too many articles. The excess have mostly been deleted already.

The biggest problems with this nomination include:

The bogus concern about "Once you take into account masts in other countries" (Akihabara). There are zero masts in other countries taller than the tallest one here; there once was at least one that was in fact the tallest in the world, but it fell down. There are only three structures of any kind whatsoever outside the United States which extend more than 500 meters above ground, and one more that tall that is mostly underwater.

The fact that all of these masts are in the United States, yet the only numbers that have been mentioned are the maximum height in meters (and as I pointed out, one may exceed that), without any mention of the height in feet. Most Americans are not as comfortable working with metric units as I am. A very significant number of Americans won't even try to figure out what this means.

• Every one of these masts is over 1,500 feet tall.
• 23 of 24 masts in 23 articles are over 1,550 feet tall. One is 1549 ft. The Empire State Building remains the tallest in the U.S. at 1250 feet to its roof, and 1454 feet to the top of its antenna. The shortest of those nominated here reaches 95 feet higher than the antenna on the Empire State Building. All of these are at least 98 ft taller than the roof of the Sears Tower at 1451 ft, but all are shorter than the Sears Tower with antenna which adds another 279 feet.
• 10 of 24 nominated here are over 1,600 feet tall, with the tallest at 1661 ft.

Even in meters, the nominator just vaguely said that "all are below 500 meters", without saying that "all are over 470 meters".

Seraphimblade expressed concern about sources, but that is the one thing that could be lost in deleting these articles, is the additional source information other than the FCC certifications that is contained in some of these articles.

I'd suggest that for now, you leave the ones over 1,600 feet, and revisit it later if necessary. A hundred articles isn't going to overwhelm "Wikipedia"; it isn't going to make it likely that these will show up frequently for anybody pressing the "Random article" link. There are no legitimate concerns about proliferation; there are none missing over the shortest one listed in this AfD. Gene Nygaard 15:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We arnt looking for Statistics on how these match up on other types of structures. When compared to other masts, all these listed fall short. I even think we don’t need all of the masts in the 600 m + range, unless they are in the top 10 or otherwise notable. You don’t cite some of your evidence about heights in other countries, as well.Fledgeling 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I think that there is some concern about proliferation: though not specifically articles about masts. Look back over the AFD's for just the last week, and see how many times the author of an article about a non-notable subject says something like "well, I only wrote the article because I saw this other article about an even less notable subject." Charlie 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note my comment isn't part of the nomination, it's part of the discussion. I'll take your word for it that masts this high are unique to the US, I have no idea. However you haven't addressed my basic point, which I think is similar to the concerns others have: there are over a hundred of these left, so their height alone doesn't make them notable. I see little reason to keep any other than the highest ten or twenty, and your discussion only refers to their notability on the basis of their height. As someone else mentioned, I also do not intend to single out masts here. Akihabara 14:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me reply to Gene about his concern arguments: I stand accused of the mass murder of over two hundred articles about masts, and also attempting to "slip one in" by deliberately misstating the mast height in one article. The misstatement about the height was unintentional in that yes, the nomination did include ONE article containing one of two masts which was within the height range specified in the nomination. Those editors who have been participating in the debates over the last 2 weeks will know that the deletions are taking place in a systematic manner, and it should be obvious that the AfDs are grouped and are progressing according to ascending order of mast height. Masts in excess of 500m will be put under the spotlight in due course, so please don't wet yourself about just one which apparently falls outside. None of the articles being proposed for deletion are in any way special or encyclopaedic. If anyone has volumes to write about any special mast in compliance with wiki policies, an article can be created. I am not wantonly destroying, but quite the opposite. Please refer to edit history of the List of masts article for the efforts I have put into the subject.

For a fuller exposition of my motivations and rationale, I would refer you to an essay in my personal space here. Ohconfucius 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no-one has attempted to refute that this can be verified. Deletion of this version does not prejudice against a verified article being created in this one's place. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow recovery

