Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted 5 times by Irishguy per CSD G11. --ais523 10:59, 5 March 2007 (U T C)

SmogWatch

doesn't seem notable, seems like publicity attempt for very local unsubstantiated (unverifiable) claims, if not an elaborate HOAX William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that the creator of the article tried to remove the notice from the AFD log here--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after request by author. gadfium 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simar Singh

It doesnt assert notability, and I highly doubt it will be able to. --Hojimachong^talk 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by author. Therefore I taged it as db-blanked for a speedy delete Travelbird 08:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stanton

Non-notable bio about a person who created a non-notable blog American Patriot 1776 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Despite claims that person was "mentioned" in newscasts, the only reliable source I could find was this one from Computerworld. I don't think it quite makes the notability cut. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like an ego page to me. Aleta 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ In addition to the Computerworld article, there is this online post from a Seattle PI staffer. Still, the coverage is pretty weak. Since these sources don't give us much biographical information and are instead primarily about the blog and its "impact", this article would be better moved to CanGoogleHearMe.com, if kept. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak Keep per The Age story from User:Thefungusinmymilk. I see it was also reported on by the Idaho Statesman. It's borderline, but now I lean toward keep. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just check it's alexa rating. Itake 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alexa rankings are generally not sufficient to establish notability, except perhaps in extreme cases, and at about 80,000 this person's blog is not one of those. In its current form, this article does not seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:WEB. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was the fifth fastest growing website last week (don't know if it still is), when several TV stations aired coverage of Aaron's trip to California, a bunch of radio stations followed suit, he's been written about in Australia's largest newspaper, there's been a song written about him, and of course, he's currently doing business with Google though the details are scarce due to the restrictions of an NDA. He's notable, with TV, radio, web, entertainment and business coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.109.213 (talk • contribs)
- Can you provide more specific citations for this coverage? The Google News search gives only two unique reliable sources, and when I checked LexisNexis and Newsbank, nothing came up (probably because the news is too recent). The nature of his business with Google—beyond successfully holding a meeting with someone there—is unknown and unverifiable. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently referenced There are some claims above of references for notability, but they're not in the article and haven't been verified yet. If multiple reliable independently published articles or interviews about the person are provided I'll reconsider my delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put some refs in article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a short lived thing, not that notable either. Isn't this rather for the news? Meaningful username 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly worth Including. Aaron Stanton's journey and Blog was documented in one of Australia's leading newspapers (http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/listen-up-google/2007/03/01/1172338721875.html) and his story is being researched in my University (http://www.swinburne.edu.au) as an example of the power of the Web —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thefungusinmymilk (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jurassic Park cast members

Redundant. Every film has a cast list. WikiNew 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Abstain I abstain Cman 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was the point of commenting, then? Delete because this can easily be converted into prose into the film articles (as in, not every single cast member). ' 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason I created it was because the category was up for deletion, and the consensus for that and others like it was to replace with a list. PAK Man 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category for deletion does not make a list keepable. This sounds like something that is usually outsourced to imdb with an external link. -- Ben 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All three film articles have better cast listings anyway. Korranus 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ben. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilliamThweatt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as redundant to the film articles, List of characters in Jurassic Park, and the actor articles. The list doesn't usefully replace the category in this case. Pomte 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better for the actual film articles. If one expands enough to warrant it's own article then fork it then (e.g., an Alan Grant article). - Denny 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually, it should be placed in the respective film articles, so I don't know why it needs a separate article--JForget 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems highly superfluous. Meaningful username 11:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Daughtry (album). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:57Z

Home (Daughtry song)

non notable song, unsourced article, nothing can be said if the speculation is removed. Natalie 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as stated, if we removed the WP:CRYSTAL-balling, there's nothing in this article, and the song does not appear notable. --Haemo 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even released.--Dacium 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daughtry (album). There's yet to be a confirmed second single. It can be un-redirected when it is released, as it likely will be. GassyGuy 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that this article is about the song, not entirely the rumored single. The song was already on the album Daughtry (album). That being said, there's nothing to say about the song that can't be said in the album's article. If it is released as a single, then there would be reason to create an article for that single, but just having an article about the song isn't enough. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be covered in the album for now, until it gets more noteriety or released as a single. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreleased, maybe it could be re-created when its nearer the time of its actual release.Telly addict 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' the band and show ameircan idol are very notable and so this article should be kept. Smith Jones 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per redirect vote above. ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Dfrg.msc 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet any of the proposed Song notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jamie. Can be recreated if it ever becomes notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep again~~ - its not fair that this article should be deleted just befcause it isn't notable yet you all damn know that it will be notable soon enough you should just leav eit be and stop deletionism. Smith Jones 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote stuck through to prevent double counting. Please do not vote more than once. Natalie 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - sory i didnt mean for it to be couned as another vote my mistake. ~~
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until officially confirmed as a single. The bit about the song being this season's American Idol loser's theme should definitely be incorporated into the Daughtry article in the meantime. - eo 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:07Z

Jury Scrutiny model

Appears to be unsourced original research. Single author, tagged with {unreferenced} since July. No indication by the author as to any source for this. I couldn't find any obvious references to this out in the world. - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No notibility for the model is shown. Not verifiable either.--Dacium 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is original research and it could be considered as a move to wiktionary as its a definition.Telly addict 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Arnoutf 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research essay.-- danntm ^T _C 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a political science professional, I have never heard of this term used for what is described. It gets no google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors (I know this isn't a criteria yet, but it does indicate notability). It is Original Research.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per {{db-author}}--Wafulz 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inuyasha: Demon Tournament

Sorry about all this. I created this page, and I think in falls under the "unnotable" deletion clause. -Litefantastic 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you can request deletion of a page you've created, provided you are the only major contributor, which you appear to be. Just tag the page with {{db-author}} and it will be deleted a lot faster than an AfD process. Natalie 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notible. fails WP:WEB etc.--Dacium 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grillionaire

This is a new term, not noted anywhere else. BankingBum 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEO, a Google search brought up nothing relevent. TJ Spyke 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and as such, failing both the primary criterion on notability (as there are no sources to confirm the notability), as well as the guideline for neologisms. Kyra_~(talk) 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a neogolism--Dacium 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --Haemo 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. Fails WP:NEO. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources to support how this neologism is notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - things made up in school one day. - Richardcavell 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to grillion. John Reaves (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything on Google. In response to the author's comments on the talk page: the domain "www.grillionaire.com" is for sale and therefore there is not actually such a site; Wikipedia is not "a source to people about words and their meanings," but rather an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not "racist about trends that are happening anyway," but does include attributability as a core policy; and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --N Shar 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its an irrelevant definition and its Notability is lacking, it also fails WP:NEO.Telly addict 12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced and unverified WP:NEO, see also WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This must be some kind of joke. Korranus 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Neologism. Daniel5127 | Talk 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pile on. Dfrg.msc 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. TonyTheTiger 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. - Denny 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. I've never heard "grillion" used this way (and grillion redirects to a page that mentions the word in the context of casualties). JuJube 06:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. (Also a contested PROD.) FreplySpang 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indefinite and fictitious large numbers, which grillion already redirects to. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI would agree if the word were notable as a ficticious number, but there is no evidence that it is. Pointing to the Indefinite and fictitious large numbers article is just a way to skirt the neologism rules. //BankingBum 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$[reply]
  - Comment redirects have very low notability requirements. And they're useful if anyone searches for the term. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, default keep. Merge to Fishers, Indiana was suggested. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:10Z

The Artists' Studio

Non-notable local community theater Feeeshboy 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now How about giving the author more than 5 minutes! the page was just created. If the place has reviews and mentions in big magazines/papers it might be notable enough. Give some time for the author to show it.Dacium 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If that seemed remotely likely, I wouldn't have nominated it. As it is, the only reason I didn't nominate it for speedy delete was the possibility of regional interest, but in reality, an article that's created without a claim to notability isn't likely to develop one. Feeeshboy 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a small-town community theater, rather new - I can't see what notability it could have. I'm sure it is a fine place, but it doesn't need an article here. --Brianyoumans 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. No sources. Need sources with evidence of notability per WP:ORG to survive deletion scrutiny.--Shirahadasha 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, at least, so I, as the starting author, can throw some more on it. A lookup on Google of The "Artists' Studio" Fishers (a look up of The Artists' Studio is too vague as many claim that or a variation of that name) gets about 13 thousand entries, which may seem insignificant, but a related article, Indiana Repertory Theatre, gets only about 58 thousand entries. Considering Indiana Repertory Theatre has existed much longer as a theatre, The Artists' Studio is apparently getting it's name out there. The Google search being said, I was unsure as to whether it really was Wikipedia worthy or not.

Reasons for keeping are: "Notability is not popularity" (This theatre has made an impact on theatre in Indiana being one of the few of it's kind to feature a more family setting on a regular basis, especially on classes on non-covered material as of yet [also known as: give it time]).

"Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this". . ."only of interest to [some group]". . ." (To those that do know it, which in context to the world is not many at all, this article could be of quite a bit of use in informing people about the theatre and history of itself. The fact this theatre is new should not detract from it's effect on the surrounding community, no matter how small you may consider it to be in the grand scheme of things)

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources" (This theatre has been featured in articles ranging from very local to statewide in Indiana, though many may not be published online.)

"Obscure content isn't harmful" (Just because you don't know it doesn't mean you need to get rid of it. It also doesn't mean YOU even need to read it, though it would be nice if you did when it was anywhere near ready :))

Reasons for deleting are: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." (An argument can definitely be made that this article is nothing more than a business entry, but the fact that there is a history, and that a decent size article can be made out of it, almost shoots this down.

"The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it." (Clearly, if you don't agree with the selections I pulled above from WP:NOTE then you don't agree with keeping this article.)

But seriously, this article WAS given only SEVEN minutes before it was nominated for deletion. How about allowing a chance for anything other than a single edit (with only text and linking for that matter, not even tags, such as "stub", pictures, or even complete text/history, much less sources, etc.) before the final decision is made. After all, the classes the Artists' Studio provides and contributions to the surrounding area haven't been put in place. In fact, this article is only a fraction of what it could be, but creating a full article takes TIME. Even that section that was written took a fairly substantial amount of time. Enhanceddownloadbird 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we strangling articles in the crib now? How was this article even found for AfD? Are editors combing through recent changes and killing new articles? This is distasteful. --Richard Daly 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not being considered for deletion because it is incomplete. It is being considered for deletion because it does not assert notability beyond a local level, and without some basic assertion of notability, there is no article. That's not something that takes time to develop. Basic notability should be evident from the start. That's my opinion, and you're welcome to yours, but uncivil comments are not necessary. Feeeshboy 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology I apologize for my uncivil tone. --Richard Daly 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now to give time for the article to be properly put together, with no discrimination against re-nominating if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, etc. 23skidoo 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regardless of how fast this article was nominated, it is now on AfD and will be for 5 days. Enhanceddownloadbird, I strongly recommend that you take that time to provide sources for the article. If you don't provide sources, it is almost certain that this article will be deleted. You say above that the theater has been featured in statewide articles; it would be best if you could be as specific as possible (links to something online are clearly the most helpful, but even if the mentions aren't hosted online, someone might be able to check out any references you provide if you tell us where to look). References that are independent of the theater, high circulation, and specifically about the theater (rather than just mentioning it) are important. -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently well referenced and easily passes ~~Wikipedia:There is no deadline~~ , Oops I mean it easily passes WP:N Good job to User:Enhanceddownloadbird for cleaning it up nicely. ( I found and added a couple references also) Jeepday 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional references, I was more than happy to add them in! And thanks for the pat on the back too! Nevertheless, back to work. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the (continuing) improvements by Enhanceddownloadbird. Also, it somehow strikes me as inappropriate to nominate for deletion an article that has existed only for a few minutes and which is not speedy-able. Adding it to one's watchlist, bookmarking it, contacting the author, or at most proposing it for deletion seem far better choices. -- Black Falcon 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google (UK) search results returned about half a million results, although some of these were for different locations, it notability is still high.Telly addict 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a nicely referenced article and does indeed seem to pass the notability requirements. *Zelse81 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In current form, should be kept. Dfrg.msc 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep If community high schools can sometimes be notable, then certainly community theaters can be--there are many fewer, they typically are important to a much larger area, and there ought to be sources. (The actual ghits for "Artist's Studio" + Indiana are 9,000, not 500,000, but a number of them are RS. )DGG 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version, but I don't agree with the criticisms of the original listing. Someone writing an article should store intermediate versions on his or her hard drive, not on Wikipedia, and post it only when it's ready. That saves everyone's time. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has likely legs, no reason to kill it. - Denny 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like it will most likely be expanded with more citations added in the future. Smee 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. My personal view is that this is a loathsome article, and it breaks my heart that an encyclopedia on which I work should cover such a trivial institution. I say that with explicit regard to its position in its local community: certainly it's important there, but in the broader scheme of artistic endeavour it is of no significance whatsoever, as a cursory reading of the numerous reviews referenced in the article makes very clear. Sadly, when I check the references it is easy to see that this article meets our criteria for notability: adequate references are there, and the subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Thus, with a sigh, I have to say that under our current community guidelines this article should be retained. This article is one of the best examples of why we need to tighten up our notability criteria, but until we do, it should stay. WMMartin 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am quite happy to rest upon WP:IGNORE here; this may technically meet notability requirements, but when one uses common sense, one sees that no real claim of notability is made or even really attempted in this article - it is just a small community theater of little or no interest to anyone outside the local area. The founders may have some slight notability themselves, but if so, they should have articles of their own. If this deserves a mention in Wikipedia, it is in the Fishers, Indiana article, like any other local institution per WP:LOCAL. --Brianyoumans 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy, CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Marie

Seems to be a vanity article. If this is a singer, I don't find anything about this person anywhere online Entheta 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few ghits, mostly either on myspace or unrelated to subject. Feeeshboy 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; conflict of interest and no reliable sources: only 25 ghits on "Phoebe Marie Arriaga", and MySpace and CD Baby (where anyone can publish) are neither reliable sources nor evidence of notability. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated by Feeeshboy. Stormbay 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio from [1]. So tagged. MER-C 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need reliable sources showing evidence of notability per WP:BIO to avoid deletion. Currently there are no independent sources at all, all sources are from the subjects own web sites. --Shirahadasha 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curry chicken

There seems to be nothing encyclopedic to say about this dish other than that it exists, i.e. the mundane fact that chicken meat may be cooked with curry powder in a variety of ways, none of which are individually notable as far as I can see. (Come to think of it, might even be speediable under the letter of WP:CSD#A3, but seems too wordy for its spirit). The main interest of the article's creator seems to be to exhort the world to mind the subtle differences between "chicken curry" and "curry chicken"... –Henning Makholm 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Although some of your reasons for deletion may be thought about, The article has further been enhanced with a history section. In addition, your arguments for deletion also apply for various articles such as Roti, Aloo gobi, Fried_rice etc. This article has now some historical content. It seems the creator is a newbee, and thus It would be appropriate if we help the author by further adding to the article. I and you all like big penis lol guess the best way is to, add the various cultural histories of the curry chicken dish. In addition, this article can not be added to the curry article because it is not a curry dish. This is a chicken dish, NOT merely a curry dish. In addition, the contents of this article is quite large, and it will become even larger when other lovers of the curry chicken dish from different culture backgrounds, add their own historical history of this dish.

Sorry, I sometimes talk in the third person, when I am adamant in seeking justice. Thatopshotta 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- You are the creator, Thatopshotta (talk · contribs). There is no need to talk about yourself in the third person, and it is not a good idea to do so, because it can be construed as misleading.

Uncle G 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a quibble. --Brianyoumans 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. As a second reason for deletion, no reliably sourced, and hence no verification of the various distinctions the creator exhorts us to make. No idea if any of these distinctions represent a mainstream POV or not. --Shirahadasha 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, to verification of the distinction between chicken curry and curry chicken is simple. If you look for recipes of the two dishes, they are summed up by what the article says. Nonetheless, the article has historical facts that are sourced, and is not merely distinguishing between curry chicken and chicken curry. The distinction is just there, to clarify the two dishes.Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:not an encyclopedia article or a cookbook article. Stormbay 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no encyclopedic value to this article except to point out that it exists. It's a wordy dictionary definition. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Also, this would not be eligible for CSD A3, that is for articles that have no content whatsoever, only links perhaps you meant A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A3 does, however, allow for external links and "a rephrasing of the title". –Henning Makholm 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's a bit more information than is required to delete under A3. It's not a lot, but it's moot since we're discussing here at AfD - it can run its course. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to curry. John Reaves (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR or Redirect to curry. If deleting, do so without prejudice to proper (i.e., sourced and more encyclopedic) recreation. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as valid search term to curry, which mentions chicken quite a few times with images. Pomte 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per John Reaves, it does make me want some chicken though. TJ Spyke 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a little encyclopedic but not its overall notability is low, it also fails WP:NOT#IINFO.Telly addict 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to curry. I don't see any encyclopedic and sourced information in the article. Curry chicken is a popular dish in Asia, but it just needs a section in Curry. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Curry. There is something interesting there, but I think that should be merged into the curry article. Arnoutf 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to curry, as per Arnoutf. Zelse81 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article gets us nothing that the curry article couldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article As a native of India, I loved my chicken curry. As I travelled the world, I met many wonderful people. I got to taste this curry chicken dish, and I was extatic. The article has hit the point, about the subtle difference between curry chicken and chicken curry. But more than that, the historical section seems interesting. I will be doing research when I get the time, to find out some other culutural histories of curry chicken!! Great Article! --Mary from Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.11.98.150 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or Merge There is legitimacy in there, which deserves to be preserved. Dfrg.msc 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Curry sufficiently covers prepared curry dishes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a distinct, legitimate point in that article. I have been to many countries, US, Canada, France, England, India, Pakistan, Jamaica..., working temp-work, mostly as a part-time chef. I have noticed for example that when I cook for a Hindu or Pakistan community, we create the dishes with very few chicken and mostly curry. This is spread over rice, and used like Dahl. However, when I have cooked for Jamaican, and West Indian communities, we/I have prepared chicken by soaking it in a special curry sauce, and so on. I am pleased to see that this article points this subtle difference in these two dishes, and I hope it can remain. I must say, I shall try that Ultimate Curry Chicken recipe on the link provided, looks fantastic!! GobtaNIndia 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
After reading the discussion, I must say Aloo gobi and Fried_rice and Garam_masala and Chicken_tikka_masala (Also, chicken tikka massala picture on the link looks alot like chicken curry? But not curry chicken!) and many more articles I have noticed, all are similar to this Curry chicken article. All the points being made above apply to these articles also. Just a thought. | YaYa its Gobta 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's possible that they should be nominated for deletion or merged into something else. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's ludicrous. What one earth has Fried Rice got to go with Curry Chicken, apart from having a similar photo? As for the others, it would be like calling for an AfD on Cherry Pie because it's almost the same as Apple Pie. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that your sorry, I think my explanation above gives reason what fried rice has to do with curry chicken. The point is, after reading these arguments above, saying "should be merged with curry article", then why is not "chicken tika masala" not merged with curry or masala. Why is "Garam Masala" not merged with masala. Why is "Aloo gobi" not merged with aloo, or gobi. That is the point. I say they should not be merged, and therefore this curry chicken should not be merged with curry. It deserves its own article, as those the articles stated in my statement. GobtaNIndia 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]

Update Interesting Trivia, the curry chicken article continues to grow, with facsinating facts. There is no way in my opinion, this can fit under the curry category, but above all I continue to insist that it doesn't even belong in the curry section since it is a chicken dish. Also, it has become encyclopediac content with the new updates.

Sorry, but I am a newbee, and did you not tell me only post once under one comment? Leeba?

Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post as many comments as you want, if you're responding to other comments, but don't put a Bold word at the beginning of more than one and not sign them as if you are two people voting. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...or redirect to curry as suggested. Curry goat is better anyway. - Denny 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:: on further consideration, Keep. There seems to be precedence for this sort of article, and it looks sourceable (google for "curry chicken" plus news). I stand by my curry goat comment, however. - Denny 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are lots of articles on single food types/items. It's a notable food, especially in the Caribbean where it is considered a major local dish not just in Trinidad, where almost half the population is Indian, but also in Jamaica, where the Indian population is small, and other islands where there has never been much of an Indian population at all. Merging it with curry would require a complete re-write of that article. Guettarda 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be a stupid question but what notability guideline should apply to food? - Denny 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is certainly a major distinction between this dish and chicken curry, as the article rather haltingly states. It could do with a rewrite though, and probably a name change - after all it's not just chicken that's prepared this way. A merge into Curry would be misleading, but it could certainly find its way into an article on West Indian cuisine. Cuisine_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago, possibly? EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unique and interesting piece that could become more encyclopedic on Wikipedia than any other location if given the chance... Smee 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Food items are encyclopedically notable, and this is not an uncommon or obscure food item. -Toptomcat 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Curry Chicken is an important part of many cultures around the world, and it will be discriminating if this article is not given chance to portray itself. Also, it deserves its own article and not be merged with curry. Alanacomet 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)alanacomet — alanacomet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete one of my favorite foods. Should be covered in Curry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i agree w. Smee, and the chef above. I think it's a decent article that has some singular facts. It could use more sources, but my vote is keep.--Debsuls 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Popular and varied dish. Also passes the Brittanica Test: If I see an article in Brittanica about this, I won't think, "why did they include this?". (Google tests aren't policy, but just a note: [2] "curry chicken"] gets 436,000 results.) - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - These articles that are being brought up maybe a part of a country's cuisine section. Also not everyone makes Curry chicken the same. Sure Curry maybe the most pronounced ingredient but there's various ways it can be prepaired. I also find it funny based on the bias on Wikipedia that someone would call this a "Mundane" article yet there's one on Spaghetti Sauce. I bet that same crowd would say *that* was a very importaint article. CaribDigita 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really have any basis to claim that just because someone says "delete" for curry chicken that they want the spaghetti sauce article to stay. In fact, one should remember that inclusion is not an indication of validity. In other words, just because something "mundane" like, say butter, has an article (a featured one at that) it doesn't mean that every food item deserves an article. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I also see you believe that there is an "American Deletionist Cabal". So, I figured I'd point that out before I'm accused of saying delete just because I'm American. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Brain Candy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Stummies

Non-notable. Fictional drug that was featured in one movie. Croxley 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence the subject is notable independent of the movie it appears in. No reliable sources showing notability. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional element in a single movie. The article doesn't even give clear information on it either. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brain Candy. John Reaves (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brain Candy without a merge (any potentially useful information on the drug is already contained in one sentence in the main article). -- Black Falcon 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional drug featured in one movie, this is fictional and has no notability, it could be merged.Telly addict 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No-brainer - no significant notability outside its role in the movie. --Gwern (contribs) 21:28 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Rahajan

Non notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Jeff3000 01:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree no evidence of notability and no reliable sources--Shirahadasha 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Sounds as if it is made up. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably is made up, only three Google hits for "Rahajan religion" (none relevant) John Reaves (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments by John Reaves, as-well as this it does fail WP:NN and even if this was kept it would need some copy-edit, wikifying and overall cleanup.Telly addict 12:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Al-Bargit; Mešaism is equally notable (8 hits in google)
Delete per Shirahadasha --Gwern (contribs) 21:29 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo evidence not notable

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and I can hear Dr Claw's catchphrase in my mind right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

a non notable middle school in Virginia; recently survived a multiple AFD which was closed as "no consensus"; the deletion review endorsed the closure, but "mildly encouraged" relisting... thus, here we are. I can see no claim of notability at all for this school. Brianyoumans 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable middle school. TJ Spyke 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, as most middle schools are. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability. No sources. Article needs to include multiple independent sources demonstrating notability per WP:ORG in order to avoid deletion. --Shirahadasha 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Middle schools generally aren't notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why should this school be singled out if the others were kept? Jordan 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because people complained that AFDing all the Fairfax County middle schools at once wasn't good procedure, I am relisting them one at a time. I'm not saying this was the only non-notable one in the previous AFD - I'll get around to the others. --Brianyoumans 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, with respect why should this article be singled out than other schools across America, there will need to be references added though.Telly addict 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it's it's all or nothing? --Brianyoumans 14:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable middle school. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) There is no specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable. (2) lack of references is not a reason for deletion, it is cause to tag for better referencing (see guidlines for delation). (3) Given that it is an established public school it is likely that verifiable sources are available. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the delete "votes" above seem to be expressions of subjective opinions which are specifically discouraged by WP:NOTE. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this school is very significant in its community, is very large for a middle school and the test scores are hugely notable; there is no point in people saying 'not notable' without explaining why. TerriersFan 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin Murray. There's a thousand other articles on different middle schools, and I don't see anything in here that's so different from all those others that this page needs to go, and for that reason I suspect this AFD is in bad faith. Maybe we should slap a notability tag on it instead? Korranus 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is no intention to single out this school, but rather to treat it like other nn schools. DGG 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Kevin Murray. It is a large middle school. --Carioca 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - let them have their page. What's the problem? I see none. Wikipedia has millions of useless articles, somebody in Fairfax County, VA might want to read about their local school. That's what Wikipedia is all about IMO - you won't see this middle school written about in Encyclopedia Britannica, but you can on Wikipedia. 167.206.107.110 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show notability. The precedent has been to delete articles about run of the mill middle schools. This one has nothing to satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOL]. Contrary to what was claimed above, we do not need a "specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable" to delete a middle school article. If there are references, it would be far better to simply add them than to claim they must be out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. It is my very "objective opinion" that this article lacks multiple independent reliable sources having it as a primary subject and that it is therefore non-notable. Inkpaduta 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources backing up said assertion. Alternatively, merge anything verifiable to Fairfax County Public Schools and redirect. Shimeru 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, intriguing bibliography section, needs citations though. Smee 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- intriguing bibliography??? It consists of a listing in a business directory website, and the page for the school on the website of a local neighborhood group. How are those intriguing? --Brianyoumans 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really need that schoolwiki! Vegaswikian 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public schools have an inherent claim to notability the same way that small villages and highways do. Sourcing is not a problem here, and the article is decent enough that I don't see a benefit in merging, which is what I normally suggest doing for primary and middle educational institutions. RFerreira 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Schoolcruft with no mainstream media mentions. No assertion of notability, etc. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge. No argument made as to why merging would not satisfy "notability" concerns while not destroying content. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:09Z

WWE Beat the time Sprint

Article about non-notable series of matches that took place from January 5 through January 12, 2007. Listcruft. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy delete if possible since it was just deleted a month ago). My reasons haven't changed since the last AFD. TJ Spyke 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be made speedy deletion. Davnel03 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this matchtype was a regular event then it might deserve a mention in a specialty match subsection but currently it's just listcruft. Suriel1981 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have voted keep but it appears per the comments above that it has been recreated.Telly addict 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor event --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe if it's used on a regular basis but so far it's been a one off thing that isn't notable in itself MPJ-DK 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ye, as above. Govvy 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Kent; if someone creates an article on Student life at Kent University, it would make sense to merge this there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

Kent University Conservative Association

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable. See also previous AfD from 2005. Eastmain 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the University article, or possibly to a new "student life at Kent University" article, since the university article is getting rather long. Unless unusually notable, student groups should be covered in university or college articles. --Brianyoumans 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability. This a minimum requirement of every article regardless of other considerations. --Shirahadasha 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per arguments of Brianyoumans and Shirahadasha. LordHarris 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student group, no independent sources. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable student group.-- danntm ^T _C 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears only to have significance within the campus of the University, thus fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable soc. (Why isn't this speediable? It's failed an AfD before.) AndyJones 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After viewing the edit history log and seeing the edits largely come from one source whose only contributions have been this article, I believe this to be a vanity/promotion article.--Ozgod 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. cs 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:10Z

Yang Fu

Unreferenced and article fails to meet WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article is probably the most out of contexted biography ive ever seen. It took me a lot of looking at the other wikilinks to other ppl to even find the date/context of this persons life (2nd/3rd century). If another user is willing to expand the article, look online or elsewhere for some references and try and make the biography more notable than im willing to change my view, but for now its a delete.LordHarris 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real not notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found reference in Records of the Three Kingdoms, his Chinese name is 楊阜 and has a whole biography to himself in Wei Book, vol 25. A complete rewrite is recommended. _dk 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that Deadkid dk pointed out that it's 楊阜, it's clearly notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figure in Chinese history. May need expansion but not deletion. User:Dimadick
Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting historical stub. Give it time, if no more citations show up for the next time around, discuss again. Smee 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loganville High School Soccer

Article about a non-notable high school soccer program. Prod/prod2 tags removed by author. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the prod2, Delete. I don't see anything coming close to WP:N/WP:ORG, etc. Leuko 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously deleted twice should be protected after deletion to prevent reposting. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I don't see any sign of notability here, and it's a recreated article. --Brianyoumans 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that CSD G4 doesn't apply, as the article must have been "deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."--TBCΦtalk? 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- agree with Brian- completely non notable Astrotrain 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chou

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article appears to be on a figure in Chinese history who, despite the article's lack of sources and style issues, may possibly be a notable historical figure. However, every Wikipedia articles requires multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability to avoid deletion. I believe the article, despite its difficulties, provides enough contextual information that speedy delete is not warranted and would give the creator time to come up with sources during the regular delete procedure period. However, if sources are not forthcoming, the result should be Delete. --Shirahadasha 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable even if real. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate While I'm not sure of this Yang Chou person, the spelling itself is a variant of Yangzhou (there is already a redirect at Yang-chou), so this should at least be a redirect if not a disambiguation. FrozenPurpleCube 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (or redirect) As I understand it, Cao Cao and his associates are pretty important figures in the history of the Chinese, it would therefore be prudent to clarify this article if it is indeed relevant to that history. Zelse81 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of Cao's associates are notable, I'd think, and again, I don't know if this person is real, and there is no indication that he is. --Nlu (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and ask for sources. This is not a valid speedy. I would be very cautious about historical figures from a period about which i knew very little, particularly given the problem of establishing the correct name. Would have been a suitable prod. 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a person from the Three Kingdoms period and is in Sima, Guang (1952-1965) The chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (220-265) Chapters 69-78 from the Tzu chih t'ung chien Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. OCLC 419919 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Bejnar 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote, not all historical personalities are notable. Most who even warrant a couple lines in historical texts would, but this is really not. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, a7, nonsense biography, already speedied once before. NawlinWiki 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europimp

Non-notable 'web personality', article contains a lot of nonsense (eg "he lives in some sort of time paradox"); and is fairly obvious vanity. Steve Farrell 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy delete~~ Keep; it gave me a chuckle. He's notable for being on webcam on an internet game? Hah! Well I'M notable for editing wikipedia, here's my article - Empire Earth.--Empire Earth 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. He time travels between Chicago and Manchester for soccer practice? Um, no. Otto4711 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:12Z

Heron (programming language)

Original research, promotion, vanity. Page describes a now-dormant personal project. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks third party sources to establish how the language is notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for references and this one http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/255 summed it up, the author seems to have a primary occupation of plugging his product. Also note that Special:Contributions/Christopher_Diggins there may be some WP:COI issues in the article. Jeepday 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some searching to, and was unable to find anything that suggests that anyone uses this language, or that it's been the subject of any academic interest. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the decision is delete please note that some red links and redirects will need to be addressed. Special:Whatlinkshere/Heron_(programming_language) Signed Jeepday 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As C. Diggins indicates in his blog he may not work on Heron as a project anymore [3] and he also wrote that Heron is more-less dormant [4]. He now focuses (accdording to the blog) on another language, "Cat". The previous VfD had failed because of heroic effort of Diggings to keep it here, in spite of clearly being non-notable at this time. It is even less notable now due to no maintenance. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Irishguy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Jason Blades

nn person. The article claims television credits, IMDB begs to differ. No reliable sources to verify these claims. IrishGuy ^talk 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, also, External links seem to have nothing to do with topic. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria. It also reads like the user has a conflict of interest Leebo⁸⁶ 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads almost like a resume with no real notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (does he realize Frank Capra was born in the 19th century?). Velvet Violet should go as well. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the article, BerenTasartir, decided to start playing the sockpuppet game with Manulipulator and Cocoabrown. When confronted, he blanked both Jason Blades and Velvet Violet. They were then both speedy deleted as G7. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Yang Huai

Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Appears to be fictional, and even if not fictional not notable enough (although notability of ancient historical figures is trickier). --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found references in Records of Three Kingdoms and Zizhi Tongjian. Sufficiently notable, but should be re-written. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference article to avoid another nomination for AfD if you have references Alf photoman 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Zizhi Tongjian added. --Nlu (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references by Nlu Alf photoman 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Zelse81 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Nlu. User:Dimadick
Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, although it would be nice to have more than one source about this subject. RFerreira 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Hong

Article contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real isn't notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if this person is real or not, but there is a class of ships called the Xiang Yang Hong. I do not know Chinese, but if that means the class of ships was named after someone named Yang Hong, I'd say some article is warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without seeing the Chinese characters, my guess is that the class is named after the city of Xiangyang (襄陽, in modern Xiangfan, Hubei), not after this person. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is possible, but as I said, I don't know either way myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and ask for sources. same as the others. DGG 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a major figure. Will investigate further tonight. Shimeru 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, just as Shimeru my memory is not so good anymore, I'll check for sources Alf^Photoman 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear notability, plus very poor quality. Meaningful username 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not emphasise notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article appears to be describing someone livivig around the 150CE period, so they have survived the test of time. However, without sources this article provides no context or details to base notability on. Nuttah68 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above that unless this person is truely notable then it should be deleted. To say the person has stood the test of time, not much has been said in this article, and if he is truely notworthy then there should be plenty of info by which to make an article on --PrincessBrat 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as I hope was done for the others. The nom should know by now that the characters in this group are in a major work of historical fiction, but based on real history & are thus to be judged on both aspects. (its only necessary to follow the links to find this out) Quite a lot of them a=have come up at AfD, and the obvious solution is for someone knowledgeable in the period to merge the minor ones appropriates, as is done with other works of fiction and some minor personages in history. I myself cannot say how important she is in the history or the novel, or just how it should be merged. DGG 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Romance of Three Kingdoms has so many minor characters that it is, I feel, not worth it to merge really minor characters, and there is really nothing else to merge to. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created by an editor who has been blocked indefinitely (the list of deleted articles is approaching 800). I don't know if this one is a copyright violation or not, but if it is, it doesn't need an AfD debate. Fg2 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

James C. McDonald

Does not seem to be notable. The article was deleted by Prod but resurrected. Prod is contested Alex Bakharev 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fine human being, but not notable such as to need an article. His accomplishments in his profession and elsewhere were not sufficiently great, imho. --Brianyoumans 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject was clearly notable to his friends and family, the article does not appear to pass WP:BIO Jeepday 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice obituary, but not encyclopedic. ScottMainwaring 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Artaxiad 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a not very good obituary. Good man maybe, but I won't be sending donations! Emeraude 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a gentleman and a scholar, but not a wikipedia bio article subject. TonyTheTiger 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete No evidence for notability in the material provided. DGG 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'per nom. I'm sure he was a great guy who lived a full life. However I cannot see that he passes the biography guidelines. Suriel1981 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability tests fail on this article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. Jersey Devil 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

A copy of a primary source, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Tagging it now. TJ Spyke 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TJ Spyke and per nom. Big top 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

Roy A. Tucker

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that the page is a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Merge if necessary to the other articles mentioned by the nominator. I don't see why this was taken to AfD at all. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, as User:Walton_monarchist89 points out. --Eastmain 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per User:Walton_monarchist89. If there are other (better) articles out there then, as the aforementioned user stated,

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\U/|⁽Can you help me with this?⁾ 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil^T : C 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

Natasha_Fatah

Biography is not notable and has no sources. Celticeric 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually I think the external links are meant to be the sources, and they're good. They should be converted to footnotes. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadianCaesar - External Links are article sources. On notability, the subject is a producer of nationally-broadcast radio show, a reporter on a significant regional scale (Ontario), and was a nationally-seen television programme host (Vision TV/News from the Muslim World). Dl2000 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CanadianCaesar has done a good job giving clear citations to the article. She is notable per notability--Slp1 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. External links are often sources in stub-class articles. Also, the links have been incorporated into the text as citations. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sufficiently notable and external links are valid as sources. Bearcat 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Bearcat 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if sources and references would have been in earlier we could have saved the work for this AfD Alf^Photoman 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now based on other AFDs; find sources, please!. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:52Z

Yang Song

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person appears to be fictional, as far as I can see, but even if not fictional should be deleted, as article contains no confirmed information. (I would, however, believe that this person, if not fictional, is sufficiently notable, such that a properly written article should be recreated at some point if real. if fictional, keep deleted.) --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he can be verified as existing historically, then the article should be improved with a few citations, but as it is at present it is not verifiable. Zelse81 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending sources. As with the other similar people from this period, there is no reason to assume they are fictional, The proper action wouldhave been an unsourced tag. DGG 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, sources are definitely insufficient Alf^Photoman 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:51Z

Nick Stubblefield

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet any of the standards of WP:MUSIC. The Uruguay concert is interesting but it appears to be more of a cultural exchange of young musicians [5] than a tour situation. Solid reviews of a released album by sources that meet WP:V would make this a keeper, but he's not there yet. Nice-sounding CD, I'm sure he'll be back. Darkspots 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkspots. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:17Z

Yang Qiu

Subject would appear to be a character in a historical fiction novel and the article lacks references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Real life persona of the Three Kingdoms period of China, one of the commanders during the Battle of Tong Pass...an underdeveloped stub does not imply a non-notable character. _dk 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real person, and the article appears to have sources.--Danaman5 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Close call, but I think sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this weren't a real person, the "novel" in which he appears (Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is considered one of the greatest works of Chinese literature. The primary criterion of WP:BIO is, in any case, that the subject have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works; this article definitely passes. Please, read policies before citing them! Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:BIO is intended to apply to fictional individuals. As stated, this person is not fictional, but if it were a fictional individual, a fictional character will obviously be in "published works." Doesn't mean that every single one is notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant historical figure. User:Dimadick
Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no real chance of being deleted... no need to leave the turkey on the article for 2 more days. W.marsh 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Seidlin

Non-notable. Aside from presiding over a few minor hearings in the Anna Nicole Smith case, he has not done anything to merit notability more so than any other Florida Circuit Court Judge. Hallibrah 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would anyone even consider removing a newsmaker. ~User:mikedow User_talk:mikedow 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. He has had massive exposure, there are countless reliable sources discussing him, he is certainly notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the media coverage about him, rather than about the case in which he was presiding. Not a valid Speedy case, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly fails the 100 years test, but should probably stay around for now as it is relevant to current events. --Selket ^Talk 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is under the disclaimer "The following are proposed criteria for notability, which have not necessarily received consensus support". --W.marsh 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment. If that's the case (and I tend to agree with your theme) when DO we eventually delete it? When the furore dies down, or do we have a set time? I say skip all the politicking and just delete this thing now! Thanks for your time and advice, Hallibrah 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is generally permanent, as if a topic has once met the notability criterion, the sources which demonstrate notability continue to satisfy the criterion over time. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying the primary notability criterion; the subject of the article has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, published works, namely Fox News, ABC, and the BBC just to name three of the references. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly meets WP:BIO, quite possibly without the Anna Nicole thing even (I know they love to write newspaper stories about the state judges here). Suggest a speedy close of this if no one but the nom wants to delete. --W.marsh 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now In paper encyclopedias, the practice is to go through and get rid of topical articles that are no longer of interest after a while. Wikipedia may eventually want to do the same. In 20 years, no one will care about this guy one whit, except as a footnote to the convoluted story of a minor celebrity of the 2000s. Brianyoumans 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Question Where can I find the 100 years test and debate its lack of merit? An encyclopedia is a reference: the whole point is that it preserves knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Response: WP:BIO#Proposed alternative criteria: "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?"
Keep he is an important figure in current events (ie anna nicole battle) it should be kept, their is enough info on his page to keep. Mcoop06 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now He may get what he obviously wants, a show on tv, at whuch point his cultural significance, however distasteful or peculiar would, I think warrant his retention - if nothing comes of his endeavour - I'd say flush him as quick as we can! Stevingtonian 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His exposure is far from "massive," and is generally limited to a few internet articles and as a chuckle-worthy piece on the Jay Leno show, in my opinion not notable. If he does get a TV show, he might merit a place in wikipedia, but a Lower Court Judge in Florida who has presided over one notable case, and made no landmark decisions is not worthy of inclusion. I seem to be in a two-person minority in this opinion but, whatever. Thethinredline 13:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all limited to that... he has been given massive coverage on TV, and you would probably be hard pressed to find an article on the trial that didnt mention him, whether it be CNN or the BBC. It is anything but limited to a few articles... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the BBC article you mention proves my point, it doesn't cover Judge Seidlin at all, it mentions him. Does that make him somehow more 'notable' than just being a jurist presising over a case? I suppose some people might consider that to be so, but i am not one of them.

