Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g10, unsourced attack page, author blocked for trolling (see his contribs). NawlinWiki 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff child abuse scandal

Hilary Duff child abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Since no-one wanted this, it's for you to decide.... noteworthy or not?? but this is fact not fiction SimonRebbsell1 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Speedy Delete- Until the author can source it. Per BLP and the siegenthaler incident, we can't make unreferenced claims about child abuse or so forth without sources. However, hoax is not a speedy criterion, it's not really an attack page, and a prod would be resisted by the author. Might as well put it up here. Speedy per G10. "This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."--Wooty Woot? contribs 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per GCap Media mentions over recent weeks: numerous controversy on BRMB and Beacon Radio.

Hell, ask Q103 about the scandal... well, I do work for GCap radio! --SimonRebbsell1 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As extremely prejudicial unsourced information. janejellyroll 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy Delete - Um, so let me get this straight? Both Hilary Duff and Kelly Clarkson are being charged for child abuse for a 15 year old boy in a small town in England? Um, sorry. Unless you can verify both, I'm voting delete per WP:HOAX.--theblueflamingo^Speak 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. WP:COI number 1 states "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors", which is a guideline, so if it is true, you should try to remain neutral. -theblueflamingo^Speak 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) changing vote to speedy. Fails CSD G10. --theblueflamingo^Speak 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this, GCap Media have tons of sources about it. It's no conflict of interest.

Ask any presenter at:

1. 96.4 brmb
2. wyvernfm
3. powerfm
4. southernfm
5. capitalradio
6. foxfm

i work for GCap and know this! so there, no conflict of interest! --SimonRebbsell1 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP FOR THE LAST TIME!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! BLP IS A FUCKING JOKE ARE YOU AL CAPONE! --SimonRebbsell1 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Calderon

J.P. Calderon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable reality show contestant Maelwys 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nom --Maelwys 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See also Talk:J.P. Calderon for a discussion that's already gone on about this, which we unfortunately couldn't come to agreement on, which is why this came to AfD --Maelwys 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I had been hoping that the author would allow a merge into Cook Islands without having to resort to this. Perhaps a Survivor contestants page is needed so that we don't have to go through this for every new season. -- Scorpion 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Full disclosure, I wrote the article. The article is about a nationally-ranked college athlete who went on to become an acknowledged (albeit admittedly not particularly successful) professional, who has been/is part of the cast of two different reality television series. The nominator acknowledges on the talk page that there are already two sources noted in the article (The Calgary Sun article and the TV Guide article), along with several other references which he dismisses for various questionable reasons, but then goes on to claim that the two reliable sources are somehow "not notable" enough to sustain the article. Nominator hangs the AfD on his contention that someone would have to finish 4th on Survivor to be notable (a contention which as far as I can tell is unsupported in policy or guidelines) and on his dismissal of two reliable sources as "non-notable" which makes no sense. Scorpion redirected the article without comment and, when I restored it, redirected it again with the rationale that there are other Survivor contestants who are more notable but who don't have articles. This is an invalid rationale. A subject's notability is independent of another subject's notability. If the hundred other Survivor conestants are as or more notable than Calderon, then Scorpion or whoever else is free to write articles about them. Their absence is not an excuse to delete this article. There has been nothing offered in terms of either Wiki-policy or Wiki-guidelines under which this article is not acceptable. Otto4711 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not absent because nobody wanted to create them. They are absent because they have already been deleted. It's called precedent, and they were not found notable. -- Scorpion 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which brings me back to the point that the notability of one subject has no bearing on the notability of another. If these hundred other articles all got deleted, it's irrelevant to whether or not this article is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You have yet to offer a rationale that relies on actual Wikipedia policy or guidelines under which this article is not acceptable. Otto4711 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge and redirect. I read the debate, which seems to center around the question of whether 2 sources automatically qualifies as "multiple." For this issue I came down on the side of delete (really M&R) because of a different consideration. I consider this person as unlikely to do anything notable in the future (i.e. his "career" ended with the show). If he had gotten a movie deal or something similar that would keep him on the radar, then I would have voted "keep." 2 sources is on the fence -- it could go one way or the other -- but since this person seems unlikely to ever get more attention I say merge. (Before anyone flames me, I'd like to note that this isn't policy, or a guideline, or anything. I know this. The problem is that the guidelines are few in number, and in this case don't clearly tell us what to do. And since they are just that -- guidelines -- it doesn't make sense to interpret them literally. How many sources constitutes "multiple," for example, varies depending on the nature of the article.) --N Shar 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• His career did not end with Survivor, as he is currently appearing on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency which is airing now. Otto4711 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes -- in addition, he's probably (I don't know for sure) still a volleyball player. But it still seems unlikely to me (although I freely admit this is conjecture and opinion) that he will ever again receive the attention that a Survivor contestant receives. I removed the incorrect wording from my post above. (By the way, he should probably be added to the JDMA article, 'cause he doesn't seem to be there.)