Workflow recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

For one thing, this seems to fail WP:SELF, with such lines as: "Workflow is a model of an ordered sequence of activities that invoke operations from partners of workflow process; each activity reads some input objects (variables) and write some output objects (effect objects). Objects are defined within the workflow model. Workflow doesn't contain any states and values of objects — these are found in an instance of the workflow." It also fails WP:OR unquestionably, since no external sources are cited or even mentioned. It may, in fact, be nonsense. I found this in a list of articles needing "copyediting," but upon three readings I could not even determine what this article is meant to be about, so I am moving it here. Charlie 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, can someone with a better knowledge of WP templating than me fix this so it does not appear as a subsection of the preceding AFD? Charlie 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see any problems - may have already been fixed. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, it certainly failed WP:V as is, but that said it might well be a real term in some field (human resources? project management?). I'd say the article could be salvaged if its given a non-jargon context from an out-of-world perspective, and some citation to prove it wasn't something made up in school one day. If those things don't occur, then weak delete. -Markeer 13:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is word salad: Workflow is a model of an ordered sequence of activities that invoke operations from partners of workflow process; each activity reads some input objects (variables) and write some output objects (effect objects). Objects are defined within the workflow model. Workflow doesn't contain any states and values of objects — these are found in an instance of the workflow. Is it possible to be less concrete? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge Workflow is a significant concept in the design of business processes and software to support those processes, and this article is about handling errors that occur in the execution of a workflow process. That said, this article is totally lacking in context and fairly unreadable, so at the least drastic cleanup is needed. Can someone who knows more about the subject clarify whether "workflow recovery" is really the most common term for this and if there's enough to say about it to merit a separate article as opposed to a section in the workflow article? Pinball22 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There aren't any references or context, and it was difficult for me to find out what was going on. In addition, it's may be more suitable to create a subsection within workflow once it's possible to meet article criteria. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. An important concept, but horribly presented in its current form. Maddy626 09:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The article is terrible as it stands, needs quite a bit of work, especially with WP:V. SkierRMH 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important topic. Just needs improvement. Nunquam Dormio 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of these "business process" articles, with their "inputs", "outputs", and "processes", seem to me to be abstract to the point of evasiveness. While I will admit that there are people out there who earn their bread by talking in this way, I am not really convinced that any of these articles really has an actual subject to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:22Z

William Hawi

William Hawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although the person seems notable the article is biased and will be too much work to wikify. Note for instance the use of the word 'Martyr' ArchStanton 07:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) The editor has removed the contested wordings and the article is now much better in accordance with WP:NPOV ArchStanton 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only 302 ghits. Pumped with POV. Sr13 (T|C) 08:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• all these accronyms... you are loosing me people. what is POV, what is ghits and if you agree that this person is "notable" than for the sake of offering comprehensive information shouldn't he be included in this Encyclopedia? Exactly how much time do i have to "wikify" the article? and more importantly, is there a template i can use? I followed your advice Archstanton69 (thank you for the helpful links by the way) and looked over the Rafik Hariri page... all this info is recent and very available. William Hawi is a historical figure and information about his life and death is not so readily available. It will take some time, but i will get it. On the other hand, i would appreciate some help! Can someone give me pointers on what exactly makes the article biased? is it the language? what 'words' should be revised? how to link it to other pages? sorry, i am new here but i am willing to learn ;) thanks for any help! Jinanez 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now and give Jinanez a little bit more time to fix it - the subject seems noteworthy on its face although I agree the article needs a lot of work. I don't think notability is an issue here despite low ghits but maybe I'm wrong?--Dmz5 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - bias and lack of Wikification is not grounds for deletion, and the nominator admits the subject is notable. An article shouldn't be nuked just because it's "too much work". ~Matticus ^T_C 10:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well just to explain the "low ghits"; any article or information written on the subject is in Arabic and not available online. His biography book is also in Arabic. I will have to take the time to translate some things but it is all available (including meeting transcripts, newspaper clippings, pictures and voice recordings) Jinanez 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable historical figure deserves his place in Wikipedia. However, the article is not entirely written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) and therefore needs some rewriting. Some more independent references would be advisable. JoJan 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Google isn't a good indicator of notablility, and POV is not a reason to delete. Koweja 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have tried to read this article several times and I still have no idea what this person is supposed to be notable for. He is supposedly the 'Former chief of the Kataeb Security Council', but as far as I can tell, the Kataeb Party is only one political party of many in Lebanon. (Is he even Lebanese? The article doesn't specify.) I wouldn't normally vote no because of poor article quality, but together with the fact that his notability is questionable, and I am doubtful that this article will be improved to something readable, I shall !vote delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe you do not know much about the history of Lebanon user:Fang Aili but in a nutshell in addition to his contribution in the Palestino-Lebanese conflict in the 1970s, Hawi created the Kataeb Military Council which was took over by former President Bashir Gemayel upon his death. Without Hawi, the Lebanese Forces would not have existed and this party in addition to the Kataeb party (which he helped in the creation and organization) are major forces in the Lebanese March 14th Forces coalition currently at the heart of the present Lebanon conflict, Rafic Hariri UN probe / tribunal, and the on-going protests in down-town Beirut. And in answer to your question, it is clearly written in the 'poor quality article' that Hawi was born in New York USA in 1908 to Lebanese parents but lived since 1910 in Lebanon, which would make him Lebanese.
• Keep The article states that he held multiple senior positions in a notable political party. However, the article needs to be improved with better references. Tarinth 18:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Notable and should be retained. Article needs more references and citations. I've added some to the "Death" section. Anybody want to help out on a different section? CuriousGiselle 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes thank you! i would appreciate any help... I am starting to include references and notes and i would appreciate if you can point out where such additions are needed. Jinanez 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely notable. Maddy626 09:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability well stated, buzz words deleted, could use a little wikification - but that seems to be an ongoing project.SkierRMH 06:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inherent bias problem (article writer is subject's grandson), but notable enough. Ford MF 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no sources that are non-trivial (i.e. not passing mentions) and reliable (i.e. not blogs, wikis or forum posts) were found to refute the nomination and satisfy policy (specifically verifiability). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Sand Game