Also to say the coverage is massive is first of all subjective: I believe the coverage of the death of Saddam Huissein was "massive," not this story. Also to make any kind of statement about comprehensive coverage being given to this is also I would say, very US-centric. Thethinredline 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I'd like this whole fucking mess to go back to the supermarket tabloids where it belongs, you can't deny that Judge Seidlin has become a lightening rod for debate and discussion. To me this is the entire point to having wikipedia: whats the harm in including just about anything as long as the article itself follows wiki policy and there is even a slight case of notability? RoyBatty42 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Like it or not, this guy is now a widely-known celebrity. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is its responsiveness to current events. Otherwise I'd go back to using stodgy old bartleby.com. Gusuku 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of BLP and N problems. One case does not make a judge notable.DGG 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I agree with Kyra that notability (for our purposes) doesn't fade. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable. Everyking 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, for the same reasons that Stevingtonian mentioned; that aside, if he doesn't get that television show he's clamoring for, it certainly won't pass the 100 years test. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO, not everything in wikipedia is related to rocket science, nuclear physics or world peace --rogerd 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why be so persnickety about what stays or doesn't? Sheesh! ~User:dwacon User_talk:dwacon 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either bad faith nom or someone who doesn't understand the criteria. Clearly the product of multiple non-trivial works. Quadzilla99 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - judges probably merit a brief page anyway, and this is news. Classic test - was reading an article on law.com about the case and turned to wikipedia to find out about the judge. Wikipedia serves its function. BYF
Weak Delete Otherwise nonnotable judge who cried in front of the cameras in his 15 minutes in the spotlight, thereby getting trivial mention in articles about the case. Wikipdeia is not a tabloid newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS, a proposed guide for news stories not always justifying articles. Inkpaduta 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep Keep Keep"" This man was a major palyer in an event that captivated the attention of celebrity gossip if Kevin Federline and Lance Ito get an article than so should Larry Seidlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.185.36 (talk • contribs)
Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Bnguyen 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability guidlines. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established. Google news search come back with over 6000 hits like [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21265702.shtml this] and this, which are about Larry Seidlen, not just ANS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think somebody confused what and who should be news worthy, and what's worth having on wikipedia. I don't think this guy should be in the news so much, but since he is, he's notable enough to pass the requirements for wiki. Prgrmr@wrk 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JimmyTrump79 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was not merely a trial about a dead body, this was a trial about a woman who has been shrouded in controversy for over a decade. This stub deserves to remain on Wikipedia simply because the news covered the trial due to it falling within the public interest - the trial, and especially Judge Seidlin, captivated the nation for a week straight. With this in mind, I believe it should remain on the site. Punchyourself187 20:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Keep This article meets the primary criteria for being a notable person. You don't spread knowledge by deleting information. --JHP 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pretty much, well, everyone. RFerreira 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to York City F.C.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:07Z

Nick Bassett

Nick Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I marked it as Speedy A7. - Denny 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I messed up my Googling at first. Appears to be somewhat notable locally. Probably fine as a stub. - Denny 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability of the subject of the article. References provided are about the York City, with Nick Bassett mentioned or interviewed as an employee of the club. If someone can provide a reliable source about Nick Bassett I will reconsider, Nuttah68 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very notable. Meaningful username 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was {{wi}} soft-redirect to Wiktionary. If a new article High-maintenance relationships were created, this could redirect there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:49Z

High-maintenance

High-maintenance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is simply a dictionary/slang definition of a term, and provides no context or attribution that would make it an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:WINAD, it does not meet standards, and should be deleted. -- Haemo 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is certainly in bad shape, but it could be turned into something decent. This is a pretty common phrase. --Selket ^Talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term is frequently used in the circles that I move in. The article needs to be improved, but this provides a basis for that improvement. - Richardcavell 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep - agree with above comments, article needs expanding and improving, not deleting (added expand and wikify templates). LordHarris 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is just across the line from pop psychology; high.maintenance+relationship on Google Books garners 615 results. Of course it also applies to e.g. clients, cars, yards ... so it can be expanded beyond the boy-girl dynamic.--Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for articles on high-maintenance relationships and automobile maintenance and repair. Adjectives alone do not generally denote subjects. Is it your opinion that this article be renamed and refactored? Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently just a dicdef (although I disagree that it gives not context), but it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article. The 1,2 million ghits seem a good indicator of notability. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments below. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How, exactly, can this be turned into an encyclopedia article? --N Shar 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm confused about this too. Other than giving examples of traits deemed to be "high maintenance" - really, what more is there to say that "this is what this slang term means". --Haemo 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question. wikt:high-maintenance lists this as an adjective. Adjectives by themselves rarely denote encyclopaedia article subjects. They have to have nouns accompanying them. Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my best efforts, I could not envisage an article that is about anything other than the term itself. It could be an article that discusses the multiple uses of the term, the origins of the term, people who have been described as high-maintenance (a bad idea for a section, I think), and so on, but these are all about the term itself. Thus, delete per nom. Unless ... is there a noun equivalent: high-maintenance..ity? maintenanceness? maintenancousity? Ah, forget it. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like any other slangdef. The prevalance of a slang term does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is obviously a real phrase, it's just that - a phrase, without any noteworthy cultural context - and hence belongs on Wiktionary. Hey, look, there it is! Some text might be worth merging, but none of it belongs here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since it's already on wiktionary, and is apparently just a slang definition... Zelse81 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undefined slang--and the term is used in many other ways also, as of a girl-friend who requires expensive gifts. OR, and poor job of it:DGG 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- danntm ^T _C 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:46Z

Nick Willsher

Nick Willsher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Nickwillsher.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidlines for notability per WP:BIO. Self-promotion. Nv8200p talk 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking reliable sources to assert WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Creator of article also the creator of the image (of the article subject) in the article; possible conflict of interest exists. Carolfrog 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Real96 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lindin

Holly Lindin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity. Non-notable Entheta 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC states that an artist needs multiple albumns on a major label which Holly Lindin does not have. meshach 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC; not AllMusic guide entry, either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:Vanity. A1octopus 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:21Z

Full Blown Entertainment

Full Blown Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Greenspoint's Finest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Full blown ent.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Gpfinestfrnt.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I'm also nominating the article Greenspoint's Finest, a mixtape under this record label. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable record label. Google search for "Full Blown Entertainment"+"Yung Blue" results in 0 hits (Yung Blue is the founder of the label). The official web page is on MySpace. Prod removed by author with the reason "It is a real label, notable releases, CD's are sold in major stores in Houston such as music depot." Unfortunately I can't find any mention in reliable sources of the albums online, either. Delete due to lack of notability. ... discospinster _talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because you can't find him (Yung Blue) on google doesnt mean anything, he has even been on tour with Magno, if you live ibn Houston you can find him no problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homicidal King (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia readers are not expected to have to perform primary research to verify articles. To make a case for keeping this article, you have to refute the assertion that there is no way to verify it from independent, reliable, sources, by citing such sources, which you have not done. As discospinster says, the article is sourced to web pages that either do not exist at all or are not independent sources (e.g. are personal web pages of the subjects of the article hosted on MySpace). Uncle G 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Gothnic 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - give it a chance to be expanded before knee-jerking to the AfD. Lugnuts 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is it's chance. You have 5 days to cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. AFD is not about expanding the article. It is about citing sources to demonstrate verifiability and that the notability criteria are satisfied. Making an unverifiable article bigger doesn't make it any the less unverifiable, and making an article on a subject that has no independent sources bigger does not change the fact that the subject is non-notable. Uncle G 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncle G is right that this is its chance to cite some sources. However, it was AfDd pretty soon after original creation, with no apparent attempt to engage in dialogue with its creator or request sources. On the other hand, I have the feeling that the creator will not be able to come up with the necessary sources. If they can cite some, I might be willing to change my vote. Carolfrog 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Just some kids and GarageBand. 66.177.173.119 06:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google for the company turns up two Full Blown Entertainments as the top two hits. One's a booking agency for comedians, the other represents two musicians from Atlanta who don't appear to be notable either. I can't see this one meeting WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. If sources turn up, however, always happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... unless sources are cited Tt 225 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:22Z

The Ding Dongs

The Ding Dongs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short lived comedy team. Not very notable, and simply just cruft better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable thing appears to be that they were disliked. I don't think they're notable for simply participating in the matches, so third party sources would be needed to establish notability, but it doesn't sound like anyone in the industry took enough notice to do that. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and short lived tag team. TJ Spyke 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Davnel03 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with Leebo. Suriel1981 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they had ONE match with this gimmick, if there was a page of horrible gimmicks it'd make a nice section at best MPJ-DK 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye there already is. Wrestlecrap.com! Suriel1981 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Dismissed; possible rename. Article was just created as a merge target. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. (The point of the article was to merge all the other minor fetish articles into one.). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:01Z

List of uncommon fetishes

List of uncommon fetishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable listcruft. What kind of criteria makes a fetish "uncommon"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing listed at all! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but see comment below). I can provide a complete list of fetishes: you can find it at Special:Allpages. Seriously, one can have a fetish for almost anything (okay, maybe List of asteroids/123001–124000-fetishism would be a little too weird). The author has stated that "this is a work in progress" but it's a project that never will be finished. --N Shar 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep. Please note the discussion on the article's talk page about changing the title to List of fetishes. This would include, of course, only fetishes which are identified in reliable, published sources (which Special:Allpages is not). The article has been in existence one day and its purpose is to get rid of a lot of stubs. Let's give it a chance at least. You are right about the asteroids, though. Who really cares about "123001–124000" when there's List of asteroids/34501–34600. Now that's something I'm sure everyone fantasises about! -- Black Falcon 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I like "List of fetishes" a lot better than "List of uncommon fetishes." Although the latter would seem to be a subset of the former, this is not the case -- "List of fetishes" implies that only notable fetishes will be included, while "List of uncommon fetishes" suggests that fetishes that are notable enough for their own articles will not be included, while other, less notable ones will. I support a move. --N Shar 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure the main article on fetishes has a list, with links to articles about major fetishes. As said above, one can fetishize just about anything - which to my mind means listing them all is pointless. Is there anything notable or different to be said about, say, mirror fetishes as opposed to chair fetishes as opposed to floor wax fetishes? I doubt it. --Brianyoumans 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although one can fetishize everything, WP:Attribution will require that only fetishes that are documented to exist in published sources (and that therefore have official names--like phobias) are listed. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something exists doesn't mean we need to rush out and list it. I agree that phobias are a very similar situation, and that pretty much only notable phobias should be listed, with perhaps a few examples of more obscure types. --Brianyoumans 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and think/hope the same principle (that you note for phobias) will be applied in this case. -- Black Falcon 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question I don't think this article is meant to be an actual list. It's been poorly named in that case. My understanding is that it is intended to be a place where several stub articles will be merged (after discussion on those articles' talk pages). Might it be a better idea to userfy the article until all the details of possible merges have been worked out? Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to get articles that are currently stubs and fetishes to be merged into the article, I think It's a bit unfair that this is article is up for deletion the same day it was created, with out allowing me to add the content to the list. Most people find it rude if you just start merging pages without asking first.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bargit 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Delete What is a common fetish?[reply]

Delete What exactly is difference between a common and uncommon fetish? It's subjective. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to no opinion except about the name. I hoped to learn something about myself but the page is empty! And the word "uncommon" has simply no chance to be unanimously interpreted on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is empty because the article was created just 1-2 days ago and is currently subject of discussion on this AfD and its talk page. Please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. -- Black Falcon 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit summary, I wholly agree that the article is inappropriately titled. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Sexual fetishism and Delete. TonyTheTiger 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-contradictory, impossible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is material to be found on every one or almost every one, and there should be a chance to develop it. It is highly inappropriate to delete a major in the middle of active construction., DGG 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete "uncommon" = POV. This is unsalvageable. JuJube 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sound like a broken record per my reply to Pavel Vozenilek, please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. Also please consider that the article had existed for a day before it was AfD'd. -- Black Falcon 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let the talk page determine its new location and function. Pomte 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

Willow Ridge

Willow Ridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax, no relevant Google hits. See WP:MADEUP John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any relevant info either. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax per above, but even if it's not it's a WP:AUTO violation (see creator's name) and a WP:A violation. --N Shar 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. A gang with 32,000 members and no sources (all ghits for '+"Willow Ridge" +gang -Wikipedia' seem to be about places called Willow Ridge)? Also, they killed 79 people with only 72 bullets (was there a shortage of ammunition)? Can snipers even achieve this? -- Black Falcon 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a hoax. No sources. Carolfrog 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a hoax, and not a very funny one at that. If there was a real gang with 32,000 members who carried out massacres then I think that we may have heard of it. Suriel1981 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I draw your attention to the creator's previous reprimand for creating nonsense articles. Suriel1981 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and permaban the person responsible for creating this and other such nonsense. RFerreira 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

DR.K.K. SHARMA

DR.K.K. SHARMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod removed, likely hoax Travelbird 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and notablity established by end of AfD. janejellyroll 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it's not a hoax, the article's quality is unsalvageably poor and the article is of no value. - Richardcavell 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and since there are no reliable sources to draw off of, the subject of the article also fails the primary notability criterion. Additionally, a search for sources fails to yield any. Kyra_~(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a page containing only unverifiable, hagiographic material. A likely hoax, since the good Doctor only gets 2 non-Wikipedia Google hits, and they are primary sources. --N Shar 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ under the hope that sources will be inserted. The work when sourced will probably be N. This is another example of pages written carelessly by those who do not understand WP standards. The proper course is not to delete them, but to work at helping the authors improving them. This lack of knowledge tends to be substantial with subjects and authors from India, among other countries, and calls for extra effort, not removal.DGG 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article contends that the author (born 1977 - but supposedly 26 years of age) wrote 120 (!) books on historical subjects. If the date of birth is correct, and assuming he didn't start until he was 17, that works out at an average of 12 books a year ! I'm afraid that without proper sources I'm not inclined to believe that this is genuine Travelbird 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading more carefully than I did. My failure to read might be a result of the same automatically negative attitude that I was deploring--so particular thanks for making me aware of it.

Delete as probable hoax. DGG 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this edit by the initial contributor is sufficient for me to consider this article vandalism or unabashed self-promotion. John Vandenberg 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:45Z

Brown Stand-Up Comics

Brown Stand-Up Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Brown Standup Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Brown Stand-up Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Brown Standup Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Another article about a non-notable student ~~improv~~ stand-up group. The best claims to notability is that they were mentioned in a roundup article Time did about college stand-up groups. Additionally, I do not feel that hiring well known comedians to perform at their school makes them notable. Finally, although it is great three of their members were semi-finalists in the student stand-up contest on nibblebox.com, I don't know those members' individual achievements in this case are notable enough to make the entire group notable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The members' individual achievements add up, as they were the majority in a late round of a notable comedy festival. The founder of the troupe has gone on to be on comedy central. A group that has multiple people in it get onto television is notable for a college group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007

Comment: This is a stand up comedy troupe, which is not the same as an improv comedy group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007
I can't seem to find any reference to this appearance. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This link[[6]] has an article titled "3 Brown U. students make final 5 in HBO's 'Best College Comedian' contest." FalconBob 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mention comedy central at all. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might merit a line or two in the Brown University article, but that's about it. I'm not convinced that the founder is very notable; I'm even tempted to afd his article. The list of "well known comedians" they have hosted is meagre and frankly not even up to what I would expect from a major university. The Time magazine article has about two paragraphs about them, it is about college stand up in general. Out!! --Brianyoumans 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo. The "Notable Comics Hosted by the Brown Stand-Up Comics" stuff is a dead give-away that these people are nobodies. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm not inclined to believe enough notability for an article. Carolfrog 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Time profile gives them the opening two paragraphs...but other than that they have three of the five semi-finalists at the US Comedy Arts Festival's Best College Comedian contest. Semi-Finalists aren't finalists, nor are they winners. The notability is almost there but lacking. IrishGuy ^talk 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per substantial precedent on student societies. Inadequate references, and notability not obvious. WMMartin 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashspring

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

Software with no evidence of notability (as defined by WP:SOFTWARE). Article cites no sources. Conscious 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote according to Guidelines for writing about software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOFTWARE), without advertising or subjective points of view, only provided short info about oCPS Labs company and one of its products, FlashSpring.

Actually, today i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulate and didn't find a big difference between Articulate page and FlashSpring page. So far, i think propose for deletion to be doubtful, but still accept it.

I'll appreciate your assistance and point of view.
Sergeysid 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would someone please add links to published reviews of this software? --Eastmain 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you Eastmain, it seems some links are added. What is the next step? A word from Conscious? -- Sergeysid 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. WP != free advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, WP != free advertising, i didn't even mean it. When you state a fact, people name it advertising; when you write about something which is your own, people call it advertising. What if i wanted to give people more choice about their search? If Conscious also thinks my FlashSpring article in WP to be an ad, ok, i'll remove it and try to make a better piece - it's your kingdom and your rules -- Sergeysid 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Doesn't seem terribly notable, and the company that created it definitely isn't notable. Probably doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more notability is attained. Carolfrog 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references establish notability. Since the article is now NPOV, I don't think it's an advertisement. --Eastmain 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll appreciate if someone tells me what's next? The article can be at WP or not? Sergeysid 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of this discussion will be determined by an administrator soon. Conscious 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per nominator withdrawal RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Swan

Fred Swan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

~~non-notable artist~~ withdrawing nom, article has since been cleaned up SERSeanCrane 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a commercial artist, but seems notable enough. You can get Fred Swan calendars, Fred Swan jigsaw puzzles, Fred Swan prints... and his paintings go for 5 figures. Brianyoumans 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This guy has a gallery dedicated to him in Stowe, Vermont. His prints run for 400 dollars, and I can only imagine what the originals go for. Definitely notable...why not? Fred Swan is a very famous artist. Bmrbarre 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has only been created for three days!! Stubs need to be given time to develop. Yes, independent references are needed but that is a matter for article development not deletion. This is a popular artist with wide coverage. TerriersFan 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your cleanup of the article am withdrawing nom. Great work. SERSeanCrane 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TerriersFan 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable artist in New England by the looks of it. - Denny 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs a clean upbut it is well referenced RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; reevaluate if new article is written. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:44Z

Kleinmann Family Foundation

Kleinmann_Family_Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No outside links, unsalvagably POV, probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, for now. We should let everybody have more than three days to work on an Article before screaming delete, but I am afraid that unless the article improves greatly it will soon be a goner. Besides, and this especially for new editors: you can write an article in your sandbox and not release it before you are confident that it meets at least WP:V Alf photoman 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete cut-n-paste copyvio from [7]. No prejudice against recreation as an original text. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see signs that this foundation is terribly active or notable; looks like it sponsors a conference or two, has some archives. It is basically a private foundation (I bet "mandated by the government" simply means that when they filed the non-profit papers, they gave the government the purpose listed.) Out. --Brianyoumans 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete In this case I think the foundation might well be N, bu tthe existing article/essay/PR is hopeless, and a proper article should be written instead. DGG 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article has not improved in the past 7 days so I am going to suppose that bothing is going to happen to it. In the present form : cut and paste, no references, no sources I think we dont have another choice. No prejudice against the theme itself. Alf photoman 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/notability

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to American ensign. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:05Z

American Merchant Stripes

American Merchant Stripes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that a flag of this name existed. ScottMainwaring 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems to show that the flag is real. If not a keep then Merge into Flags of the United States - Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, described on US Navy page[8]: Since American merchant ships often displayed a simple red and white striped flag, there is a good chance that the striped jack to which Hopkins refers was the plain, striped flag used by American merchant ships. On the same page Benjamin Franklin and John Adams are quoted, "Merchant ships have often only thirteen stripes, but the flag of the United States ordained by Congress is the thirteen stripes and the thirteen stars above described." Little information on the flag is online, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flags of the United States. There are Google hits that aren't mirror sites, for example [9]. Suriel1981 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that flags of this design did not exist — the Sons of Liberty apparently used such a flag, as did (most probably) the Continental Navy (see First Navy Jack). I hadn't been aware of the Franklin and Adams quote, which does look like good evidence that this design was also used as a U.S. Civil ensign. Nevertheless, I have yet to see any solid evidence that such a civil ensign was named the "American Merchant Stripes"; a single flag retailer's site and a personal essay don't seem to me sufficient bedrock on which to ground a Wikipedia entry. Given all this, I would like to change my vote to Merge into American ensign. --ScottMainwaring 06:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:26Z

The crystalline planet Dxun

The crystalline planet Dxun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this doesn't exist. The Chmmr article contridicts it (although that's unsourced as well, of course) and the GameFAQs walkthroughs I looked at didn't mention it either. Don't be fooled by the Google hits for Dxun, these all appear to be refering to the unrelated Star Wars moon Dxun. Even if it does exist, I don't think it would be notable. BryanG^(talk) 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone must have been very confused when he created this article. The GameFAQs evidence indicates that the planet does not exist at all: see this list of star systems in the game. --N Shar 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Dxun isn't in any Star Control game I can remember, it is, however in the star wars universe, and takes a rather central part in Sith backstory there... I would venture they really mean "Dxun the demon moon" which may or may not warrant a seperate article from the star wars articles. Wintermut3 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nom, there is a separate article for the Star Wars moon at Dxun. In fact, the way I found this one is that it was erroneously tagged {{StarWars-stub}}. BryanG^(talk) 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or more appropriate for a gaming wiki. In either case not appropriate for Wikipedia. Koweja 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not it exists, it doesn't belong here. --- RockMFR 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Three sentences, wrong info and what's written also is not encyclopedic.DreamingLady 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information is unverified, and the article is poorly titled. --Alan Au 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide; the information is wrong; the topic is not notable. —ptk✰fgs 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MECWA

Unsourced article about a local charity. Speedied once as copyvio, this version seems clean on that score. No evidence presented that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, author has few other contributions. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources have now been added,including references from local and state-based governments. Hootville 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - no evidence of notability; no external sources except their own website, so there's no proof of independent external coverage. Delete unless further sources are added. Walton monarchist89 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources added. Walton monarchist89 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current set of references appear sufficient. JavaTenor 09:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per notability additions above ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Eastmain 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they have a decent impact on society with a long history and $20mil/yr of services provided to the community. John Vandenberg 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent changes and history of notable contributions to their community. RFerreira 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gevorg Sargsyan

Gevorg Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability, but the article reads like vanity, and the references are mostly self-references. Delete unless notability shown independently. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - very clear assertion of notability, although some of the claims need to be backed up by further referencing. I don't speak Armenian and haven't checked out the websites cited, but "www.opera.am" and "www.persons.am" sound like they probably qualify as third-party reliable sources, rather than vanity pages. Walton monarchist89 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. My guess is that the only reason notability is in question is that he's Armenian, and so most of the sources are in Armenian; if he were an American of similar level of notability, I doubt anybody would nominate him for deletion. --Delirium 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. What are you speaking about??? This conductor is one of the most notable and respectfull in Armenian music life!!! Check out the references, there is only 1000 names in www.persons.am and Gevorg Sargsyan has own place on that serious website directory... Sure, this article should NOT be deleted.--208.49.241.227 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with "Delirium". As above mentioned user said the question is just a nationality... However, www.persons.am web-directory is available in English at www.persons.am/en . I don't think this articl should be considered for deletion. That's wrong.--195.250.94.167 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How long such kind of rasizm will be continued? Why it is considered for deletion? Because other nations are afraid, that there are too many talented and impressed Armenians with population only 3 mln... Don't count on nationality, look how famous and notable he is! --83.217.229.147 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of the references are in English. His entry on the "1000 Armenian Famous Persons" is no more than a name, a picture, and the line "Conductor of Armenian Opera Theater" ([10]). This person is not listed anywhere that I could find on the State Academic Opera & Ballet Theater website; most telling, he is not listed in the list of primary staff ([11]). -- Jonel | Speak 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Don't think he meets WP:Music yet but may very do so in the future however wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks God Maestro don't see this everything... When me and other users are looking trough and making a comments about him he is working and bringing a joy to everyone who ever attemts his concerts. I know, that he has to conduct in Valencia ([12]) and give masterclass for students in Spain. What about listings on website([13])name and pictures are appeared almost for everyone. So, this is not a subject to discuss. WP:Music can not be complete list of notable and at the same time young conductors without name of Gevorg Sargsyan. If you search via google name "Gevorg Sargsyan" you will find out, that his name must be kept on WP:Music.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Chang