• He's in the season 2 episode list article, since that's the season he's in. I guess I'm confused as to why if your criteria for !voting "keep" is that he is supposed to land something that keeps him "on the radar" his joining the JDMA show is insufficient.Otto4711 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep, possibly Merge Agree the Calgary Sun and TV Guide articles satisfy WP:BIO and there is no WP:BLP problem, so he meets policy criteria. Would welcome a merge. --Shirahadasha 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a page about Survivor contestants, per Scorpion's suggestion. JCO312 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that I had tried to merge the page previously, which the creator was extremely opposed to. -- Scorpion 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that what you actually did was redirect the page to the Survivor: Cook Islands article without making any attempt to preserve the information through merging, which yes, I do object to. I have no problem with there being a Survivor contestants page, however, if the contestant is separately notable--as Calderon is--then there is no reason not to have a separate article for that contestant. Otto4711 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still haven't explained what makes him seperately notable from Survivor. It seems that Survivor is his main claim to fame. -- Scorpion 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained several times very clearly exactly why I believe he is notable separate from Survivor. I'm a little unclear why someone as...invested...in Survivor as you clearly are is interested in deleting an article on a Survivor contestant who has established notability beyond the show, but that's up to you to figure out for yourself I guess. I have yet to see you offer up a single reason based in Wiki-policy or Wiki-guidelines that this article has run afoul of. Otto4711 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff Varner become a noted reporter, as did Hunter. I have no problems with them having pages. Sundra was in several TV shows before Survivor, again no problem. There are far more notable Survivors whose pages have been deleted because they weren't considered notable, thus taking his time on Survivor out. Apart from that, all he has is some minor reality TV show and once again, there is precedent because few raialty contestants outside Survivor, The Apprentice, American Idol or The Amazing Race have pages. -- Scorpion 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sourcing looks fine. Given that independent coverage is avaiable, and that some of the people who "placed" don't seem any more likely to "do anything notable in the future", it seems a bit arbitrary to draw a line at "final 4". It also seems a bit unwieldy to merge all these contestants into the parent article. But I'm not too up on my reality show contestants to make this a strong vote. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He seems to be notable enough to keep. Survivor contestants usually are. Somitho 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a few small pieces of notableness add up, this guy is well above the cutoff. —siroχo 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge usually I wouldn't cite precedent, but I think this is a different case. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where exactly are you suggesting this be merged to? It would completely unbalance the Survivor: Cook Islands article. No other Survivor season article that I've looked at has a space for expanded contestant information and there does not appear to be any other logical destination. Otto4711 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd like to direct attention to the afd for Cadice Woodcock, a contestant from the same season who according to CBS polls is one of the most popular of all-time and she lasted 10 weeks longer. Her page was deleted. The afd for Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, far more popular, far more notable, was on TWO seasons of Survivor, no page. -- Scorpion 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CCC and the notability of one subject is still irrelevant to the notability of another. Otto4711 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even if other Survivor contestants have been considered not notable, J.P. Calderon passes with mutiple references. And the dictionary definition of multiple is "more than one". --Eastmain 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears in multiple articles from notable publications. So notable. Also note that if the same sorts of references are available for the other contestents mentioned by Scorpion above, then the articles should probably be recreated and the deletion rescinded. (If no references are available, though, the deletion would stand). Dugwiki 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You do realize that those two newspaper articles are merely standard interviews that every ex Survivor gives once being voted out? They have nothing to do with his time before or after the show. -- Scorpion 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Please read WP:NOTE. Please also read WP:POINT as the only reason I can discern for your objection to this article is that some of your personal favorite contestants got their pages deleted. Please also stop disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly editing Template:Survivor contestants to remove the Calderon link with no justification. Otto4711 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me that you are the one trying to protect the article for your favourite contestant. -- Scorpion 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I've never