Falling Sand Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable web game. No independent verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not a game guide. –  Anþony  talk  07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:WEB/WP:GAMES. Borderline speedy. MER-C 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable web game. Koweja 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WP may not be a game guide, but neither is this article. Even so, the notability isn't proven nor is it sourced well enough. I'd really rather not see this go, but Delete unless these problems are fixed. -Ryanbomber 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability proven below. Keep. -Ryanbomber 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS, WP:WEB. // I c e d K o l a 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a good example of how NOT to get publicity for a non-notable amateur computer game. Maddy626 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually came to Wikipedia today looking for info about this game and was suprised to see it up for deletion. Google the phrase "Hell of sand" or look at the history of edits of this page. No page that was as non-notable as you all claim could have such a variety of edits. DevanJedi 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This should be moved to the video games and computer games wikiproject but not deleted. I am busy tracking down the notable references, but it may take longer than five days. Also, considering this article does not point to a particular game exclusively, it can hardly be considered a promotion for a particular game. What it does is discuss a sub-genre of what I would consider the puzzle game genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.48.159.136 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I also should add that I actually came upon this by searching for information while having no idea what a falling sand game was. References and sources can be found, but not if the article is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.159.136 (talk • contribs) 04:54, December 26, 2006 (UTC)
    • How does deleting this article affect these supposed independent reliable sources? Why would finding them take longer than five days? If you can't find a reliable source within five days, the more likely conclusion is that such sources don't exist. –  Anþony  talk  07:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This game is a paradise for little children to learn cause and effect. Even if you see this Falling Sand Game as only a game, for me this game can help children to learn some new things, look to world in a totally different way. I favor to keep this article by improving it and adding additional information about it. — Pls1pls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Neither commercial in nature nor a true gaming guide, this entry provides useful information on the history of the game and the components which comprise it. — 74.132.128.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GAMES/WP:WEB :3-DESU 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Conditionally - but only if this game garners more attention in the next year. If not, flush it. Jamehec 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this article is useful for the people who play the game, giving guides as to how to play or what to, it is also advertising, earning money for creators who can lead their lives. And it is only useful to those who play the game, but then again, what would happen if we deleted the creationism article because it was useless to atheists and gentiles of the christian faith. Neod4000 21:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC) — Neod4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What? First of all, WP:NOT wiki is not a place to advertise. Second of all, there's a difference between notability and usefulness. Argue creationism's "usefulness" all you want, but you can't deny it's notability. This game has yet to be proven that it is notable. If you want to save it, find sources. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally, I think this meets the standards for notability - it meets part one of WP:GAMES in that other "sand" games have been made that were heavily inspired by (but different in authorship from) the original game. --Chris Mounce 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. The first criterion is about works which discuss the game, so that we may cite those sources in this article. Derivative works do not treat the original as a subject, nor are they truly independent. The works must also be published non-trivially -- that is, they should be subjected to some editorial process which filters out unimportant topics and checks for accuracy. –  Anþony  talk  10:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a wiki that discusses the game. The game is mentioned on about.com in their list of "Top Ten Time Wasters on the Web." There's at least one messageboard, which I already linked to. When it came out, it was prominent on community sites - the article lists Fark and Digg, but I remember seeing it on the front page of del.icio.us, as well. It had prominent placement in GGL's article Utterly Pointless, Utterly Addictive. It's mentioned on countless blogs. As far as I can tell, all of these are talking about the game. --Chris Mounce 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The About.com gallery is the epitome of trivial mentions, explained below. Messageboards, blogs, Wikis, del.icio.us, all fail WP:RS. The only one left is GGL, because I've never heard of it and can't determine if it's a reliable source on face value. So there's potentially one source for the article. –  Anþony  talk  22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This game meets notability as noted above. It's a bit silly to delete this. Kuroji 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came by to close this debate, but I decided to !vote instead. It looks to me like we have notability, especially with the about.com mention, and I don't see any other argument for deletion other than an allegation that it's not notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The about.com "article" is actually a gallery of images, with a one-sentence caption: "Soothing, relaxing, and quiet, the Falling Sand Game is a great way to be creative and relax at the same time." If that's not a trivial mention, I don't know what is. Even if you accept that the subject is notable, the article still fails WP:V because there are no sources cited. –  Anþony  talk  22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A mention on about.com is more than sufficient to establish notability. Your zeal to delete this article is noted, but it's time to accept that other users may disagree, rather than trying to argue with everyone who is !voting to keep. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I really need to point it out, but it's a discussion, not a vote. In most discussions, there's a natural back-and-forth of exchanging ideas and arguments. I do accept that others disagree, but I don't see what's wrong with pointing out flaws in their reasoning or details they've overlooked. Most especially, I'd rather not have new users come into the discussion and see these weak claims go unchallenged as truth. Claiming that the game has been mentioned on About.com does seem like an indication of notability as long as you don't explain what that mention was.
      • Additionally, a lot of the keep votes are coming from SPAs or rarely used accounts using spurious reasoning related to WP:ILIKEIT. This is undoubtably due to at least one version linking directly to the Wikipedia article as directions for how to play the game. Editors who have participated in this AfD while basing their decision on the policies and practices of Wikipedia have mostly voted to delete. –  Anþony  talk  02:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Awesome ad hominem and sweeping generalization. The article has a source now, which is the only problem this AFD had. So why is it still open? -Ryanbomber 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please assume good faith. I was merely pointing out that the discussion is not as clear-cut as a simple head-count would lead you to believe. It bears mentioning that WP:WEB requires multiple sources and there are still problems with WP:V and WP:NOT. Regardless, the AfD is due to be closed anyway and the final determination is up to the closing admin, which I will not contest. –  Anþony  talk  05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The game was also mentioned on Rocketboom[32], which makes two sources and a notable subject. The article in its current state is not an instruction manual (see past versions), nor is it excessively promotional, so I can't see any problems on the WP:NOT front. Verifiability problems would be better corrected by linking to stuff like this rather than deleting the entire article, which seems a bit extreme to me. But as you said, it's in an admin's hands. --Chris Mounce 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wasn't not assuming good faith. I was pointing out a flawed argument. Even if there is Sockpuppetry going on, if the argument is good then what's the problem? -Ryanbomber 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anþony, please watch your language and tone. As to this AfD, your complaints about verifiability are unfounded; we have no doubt that the game itself exists, as we can verify this by pointing directly to a site that hosts it. If some of the information in the article is itself unverified, it can be removed, or it can be tagged with {{citation needed}}, but deletion is not appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Very notable. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:23Z