Yin Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN actress. Has appeared in a few commercials and had some guest appearances on TV. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I would write her off for the ads, but appearing on a couple of tv programmes is far more convincing. --MacRusgail 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the above, MacRusgail, about the ads not being as notable however she has appeared on several television shows which is a strong reason for the article to be kept. I also checked her name on google and yahoo to double check her notability and she has quite a few links and bios on several sites--www.imdb.com,www.tv.com, www.blurtit.com, and www.tv.yahoo.com to name a few. Another note is that I've checked other actors/actresses wikipedia articles and they have not done as much as this person yet they are still able to keep their articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blake h297 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment -- Simply appearing on several TV shows is not evidence for notability. In none of these shows did she play a recurring character, she was simply a guest star. The other articles for actors and actresses you have checked should probably be deleted as well. I'm currently working on weeding out non-notable actors at the moment, thus this AFD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her article has been edited. As per "Blake h297", he/she noted her information on search engines. One of the reasons to keep this article is because she is "known on the web". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy76 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Two minor cameos on television and appearances in a few commercials don't seem to merit notability.--TBCΦtalk? 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to admit that I just created an account just for this topic. I was browsing around and it's ridiculous how you people are making a big deal. I, for one, believe that anyone who is even listed on IMDB should be notable. I say keep the article because she has been on TV--L&O:SVU. Although it was not the lead cameo, I still think that is pretty notable. Keep the article folks! Hkuatz27 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:42Z

A. J. Khan

A. J. Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN actress. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK information SriKorange

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to work solely in porn. As such, I can't verify notability right now, since I'm at work. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of sources. There's a lot on google about her, but I didn't see anything that makes a compelling case that she meets BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Neko-te. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

Handclaws

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

Long-term unsourced ninjacruft. Reads like something from Real Ultimate Power. Eyrian 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Neko-te. A bad article does not mean we shouldn't have an article at all. Let's fix this one. --Selket ^Talk 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That article also has no sources. --Eyrian 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neko-te, however you should note that Handclaws is a better article than Neko-te at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it better?--Eyrian 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Dragomiloff 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

Aras Corp

Aras Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire article reads like an advertisement for Aras. Notability is very debatable. And, the author, InnovatorM seems to exhibit a conflict of interest. Hamitr 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This company is probably notable, but the article as it stands is insidious spam, which is very bad for Wikipedia. I'd recommend speedy deletion followed by re-creation as a neutral stub. --N Shar 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references establish notability. Style and NPOV issues can be addressed without deleting the article. --Eastmain 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was hoping for deletion of history, but if that's not going to happen I'll just go ahead and nuke the article back to the Stub Age. --N Shar 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It should be less spammy now.--N Shar 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't looked at the earlier versions but the current text is a neutral report, not an advertisement. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards support notability, as do some stories about it, like this Wall Street Journal one [14] --Oakshade 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:38Z

John michael alvarez

John michael alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability not asserted. Alex Bakharev 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, does assert notability, but nothing particularly significant, does have a source, but not a particularly good one – Qxz 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is very new, and got slapped with an AFD on the same day as creation. I've tagged with with an ((unref)) since the article is missing references, and should at least be given a chance before immediately being nominated for AFD. -- Whpq 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, for now. It is not helpful not to wait a few days while an article is being created, on the other hand one can create articles in his/her sandbox and put it up when it meets the guidelines. Alf photoman 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article says "He acted with award winning actors in films and upon the stage", but there is no indication that his own work--as an actor or dancer--is particularly notable. Half the article is just a quote from an article of his that was presented, with no context given. The tone of the article makes me think that WP:COI issues are involved. janejellyroll 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak notability claim doesn't make the WP:BIO cut. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

Northfield Park

Northfield Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable local race track, {{prod}} was removed. John Reaves (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia already has many articles on other notable horse racing venues. --Eastmain 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable race track. It is certainly a big part of Northfield's history. Also, the issue of casino gambling at horse tracks was on the ballot in Ohio in 2006, as noted in the article. The history section needs work however. Overall, this article does not need to be deleted. --DangApricot 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Eastmain 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the above. It's a notable racetrack and there are 3rd party published works about it. --Oakshade 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason for a notable race track to be deleted. Suriel1981 10:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Northfield Park" Ohio turned up 19,500 hits. Leaping to the 30th page of results revealed that the pages were still turning up exact matches. I think this is an indication of notability. Suriel1981 10:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:27Z

100 Mile House Elementary School

100 Mile House Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

150 Mile Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable elementary schools (see one additional entry below). Nice articles, but there is just nothing interesting to say about these schools. Brianyoumans 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes the article 150 Mile Elementary School --Brianyoumans 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, nothing more than directories. TJ Spyke 08:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Re-direct - 100 Mile House Elementary School to 100 Mile House and 150 Mile House Elementary School 150 Mile House, British Columbia - per the proposed WP:SCHOOL recommended course of action. Luke! 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. I can't find enough information to make this a substantive article. TerriersFan 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin per both LOCAL and SCHOOL guidelines. RFerreira 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to School District 36 Surrey, School District 23 Central Okanagan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:28Z

A S Matheson Elementary School

A S Matheson Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A H P Matthew Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A J McLellan Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 non-notable elementary schools in British Columbia (see additional listings below). Brianyoumans 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD also includes: A H P Matthew Elementary School and A J McLellan Elementary School. Brianyoumans 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All NN schools, little more than directories. TJ Spyke 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a directory of schools. Catchpole 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. TerriersFan 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. Some of these articles have been around for months as stubs. WMMartin 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per both LOCAL and SCHOOL guidelines. RFerreira 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

Aztech

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

No assertation of notability, no links to it, and has no noteable products ffm 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem to have many notable sound card products. Wall Street Journal article [15]. Asiaweek article [16]. Much more stuff at Google news archives [17]. --- RockMFR 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RockMFR's findings. Passes the regular notability guidelines. --Oakshade 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per RockMFR's findings. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

Yang Zuo

Yang Zuo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. It is not known whether subject is fictional or real, even if then there appears to be only one source of information and should be merged into that article. Ozgod 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear whether real, and even if real not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I said earlier, this is an occasional transliteration of Yangzhou, so it might be worth redirecting to there. FrozenPurpleCube 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep' under whatever is the correct name. Based on the comments at other AfDs, these noms seem to be being done without any understanding of Chinese history, and perhaps should have been checked more carefully first. The proper tag would have been unsourced. DGG 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominations made by Ozgod should not be lumped together. Some of the personalities mentioned are entirely fictional and should not be kept. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly important figure in the Three Kingdoms. And as a note, even the fictional characters from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, such as Zhou Cang, should be kept if they're important characters -- it's a major work of literature. Shimeru 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Shimeru. My ten cents worth: please check more carefully before causing us work with AfDs Alf^Photoman 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

Yang Yi

Yang Yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet the WP:BIO requirements and contains no references. The subject of the article is not known whether to be real or a part of historical fiction. Should either be merged or deleted. Ozgod 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very important figure in Shu Han's history. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nlu, Three Kingdoms is not historical fiction. _dk 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does subject fall under the biography category, however? Can this be cleared up in the article? Or should the article be merged to Shu Han? --Ozgod 06:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the subject not fall under the biography category if the subject is a real person? I'm not sure if I understand your question. _dk 06:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was the subject an actual person or a fictitious character in an historical fiction work? --Ozgod 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was real and fairly important, thus our keep votes. _dk 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important figure in Shu Han history as mentioned above. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is a historical person and he has a bio in the official history of the Three Kingdoms. I suggest that that those who create bios of historical Chinese personaliies create more content before they hit the save button and add sources, so we don't get AfDs like this.--Niohe 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly important Three Kingdoms-era figure. Shimeru 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niohe, the person who created this article Darin Fidika (talk · contribs) was notorious for refusing to abide by Wikipedia rules on copyright and style. He has since been blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations, and so I don't think you need to worry about him. The question is what to do with the bunches of unsourced and poorly written articles he wrote. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it!--Niohe 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and source Apparently the best course of action would be a subproject for these 3 kingdoms articles. It might not be difficult to improve them as a group. This requires someone who can handle the names, both in characters and in standard transliteration.DGG 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Khoi khoi 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Sudden Jihad Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an obscure coinage that hardly warrants its own article. Moreover, the article's author has created a long list of people suffering from this "Syndrome," most of whom have not been linked to the term in any reliable source--in short, it smacks of original research. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the phrase returns 199,000 google hits without quotation marks and 97,000 hits with them in. The term is used multiple times within high profile puplications such as the Boston Globe. Fatmans Liberal attempt to bury the truth should not be allowed to prevail.Prester John 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make personal attacks on other people. Can you point us to at least two specific instances of this term being used in reliable sources? Sandstein 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. The article concedes that the phrase is a neologism, but that's not the critical problem; it appears to have some currency among bloggers. The real problem here is that I see only one reference to a reliable source. All other references in the article that associate this term with specific incidents are original research, as the associated articles don't use this term. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been alive for less than an hour. I do have references available to all contentions, and I was about to place them in the article I wonder if the purpose of these editors is to abort this article before it even makes the light of day. I do have the ability to recreate the article with said references, if given a half chance by the above editors.Prester John 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just put your references into the article; if people here change their minds, they’ll edit their opinions accordingly. —xyzzy_n 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion lasts five days...plenty of time to flesh out the article with citations to reliable sources. And please stop commenting / speculating on the motives of other editors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research—largely unsubstantiated by references. —xyzzy_n 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only the single article uses the term, and only in passing (more as a bit of flavor than truly as a strong indicator of the acceptance of the term). Even the Globe article which does use the term mentions only 3 of the people found in the list. Especially when labeling people with such things as this purported syndrome, the sources have to come first. More importantly, no name should appear in any list without a specific reference using the term. I've removed the list items that have no sources whatsoever, but without verification of the use of this term, none of the other items should stay either. -- Jonel | Speak 07:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proof is furnished that this is more than just a term coined by Pipes (the Globe article is a good start, but as Jonel points out, none of the other references use it). Additionally, even then we'll need to be careful in ascribing motives to people - Talovic's article as currently written contains a fair level of doubt about any religious motivation in his actions, for example. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden jihad syndrome still applies. Uncle G 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just as it was last time. Vague sourcing, mostly WP:OR and some of it's plain guesswork (for instance Gamil al-Batouti's motives can only be guessed at), not to mention being borderline racist. EliminatorJR 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- useful article on an interesting subject Astrotrain 13:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- but delete Gamil al-Batouti (who probably should never have been included in the first place). AnonMoos 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Well referenced. As the Boston Globe writes, "After all, Haq is not the first example of what scholar Daniel Pipes has called ``Sudden Jihad Syndrome," in which a seemingly nonviolent Muslim erupts in a murderous rampage." I find the article very pertinent. As long as it remains strictly sourced I see no legitimate grounds for deleting it. Bus stop 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well sourced??? Of the five external links, four don't mention "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at all, while the other merely references Pipes' coining of the term. Indeed, two of the killings in the references make no reference whatsoever to political association. If this is well sourced, I could write a similar article about left-handed killers and call it "Sudden Sinister Syndrome", and it'd be just as worthy. EliminatorJR 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you even find one source indicating a propensity for left handed people to erupt in violence? I think not. But militant Islam does seem to have this tendency. And there are at least some sources to support that that propensity exists. Bus stop 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that is not what this AfD is about - it is about the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". It is *that* which needs to be sourced. If the article was called "Propensity of Islamic people to commit sudden violence" then your point would be valid. EliminatorJR 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm only responding to your attempt at making an analogy concerning left handedness. Bus stop 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, it wasn't a great analogy. But the point remains that this article still isn't sourced well enough. EliminatorJR 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should give it a chance. It was just started today. Perhaps more substantial sources can be found. Bus stop 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has 5 days from the start of the AfD, which should be enough time to source things better if this is in fact a term with wider currency. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jim Douglas. ITAQALLAH 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, speculation, and editor's political opinion. Someone being quoted making a borderline racist comment in a single newspaper article is not worthy of an entire encyclopedia article. Especially when the phrase is political opinion masquarading as a medical syndrome. Include this in a subsection at Daniel Pipes if it's noteworthy enough. ~CS 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that, as of today, the lengthy and detailed article about Daniel Pipes contains no mention of this obscure phrase.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable. Recognized by The Boston Globe.--Sefringle 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Proabivouac--Sefringle 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recognised in passing, that is. The article cited does not discuss the term as its main focus. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Boston Globe isn't actually using the term. They are writing about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, and in doing so quote Daniel Pipes, the man who our article credits as "coining" the term. Pipes used the phrase in his own article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. As far as I can tell, our article only has one citation: Pipes' original comment, plus a Boston Globe article which points to Pipes' same original comment. ~CS 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A recently-coined phrase used by one individual isn't notable; additionally the title is too tongue-in-cheek to be appropriate to a serious encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. It is not just tongue and groove. It is also serious. And it has been picked up by and used by a major news organization. Bus stop 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not "been picked up and used by a major news organisation". The major news organisation said, in passing, that one particular person coined the term. There's a world of difference between that and the term passing into common usage at the Globe or anywhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not a soapbox. If some serious psychological study comes up with a similar theory then by all means let there be an article that covers aspects of such a study. Also per User:Proabivouac's logic. (→Netscott) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly-sourced neologism. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this example of prejudice actually becomes N.DGG 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Aminz 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this is an example of prejudice, but it's not original research for Wikipedia to report that prejudice exists in the world. Pipes's foray into bigotry seems to have attracted something of a following (not surprising, given the current Islamophobic mood) and so is notable. The article must be NPOV, however. As others have noted, the Globe citation isn't to a Globe article that uses the term, as if a journalist found it a helpful way to describe the world. Instead, it's a column by the right-winger Jeff Jacoby, who merely cited Pipes. This should be corrected. The article should also be balanced by the inclusion of criticism, but I can't find much, although there's a good savaging by a blogger: "When airhead heiress Lizzie Grubman drove her SUV into a crowd in 2001, injuring almost twice as many people as Taheria-azar, then attempted to flee the scene while showing no concern for her victims, nobody started blathering about 'Sudden Rich White Asshole Syndrome'." (from [18] - he even linked to our Lizzie Grubman article) The problem seems to be that most sensible commentators consider Pipes's silliness to be self-evident and not worth remarking upon. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't quite follow the reasoning here. I would've thought that if the wider community (or "most sensible commentators") haven't touched Pipes' term, that would be a reason against giving it its own article - perhaps a reason for adding it into Pipes' own article, in the manner in which other turns of phrase peculiar to certain commentators are to be found in their articles. If Pipes is the only person who uses the term to any serious extent, and if the best we can do outside of his work is to find an article which links back to him and him alone, then we're dealing with someone inventing a term which has little or no currency, aren't we? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sensible commentators haven't touched it, but there are 60,000+ hits from the likes of Little Green Footballs and other sloughs of irrationality. Generally, a blog doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS as a source for a fact -- but a fact about blogs, such as that many blogs use a term, can be considered when we try to adjudicate notabiliity. In addition, there are at least a couple uses that are neither Pipes himself nor right-wing blogs, e.g. Investor's Business Daily. My bottom line is that the term is out there enough that someone might see it, be unsure whether it's a real "Syndrome" or just some Islamophobe's rhetorical device, and come to Wikipedia seeking enlightenment. This article presents uses by Pipes and others and now includes a criticism that I added. It will therefore enlighten that hypothetical reader more than would a redirect to Daniel Pipes; the latter article couldn't readily accommodate all this detail. JamesMLane t c 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not every phrase coined by a commentator needs an article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The term is a phrase which if I recall correctly was coined by Daniel Pipes to refer to the phenomenon of sudden violent acts by formely perceived to be mild mannerd Muslim individuals such as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and more recently Sulejman Talović. The phrase has nothing to do with racism or prejudice but simply describes a noticeable social phonemena which has every indication of being religiously motivated. As an encyclopedia we ought to provide an article to cover this important topic.Daniel Pipes describes Sudden Jihad Syndrome here.--CltFn 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first sentence causes me to wonder if you've even read the article - the history of the term is in there. I've removed the link to Pipes site, which is already in the article for those who need to see the source material. CovenantD 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing other editors comments in an AFD discussion.--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additionally, that fact that one particular commentator coined the term doesn't confer notability upon it. The straw-man argument about prejudice doesn't stand up, since nobody's suggesting that the article should be deleted for reasons of racism or prejudice (whether contained therein or on the part of the people advocating deletion). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be some that insist that the word is not notable and others who say it is, but looking beyond this we ought to ask ourselves, that if a readers comes accross the term in the internet, which they inevitably will if they read any anti-jihad blogs and which to find out what it means by searching Wikipedia, they ought to find an article that explains what it means. Thats the whole point of Wikipedia is it not?--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes and no. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus should contain lots of useful information for anyone who wants to look. However, no it should not contain everything in the world. Where our standards are concerned, it just doesn't seem to measure up. Don't worry, though, since it's equal opportunity discrimination - a term used by the political Left requires just as much sourcing and notability to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into the Daniel Pipes article. Arrow740 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? Bus stop 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you include everything in this article in the Daniel Pipes article? If not, which information that's now in the article would you drop? JamesMLane t c 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable political neoblogism. Dragomiloff 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jim Douglas--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is stupid and not notable to have seperate article. (Do it quickly otherwise I will have sudden jihad syndrome -:) )--- 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs).

Comment Are you suggesting Sudden Deletion Syndrome? Bus stop 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Daniel Pipes#Opinions or weak keep. As noted by a number of editors above (and confirmed upon reading the article), the term is used only in passing in the Boston Globe source. The article in which Pipes uses the term for the first time is not an independent source (and, if the numbers are true, ... very depressing as to the state of mind of the United States public). The term is is, however, addressed more non-trivially in a few other sources. However, I think this does deserve a mention in the biographical article. In any case, I oppose deletion as there should be a redirect from this term to the Daniel Pipes article (it is a plausible search term). -- Black Falcon 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge as noted above. I hold that this phrase is not notable enough to have its own article but since Pipes is notable it should be put in his page. A1octopus 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netscott. Optionally a redirect can be created afterwards to that famous coiner of trite phrases, Daniel Pipes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hardly consider him a "famous coiner of trite phrases." Daniel Pipes happens to be a well respected commentator on current events. Bus stop 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and protect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

Muslims fear Backlash

Muslims fear Backlash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This unattributed neologism has been created and speedy deleted several times. It fits no WP:CSD, though, so let's do this the proper way through AfD. Sandstein 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism is not notable in and of itself. The fear of backlash is notable, but the term for the fear of backlash is not notable. --N Shar 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unsourced derogatory articles should be deleted on sight, and this counts. There isn't even an assertion of sourcing, and it implies that Muslims do in fact have a propensity to fear backlash. -Amarkov moo! 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, since this phase has no sources. Being used doesn't count. -Amarkov moo! 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nomination. Artaxiad 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article hasn't even been created yet and it is being trounced upon and targeted for termination. I think , given it recieves 738 google hits and is a term used by multiple sources on talk radio, TV and the blogosphere, it should be given the chance to at least people comment in the discussion page. Having articles deleted without a single word in the discussion page is a gross violation of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Prester John 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt per nom.--Jersey Devil 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferably not speedy, since as Sandstein's pointed out there's not really a category for it). Essentially, this is a misunderstanding of journalistic English, as any group at risk for doing/saying/thinking a certain thing can be said to "fear [a] backlash" in news headlines. See, for example, this Google search, where Bosnians, Tamils, (American) Democrats, Muslims (from the US and Australia), British troops, Saudi Shiites [sic] (a special kind of Muslim, I'll grant), "immigrants" (of no particular type), economists, Irish rugby players (of all people!) and Asian-Americans are all "fearing [a] backlash" for various things that members of their communities have done or said. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Common phrases in newspaper headlines do not constitute the basis for an article name on Wikipedia. If that were the case, we'd have articles called "Gas prices rise" and "Hot weather expected." CovenantD 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete and salt. This neologism is pure original research based on a common phrase used by newspaper headline writers. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Anti-Islamic nonsense Al-Bargit 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This is not so much an actual term as a news story title shorthand. --Black Falcon 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a stock phrase with no more significance than muddy dog or record profits.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, novel synthesis. Hesperian 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to keep.--Sefringle 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopaedic content, POV. —xyzzy_n 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This isn't even a neologism -- it's sentence fragment (and incorrectly punctuated at that). We have sections in Persecution_of_Muslims#Persecution_of_Muslims_in_the_United_States and Islamophobia among other places that fear among Muslims about backlash related to Islamic extremism can be addressed. ~CS 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inclusionists fear Backlash. Essentially this is an article that could be titled Xs fear Backlash with X equalling any group that due to some event fears a backlash. Why have an article about Muslims in particular? (→Netscott) 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR, Neologism, and not a legitimate topic to make an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Aminz 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-salt per everyone above --Descendall 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unattributed neologism. Beit Or 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Webkami 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Unsourced neologism. Dragomiloff 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beit Or--Sa.vakilian 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:34Z

Kolamalai durabi

Kolamalai durabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

very likely hoax page, considering it isn't sourced and the author previously added another hoax page at Maximillian gordte cupello Travelbird 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A speedy delete tag would've probably gotten rid of it. AFD isn't always the answer to deleting articles. RobJ1981 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I usually place db-tags on anything remotely nonsensical. But since this article does have a certain, albeit small degree of sense to it, I was hesitant to tag it as a speedy delete. But if you want to add such a tag, be my guest. Travelbird 07:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this trash Al-Bargit 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. Likely hoax --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax; if it is not a hoax, then the article certainly fails the policy on attribution. Kyra_~(talk) 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - Indeed, "Kolamalai durabi" gets only 1 Google hit - and that hit is its listing on today's AFD. Scob e ll302 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7/G11. "If there was no wiki, I would have invented wiki and if there was no Wikipedia, I would have become the Wikipedia" :) Garrett^Talk 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pataro Igororyizu