seen an entire episode of Survivor. I probably couldn't name ten other contestants and had never heard of Calderon before he showed up two weeks ago on JDMA. I just don't like how you tried to take ownership of this article, I don't think you've conducted this entire exercise appropriately, I question your motivation in supporting this nomination and I strongly disagree with the stated reasons for deletion. Otto4711 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yeah, that was basically my point when I said that even though those two are technically "multiple" that I didn't interpret them as being sufficient in notability, because as you say they're just standard interviews that everybody does. Even the very first person voted off, that's only on the show for 1 episode (as one of ~20 people there for that hour) gets his TV guide interview published, and gets to appear on a talk show the next morning and the whole thing. But by the next week you've already forgotten who he is, and by the time they do the reunion show nobody even recognizes him. His 15 seconds of fame is over, and he's already an unfamiliar face. Basically, he's non-notable, in spite of a couple interviews he gave during that 15 seconds. --Maelwys 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To a page listing all other Cook Islands contestants, and delete all contestant pages. Otherwise, just delete. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not merge and redirect? Merging doesn't have much point if someone looking for the merged information is unable to find it, no? Redirecting, however, could help them find said coverage. Picaroon 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to meet notability requirements and WP:BIO. Notability does not expire. — brighterorange (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments How so? Here is the entertainment related criteria at WP:BIO, and it's already been established that being on Survivor alone isn't enough for a page.
    • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame) - Nope
    • The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - All of the interviews were mandatory Survivor interviews conducted because of his Survivor involvement, not because of his self notability
    • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
      • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers. - The only articles cited are mandatory interviews that come automatically after elimination. Meaning that none of the interviews were conducted because of his notability
        • I think he clearly passes this criterion. Why does it matter if they are "mandatory"? In addition, as Otto has shown, he may meet WP:BIO for his involvement in college and professional sports. I am not a survivor fan at all, by the way. — brighterorange (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following - No indication of that
      • An independent biography - Not much of a biography
      • Name recognition - They didn't even tell his last name on Survivor
      • Commercial endorsements - None indicated
  • He fails of the criteria listed there, as well, will anyone really find such a page necessary in 100 years. A google search yielded 20,200 results, but compare this with Sekou Brunch (20,700 results) and Cecilia Mansilla (32,100) who were both voted out before J.P. and compare this with the people from CI that do have pages: Jonathan Penner (73,500) , Ozzy Lusth (79,000), Becky Lee (54,500) and Yul Kwon (105,000), so how does that make him a stand out? -- Scorpion 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I recently argued for the inclusion of Calderon on his talk page believing that he satisfies WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and someone dismissed them, saying "It's just a guideline, not a policy." I'm trying to remember who it was who was so dismissive...oh right, it was you. Kind of odd that you're arguing for WP:BIO to be the measure today when you dismissed it yesterday...
• Note that WP:BIO also has guidelines for athletes: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." Calderon competed for California State University, Long Beach in men's volleyball and coaches women's volleyball. CSULB's article notes that its men's and women's volleyball teams are both highly nationally ranked. He is also a ranked player by the Association of Volleyball Professionals, which its article notes is the premiere professional beach volleyball league in the United States. I have already acknowledged that his pro volleyball career has not been stellar but that doesn't mean that his volleyball career should not be considered in addition to his appearances on Survivor and JDMA. I happen to think his reality TV career is by itself sufficient to establish notability but his TV cast appearances plus his sporting career are definitely enough to qualify him as notable. Otto4711 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, you said to cite some guidelines, and I did, so don't get angry and keep in mind WP:CIVIL. I looked at that Volleyball article, and very few of them have pages, not even the two players who the article claims were the top ranked in 2005. Precedent has already been established for Survivor articles, and if not even the top ranked AVP players have pages, then the main reason for his page is JDMA, which he hasn't done anything of note in, and by the way, none of the contestants from that article have individual pages, not even JDs page is linked from there. -- Scorpion 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite aware of WP:CIVIL, thanks. You might want to re-familiarize yourself with WP:3RR, seeing as how following your fifth revision of the Survivor template I reported you for it.