Quads FC

Quads FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm asking this page to be deleted due to lack of notability. In fact, this page was speedily deleted soon after it was created, but was restored by an admin after the one who created this article had asked to do so. Since then, little has been done to "improve" the page, while it would not make Quads FC notable enough anyway. Julius Sahara 07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:ORG, appears to be a non-notable, local, non-professional league team. No WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ORG and WP:V with only 11 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wholly non-notable amateur team. The Banana Shots, who are mentioned in the same article as another team in the same league, have already had an article deleted on WP for exactly the same reasons.... ChrisTheDude 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatantly non-notable club. Qwghlm 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as just a bunch of guys who get together in a park and play football. Maddy626 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:ORG and V - and precedent. SkierRMH 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DoNotDelete -WP:ORGbollockmeister07 23:29, 07 January 2007 (UTC) Kick around in the park? Are you retarded, these lads slug their guts out, it is a religion not just a football team! It is rumoured all deletion of their profiles come with a jehad curse.. Who knows if its true? Obviously you guys don't leave your room and were never picked for the school team. I bid you good day![reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Rane

Bill Rane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was deleted using prod and deletion was then contested at deletion review (see lengthy nomination statement there), which is how it ended up here for further discussion. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, a few google hits, but nothing spectacular. Has been tagged for improvement for a couple of months, with no subsequent re-edits. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless article is completed with relevant information by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My comment when I prodded the article was "non notable artist; even the Rane Gallery site doesn't list any museum holdings or articles on him". I read the deletion review statement, and that didn't change my opinion. --Brianyoumans 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity and unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia That Anybody Can Edit.. Maddy626 10:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• De'ete fails WP:BIO clearly. SkierRMH,23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:23Z

Homeless in hawaii

Homeless in hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This appears to be an essay consisting of original research. Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, clearly an essay. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pretty clear.--Dmz5 10:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious candidate for deletion. --Folantin 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Also wrong cAsE! - Cate | _Talk 14:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - essay, WP:OR, WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There might be some useful information that the author could use to edit Hawaii or homelessness, so I think it's just a new person who's unaware of what constitutes an article here. Just because he wrote it for school doesn't mean the topic is useless per WP:NFT. 206.213.209.31 16:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and messages have been left to this effect on his talk page but he is not responsive to changing it (and in fact just removes the deletion tags). After reading a recent NY Times article about this subject (which oddly enough he did not use as a source) I think there is definitely a viable article here.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a Hawaiian, I feel sad for the homeless, but this is an essay and has original research. Not suitable for WP. Sr13 (T|C) 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a BLOG. Maddy626 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per reasons stated above--SUIT 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a strong suggestion to the author to merge this into the Hawaii article (after discussion there, please). SkierRMH,23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Nonsense article, dealing with pity for the poor. -- Dasnedius 18:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. —ShadowHalo 04:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:24Z

Jimmy Flame

Jimmy Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Person does not meet notability requirements. Possible vanity. ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite a few records and titles is enough for notabilty. All very obscure indeed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Regardless of how many records and titles he has, none of them are SOURCED. Also, possible hoax: note the claim of "Would later join forces with Ben Shepherd of Soundgarden and Nirvana to form the rock band ZaFO." Likely untrue, certainly not sourced. Charlie 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything in the article is either non-notable or a lie. Google gives nothing (literally) for the Ben Shepherd claim; "Jimmy Flame and the Sexxy Boys" get only 49 unique hits, and none of them assert notability; "Jimmy Flame"+"The Roswells" gets 13 unique G-hits- again, no importance found; he has never wrestled on anything higher than a local level; none of the record companies on which he has released music are even remotely notable (for example, only 15 unique hits for "Headlock Records", and some of those are for an unrelated label). -- Kicking222 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another garage band. Just what we need. Maddy626 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. --Folantin 10:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V and WP:BAND; should have recorded my favourite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH,23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:24Z

List of artists played on Radio Disney

List of artists played on Radio Disney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the point to having this list? WP:NOT a radio station playlist. Andrew Levine 08:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Listcruft in extremis. What next - List of artists who clear their throat before singing? Grutness...wha? 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is really too much. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft...Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 (T|C) 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lists-made-by-kidscruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft par excellence. And now over to create my own article Artists who would kill themselves if they were ever played on Radio Disney. SkierRMH,23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 02:25Z

SwiftSwitch

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

Also:

SwiftIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not really a very important thing. It is a server browser for an MMORPG, which in my opinion is not important at all. However this is just my Point of View and if the general opinion here differs, it will be kept. J.J.Sagnella 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both No encyclopedic notability, apparent failure of WP:SOFTWARE Bwithh 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. MER-C 12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant attack page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Pribich

Boris Pribich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, orphan article, possible vanity (see the article's Talk page) Hashomer 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced autobiography. MER-C 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -wow, just wow... fails AUTO, V, BIO, POV. SkierRMH 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As per above. I mean, seriously. The reason why this was made confuses me. .V. 15:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete agree with the above. Also delete per WP:CSD#G10 and so tagged. Ohconfucius 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]