Pataro Igororyizu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor assertion of notability in the article, but no references to back it up. Google search on the name reveals a total of 5 hits, none of which back up notability claims. Hatch68 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ad (it reads as though it was copied in from a press release or something). When the album comes out, we'll be in a better position to write and source an article on him if he merits one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good in self-aggrandizing, though. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7, G11. --Descendall 07:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Copyvio so deleted. Tawker 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense blindness

Adsense blindness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

neologism at best Travelbird 07:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G12 - copyvio of here. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Artaxiad 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ahmedabad. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

Daxini

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

Non notable residential area. Aksi_great (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources are given, and I can't find any. They might exist, but it's not something Google is going to find. --- RockMFR 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. A quick Google search lists numerous individuals and companinies listing their adress as Daxini/Dakshini, Ahmedabad confirming the locality exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuttah68 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:35Z

MusicSquare

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

I'd applied a speedy tag for this as a website article that asserts no notability, but it was rejected as asserting notability "in there somewhere." I still can't find it, but, regardless, this page appears to fail WP:WEB. GassyGuy 08:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

List of Artist pages on MusicSqaure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- GassyGuy 08:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both; Alexa ranking of ~800,000 pretty much says it all. Cringe at the current title of List of Artist pages on MusicSqaure. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is now a "list", it's certainly listcruft. Delete. – Chacor 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. - eo 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Also, a number of other pages link to Matt Kroll in different contexts (as a CEO and as a scientist), so probably different people. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:33Z

Matt Kroll

Matt Kroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It does not really assert notability, and doesn't cite sources. --Hojimachong^talk 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:V, no sources + no references + living person = no choice Alf photoman 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, vanity --JBellis 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe even Speedy under criterion A7? It doesn't assert any notability, and even calls their music "a complete bomb". Leebo⁸⁶ 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Leebo86 that this is a possible speedy, given that there are no obvious claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Seems to be a bona-fide hoax attempt—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:30Z

Sean Burque

Sean Burque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Seanb.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I speedy deleted this as non notable. It was immediately recreated, with the additional information that the subject had made a $1 million donation to a university. I think this is a claim to notability, but the article has only a primary source. Weak delete gadfium 08:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page has been updated with press release very weak delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillcrusher (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if this was intended as a vote or as evidence to modify my vote. Pillcrusher is the author of the article.-gadfium 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the press release about the donation I can't find any books, news articles and very few web hits. Just another moderately sucessful businessman with affection for his old Uni and the finances to follow it up. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no hits for him or his company on Google News Archive. (I assume that "very weak delete" was a "review" of the nomination.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tagged the previously speedied version. No notable hits for him or the company. I think the "press release" is probably fake: it is not listed in their news releases, the URL puts it in the personal webspace for user "burque" and not for public affairs, the links on the top are dead, the formatting is different than the other news releases, etc. I'm not able to verify the existence of the company either. WP:HOAX? skip (t / c) 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: note similarities with this 7 year old press release. skip (t / c) 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BaBe; merge Tomoko Kondo to BaBe. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:36Z

BaBe

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

No notability, little verification. The only source cited is just another encyclopedia, and it could also fail WP:BAND. Diez2 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is it possible to add Tomoko Kondo to this AfD nomination? --Alvestrand 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:24Z

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously, it's impossible to get meaningful Google results for the band name. Babe "tomoko kondo" gets 24 hits, although that wouldn't include any Japanese sites. Kondo appears to have done some anime and video game voice work, but nothing major. --Djrobgordon 11:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 07:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep - According to Oricon (Japan's Billboard) they have had several albums on Pony Canyon, charting as high as #3. And, many singles, as high as #4. Neier 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That vote is for the band, and both artists in the band per WP:MUSIC - Neier 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BaBe per Neier. Notability was strongly implied in the JA article and I was intending to look for sources myself, but as far as the AfD is concerned this should already settle all qualms about keeping the article. As far as the members, they can be articles per the notability guidelines, but they needn't be. With the band's article in its current state, I don't see any reason not to merge Tomoko Kondo there and redirect both names to it. Dekimasu よ! 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect is acceptable to me too. Neier 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes MUSIC guidelines according to Oricon billboard charts. RFerreira 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:22Z

Kifaru Jitsu

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

Non-notable karate style, only 266 google hits, deprodded with the very rude summarry of revert vandalism Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Karate styles are (and I don't mean this harshly) a dime a dozen; I don't see any documentation (either on the article or elsewhere) as to why this one is particularly notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Zetawoof said, any martial arts school can write up a training regimen, slap a name on it, and call it a style. This one garners a mere 224 ghits, most of which concern a single school. --Djrobgordon 11:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:38Z

C.V. Ramachandra Murti Professor M.Tech

C.V. Ramachandra Murti Professor M.Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cvrmurthy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Vanity BankingBum 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not asserted, reads like a CV. JFW | T@lk 10:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article only claims he's published one paper, which isn't much of an output. Even if there's an article to be written on him, this isn't it. --Djrobgordon 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, besides problems with WP:V the article looks as if someone put a CV online. Alf photoman 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not asserting notability or attributing the information within the article. Kyra_~(talk) 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probably nn no matter how well sourced. DGG 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this looks like where the content came from, and I think the persons first name is Chopella [19]. John Vandenberg 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a speedy delete? — Omegatron 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but only because no sources found; recreate when sources found. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:26Z

Major James Davidson

Major James Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates policy for Wikipedia:Notability (people) at this point. Consider readding if sources added for relevance. BankingBum 09:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much online, except for the fact that he's real. Admittedly, ghits aren't a particularly useful barometer for a subject this old, but if there's nothing online, an editor's really going to have to go out of his way to expand this beyond rank and date of death. It's possible there's a good article to be created on Davidson, but nothing is lost by deleting this one. --Djrobgordon 11:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability. I get more hits for a different (apparently) James Davidson, a Captain (later Colonel) who was present at the battle where Tecumseh was killed, but nothing besides the name matches.--Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:23Z

TNT Assaultsquad

TNT Assaultsquad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:TeamTNT Logo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

has a weak assertion of notability, thus not CSD, but still isn't encyclopedic material Travelbird 10:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Electronic Sports teams are listed in the wikipedia database as well. Therefore team tnt does also deserve a place in this great encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnySven (talk • contribs)

Delete This sort of info is for a fan site of the game, not wikipedia. The names of the players are un-notable and mean nothing to anyone outside the game. Also to the comment above this one - if electronic sports teams grow in the future, they should only be listed on wikipedia if they become notable, not just because they exist or may grow in popularity. That is not a reason to start including this sort of info. --PrincessBrat 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the semi-professional claim and the faux-NBA logo on the league site, there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this team or its league. FYI, "tnt assaultsquad" gets 0 Google hits, while "tnt assault squad" gets 1. The Google test isn't infalliable, but this team plays an online game. --Djrobgordon 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Google search for "unreal tournament league" shows the nothing notable league on its first result page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.153.250 (talk • contribs)

*Not Delete Team TNT isn't responsible doesnt have influence on the logo of the league or the google rankings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnySven (talk • contribs)

Comment : You're only allowed to vote once. Travelbird 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not a vote, it's a search for consensus. That said, Delete if there is no external verification forthcoming. --Richard Daly 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable group. Unsourced, as the only sources are the groups homepage and movie. Obvious self-promotion. Liberal Classic 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. NN, self-promotion. Lordwow 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maserati Rick" Carter

"Maserati Rick" Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on this person was previously created under a different title, and deleted because it was a copyright violation; see here. I've just created a (non-copyright violating) stub, because the article is listed on Requested Articles. However, the previous discussion aired some doubts about the subject's notability, so I am asking for a consensus on that here. Essentially, I can either remove the article request as fulfilled or as non-notable, it's just a case of which – Qxz 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a couple Detroit News articles on the subject (August 15 and 17, 1990), but unfortunately I can only get the abstracts, and there's not enough there for me to determine notability. Maybe someone has access to them. --Djrobgordon 11:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteGoogling him with quoation marks around his name gives a hundred or so results, one of which is a pic of his gravestone if you go into the website. Again, its more a debate on wether this guy is notable - and to be honest I dont see it. Looks like a local criminal, of which there are plenty in communities around the world but that doesnt mean they all (if any) deserve a wikipedia article.--PrincessBrat 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable.--Vox Rationis 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple articles in the Detroit News, per above. Also, mention in the Detroit Free Press. I think more would turn up, but given the timing and the fact that he was a minor character in the 80's US drug epidemic, a lot of the newspaper coverage would probably not show up in online source. - Mocko13 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biographical notability guideline suggests subject of multiple non-trivial published works. There are multiple trivial works and is this man the subject? Not really. Besides I'm sure there are lots of dead drug dealers and the only thing special about this guy is his coffin. James086 ^Talk 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax vandalism that purports to be a wholly unsourced biography of a 14-year-old. The article purports to describe a singer who had a number 1 hit at age 1, and as BigHaz points out below, the misleading piping of most of the links in the article is a clear giveaway that this is not an attempt to write an encyclopaedia, but is just an attempt to scribble graffiti on one. Uncle G 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel dutton

Rachel dutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod removed, thus listed here : likely hoax Travelbird 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not surprisingly, the name gets just under a thousand Google hits, none involving a Christian-metal musician. Probably a hoax. The article claims she's fourteen and had a hit album in 1993, so unless the record consisted of that blurry ultrasound buzz, that's obviously not true. --Djrobgordon 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. --Charlene 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious hoax. If the full name doesn't set off warnings, see what the links are piped to.: BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod. Oldelpaso 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE You people clearly havent heard the beautiful, lulling sound of a gold ol' fashioned christian death metal suicide song. You people are being too harsh on miss Dutton, just because she isnt internet ready, doesnt give anybody the right to claim her as a hoax. I shal update the page with more information, given the chance.

Delete Not notable in the slightest, even a google search dosent turn up anything reasonable. To the person who said do not delete who was this as they didnt sign their name to the article. And can somenoe explain the strange picture, with SAME written over her mouth?? --PrincessBrat 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the picture is her album art.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:39Z

Shredding the gnar

Shredding the gnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A note on the talk page claims that it tells people what is shredding the gnar. I beg to differ. The definition is incomprehensible. In any case, it is a candidate for Wiktionary if it is an established phrase and if a definition can be written in English. -- RHaworth 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article that does not belong on wikipedia --PrincessBrat 12:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there wasn't an AfD underway I'd have tagged this for speedy nonsense deletion as the text is incomprehensible. Seems to be a protologism. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a protologism. But it is a slang name for something that has an ordinary English name: snowboarding. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Uncle G 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Clearly slang and poorly written. Lordwow 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme delete dude, this shit is crap! JuJube 06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is English Wikipedia! Seriously, this is poorly written nonsense. It's a neologism, it's slang and is unverified and quotes no sources. Jules1975 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. As an aside, this is the only article that the editor has ever worked on, and he keeps removing the AfD tag from the article. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dina (G7?). --- RockMFR 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Ball

Ashley Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio with a strong whiff of COI. -- RHaworth 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources + no references + living person = no other choice Alf photoman 14:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with a side of WP:SALT if it keeps getting recreated, our specials tonight are a choice of G11 or A7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 08:21Z

Natasha Mealey

Natasha Mealey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

apperence in FHM and Page 3 don't seem to meat Notability critera laid out for models Crazynas^t 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She has appeared in 3 notable publications, but the article needs a rewrite and an {{inappropriate tone}} tag. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit of work by the Author and they should be able to establish notability. She is nationally known model in the UK.Graemec2 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:40Z

Crown of Immortality

Crown of Immortality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OR, personal essay, term is not generally used in iconography, symbolism taken from Christian-mystic websites, conspiracy theory about EU flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul111 (talk • contribs)

Stop nagging Paul111, I'm onto getting more source proof, as the once already there does not satisfy you. The term "Crown of Immortality" exist, what's the problem? Conspiracy? Drop it! --Roberth Edberg 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are certainly problems with the article. But the article is very new (last week only); and the creator is a new editor (also only a week), who has promised to provide more background and sources shortly. He also agreed to take out some of the more problematic stuff (e.g. EU-flag similarity). Hence I think this article deserves at least a fair chance to develop. Arnoutf 16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree you should have put on a prod tag as opossed to just deletion. That would have given the aithor a chance top back up his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKal1 (talk • contribs) — LordKal1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Actually a prod was set up, but as that implies an uncontroversial deletion after a short period unless protest is raised, I removed it leaving motivation on the article talk page. Arnoutf 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the contentious content has been removed, and a new more general article created. A merge with that article can close this discussion. (A merge must wait for AfD closure).Paul111 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate on the whole. This item should have been listed as a Visual-arts related AfD, which I will now do. Although the article is still poor, it does cite enough examples to demonstrate a Modern classical-myth iconographic concept of a Crown of Immmortality (also see for example this, if you have a subscription or good eyesight [20]) . This is separate from the religious concepts, let alone the EU - best left out of both articles in my view, unless a specific connection can be demonstrated. Btw please note there is now Category:Iconography. Johnbod 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a wonderful reference link example you make out of it. If you were interested in reading you of course would have found out that the reading is made easier just by clickin enlarge page. --Roberth Edberg 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks documented/referenced/cited/attributed now. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's good stuff here- this article just needs a bit of time. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Johnbod 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maybe this was a working title for one of the known games such as Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi: The Genie and the Amp? If evidence of such is found, create a redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:17Z

Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi II

Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This game does not seem to exist. Absolutely no reliable source has said anything about it, and it is months after it was due out. DarkAdonis255 14:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears unverifiable. Shimeru 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Luigi30 . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:43Z

TECC

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

This is a student group with 12 students! It doesn't even show up in Google (other than its own web site). An article about this organization was deleted in June 2006. OCNative 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doncaster Rovers F.C.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:16Z

DRFC

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless and limited in scope. --Attilios 14:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to an abbreviation redirect to Doncaster Rovers F.C. --Jameboy 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable student club. Recreate as a redirect to Doncaster Rovers F.C. . Nuttah68 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete this article and the three album articles. NawlinWiki 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Terror

Howling Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged as an A7 speedy, but turned down. Musician with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Article mentions albums, but following either of the external links shows that the artist is unsigned. Oldelpaso 14:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Note that articles exist for the three albums mentioned in this article, Sampler 2004, Sampler 2005 and Sampler 2006, if this nomination results in a keep they should probably be merged, if it is deleted then they should also be deleted. Oldelpaso 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Weak Keep per reasons given since I voted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would hold that this artist just scrapes in under WP:Music on grounds of the television exposure but this eleborate article is way out of kilter with fame of artist. Also concur that there is no reason for sepeate album pages. A1octopus 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm missing something, neither the article nor the external links mention TV appearances. The Channel 4 run website is a Myspace-type affair. Oldelpaso 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero assertion of notability. NN record label. Delete the album articles as well. –Pomte 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Nonsense. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run Escape

Run Escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bunch of nonsense Attilios 14:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSkyB (Plans for DTT)

BSkyB (Plans for DTT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod. This article fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - Wikipedia policy WP:NOT states that Wikipedia should not have an article for an event if it is not almost certain it will take place. Neither British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) have confirmed that a service will be launching on digital terrestrial television and Ofcom have not recieved anything from BSkyB indicating it will launch a serivce. A press release of a proposed launch and a statement by Ofcom is not proof that BSkyB will be launching a service on digital terrestrial television. The service does not even have a name. The proposed service by BSkyB may not launch, hence why I bring this article to AfD. If a service is confirmed to launch, the article should be re-created with reliable sources. There is also consensus from two other editors on the talk page that the article should be deleted on these grounds. At the moment, all the references and text in the article is pure speculation and therefore fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. tgheretford (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A quick look brought me to this, that to me is good enough. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all that article states is that Ofcom will start a consultation if BSkyB approaches them to launch a service, it does not state that BSkyB are launching a service. Any launch would require the approval of Ofcom, which they haven't given because BSkyB hasn't asked to launch the service. --tgheretford (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good enough for me, considering the length of the article I see no reason why it does not justify its self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful or verifiable with British Sky Broadcasting. I don't see any reason for this to have a separate article. 23skidoo 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is looking increasingly like a publicity stunt on the part of BSkyB as a spoiler to the launch of Virgin Media, a negotiating tactic with Top Up Tv, and scare tactic for Freeview. 2-3 weeks have now passed and by all accounts no application has been made to Ofcom, BSkyB's "timetable" is increasingly optimistic. The unlikiness, is further added to by BSkyB, at the same time, asking Ofcom to review Top Up TV's access charges. Why do they need a review of that if they are launching their own services?

IMHO, it is not the place of Wikipedia to fight proxy wars for BSkyB. Even, if such a service launches, the article would need rewriting from scratch anyway, as so much is speculative or depending on regualtory approval (use of MPEG4 in wild, mix of MPEG2 and 4 on one mux, >3 Sky services on Mux C, possible competition implications?, etc.) or approval from DTT partners (such as NGW, who need to ask for mux terms to be varied to carry pay services (despite last year's changes) and have even recently indicated what could be intreted as opposition to pay services). Pit-yacker 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all highly speculative and not suitable for wikipedia. This reads like a news report, plenty of tv websites will cover this anyway if it happensand its certainly not encyclopedical. I think the most appropriate action is to add this to the main BSkyB artcle as a topic on there, it does not warrant its own entry. PrincessBrat 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as there's something to say. Deb 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MatthewFenton. - Nick C 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense/hoax/etc. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

runescape weapons

Runescape weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bunch of nonsense Attilios 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax, game guide, attack page. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure if it's an attack page though.--TBCΦtalk? 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an attempt to disparage RuneScape by creating nonsense weapons and attacking its community, which falls under that criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made me laugh though. Sounds like a job for WP:BJAODN EliminatorJR 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the ABA team article. NawlinWiki 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Storm

Colorado Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Does not meet WP:V. Vanity. Nv8200p talk 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT: wp is not a webspace provider, this is just a list of all the players on the team. Also fails WP:V, no reputable source will have the info contained in this article. meshach 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was originally intended to be comprehensively about the first minor league professional basketball team in Colorado, the ABA's Colorado Storm. Very few if any sources exist which provide such information. Storm players and coaches continue to work professionally today. Someone has changed the article to a completely different and unrelated subject. Regardless of outcome of this discussion an article on the pro basketball team needs to exist. Rick 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this article just be reverted to this? ObtuseAngle 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as Mescach. Poorly organized article, which does not explained the history and other key elements.--JForget 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move, then revert. Suggest moving current page content to Colorado Storm (football team), then reverting the article to the last good version about the ABA franchise, which may be found here (I think). I'm trying to assume good faith, but this sure looks like a page hijacking to me. The former ABA franchise is notable enough to merit its own page. ObtuseAngle 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the information about the football team to Colorado Storm (football team) and will be reverting the article so it reads about the ABA franchise. I will leave the AfD template on the reverted page, but I hope this change will satisfy any concerns. I do feel the ABA franchise is notable enough to merit its own entry. ObtuseAngle 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will keep working with the restored ABA franchise article unless at some point it's deleted. The restored article is the most recent accurate content of the original. Rick 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about the ABA franchise & Delete the article about the football team. Caknuck 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:15Z

Giuliano Dinocca

Giuliano Dinocca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. The article is barely understandable Nv8200p talk 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN and per WP:ORG: no third party sources (some of the "References" are not even in English). meshach 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no lead paragraph, article organization is a mess, no basic details about it too--JForget 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 08:15Z

Mustafa Metwalli

Mustafa Metwalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He's an actor, he's Egyprian, he's dead. But he's also unsourced and not as far as I can tell notable. [21] [22] Contested prod. -Doc^g 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, we need more than an obituary but the one we have denotes notability. Alf photoman 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. None of his films seem to have their own articles either, so probably not notable. Delete unless sources can be added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added an online obit for him to the article. Lexis-nexis turns up a couple items for him, enough to establish that he is more or less who the article says, but none of them interesting enough to actually cite. I'm inclined to leave the stub for some Egyptian tv-buff to eventually work on. Bucketsofg 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt. Bucketsofg 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Article is now sourced. Al-Ahram calls him "a popular actor of wide-ranging presence". Bradycardia 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even if he's Egyptian, that's not a reason for deleting especially since he is popular in Egpyt. But article needs some major improvements. JForget 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-03 08:00Z

Alessandro Dellanzo

Alessandro Dellanzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a professional player yet. Matthew_hk t c 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked, there is no such player and just a joke. Matthew_hk t c 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN and per WP:V. The team's page does not metion him. meshach 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is a player for their youth team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunby (talk • contribs)