• It seems to me that it is YOU that needs to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. -- Scorpion 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Calderon's page is linked to The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency episodes (Season 2), which, since that is where he is appearing and since those of us who maintain the JDMA articles don't want the S2 models on the main page yet, is where he should be linked. Janice Dickinson's page is linked in the intro of the Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency article, which is where it should be linked. Whether or not any of the other models or whether any other AVP players have pages (and over a dozen of their articles are linked to the AVP page so why you would claim they don't is unfathomable) or whether any of the other JDMA models have articles is irrelevant to whether Calderon is notable. Otto4711 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't want to see a Wikipedia where every contestant on every reality show has the right to a Wikipedia article. This person has done nothing notable but be in two reality shows, gaining on the low end of normal media attention for this. A career of reality shows may be notable - but two shows does not yet qualify as a career. I believe this person fails WP:BIO. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for adequate notability. Doczilla 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for adequate notability. This guy is on multiple TV shows and is being talked about in other media and was an athlete before that. I searched for him on Google and found this Wikipedia article valuable.Wikedit9 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for adequate notability as above. Thedreamdied 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note additional source which will be published in February 2007 (cover image currently available). Otto4711 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reality show contestants aren't inherently notable, nor is every failed athlete. /Blaxthos 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Personally I don't think there was much use userfying it since they're not a contributor to the site. -- Steel 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaumeb

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

Seems to be more or less a user page. It's in the first person, and isn't under the person's claimed real name (Guillaume Belfiore). If notable, needs to be completely redone. John Owens | (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Nn-bio written in first person (starts out "My name is Guillaume, I am French and was born in 1979. I have a bachelor..." etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to User:Guillaumeb. Seems like an honest mistake. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per Dhartung above. Placed a tag for that and hangon, just for the sake of argument. Please, let me know if this is not quite the right procedure. --Dennisthe2 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per Dhartung. --Candy-Panda 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy I haven't been around enough lately, didn't know there was such a thing as "userfication". If I had, that would've been my own first suggestion, especially since I'd already checked that his user page was non-existent. --John Owens | (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom, and to Guillaumeb, userfy per above posts. Bigtop 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy then delete. Innocent mistake -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above. Simple misunderstanding about difference between main and user spaces. --Shirahadasha 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Delete I agree with the comments regarding a misunderstanding. JCO312 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as I have cut-and-pasted the full content to his user page. − Twas Now 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Do we have a concensus to Userfy and Speedy? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undeniably so. Note, however, that I've already userfied this sucka. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been userfied, delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say yes. Somitho 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelamay

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

Where to begin? Let's see... Non-notable, vanity page, spam, little content with no meaningful context, unsourced, etc. Already speedy deleted once, but the template's having trouble staying on the page the second time. adavidw 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- can't userfy, as there's already a user page. --N Shar 01:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i'm not even sure what this falls or doesn't fall under. non-notable.--Tainter 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. janejellyroll 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a simple misunderstanding about what a Wikipedia article is for. Suggest moving content to somewhere in the author's user space. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. It's a bio. --Dennisthe2 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as consistent with the entry directly above. JCO312 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete as per nom and N Shar Somitho 10:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't userfy. User's only edits to WP are self-promotion. WP:NOT a free web host or for self-promotion. Mr Stephen 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please do not userfy vanity pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HappyCamper 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banglighting

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

Probable hoax article, as there are no ghits for this supposed "practice", and the content does not appear to be verifiable. No sources given either. SunStar Net^talk 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, likely WP:NFT. Fan-1967 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Author of this article just recreated The cult of briefsism, so we can forget WP:AGF. -- Fan-1967 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per WP:SNOW. I KNOW it's not policy. --N Shar 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN! --- RockMFR 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN sounds like a good time though.--Tainter 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is still my vote here... Philippe Beaudette 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Speedy delete nonsense -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN per discussion. This is horribly silly and put a smirk on my face. --Dennisthe2 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN it is. Possible Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (outtakes) candidate. Doubt it's WP:NFT -- probably made up while something more, er, interesting. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quadzilla99 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX JCO312 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What the heck, BJAODN. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN - I can see it now.. "Wikipedia is not: a listing of erotic exploding lightbulb terms" --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN It's nonsense, but it's nonsense that made me giggle. Eeblefish 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How many bored teenagers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Delete junk. JuJube 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per User:JCO312. --PaxEquilibrium 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is BJAODN? --PaxEquilibrium 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It means WP:BJAODN. --HappyCamper 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven the Musical

The Raven the Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The Raven The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (adding, basically duplicate) Mangojuice^talk 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musical posted by its creator (WP:COI), using Wikipedia as a free web space provider. I originally speedied it under WP:CSD#G12 ("Uploader does not assert permission") because the creator added "Copying punishable by law" at the top, and figured WP:SNOW would apply. It has since been edited to put a factual introductory paragraph, but still remains completely untenable as an article, and fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NFT. ~Matticus ^T_C 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And delete Matthew Weinstein's vanity insertion at The Raven too. --Wetman 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability. No attempt to comply with WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free place to publish. --Shirahadasha 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete there's no assertion of notability. JCO312 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hard to run a google check due to "That's so Raven", but appears to be Hoax. Speedy Delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. The website appears to be here and here's google's text cache of the site. I removed the mention of it from The Raven while incidentally reading that article. Graham87 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is so clearly a delete that I'd like to vote for a delete, then resurrect it and delete it again just for good measure. 193.129.65.37 08:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This obviously meets the criteria. Somitho 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and consider salting the earth. If it's been recreated once it may be recreated again. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom, and as obvious violation of WP:COI. Does the author realize that by posting here, he has released all copyright permissions to this piece, and should it ever become notable it will be out there for everyone to copy. I believe that is the definition of shooting oneself in the foot. Pastordavid 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, clear vanity article. Mangojuice^talk 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two days and not a single dissenting comment against the deletion, not even from an IP user or newly created account. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we can WP:SNOW this. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket notation

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

The only reference this article gives is to a blog post by one Aza Raskin, son of Jef Raskin, which describes "bracket notation" but states that it was an idea of his father's and previously did not have a name. Later, in the Comments section, the blog's author admits to also being the original author of the Wikipedia article, implicitly identifying himself as the author of this revision. Given that this was only about seven months ago, and that other sources for the method of notation are lacking, it looks to me very much like original research and an attempt at self-promotion. Note that if the page is deleted, the redirect to Bra-ket notation which previously existed there should be restored. – Qxz 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of any prior publication elsewhere, let alone notability or independent review. See WP:NOT#PUBLISH. --Shirahadasha 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent sources are located. JCO312 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is the sort of quirky old-Wikipedia article I have a fond spot for, but it does not meet WP:V standards. It's been popularized on some blogs in the last year but doesn't have any formal references in e.g. books. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Somitho 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect. One blog post is not sufficient for notability. But I would amend the submitter's suggestion that the article be redirected to Bra-ket notation: it seems reasonably likely that someone searching for this subject would be looking for Lie bracket instead, or maybe something else altogether. So I think a more appropriate redirect would be to Bracket (disambiguation). —David Eppstein 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I only said that because that's what was originally there – Qxz 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This one is kind of hard to explain but it's pretty funny. In any case, I see no hope of this article ever developing to anything more than the current sub-stub: this political party was in fact not a party but a clever way to advertise the Mongolian Barbecus, whatever that is. There is simply no encyclopedic value to the topic other than the trivial anecdote. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This article will never be expanded beyond the stub. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Stubs have value, too, so I wouldn't be willing to delete only because it can't be expanded. However, this seems completely non-notable, having only one google hit outside Wikipedia and her mirrors. Add an entry at List of frivolous political parties for it, though, and maybe redirect this there. Heimstern Läufer 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, if only because it's a creative name for a political party. =) Delete otherwise. --Dennisthe2 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, WP:BJAODN candidate. No notability, but not too bad a joke as ad agency products go. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Merge with List of frivolous political parties. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep or Merge I'd like to note that although they were a sham political party, they did manage to garner some votes... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have slightly changed my vote. I think that this should be merged into List of frivolous political parties. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-serious political parties with silly names and/or promotional agendas are something of a tradition in UK elections. One or two are long-running and well-known enough to merit an article i.e. Monster Raving Loony Party. But most get a tiny handful of votes just for being on the ballot and attracting the fuck-politics vote and then disappear. Fine if all these little joke parties are collected on one page. But too trivial for their own articles Bwithh 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete unless there is evidence that this was covered in British news, in which case I think it would be notable. JCO312 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was covered in British news. [1] —siroχo 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Their name in quotes reveals 19 google hits. Quadzilla99 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is an article like List of British nonsense political parties that this can be merged into. Resolute 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Quadzilla99, but BJAODN it due to its name. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge it with List of frivolous political parties. A search at my library shows this party was at least briefly mentioned by The Ottawa Citizen, CNN, The San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, The Guardian, etc. -- Dragonfiend 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge Per User:Dragonfiend redirect and merge it. Somitho 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN... though per User:Dragonfiend a merge to List of frivolous political parties isn't out of the question.--Isotope23 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I think it is possible that they do just scrape notability, but I can see no evidence of that. J Milburn 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to List of frivolous political parties. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per User:Tony Fox. A political party that actually ran in an election should not be deleted. -- Whpq 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable political non-party. I love Mongolian barbecue as much as anyone (and probably more), but this is barely a farce of a footnote on a list of political stunts. —ptk✰fgs 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, does no harm as it is indeed verifiable. —siroχo 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, please see WP:ILIKEIT for a list of arguments to avoid. Two, where should we merge to? --Dennisthe2 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you had bothered to read the debate, you would have found that he clearly means merge to List of frivolous political parties. Also, I don't think your tone is appropriate. Siroxo is not using ILIKEIT arguments, he's arguing that there is no harm in keeping a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're right about the context, but with all due respect, what tone? Near as I can tell, I was communicating nothing of the sort. --Dennisthe2 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even though I nominated it for deletion, I also feel that redirecting and merging is a great solution, especially since we have a fairly decent source for the existence of this party. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like we have agreement. Done. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect megrge into the list `'mikka 19:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonnotable, we sure don't need 256 million articles on individual IP addresses. NawlinWiki 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.39.174.238