Comment Assuming he does exist then by the article's own admission he has never progressed past the youth team, therefore delete for failing to satisfy WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if such a player did exist, by not playing any first team matches he fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no track of his existance; and, even if he did exist, he would not be notable (no appearances in a professional football match). --Angelo 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link on the bottom of the page proves his existence - and his release from Siena. Besides, some Manchester United etc. players have never made appearances for the first team but have Wikipedia articles, for example, Chris Fagan and Antonio Bryan. Arunby 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The existence of another article which doesn't satisfy WP:BIO is not a reason to keep this one ChrisTheDude 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page is in the deletion list because Alessandro Dellanzo has never made a first team appearance, why aren't Chris Fagan and Antonio Bryan on the list too?. Arunby 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presumably because nobody has yet thought to nominate them, but thanks for pointing them out, I will now nominate them for deletion too ChrisTheDude 08:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I question the source is a good source. It just like a fan site and put it on a famous host site. I don't think a (good/reliable) fan site would have only one news and only one players profile. And the profile coincidence is Alessandro Dellanzo. And google reply only one result, the wiki article. Matthew_hk t c 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, upon closer examination the site listed as a source looks a tad fishy. It purports to be an unofficial Siena news site but essentially all that is on there is a single news item referencing this player's release and an essay talking about how said release was a mistake. Looks like something someone cooked up to support a hoax.... ChrisTheDude 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the website has a lot more than that. How could you accuse someone of making a hoax website? My friend Liam, who is a huge Siena fan, set up that website. He was the one that told me about Alessandro Dellanzo in the first place. He has just set up the website. Give him a chance to put everything on it.Arunby 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, there is more stuff on the site now, but there wasn't at the time I made my earlier comment..... ChrisTheDude 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But you obviously make very quick assumptions. And another thing, if Chris Fagan and Antonio Bryan are nominated for deletion, why isn't each and every youth team player who hasn't made a first team appearance nominated? Aren't you using double standards by allowing Diego Alliaudi, Natureza, Sergio Tejera, Rhys Taylor, David Roberts, Ryan Flynn etc. to not be nominated? Why not? Arunby 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd realised those articles existed then I'd have nominated them too. Now that you've drawn them to my attention I can nominate them ChrisTheDude 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ChrisTheDued, why are you accusing my website of being "cooked up to support a hoax"? I am a die hard fan of Siena, and I decided to set up a website with news items and my own opinion. I'd done half an hour's work and you were already calling it "a tad fishy". I'd like to see you set up a fan site in half an hour. Then I could call your site "a tad fishy" and "something someone cooked up". LiamArunby'sBuddy 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chris the dude is a bastard. This says it all. LiamArunby'sBuddy 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind words but please read WP:NPA ChrisTheDude 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable: has not played for the first team of a professional club. Robotforaday 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:14Z

Richard Hollins

Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hollins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. Nothing on the Rock FM website here about the guy, must be a hoax. Spalberings 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to assert notability of subject with sources that meet the standard of WP:V. No relevant ghits that I could find at all. Darkspots 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not even attempt to show non-trivial third party sources Alf photoman 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability provied and no obvious sources on a search. Nuttah68 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:45Z

Greg Gory

Greg Gory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Gregg Gory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Asserts notability but does not show it. The article currently has a hoax or vanity feel to it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References fail: first citation appears to be about someone called "Harry Baggs", and second only mentions the subject's name once, in passing. We need to see better references; if these are not found by the end of this debate the article should go. WMMartin 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If not a hoax then fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. A1octopus 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nom. feydey 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe O'Brian

Chloe O'Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant hoax/fancruft created by a Mary Lynn Rajskub fan. It's an obvious hoax, with no reliable sources cited. Spalberings 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; character bio from television series 24, much as the other character bios. --Mhking 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:HOAX, Mhking, you don't realise you're dealing with a hoax article created by MascotGuy. Sheesh, what do I have to do to convince people this is a hoax?? --Spalberings 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific as to which material makes this a "hoax." O'Brian is an integral part of 24 and I'd be less inclined to delete such an article if no proof is given. Have you seen the show? If not, you may want to find someone that has to proof the article for factual errors. SERSeanCrane 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the entire article is a hoax created by MascotGuy. Sean, it's a hoax, no more, no less. --Spalberings 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nom. feydey 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lynn Rajskub

Mary Lynn Rajskub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This individual does not meet WP:PORNBIO standards. Only sources cited are self-published sources, this page is a vanity page. Spalberings 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Rajskub is one of lead actresses in 24 --Mhking 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. She isn't in 24, you obese idiot. --Spalberings 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs) Uncle G 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Shaw

Suzanne Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO in any way. Spalberings 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:45Z

Tom Rockney (male model)

Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rockney (male model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

May not meet WP:BIO in any way. Notability concerns. Spalberings 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO, no evidence of coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Article even admits he works in McDonald's most of the time, which suggests that multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources is unlikely to exist. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external verification. I can't find anything about a Tom Rockney male model. Possible vanity page --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Recreation of previously salted Tom rockney, no sources, no claims of notability. He works at a McDonald's? No notability there. Corvus cornix 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a joke/hoax article of some sort. I can find no third-party sources, or indeed, anything that assesses notability of the subject. This doesn't meet WP:BIO. --sunstar net^talk 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete a rather obvious db-bio case. JuJube 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously non-notable unless multiple independent sources are added to the article to back up the modeling claims. Gwernol 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources needed, also more info besides "worked in the field for 4 years".--Sar e kOfVulcan 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:14Z

Making The News

Making The News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This blog has no indication of meeting any of the criteria in WP:WEB. No non-trivial sources given. feydey 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in non-trivial independent sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of evidence. John Vandenberg 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as it makes no claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panthers Gang

Note: This nomination was part of a pattern of disruptive AFD nominations by Spalberings (talk · contribs). On the strength of the article, I have decided to leave this discussion open. Uncle G 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panthers Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. No sources given. Spalberings 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are given now. We appologize for the slowness of the article

Delete Not in the slightest bit notable, seen one entry on this EMO website and thats it. Unless they are making news headlines I dont see why youd have an article on an encyclopedia on them, self promotion by one of the anon memebers I think! --PrincessBrat 17:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable non-credible encyclopedia entry. Facebook.com is not a reliable source. Obvious self-promotion. Liberal Classic 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Identity management in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:13Z

Identity and access management

Identity and access management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems more appropriate for Wikitionary than Wikipedia. It has already been successfully transwikied to Wikitionary. This article can never progress farther than an article stub that serves mainly as a dictionary definition. Luke! 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp is not a dictionary. This page has been transferred to wikictionary is not needed here. meshach 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though it apparently has been transwikied to Wiktionary, I would question its usefulness even there. The full text of the article, apart from see also's, is: Identity and Access Management (also known as Access and Identity Management) is the use of Information Technology to: ~ manage the digital identity life cycle of entities, and ~ control access to protected resources based on knowledge (attributes) about the entity attempting to access the resource. It's hard to imagine an emptier mess of buzzwords, empty abstractions, and rhetorical tautologies. Too meaningless even for Wiktionary, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, for lack of non-trivial coverage. Simply connecting two other "notable" roads isn't enough; as User:RockMFR said, this would make every road notable. Trebor 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esna Park Drive

Esna Park Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An entirely non-notable street with zero non-trivial secondary sources. This road is just over one mile long and has in the past had potholes. It's also quiet on weekends. That's about all that can be said about it. This is part of a much larger walled garden whose scope I have yet to measure. --- RockMFR 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. A short street with no real notability or any news attached to it. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is a significant road in Town of Markham. This road is responsible for soothing traffic congestions on Steeles Avenue and Highway 7. It is also responsible for connecting the two sections of York Regional Road 71. It is an arterial route by Markham, Ontario. I'd say this rejects all of Dysepsion's reason. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, almost every road in the world would be notable. --- RockMFR 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established in the article. The article, however, is a great effort. I hope not to discourage such efforts. TonyTheTiger 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. Dl2000 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is established as an arterial road, a major road category which is notable well beyond an ordinary local street. Note also the discussion in AfD discussion on Trim Road (Ottawa), which resulted in keeping that article. Dl2000 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know the road. It's an unremarkable piece of asphalt that goes from nowhere to nowhere. Suttungr 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should we delete articles based on original research now? Carolfrog 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, after doing a quick scan of MapArt I think I can safely say that the only remotely encyclopedic roads in Markham are continuations of roads that start outside of Markham; there doesn't appear to be a single road exclusive to Markham which really merits an article. Delete; a one-mile road through an industrial park which exists mainly as a connecting link between two other non-encyclopedic roads isn't particularly deserving of an article. Bearcat 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am sorry, Bearcat, but this road is connecting two encyclopedic articles, John Street and York Regional Road 71. Stephy100--A person who loves music! 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look! John Street's up for AFD too! And will ya look at that: Pharmacy Road isn't Regional Road 71; all this road does is intersect with a street that eventually becomes RR71. And even then, being a connecting link between two other roads is not a legitimate claim of notability — the key to whether a street belongs in an encyclopedia or not isn't whether it exists, but how likely it is that somebody who lives hundreds of miles away, and has never been to Markham in their lives, has already heard of the street, because it has a cultural context that transcends its streetness. You know, like Broadway or Park Avenue or Yonge Street or Sussex Drive or Sunset Boulevard. Esna Park Drive is simply not in that category of roads. Bearcat 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of nontrivial coverage by independent sources. I do want to discourage such efforts- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and not an atlas. Friday (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A notable street, from what I know, there used to be an Esna Park there. The street is responsible for connecting the two major roads. Stephy100--A person who loves music! 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh! There is a street nearby where I live that connects two major highways. And then another street connects to that one. And then the street I live on connects to that! w00t! Notable! Does that mean I'm notable, too? Sorry for the sarcasm, but "connecting the two major roads" is just too ridiculous to ignore. --- RockMFR 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roads are not automatically notable: notability must be asserted and evidenced in the article, and this is not done. Sorry, but it must go. WMMartin 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Stephy100. Mix Precipitation 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:11Z

The Red Hand Company (band)

The Red Hand Company (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC - they appear not to have released any albums through a major record label. Google for "Red Hand Company" gets 8 hits. [23] Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - only links are to their own MySpace and their record label; no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to provide adequate acceptable references. If satisfactory references can be found by the end of this debate I'll change my mind; otherwise, this should go. WMMartin 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless links to non trivial third party reviews of band or its albums are added by the end of this debate. A1octopus 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravewalkaz

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

Reason This appears to be entirely fictious creation and as of this writing has not one wiki-link. If it was indeed a legitimate hoax, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of being notable beyond those who invented (ie, no ext links to mentions of said hoax) RoyBatty42 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the band exists, the article admits that they've never been signed by a major record label, and there are no independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BAND. In fact, might even be speedy delete under A7, as I can't see that the article asserts notability at all. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy under A7 (no assertion of notability) using {{db-band}}. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:56Z

Samir Patel

Samir Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem all that notable. His claim to fame is being a runner-up in the spelling bee. It's arguable if the winners have notability, but the runners up? It's an entirely unsourced biography and it reads like it has either WP:COI or WP:AUTO issues. Metros232 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He certainly has a very good chance at winning the spelling bee, and there are numerous media reports about him in connection with the competition, but he hasn't won the national competition. The article does ready like a vanity page as well. If he wins, this article can certainly be recreated. <3 Clamster 19:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of third-party independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless independent sources (e.g. news reports) are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep as more sources have since been added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with possible WP:AUTO issues. Picture was taken by family member. No independent news reports are available regarding him. Agree that it could be recreated if he does eventually win the competition instead of runner-up. Warfieldian 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep based on additional published works added.[reply]

Keep but completely rewrite First, I have found many articles from reputable sources by searching for him on Google (both under "Samir Patel" and his full name, "Samir Sudhir Patel"). This from the Washington Post and this from ESPN are both about Samir, among other spellers. There are a bunch of articles from Indian sources about the success of Samir and other Indian-American spellers, including the winner when Samir was runner-up. And then, of course, there are tons of major web sites that give Bee results word for word or report on the final rounds. As important as the media mentions, however, is something I've argued a few times before, which is that anyone who competes at this level of the National Spelling Bee- making the final two and high finishes three times- passes the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO (if you count spellers as sportspeople) by competing at the highest level of their "sport". The National Spelling Bee is broadcast on major networks (ESPN and ABC) in prime time; it is watched by millions of people, and to reach the final rounds of the Bee, a speller must defeat not only 200+ other spellers at the national competition, but millions of others (if I recall correctly, Scripps estimates that 10 million children compete in feeder/qualifier bees, though this of course includes school bees with children that have no aspirations of going further). A speller must put in as much time at his craft as any other competitor (I don't know about you, but I don't want to read dictionaries and study word roots for five hours per day, six days per week), and to finish second place in an historic, nationally-televised competition is enough for an article in my opinion. With all of that said, this article is absolutely terrible and should probably be stripped of 95% of its content. Still, the 5% that remains is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you add the Washington Post and ESPN refs to the article I will change my vote to Keep. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep*Listen, i know him... he is more notable than Saryn Hooks or Finola Hackett due to his TV appearances. Why delet? Onyx the hero 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, proficient but nn spelling bee / TV contestant. Multiple, non-trivial sources treating Patel as their subject? The Wash. Post article cited by K222 is clearly about Anurag Kashyap. The photo used in the article is also used in the ESPN article, where it is attributed to AP / Linda Spillers, which contradicts the rather weak assertion on the image page "Taken at the scripps national spelling bee in 2006 i believe by Sudhir Patel -- his father". Good luck with the acting career, maybe we'll see you again.. Deiz talk 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. Suttungr 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, vanity page with no reliable sources. fethers 13:36

keep and rewrite a bit i re-wrote it, more encyclopedic, see what you think Onyx the hero 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep Second place at Scripps National is easily the "highest level" in "competitive activities that [is itself] considered notable" per WP:BIO. I've cleaned up the page, excising the things that I think you guys found offensive and adding two references. Please take another look. If you need more references, LexisNexis has a few more. But seriously, I think this easily passes WP:BIO. Scripps National is a major event. — brighterorange (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please don't count the sockpuppetry against this article; all of the above comments were made before I trimmed it way down and added in numerous reliable sources. — brighterorange (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when votes were made. If users have changed their minds, they will change their votes. An admin has to consider every vote, even if its after someone "fixed up" the article. My opinion is the same as it was before the article was trimmed down. <3 Clamster 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Our family has been watching the spelling bee since 1993. This little boy has impressed us since he came in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.122.4 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).— 76.187.122.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep definitely a good article Vulcanoetch1 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)— Vulcanoetch1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, three reliable verifiable sources is enough to establish notability Alf^Photoman 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works," it appears he is the primary subject of only one of those verifiable sources. Warfieldian 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:BIO says a primary subject, not the primary subject, and he is a primary subject of at least two of them. (The 'word nerds' ref starts with the sentence "Meet Samir Patel.") I just added another one where you can tell he is the primary subject from just the title, if that is important. So now there are definitely multiple non-trivial published works. But this is not the only way to meet WP:BIO; it also states that competing at the highest level in a competitive activity itself considered notable is a sufficient criterion, which he does. — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most important criterion is multiple non-trivial published works about the subject and not the fact that he competed at the highest level of competitive activity. As WP:BIO states "The following criteria make it _likely_ that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available." If he had competed at high level of competitive activity and had no reliable published works about him, then he would not be notable (although that's unlikely as the guideline suggests). I do think that there is sufficient material has been added to the article at this point to change my recommendation. Warfieldian 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Kaiju Big Battel. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:55Z

Doctor Cube

Doctor Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A minor character from a minor entertainment troupe. Verifability problems abound; this is clear original research. I speedied it and was asked to recreate it, so listing here for discussion. Chick Bowen 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kaiju Big Battel. No evidence of real-world notability to merit its own article per WP:FICT. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Kaiju may not be a huge deal (so I won't dispute that it's a "minor" troupe, though it's certainly more notable than many entertainers and organizations with WP articles), Doctor Cube is in no way a "minor" character. He is the main villain- he is, without a doubt, the single biggest character in Kaiju. -- Kicking222 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be. The article still needs to be based on reliable sources. Chick Bowen 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is why I did not !vote, but instead, commented. I was merely correcting your nomination statement, not giving an opinion as to whether or not the article should be deleted. -- Kicking222 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't decide on something you know nothing about. All info is from either watching shows or kaiju.com. I added a picture taken from a photographer I know and was told by to place his picture on this page. That is the only reason this page came up for deletion. You are free to ask if this is true: [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MEGABRENTX (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. Kicking222's comment is a paraphrase of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:10Z

Princess Luisa of Savoy

Princess Luisa of Savoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can understand having articles about current royalty. But since the Italian monarchy was abolished a long time ago, this baby doesn't fall under that notability category. At the age of 0 she has, of course, done nothing else to merit encyclopedic inclusion. Punkmorten 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most deposed royals still maintain their bloodline strictly in hopes of getting their thrones back and are of course the very definition of "old money". Nardman1 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) says about scions of former ruling lines: if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable...any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable...other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO. (My emphasis.) This princess comes under the last category, and no independent sources are provided to establish notability per WP:BIO. So while in principle I'd agree with Nardman that deposed royals are notable, this one isn't quite close enough to qualify as inherently notable (particularly as she has an elder sister, and is therefore unlikely to inherit the pretendership to the crown of Italy). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Personally I think any HRH is notable but Wiki:Notability (royalty) might not agree with with me.... Jcuk 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not meet the criteria at WP:ROYAL, having been born to a member of the royal family who himself was born after the monarchy was abolished. She isn't even eligible for the pretendership to the Italian crown, as the Italian monarchy was limited to males as of the time of its abolition. That said, she could still warrant an article some day under WP:BIO if, say, she became a prominent socialite who was frequently mentioned in the media, but she hasn't done that yet, given that she's an infant. There is really nothing to be said about her independently yet; as a second choice, redirect to her father's article, given that her name and date of birth are or should be there already. --Metropolitan90 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont (her father). A similar approach has been used with a number of other princesses of questionable notability. Luisa is mentioned there, and that's about all she merits per WP:ROYAL. PubliusFL 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotability of royalty begins at birth. its not that they have to grow up and do something.DGG 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG. User:Dimadick

Redirect per PubliusFL Catchpole 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-03 07:54Z

Traction TeamPage

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

Advertisement for nonnotable software. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long list of external references establishes notability per WP:SOFTWARE, as it shows that the product has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am an interested party who substantially rewrote segments of the page (see Talk:Traction_TeamPage), focusing on IT analyst coverage (Forrester, Burton Group), and IT press independent analysis of the subject product as well as broader trends. The recently cited '5 Jan 2007 InfoWorld review: Wikis evolve as collaboration tools' reviews four products (including the subject product), supporting WP:SOFTWARE notability and interest in specific characteristics of social software designed for business use. Grlloyd 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As notable as comparable companies in the same general space of enterprise collaboration tools, such as SocialText or Six apart. Jim McGee

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

Roy A. Tucker

Roy A. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that the page is a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Merge if necessary to the other articles mentioned by the nominator. I don't see why this was taken to AfD at all. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, as User:Walton_monarchist89 points out. --Eastmain 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per User:Walton_monarchist89. If there are other (better) articles out there then, as the aforementioned user stated,

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\U/|⁽Can you help me with this?⁾ 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil^T : C 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:08Z

Unaesta

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

This article is about one of many fictional bands from the Grand Theft Auto videogame series. As they are one-off creations and aren't notable for anything else, this article should be deleted. Dbam 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "In reality no such band exists", therefore it is not notable, there are also no sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on the series. No real-world notability to merit its own article per WP:FICT. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article as per above. A1octopus 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:52Z

The Trouble With Atheism

The Trouble With Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable TV show. Article contains no reliable sources, and this topic as a whole fails notability. Also is a POV soapbox with no encyclopediac content. Sefringle 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in external sources to establish notability per WP:N. Delete unless sources can be added. (Although it should be possible to find sources to demonstrate notability - this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No sources and does not appear to be notable, but I don't think it is very POV. It is an article about a TV show that is POV, there really is no other side to present. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Only blog results on google, and no news results. I wonder if "The programme meets Britain's two atheist fundamentalist scientists" is what the nominator considers POV soapbox? --Merzul 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep, per Silence below.

Delete - like Merzul, I'm having trouble finding independent sources for this. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. About as noteworthy as, say, The Atheism Tapes, which I doubt we'll see deleted. I find the arguments made in the documentary absolutely atrocious, but it's by far one of the most noteworthy and high-profile atheism-related documentaries. As Walton noted, "this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such"; that makes it noteworthy, all we lack are some reliable secondary sources to give this article some substance. (Much like we need exactly that for The Atheism Tapes, etc.) I'm not British, or I'd look for some print news sources about this myself; could anyone here check up on that? As for the POV soapbox issue, that's not relevant here, as it's a content issue. It's also one I've already fixed, as I removed the "atheist fundamentalist scientists" and "other religious beliefs" misnomers, and the rest of the article is perfectly fine (reporting on a POV is not the same as having a POV). It's also simply untrue that this article doesn't have encyclopedic content. I don't see the need to resort to these weak arguments when the only argument you need is "it lacks references", and that should be our focus—find sources, in print if they can't be spotted through the blogosphere online. -Silence 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this has equal notability with the atheism tapes, but in both cases all that can be written is then a summary of the program. I guess that can be done well, like The root of all evil?, but I doubt in this case that it will ever get to encyclopedic quality. I'm keeping my delete vote until I see at least one reasonable editor that will promise to work on this article. If anybody votes "keep": I will adopt this article, then you can discount my delete vote, but until then, I think the soapbox concerns are valid. --Merzul 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fair, but then we should be consistent. Let's nominate The Atheism Tapes for deletion too. (Not for the sake of POV "fairness", but for the sake of consistency with our referencing standards as applied to this class of articles.) That article is in any case doubly unnecessary because it's about an offshoot for another non-noteworthy atheism documentary, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (which we'll probably want to nominate as well; it's an unreferenced stub and gets 61 unique hits on Google!), which it can be incorporated into if necessary. I'll change my vote to a "Weak Keep" or a "Neutral" if we're consistent with our standards.

Also, I'm perfectly willing to adopt this article and help work on it, so you needn't be concerned about it becoming a soapbox. Our concern should remain focused on its lack of references, because I can help flesh out this article and keep it neutral, but I'm American and don't have any familiarity with or significant access to most of the places that would have referenced this documentary in the UK press. -Silence 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to keep on this one as I promised, but I'm not so sure about the other articles; I haven't looked at how actively they are being contributed to. Generally, I prefer to keep most articles related to religion, but I have seen the word "fundamentalist atheist" a little too much recently, so apologize that I jumped on it. Now, I have been looking for sources for both this one, and the atheism tapes; but we really need somebody visiting a UK library to look for print sources. I can't help you with that. --Merzul 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm open to either keeping or deleting all of the unreferenced atheism documentary articles. All that matters to me is that we keep our standards consistent; otherwise it looks like we're being selective in how we apply our policies, and either keeping certain undeserving documentaries because we agree with them or deleting certain deserving documentaries because we disagree with them. The easiest way not to give this impression, as well as the best way to send a clear and unequivocal message about what Wikipedia's basic standards are for articles of this sort, is to treat all of these articles in exactly the same way so long as they are equally unreferenced. Concerns about POV advocacy are not really relevant because they're content issues that should be resolved through editing and maintenance, not deletion. Besides, this is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism exists: to help monitor these articles and keep them NPOV. -Silence 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A word of outside advice. From my vantage point the speed at which this AfD was put up makes it look even worse. You don't want people to think that WikiProject:Atheism (where the issue was first raised right after the entry was created) is a staging ground for this. That there is an organized effort to one sidedly pinch out these entries before anyone even gets a chance to see them. I know that's not what's going on, but it could look better. Exercise a little more reasoned restraint is all I'm suggesting.PelleSmith 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's part of the reason why I'm trying to add a more balanced perspective on this article (and I recently heavily expanded the article as well, to show that we atheists don't solely spend time on articles espousing issues we agree with, like The Root of All Evil?). WikiProject Atheism exists to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheism-related articles, not to advocate or further the aims of atheists (and if it does so, it should do so only as an incidental consequence of the aforementioned aim). -Silence 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completely agree with Silence on the consistency issue, if we delete this one; then we should delete the Atheism Tapes. That would be a pity. I think they are both valuable because they present the views of very notable thinkers; even if these articles haven't developed as far as one would wish. Besides, look what I found... a start? --Merzul 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show was POV but the article reports facts about opinions, and so is NPOV. JamesMLane t c 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Part of PoV campaign by its creator. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. If someone created an article on Global warming in order to further a POV campaign, that would not be a valid reason to delete the article. Noteworthiness and verifiability is what matters here. -Silence 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, and if I'd said that it was my reason for choosing "delete" (rather than an additional comment, after my agreement with the nominator) I'd have been wrong. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, until enough time has passed to adequately judge the entry. This entry was created all of one day ago. Isn't the normal, respectful line of action to "assume good faith", put up tags, use the talk page, and/or contact the creator before launching an AfD? Maybe this needs to be deleted, but this isn't the way to go. Unless this TV series never aired or has been flat out made up (making the entry clearly irrelevant), it deserves at least some good natured criticism and pressure. Also, lets not judge the merits of an entry by the behavior of its creator(s).PelleSmith 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you latter ideas that an entry should not be judged by its creator; and this rant is not about you, I'm just generally upset about this whole Wikipedia mentality to "assume good faith in spite of all evidence to the contrary". Why is kindness to new users, who persist in POV-pushing in spite of various indpendent requests to stop, valued higher than the stress, frustration and waste of time of quality contributors like Mel Etitis? I don't get it... --Merzul 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have the same gut reaction all the time when I know an editor's history. I also think that the "assume good faith" guideline can be taken to an extreme--there are cases when bad faith is more than apparent. However, the way I see it the guideline has a practical end which has nothing to do with actually "assuming good faith" but has everything to do with judging a contribution on its merits and not on the intentions of the contributer. The guideline is also a check for us to not to overreact when editors who we know to be POV pushers make edits or create entries.PelleSmith 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now, the goal of WikiProject atheism is to guarantee NPOV and consistency among all atheism related articles. The problem here was that I suspected this would remain a one sentence description about "atheist fundamentalists". In any case, I have changed to "keep" in light of Silence's commitment to this article, and there are at least a few TV guide mentions & one review, which are at least third part opinions that can be used. --Merzul 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a neutral, sourced article about TV show on a POV subject. Nuttah68 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now sources. I'm not sure why a TV show on a national terrestial channel is not notable - bear in mind that there are TV shows on lesser-viewed channels which have a Wikipedia article for every single episode... Mdwh 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Imagination

Me and My Imagination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For relevant discussion see

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums § Unreleased albums and singles

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBA Nelly Furtado

Unreleased single from an unreleased album. Supposedly confirmed, but no source. Most of article is based on rumours and MySpace. Even if an upcoming release date is verified by a reliable secondary source, the information is only about the primary subject's intentions and schedules, not facts. I tried to redirect it but was reverted. Merge/redirect to Trip the Light Fantastic (album) or delete, until it is actually released. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 20:40Z

Delete/Redirect as per nomination unless a link to the artist and/or record company specifically stating that this will be released as a single is added to the page before the end of this debate. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Still, there is no reason to doubt the artist's MySpace about the identity of the second single, and it may be more practical to delete the fan video mention and only report what has been stated by the artist. Perhaps userfy to any interested party to ease recreation? –Pomte 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Rlevse 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Black (song)

Back to Black (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For relevant discussion see

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums § Unreleased albums and singles

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBA Nelly Furtado

Unreleased single. Supposedly confirmed, but no source (information possibly comes from a tabloid). Even if an upcoming release date is verified by a reliable secondary source, the information is only about the primary subject's intentions and schedules, not facts. I tried to redirect it but was reverted. Merge/redirect to Back to Black or delete, until it is actually released. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 20:40Z

Redirect Too crystal-ballish. --Gwern (contribs) 21:40 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single has been confirmed for release by HMV [24] and the video has been shot... as the "future single" template states, there will be more information added as more becomes available. TopopMAC1 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TopopMAC1. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and confirmed future release by notable artist. A1octopus 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TopopMAC1. –Pomte 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netlynx Technologies

Netlynx Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't assert the notability of the organization. Most of it isn't even verified. Wikipedia isn't an infinate resource. Delete GreenJoe 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have further cleaned up and sourced the article. There is currently little there that isn't verified. ~~If any statement(s) is/are particularly suspect, please point it/them out or remove it/them.~~ -- Black Falcon 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like Netlynx might meet WP:CORP, but it needs some statistics on revenues or numbers of employees. --Gwern (contribs) 21:40 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced, but still it doesn't assert the notability. Googling doesn't turn up much either. It's just domain and hosting provider; being accredited doesn't make it notable. Looks like a WP:COI case to me (created by User:Netlynx, who hasn't made any contribs outside the topic). utcursch | talk 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a private company that fails WP:N. There are no independent published sources that give any distinctive facts to establish notability. Mereda 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Should be kept as long as the article is cleaned up. Stephenchou0722 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering? The problem is, we "keep" to clean up, and no one does the work. GreenJoe 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:03Z

Titbusting

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

This article cites no reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief. --Gwern (contribs) 21:36 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good gief, indeed. NN, no reliable sources, reads like a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Groin attack. Sounds as if it exists, but needs citation. Citation lack is not critical enough to merit deletion rather than tagging with "citation needed." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete non-notable, no claim to notability, no reliable sources, no evidence for actual existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete with all haste I just spent 7 seconds of my life on that. Sigh...... Ezratrumpet 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G10. Luke! 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T1B

T1B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should be deleted because the page is terribly written, biased, makes use of inappropriate language, concerns a little known subject, has no structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -jmac- (talk • contribs) 2007-02-25 20:43:29

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 08:04Z

Cuntbusting

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

This article cites no reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, no reliable sources, reads like a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable neologism, and not attributing the sources used to create the article. Kyra_~(talk) 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds plausible but an unreferenced neologism is an unreferenced neologism. Deiz talk 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Groin attack. Sounds as if it exists, but needs citation. Citation lack is not critical enough to merit deletion rather than tagging with "citation needed." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless adequate independent references can be found by the end of this debate. Seems to be a neologism too, but I'm not sure as I'm not a fan of S&M. I shall also say that reading this article made me feel queasy, but that, of course, is not a reason to delete. WMMartin 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, what the fuck? How has this article managed to survive for so long (since August 14, 2006) with the only source being that of a Yahoo message board? RFerreira 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as unverifiable. See also Butch Cassidy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:57Z

William Butch Wagner

William Butch Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research Rich Farmbrough, 20:47 25 February 2007 (GMT). 20:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be provided. JamesMLane t c 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, though if requested, we can userfy this to reevaluate after multiple independent reliable sources have been added to show notability, and all claims attributed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:53Z

Yttrx

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

Article asserts some degree of notability, but doesn't provide reliable sources. A Google search only shows his blog, the interview referenced in the article, and participation in various online forums (mostly digg and usenet) Pekaje 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pekaje is a denizen of one of the newsgroups in which Yttrx posts, comp.os.linux.advocacy, and has a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. It's therefore very likely that this move for deletion was for purely personal reasons, though luckily the article itself does indeed fail some important Wiki tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salomejones (talk • contribs) 16:30, February 28, 2007
Clarification Yes, I am part of that newsgroup, and yes it is how I noticed this page. However, I would appreciate if you would not outright lie that I have a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. A simple Google groups search will show that I have more or less completely ignored him throughout the time we have both been posting to that Usenet group. I could find a total of 4 posts where I reply to him, 2 about this wiki page, 1 informing him that he was arguing with a known troll, and finally one from last year where I made clear that I considered his behavior to be rather rude. Just because you can't make a case for keeping the page, doesn't mean you have to attack me. Pekaje 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently fails WP:BIO: he's only been the subject of one listed independent source. --Gwern (contribs) 21:35 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO: no possible verification of sources, or information. --Bigwig2222

Delete [25] Alexa Rankings seem to indicate it also fails WP:WEB. Willie Stark 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the original author, and haven't had time to update this article with more firm links. Also, the subject of the article has repeatedly informed me that he does not want certain facts and works linked to this article, so we're in a bit of a conundrum. If it does get removed, I'll forumalate something that will hopefully quell all doubts on every side, and also fill the original purpose of the original article, without going against anyone's wishes.sjones 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a bunch of made up claims. Cchamilton2 21:53 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Note Cchamilton2 has been vandalizing the page in question repeatedly, so is probably not objective -- Pekaje 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note If anyone can verify the items under Trivia, or half of the claims under Origins, then please do. Nothing I added was any less verifiable than what was already there. Cchamilton2 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note In order to verify at least one item in Trivia, the identity of the person behind the pseudonym would have to be revealed in this article. Since he's made it very clear that he does not want this article, or any wiki article containing the nom de plume "yttrx" to be linked with any existing reference or work of or created by the person behind the pseudonym, it's not going to happen in this particular permutation of this page. However, if this page does get deleted, it will likely show up in a new permutation, which again, would be engineered not only to the satisfaction of everyone involved, but also for the point of the purpose of the original yttrx entry. And, why Cchamilton2 is still an active wiki account even after evident and admitted wikipedia vandalism is utterly beyond me. Also Cchamilton2, if you need citations then use "citation needed" like everyone else--instead of vandalizing the page. In some of the instances in this wiki entry, there are people who would come forward and supply them as needed. sjones 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's not vandalism if it's the truth. I'd happily change it back and add citations myself, but it's better it's deleted since I can only add citations for so much. The purpose of the original yttrx entry was vanity, so I think you'll have to find another purpose if it is going to stay around next time. As for why my account is still active, well I could ask you the same thing. Cchamilton2 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but redirect to Cock and ball torture. There is no solid consensus present here endorsing deletion, so when in doubt, don't delete. Anecdotal evidence known to the closer suggest the term is distinct from CBT; however, mindful of the need for verifiable, reliable sources, a redirection there seems the best route at present. The history of ballbusting will be maintained thereby, and may be resurrected at editorial discretion, so long as sources are provided. Xoloz 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballbusting

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable sexual activity. John254 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's just a matter of notability. It turns out there are about 350K Ghits for "ballbusting," 250K with "fetish" added, and still about 75K when "xxx" is excluded. On the referencing issue, though, I'm having trouble finding RS among all the fetish site hits. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sexual activity is already covered in Cock and ball torture. I'd go with a simple redirect to that article, but the problem is that the concept is most widely used metaphorically, as, per one definition, "scolding or berating" someone. [26] For example, in a Yahoo! search, even "bust her balls" (obviously a metaphor) has 445 hits. Perhaps send to Wiktionary, which currently has no entry for "ballbusting"? JamesMLane t c 10:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable term, and with 350,000 + hits on Google, that certainly emphasises its usage as a common slang word.

It could be redirected to List of sexual slang terms, or expanded further. It's all a case of finding references that are reliable sources - not an easy task, but there probably will be a source somewhere. --sunstar net^talk 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per JamesMLane — entirely covered under Cock and ball torture, so a simple redirect will suffice. A mention that several slang terms for CBT are used metaphorically could be added to that article. / edgarde 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Part of my uncertainty is: Does the nonsexual concept of ballbusting merit an article? Arguably, it's strictly Wiktionary material -- but I'm inclined to think that more could be written than just a dicdef. Perhaps it should be just a redirect for now, without prejudice to an eventual article about the broader sense. JamesMLane t c 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Groin attack. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Rewrite: article needs to be re-written by someone experienced in this activity. It is an uncommon but significant variant of Cock and ball torture. It has both sexual and non-sexual connotations. There are websites and professionals dedicated to this activity. I googled 'ball busting' and got 250K hits. I will do research on this and post edits in the near future. The current info is more 'hurtful' than 'harmless'. Jerry guru 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Sails

San Diego Sails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is original research and copy vio. Article sites no sources. Masterpedia 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article should be tagged as needing references and wikification. It is contribution of a defunct professional team from a major sport. Many of the franchises from this league were absorbed by the National Basketball Association. TonyTheTiger 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to WP:A, "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." The article as a whole does not qualify under that definition. It qualifies as "Unsourced material[, which] is material not yet attributed to a reliable source." Sources for this can be quite easily found here. Copyvio is a reason for speedy deletion, if it can be proved. Can you please provide the actual page which this is a copyvio of? Thanks, Black Falcon 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information was copied from here [27] [28]. Reworked as original research. --Masterpedia 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you. It seems information was also taken from [29]. That may not be original research per WP:A#What is original research? unless claims are made which are not substantiated in the two articles. I will try to ascertain whether the posted content actually matches the sources (in which case, adding the sources should fix everything) or whether unsubstantiated claims are made in the article (which would have to be removed) and reply again within 24 hours. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ABA teams are definitely notable and important to have here, and it's unclear by the nom what the copyvio is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Velvet elvis81 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Article could also be merged to San Diego Conquistadors. --Masterpedia 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After comparing the article with the sources, it is apparent that certain portions of the article are not verified by the three sources I checked. This does not necessarily mean that it's original research, which refers to material that is "unverifiable", not "unverified". A merge between San Diego Conquistadors and San Diego Sails (and turning one or the other into a redirect page) might be the best solution, if indeed they are essentially the same team (the articles already contain much of the same information). Whether the Sails article ought to be merged to Conquistadors or vice versa is something I have no opinion on yet. -- Black Falcon 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with San Diego Conquistadors; the new name should be San Diego Sails. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:47Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neva Dinova. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:44Z

Heath Koontz

Heath Koontz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is a member of a small band truly notable? Computerjoe 's talk 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, and as far as I can tell, WP:MUSIC doesn't say that if a band meets its notability guidelines, all its members get articles as well. --Gwern (contribs) 21:32 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and also doesn't say anything not already on the band's page. A1octopus 09:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Terrorism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:41Z

Political terrorism

Political terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is a tautology, terrorism political violence, would propose merge with terrorism, but article consists of unreferenced and not very well written opinion trueblood 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to salvage here. It's little more than a bad idea combined with a POV fork. --Gwern (contribs) 21:30 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I could sources some of the content (note: I am not the author), but whatever is salvageable is basically redundant to terrorism. Moreover, as the nom has noted, the term is tautological. However, it is a plausible search term, so I would suggest a redirect. -- Black Falcon 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to terrorism. Redundant article name and looks like possible POV fork. Dragomiloff 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Angband (computer game). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:50Z

List of Angband variants

List of Angband variants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of non-notable games. Crufty. Begs for spam. Almost none of the games here are notable, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a fan resource or title dump. Wokinlone 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote either to keep, or to merge into the main Angband page. User:RogerBarnett:RogerBarnett 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you really just did is invoke WP:JUSTAVOTE. Not really going to help this discussion. Debates are centered on the quality of the arguments, not how many people think something. 65.99.214.90 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge popular ones into Angband (computer game), or delete altogether if it cannot be established which variants are popular or otherwise notable. The list as it exists has no encyclopedic value and belongs on Angband-centered resources. Conscious 11:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just today came to WP with the goal of finding an Angband variant with a particular attribute. This list could use some cleanup, but I believe that it is valuable. I vote to keep, as it is far too cumbersome to be merged in the main article. Also note that this list is greatly pared down from other "1001 variants" pages on other sites. An attempt should be made to insure that the items on this list are notable. Marvin01 | talk 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly merge; the point of the article is not whether these are individually notable; it is to convey how many variants of Angband there are, and how widely different they are in what they change. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is no reason to maintain a list just to show that there are variants. That should just be mentioned in the main article and that's the end of that. Wokinlone 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - list of non-notable material, unsourced, fails WP:ATT and WP:RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam-listcruft per nom. If a list does not demonstrably exist to display notable information, then it has no place on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge. Just because items are not individually notable, this does not mean that they are not collectivly notable. These seem collectivly notable to me, and thus deserving of this list article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of random data or lists. I'm already having a bad day, and finding this just made it worse ! WMMartin 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Angband page. Most of these are indeed non-notable and no one plays them. Grue 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Moreschi, Deiz. Per Grue, notable variants can be listed on Angband, or not at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwheels

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

Article on one of many fictional technologies detailed in Neal Stephenson's (great) novel Snow Crash. I had redirected to the book but was quickly reverted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this goes against the guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia that minor characters, concepts, etc. should not be the subject of articles. Not sure if this is or is not worthy of a merge but should be deleted or redirected in either case.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally reverted it. I didn't understand what had happened to the page.
I disagree with your assessment of it. I can try to make it a larger page if necessary, with more of my own writing, but to mark it for deletion simply because it's one of many fictional technologies featured in a work seems unfair. If we applied that standard widely, we wouldn't have a page on lightsabers (just one of the many fictional technologies from the Star Wars universe) or Slaver stasis fields and scrith (a few of the technologies from Larry Niven's Known Space Universe) or any number of other things.--McFarty

Delete Fictional technologies are rarely notable, especitally when found in only one novel. The article offers absolutely no legitimate sources and completely fails to establish notability. In response to McFarty, the existence (or nonexistence) of other articles on similar subject matter is irrelevant to this AfD, which is solely focused on whether this article is in compliance with policy. Some of these other articles you mention may also need to be deleted, though lightsabers are notable; they appear in a large number of movies (not just in Star Wars), books, etc. The topic of this article is nowhere close to reaching that level of notability. --The Way 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources can be found that discuss the concept. Lightsabers and scrith are notable because other people than the authors of the works they appeared in have discussed them (although I note that they aren't referenced in the article, detailed papers have been published in which the necessary strength of scrith is calculated). I'm not entirely sure about slaver stasis fields; perhaps that article should be deleted. Although I think I've read something outside of Niven's fiction about his monofilament weapon that depends upon them. JulesH 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additional sources described below. JulesH 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Niven's stasis fields (for example) weren't just a side note in one book; they were a significant element in a number of his writings - Ringworld and World of Ptavvs come to mind. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically smartwheels are found in two novels and they're not just throw away technology in at least one of them. Snow Crash is a very notable book; at least in Time Magazine's opinion.