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

A prod tag, placed by another editor, was removed. I don't think that an IP address is notable enough to warrant an entry. janejellyroll 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - per G1. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inherently notable as a source of Myg0t origin and other stuff. --SimonRebbsell1 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - a non notable IP Address, and per Wooty.--theblueflamingo^Speak 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)≈[reply]
• Speedy - G1, A1, take your pick. --adavidw 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP GRRRRR THIS IS NOTABLE AS MYGOT AND ANGRY NINTENDO NERD. --01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LauncherX

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

Non-notable software, fails WP:SOFTWARE. ju66l3r 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:SOFTWARE is not a finalized guideline, I also submit that this article fails WP:BIO miserably with absolutely no assertion of notability. ju66l3r 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. What I have found on Google Book Search and Google Scholar is really thin. Added what I've found as references [2]. The article is verifiable. Strictly speaking, it appears to meet WP:CORP (products): "The product or service has been the subject of multiple (two - two identified I mean) non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (seems so - the publisher McGraw-Hill seems independent from the authors)." Borderline case... (should be moved to Launcher X by the way - if the result is to keep it). --Edcolins 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultra Weak Keep here's a non-trivial published work about it:[3] and an article mentioning it:[4] The internet is loaded with places the selling the product but very few discussing it excluding forums or blogs. Quadzilla99 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's just notable enough to meet the notability. Somitho 10:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Quadzilla —siroχo 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore F. di Stefano

Theodore F. di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Mr. di Stefano seems to have created his own article here. it was tagged as a non-notable bio but there's some definite claims, including a small book and numerous articles. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some sources, but I'm unclear on exactly how famous this individual is (he's got something on the order of 245,000 Google hits, mostly for articles he's written on E-Commerce Times which we somehow lack an article on as well. No falsehoods or aggrandizement seems to be occuring in the bio, and I know our business world articles are often lacking/missing so I bring it here for the wider view. No opinion as nominator. -- nae'blis 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems not very notable; the magazines seem mainly professional journals; the book is not in print so apparently also not very important. Besides fails WP:AUTO (do not put up your own autobiography, if you are notable someone else will create an article on you). Arnoutf 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and delete. Possible notability, but this is his own page, and his userspace is utterly empty. --Dennisthe2 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Well, judging by his Google hits, he does have some notability.... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm satisfied he meets notability but an admin should block him from editing the page as it is a violation of WP:Auto. Quadzilla99 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Google hits are unconvincing, authorship of journal articles and an out of print book do not seem to qualify under WP:BIO. JCO312 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per Dennisthe2. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy absent at least two independent reliable sources evidencing notability. Currently there are none. --Shirahadasha 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Userfy it. Somitho 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to http://worldcat.org/isbn/0967596912 , his book is available at several libraries. --Eastmain 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Writing a book does not instantly make one notable, if the book is notable which it probably isn't then this page should be merged with the book it self. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N WP:AUTO WP:RS /Blaxthos 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pequeninos. Luna Santin 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pequeninos

List of pequeninos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unnecessary list with information already covered in multiple areas, lists, and articles. List of characters in the Ender's Game series, and Pequeninos. Additionally the article does not use the correct capitalization of Pequeninos. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information comes into play as the bulk of chracters are non-notable outside of the storyline. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No proposed deletion? Three minutes when I began meging the two loose articles together? Give me some time, I could flesh out the list of piggies from this series. Hbdragon88 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A List already exists, two copies of the same information are not needed. --wtfunkymonkey 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ahh. Didn't see it there. I was just merging Warmaker (Ender's Game) and Rooter (Speaker for the Dead). Hbdragon88 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pequeninos. Not sure the whole thing has any notability and the other article doesn't have any independent sources either, but it's not being challenged. --Shirahadasha 04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pequeninos —siroχo 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Loved that series. But they don't deserve their own article. Merge. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raakin Iqbal