Arthur C. Clarke also wrote of a similar, though less advanced wheel concept in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you count that, then there's three. How many mentions in novels are requisite before it would become a notable fictional technology? How could I provide a more legitimate source for a fictional technology than quotations from the book it's featured in? In addition, smartwheels of a sort are in development already: IMPASS robot and the official page--McFarty
How could I provide a more legitimate source for a fictional technology than quotations from the book it's featured in? — By not writing articles that way in the first place. This isn't the place for original research, for reading the works of fiction and then performing our own analyses of their elements. There are plenty of people who have analysed science fiction, and who have published books and papers about all sorts of things in it. Work from those secondary sources, not from the original works of fiction. Uncle G 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided more information in the article, including a link to the real-world version of smartwheels, which should fall under acceptable Wikipedia content, since they're real technology.--McFarty

Redirect to "Snow Crash". I appreciate McFarty's efforts, but I still don't see sufficient sources to support notability. The comparisons to Clark's work is original research. The Technovelgy article makes it closer, but the one article is not enough, per WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect. Nn fictional technology. Deiz talk 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book is notable enough for this article. Or merge. SakotGrimshine 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 07:40Z

Evoken

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

non-notbale band, bandcruft/fancruft, poor sourcing SERSeanCrane 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
~~I am also nominating the following related pages under similar reasoning:~~

Embrace the Emptiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

~~Antithesis of Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

Withdrawing nom, recommend sources listed in support of the article be added to reffs. SERSeanCrane 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Strong keep satisfies WP:BAND three albums already plus some other stuff (eps, promos etc), has an AMG entry. Also has performed as the head liner of a Dutch festival Spearhead 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC with two albums on Avantgarde Music.[30] [31] This is also one of the most well-known bands in the funeral doom subgenre. Multiple non-trivial coverage can be found on Google, so verifiability is not a problem.[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Prolog 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notability proved thanks to the sources. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of sources provided and multiple records. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everything above. Clearly meets WP:Band so nomination on grounds of bandcruft is slightly puzzling. A1octopus 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's all sourced and it meets WP:Band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M2K 2 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry454

Symmetry454 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

~~For consistency I have now added these proposals to be deleted, too:~~

~~World Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~International Fixed Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~World Season Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~13 moon calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~The Simple Lunisolar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Holocene calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Someone else already proposed the deletion of these:~~

~~Pax Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~The 30x11 Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~Sol Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~Lately some others have already been removed:~~

~~New Earth Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~Bonavian Civil Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): AfD discussion~~

~~Christoph Päper 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've removed these. This is an AfD which has been running for 9 days already; adding another 7 items to it at this point isn't going to help generate consensus. "Someone else" was me; I was hoping that sufficient consensus could be generated from the first listings to mean that we don't need another train-wreck mass AfD. --Pak21 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It somehow proves my point that you listed all these articles for deletion, but separated the discussions, which then have entries that refer to each other. We need a consensus about requirements for a calendar reform proposal to stay as an article on its own, as a note on Calendar reform or not at all. I do not see the essential difference among the ones listed above yet. This goal is hard if not impossible to reach, when the discussion is cluttered this way. Christoph Päper 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pak21 was right to separate these. Each needs to stand, or fall, on their own merits. Some of these I *know* will be able to be improved with better sourcing (such as the World Calendar) and their deletion is wildly premature. Others, perhaps won't. But they are different enough to merit separate discussions. To look at them all and say "they are the same, delete them all" is not doing justice to the AfD process, to Wikipedia, or to these calendar reform concepts. - Nhprman ^List 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research with no sign of any mention in verifiable sources. Delete --Pak21 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I can't find any sources outside of the calendar reform community. --N Shar 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but maybe in a different form. There have been serious attempts to reform the calendar now used worldwide in the early days of the United Nations in continuation of work of its predecessor, the League of Nations, and inside œcumenic organisations (esp. regarding Easter). The UN officially postponed its decision, because no consensus was reached back then. So probably some day they will try again and maybe they will even change something. I think it is encyclopædic to describe the possible alterations of the roman calendar (that were discussed). I consider naming proposals less important (“Newton week” and the like), because the number of possible proposals is limited, therefore you can enumerate them (except for a few exots) and just as a sidenote give originators, proposers or names; also leap rules are not that essential. Among this list there will also be concepts not discussed fifty-odd years ago, but proposed and elaborated since. One thing of particular interest is the compatibility with international standards, esp. ISO 8601, which unlike most older proposals starts the week on Monday and introduces defacto a parallel leap-week calendar. This way Symmetry 454 (among ohers) would deserve mentioning despite being a rather recent proposal, but I am not sure whether it should keep an article of its own. It is one of the better thought-through proposals, though, and not something made up in school one day. It is perhaps not that helpful that its “inventor” started contributing to Wikipedia and this article in particular not that long ago. Anyway this discussion on deletion cannot be limited to Symmetry 454, but would have to effect all calendars that are not recognized by—well, by whom? --Christoph Päper 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same criterion should be used for calendars that is used for all other articles on Wikipedia: that the article should rely on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", a direct quote from the non-negotiable policy on verifiabily. I see no such sources here, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. --Pak21 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My point is that you do not need a source for the trivial idea to divide the ISO week year into four quarters of three months each, which have a length of twice four weeks (or 30 days) and once five weeks (or 31 days) in one of the three possible orders. The question is rather whether this (or each of these six possibilities and all similar ones) needs or deserves an article on its own, just because it is assigned a name/originator or is combined with a certain leap rule. If it does not (and I mildly tend to think so), Symmetry454 and all the other articles on proposed calendar reforms should be deleted, but only after all this information is collected into one article. This is currently done only half-way in Calendar reform, because it can rely on detail articles about the proposals. Note though that any such page would need an active neutral maintainer, because there are people trying to push their preferred proposal or certain requirements a reform needed to fulfill or success. --Christoph Päper 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble then comes with who gets to say what is a "trivial idea"; for instance, it is clear to me that it is a trivial idea that Pak21 is the cleverest person who has ever lived. Wikipedia solves this problem by requiring third-party sources, of which this (and many of the other calendars linked from Calendar reform) lack. Hence they should be deleted. --Pak21 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed in WP:A under the topic “What is not original research?”:
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.
This would mean (in my interpretation) it was okay to say there are proponents for a new calendar and describe in which ways the (Gregorian) calendar could be reformed, but it was inappropriate to mention any names of calendar proposals, at least not in an article title. My preferred solution therefore is (still) this: Improve Calendar reform, then delete all the proposals that have never been in official use. (Whether official use includes being under discussion in the UN or some country is another question that should be answered first. Note that I used Symmetry454 as an example in my (premature) petition to the German government[39] to consider adopting a fiscal calendar with months based on the year counting established by the week format of ISO 8601.) Christoph Päper 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw, of course, is that neither the Symmetry454 proposed calendar nor any other that I'm aware of has ever had "official use." By the very definition of the words, a proposed calendar that was adopted would simply be a nation's new civil calendar. The idea that proposals can never be named seems absurd on its face for an encyclopedia which purports to inform its readers as to the lastest research and thinking within a certain community. I'm coming to believe that no calendar proposal, however notable, however widely discussed off-line and in the scientific community, can ever be listed on Wikipedia unles there are volumes of "publicity." The problem is that calendar reform, like other sciences, aren't usually on the front page of the New York Times or the National Enquirer (a sensationalistic US Tabloid) and "publicity" isn't usually the goal of researchers, it's discussion, usually behind closed doors. The problem with interpreting these guidelines and policies is that we seem to be aiming not for "notability" but "noteriety" here. In other words, what makes the biggest splash in the press and what is most widely known is what makes the cut for inclusion. Everything else is assumed to be made up in someone's basement, and not worthy. The problem is that publicity and noteriety isn't always the best gauge of what the facts are, or what is important for inclusion. - Nhprman ^List 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the calendar is discussed widely offline in the scientific community, then the results of those discussions should be published somewhere. When someone reads this article, all they will learn is what the calendar proposes, but not why some scientists think it is important, or why other scientists may object the proposal. -Pomte 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources; most of the external links are to self-published sources. I'm not convinced it passes muster for notability and verifiability without some citations in the mass media, a scholarly journal, or other independent publication. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Symmetry454 calendar is extensively verifiable with sources outside of WP, and is not a fly-by-night, created-by-a-teen-after-school project. It was designed by a university professor who has done extensive research on calendar design. As he notes on the discussion page of the article, "publicity" alone is not a significant source of verifiability, and, frankly, Wikipedian admins need to stop these little Jihads against truly encyclopedic articles. The idea expressed above that this is a "trivial" calendar concept is an extremely subjective comment.- Nhprman ^List 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: which reliable sources have included information on this calendar? --Pak21 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not that it was all that important for this discussion, but I do not think my comment was that subjective. If you start from the current, rather solar calendar with twelve months and your primary goals for a reform are perpetuality and equal-length quarters, you will soon arrive at the two versions published by Dr. Irv Bromberg, except maybe with a different position of the longer month and maybe with weeks starting at Sunday. I think such proposals belong to the better and more promising, though. His work on leap rules and astronomic influences on calendar design at a whole are another matter entirely. Christoph Päper 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's easy for some to point out how 'easy' or natural it is to come up with a design for a calendar, or a car, or a mathematical formula, but you're right, it's utterly unimportant for this discussion. His computations really are a different matter. This is a unique design, his computations and design are copyrighted, and this is perhaps the most vetted design for calendar reform out there. The fact that it's not verified and notable on the Internet, with easily linkable sources, makes it "non-notable" to WP geekdom, I suppose, but that's a pretty flawed standard. The fact that this AfD was begun as a mass deletion dooms this discussion. The AfD notices from these other articles were removed, since the original "train wreck mass deletion" attempt, above, was abandoned. If someone wants to relist them, that's fine. But this should be the only calendar under discussion at this point. - Nhprman ^List 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are mistaken about the facts here: this AfD was not "begun as a mass deletion discussion": it started listing one and only one article and continued that way for 7 days. The extra articles were listed for less than half an hour yesterday. Secondly, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material"; if sources cannot be provided, as is apparently the case here, then an article should be deleted. If this is really "the most vetted design for calendar reform out there", where is the evidence? --Pak21 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that much of the evidence isn't contained online, and the discussions are not in a neat little URL that the article can link to, makes these facts and this calenar irrelevent, apparently. That is a fatal flaw of Wikipedia. Standing behind policies in a legalistic fashion, consistently repeating them like a mantra, will perhaps kill these articles, but it's also killing this as an acceptable vehicle for research among those who are serious about this topic. - Nhprman ^List 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution does not require sources to be online. It does, however, require sources. If you or anyone else can provide details of where these alleged sources are to be found, then it would dramatically reduce the likelihood of this article being deleted. --Pak21 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst, Merge to Leap week calendar. Pak21 has nominated many calandar reform topics as per this AfD Discussion Two articles have been successfully deleted thus far, and Pak21 has removed all mention of the topics from Calendar reform thereby removing valuable content from a good article, including all external links...In addition, the availability of sub-topics such as Lunisolar calendar, Leap week calendar, & Solar calendar for which these articles would provide strong supplementary material has been completely disregarded. The sources provided are based on simple calculations and are both non-trivial and respectable as per Wikis guidelines. In addition, the articles are well written. Removing these articles without regard to the value they add if merged to existing subheadings may adhere to the letter of guidelines for individual articles, but degrades wiki in the process. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Younger and junior versions of cartoon characters (renamed from Younger versions of cartoon characters). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:31Z

Junior versions of cartoon characters

Junior versions of cartoon characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No clean-up for months, basically same thing as Younger versions of cartoon characters. Either delete or merge. Josh215 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or Merge Seems like duplicated content. -- Ben 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect mildly plausible search term. JuJube 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is a mess, and I do not have the time to fix it. However, younger versions of cartoon characters and junior versions of cartoon characters appear to be separate concepts. The former appear to be the original characters only younger (e.g., Scooby-Doo as a puppy), whereas the latter appears to be children, nephews, nieces, or protégés of the original characters (e.g., Scrappy-Doo).--FreeKresge 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:47Z

List of songs mentioning Hennessy

List of songs mentioning Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of songs featuring Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Songs listed by a trivial criterion that is not some kind of significant defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too trivial and unencyclopedic, and borderline OR, too. 23skidoo 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even vaguely encyclopedic. Deiz talk 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did Hennessy have some kind of product placement going on with Eminem and 2pac?! Croxley 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious listcruft. JuJube 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - listcruft - if we let this stand we'll end up with "List of songs featuring filing cabinets" or "list of songs featuring cups of tea." A1octopus 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-03 07:49Z

Wikihowto

Wikihowto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Wikihowto-logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Unencyclopedic article on a non-notable wikia project; content simply copied from site's welcome & help pages. Fails WP:WEB. Earlier version deleted a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WikiHowTo. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's as encyclopedic as I know about the subject. There are other how-to sites that have articles: eHow,wikiHow & HowStuffWorks. I skimmed a little about wikia projects. I think they all have advertisers. I noticed eHow has articles like How to French Kiss. I wonder if it has a disclaimer about doing that. Think of the germs and the teeth. What if the other person sneezed . . . or had epilepsey. -- Chuck Marean 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, those other articles appear to satisfy WP:WEB due to having "been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." If not, then perhaps they are also candidates for deletion. Regardless, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this article should. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can't catch epilepsy from kissing someone, right? And what exactly has that got to do with whether this article should be kept or deleted? "It is encyclopedic because I know about the subject" is a form of "I like it" statement, an argument that holds no water in AfD debates. If you believe this article should be kept, you should specify which Wikipedia policies it meets. Specifically showing how it meets the criteria laid out in the notability guidelines for websites Gwernol 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB as noted by the nominator. Gwernol 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both (no arguments for keep aside from "it will exist"). Trebor 12:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anerley Road tram stop

Anerley Road tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future gazing a proposal by Transport for London that has not been confirmed I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Penge Road tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Regan123 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, just about real enough. Clear from page that this is expected in the future. Deiz talk 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Tram stops are not necessarily notable, even when they have actually been built. DGG 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but rewording is required. --sonicKAI 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per DGG. These clearly stray into WP:NOT#IINFO territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:27Z

Justin Ruedebusch

Justin Ruedebusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing in this article checks out. No evidence of a Justin Ruedebusch winning a Grammy. Created by Fernwood who has created numerous other nonsense articles and has vandalised other articles. IrishGuy ^talk 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. None of the movies in which he supposedly appears exist. The poetry collection doesn't exist--exactly one ghit for the exact title, this article. Darkspots 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax / nonsense. Deiz talk 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references, so article immediately fails. Personally, I'd like to delete any article that refers to people living in "object poverty". WMMartin 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, and stub until copyright issue is resolved. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:24Z

Thomas Hutchins

Thomas Hutchins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1.) Possibly copyright infringement
2.) Lack of verifiable information from reliable sources Seraphim Whipp 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article needs editing and does indeed need to be rewritten to remove copyvio (one section is from here, I've discovered). The source indicated in the article appears to be a reasonable one to start with, and I can find quite a few others with a quick look around. Professional Surveyor magazine; the link above where the copyvio has come from is another reasonable source, and there are approximately 800 Google hits to "Thomas Hutchins' surveyor - not bad for a guy who died a couple hundred years ago. From this glance, he appears to be one of the key surveyors of much of the United States - that's pretty notable. It needs stubifying right now, though, to remove the copyvio. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to meet WP:BIO, however the copyright issue is disturbing. Prehaps it would work if the closing admin squashed this history and made it a one or two line stub. Willie Stark 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though desperately in need of cited material from reputable sources. Smee 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 07:21Z

Christina McHale

Christina McHale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Christina mchale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO guidelines. I'm not an expert on tennis, but I don't think that a junior tennis competitor automatically qualifies without some sort of major media coverage. Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. NN, self-promotion for school it seems. Lordwow 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As-yet nn junior tennis player. Love this line "Other information is from all other people who know Christina McHale personally so that we can write a biography on her. Several people who know her personally have given information to each other to all revise and perfect Christina McHale's biography.. Deiz talk 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why are you doing this too me ? I try to be a nice, hard-working guy, but still you bombard me with articles about people who don't meet our criteria for notability. What have I done to deserve this ? Why should I have to spend five minutes cleaning yet another product of someone's vanity out of the vast edifice that is Wikipedia ? One day this girl may be notable, but right now she isn't. I'm sure she's a great gal, and I'm sure her family love her, and I'm sure her friends respect her skills, but she's not yet ready for an article here. Sorry, fails guidelines. WMMartin 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stockwell (statistician)

John Stockwell (statistician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems non-notable, no references, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI EliminatorJR 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the notability guidelines and lacks sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of how important his contributions were to those records/journals. Other than the ACS the other journals do not appear to be notable. I think many, many people do a similar job and are not notable. –Pomte 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesemonger

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Proofreader J-Man 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per CSD:A1 and other CSD criteria. Luke! 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Luke! on camera^(t) 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per no context RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-03 07:48Z

Stagestruck Childrens Theatre

Stagestruck Childrens Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community group. Google search for "Stagestruck Childrens Theatre" garners a single hit, this article, and a search for "Stagestruck Children's Theatre" gets two hits. IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned above, there is one real hit for it on Google, and that's the organization's web page. The Wayne Arts Council (used as a reference link in the article) has only a one-sentence webpage for it. LastChanceToBe 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per above. Real96 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This seems like one of those classic examples of an AfD spurring people to chase up references etc. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ImageShack

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

Subject does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP Afed 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, really not that significant in the grand scheme of things on the Internet. As per nomination. ContivityGoddess 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the third highest ranked image host on the internet currently ranked 52nd highest traffic site on the internet. How is that not significant in the grand scheme of things?--Crossmr 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, there's no encyclopaedic notability demonstrated as WP:WEB or WP:CORP requires, and the site isn't significant enough to have any. --Jacj 18:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no independent sources per WP:ATT. —Psychonaut 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Independent sources have now been added.~~--Crossmr 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; here is the previous deletion nominmation: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ImageShack, although it was mistaken, for what it's worth. Looking at the criterion, I think the original nomination correctly points out that it doesn't fit the criterion. I haven't worked with wikipedia closely enough to know about these policies, but it seems common sense for anyone familiar with using image hosts that imageshack is by far one of the biggest out there. It's obviously not going to be covered in news publications - what kind of mainstream publication writes a story on image hosts, and bare-bones image hosts (unlike flickr) at that? The lack of media coverage doesn't mean imageshack isn't big and widely used, take a look at Alexa: [[40]], currently #64 website worldwide, and the third largest image host behind flickr and photobucket. Also, for what it's worth, 36 million google hits vs. 44 million for photobucket. Tejastheory 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me how the article survived the first nomination, if the participants were aware of the policies. I assume they were different back then, or enforced differently. I don't deny that ImageShack is well known and widely used, but that by itself doesn't fulfill the criteria. Neither does Alexa, which merely provides a short summary of what the site is and statistics of how many users of Alexa's software visit the site. --Afed 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the criteria that you linked to, I would have to agree that imageshack probably doesn't fufill those, but I'm not all that familiar with wikipedia notability policies. Surely, even without 'formal' media source, imageshack is one of the most widely well-known image hosts, and certainly one of the most top-trafficked - doesn't that count for something? Tejastheory 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a non-trivial source to reference in the article, or some other thing that would meet one of the guidelines, that would help a lot. I didn't see anything before I AfDed --Afed 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crappy web-cruft. -incog 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep are you kidding? This is notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not kidding, and I believe that this article is not notable according to WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The article cites no primary sources and so far no one has come up with any. --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of citations calls for tagging the article with cleanup tags, not for deleting the entire article. Deletion for a lack of citations only is supposed to occur when an article's subject fails to meet WP:N (and thus it is highly doubtful that citations could ever be found for a non-notable subject). This article's subject is so notable that I'm sure citations could be found. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. 30 seconds of googling turns up refs like this one. - Peregrine Fisher 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something about that site rubs me the wrong way. It looks suspiciously like a paid blogging service. Did you read some of their other stuff? --Afed 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "30 seconds of googling" test is that Google can't distinguish between a genuine, notable weblog and a "news" site that just regurgitates press releases. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of most used services on the internet Crazybacon 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced weasel phrase detected. --Jacj 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the resources do the research now, but I was kind of under the impression this was a famous website - based on a gut feeling that you see lots of references to it on many web forums. A bit surprised to see it here. I should take a look at this soon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable site as its use is seen across a wide variety of popular sites. As well, two reliable sources have been provided to show coverage and that satisfies WP:WEB.--Crossmr 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources are highly questionable, due to their own relative obscurity and the fact that the cited stories read like press releases. I believe that Mashable exists purely for publishing "press release" materal submitted by the owners of sites themselves. That would essentially be a self published source. Further, if it is indeed a legitimate blog, then it is also not a reliable source according to WP:RS. --Afed 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it was pointed out, while self-published its allowed as long as the writer is a well known journalist which is the case since the author is a journalist for guardian.co.uk, so yes its quite reliable in that case. After some looking, you might be write about that particular article on Biosmagazine. Their top articles don't look like press releases as there is some editorializing in them, and it doesn't appear to be a blog, but in this case, the article is actually a mash up of several press releases. So while the content is reliable, that particular source can't be used to establish notability. Though there is still a point of common sense here, and realization that notability guidelines are not policy, and some critical thinking should reveal that while there isn't a lot of independent coverage it is the 52nd highest traffic website on the internet and the third largest image hoster. Its notable by virtue of its use.--Crossmr 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why was the latest reference added reverted? - Peregrine Fisher 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the user made a mistake, see my talk page. I reverted it back. - Peregrine Fisher 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; this is not a minor site; it has articles in three other languages and is used regularly according to Whatlinkshere. John Vandenberg 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Imageshack is very much used on the internet, deserves an encyclopedic entry. The article being better or worse I won't discuss, if it needs to be better written then let it be reedited. Erasing this article doesn't make Wikipedia better. --Michael Retriever 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Right now, the article is only an entry that belongs in an "internet guide", not an encyclopedic article. Popularity among the Internet community does not make a subject notable by itself, although this is understandably hard for Wikipedia editors to step back and realise, since most of us are familiar with that kind of thing. The article should be deleted because it will never get better; there are no facts to document that will show Imageshack having historical significants or major achievements (notwithstanding their glowing press releases published on artificial blogs). --Afed 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an internet encyclopedia so popularity among internet users does make it notable. This website also isn't something that is mildly popular either, its within the top 100 websites on the internet. There are probably tens of thousands or more of articles on wikipedia which have no historical significance, I was unaware that that was a requirement, nor are major achievements. You've already admitted its a popular website. We also know how popular a website it is. Your proposal for deletion was based on the fact that you didn't think it was notable or in other words not popular or well known. In the context of people who would be online and reading this encyclopedia, imageshack is popular and notable.--Crossmr 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no relevence to Wikipedia, or anything that makes it notable on its own. --Afed 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think sheer use makes it notable. Being in the top 100 of trafficked sites and being the third largest image host in the world means that there are millions of users that engage in its services or view images that it hosts. ImageShack is not this big, but imagine if there was a single website that hosted the majority of all image content on the web. Sure it may not have social networking features or garner press coverage (because it's a mundane thing), but that fact alone makes it notable and relevant. Tejastheory 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notable --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, famous isn't strong a strong enough term to describe this site. If this doesn't meet WP:WEB then the guideline is all but useless and should be deleted rather than this article. RFerreira 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - if this article is deleted so should many others. This isn't like some articles that have been deleted like fan sites and forum sites which are worthy of deletion. This is a site used by many countries and the article is actually relatively interesting(!). Besides, if you delete it, other users will simply keep recreating it - should definitely stay IMO. GillsMan 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, many other articles should also be deleted, if they are essentially advertisments. I will be getting to them. --Afed 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any article about any subject could be considered an advertisement for it. If you think it reads like an advert thats a reason to clean it up, not deletion. You nominated it because you said it wasn't notable, then admitted it was notable. Now the reasons you've given since then have all been reasons for cleanup, not deletion. This article has also never, to my knowledge, been tagged with a good-faith advert tag. Your tagging it now would only look like you were trying to make your case for deletion. You raised a concern of sources above and the article now has 4.--Crossmr 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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