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

Notability in question. Possibly fails WP:BIO, also WP:COI. ghits: [5]. Washington Post article does not state that he's a mogul, it states he's a "mogul in the making" and "up-and-coming mogul." NMChico24 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:COI issues. Possible userfy here. --Dennisthe2 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep COI issues can be addressed in a future AfD. But whatever we think of self-promotion, the fact is sometimes it works. It is possible to promote oneself enough to get noticed -- and this guy seems to have done it. There's enough coverage to meet WP:BIO and WP:V. He's managed to get independent publications to mouth his alliterative slogans. Don't know how he did it, but there they are, sourced. So they're entitled to be in the article. Fair is fair. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Shirahadasha makes some good points. This guy is in a Washington Post article, after all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What we have here is a person who is good at promoting them self (thats why he created his own Wikipedia page). This does not make him notable, at best we have two sources for the article, but this really isn't multiple non verifiable sources as stipulated by WP:NOTE. The Washington post article comes close but it to has a hint of self promotion, who does he know at the Washington Post (which for some reason seems to be a source in a lot of AFD debates). The YouTube video is an interview and in my mind should not be used as a biographical source as it may violate WP:AUTO. What exactly has Mr. Iqbal done that makes him notable? Nothing, starting your own company does not make you notable, even if the Washington Post reports on it. Self promotion does not equal notability --Daniel J. Leivick 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with DJL. What has he done to make him notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrashingWave (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Yeah, the guy has an article about him in the Washington Post, so what? That's one source, the guy isn't notable, it's nearly completely unsourced, and half the links are to YouTube. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO at present. Maybe next year. Shirahadasha sees COI exactly the opposite as I do; I don't see COI as a reason in itself to delete an article, but when notability is iffy, COI is generally the tipping point for me. Get your undisputed notability the usual way, and don't game Wikipedia to get there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, this fails WP:BIO]. Having a single article doesn't make someone notable enough. Somitho 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO, WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, something notable there, yet WP:COI makes me tip to delete, then again... someone could fix this by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I totally agree with Dhartung regarding the relationship between WP:COI and WP:N. JCO312 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning very slightly towards delete - anyone who gets a feature in the Washington Post is nudging on the cusp of notability. I'd prefer another good source, though, and the COI issues are touchy. If it's fixed, and if another source comes up, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Montco 04:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone who followed my votes a few years back or my recent run knows I hate to delete, but Wikipedia should not be used to boost his notability. —siroχo 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonworks

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

Misses WP:CORP significantly and will probably run into problems with several other software developers named "Dragonworks". Website appears to be here; products promoted in the article are in various states of development and unreleased. I can't see any other notable releases nor could I find any external references or media mentions. Article was only recently rewritten to be quite as G11 as it is. Contested prod. Kuru ^talk 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT, please do not post ads on Wikipedia. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources at all. No evidence of notability. The assertion of notability is based on speculative claims about future products. See WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirahadasha 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Kuru. Somitho 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP by some way, but google searches are compromised by a large number of hits for other entities with the same name. The forum on the company web site has only a small number of posts (under 150 in a year) suggesting a general lack of interest in this comapny & its products. Mr Stephen 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on WP:N grounds alone. "We hope to be notable in the future" isn't grounds for an entry today. JCO312 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being non notable, at the moment. No amount of arguing about potential can change the fact that something is non-notable. J Milburn 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal balling, no sources, less time adding advertisement-language to WP and more time developing games would be for the benefit. Small groups can and do produce games which garner both sales and recognition, but this company is so early in its life-cycle it hasn't even constructed its 'about us' page yet. Says it all. QuagmireDog 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A great example of an advertising piece. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Article development led to clear consensus before closure. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Kopf

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

Seems nn. Just H 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Thanks Quadzilla, I rescind my nomination. Just H 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here what's I dug up on him per multiple non-trivial works:[6][7][8] Boston Globe article solely about him:[9][10][11][12] I could go on but you get the point. Quadzilla99 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean Up - Per Quadzilla99's discoveries, this person is clearly notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, though the article needs citations. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• With the Boston Globe article about him, WP:N is satisfied. The article can use some work, but if nom doesn't provide another reason, KEEP - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep but work in those sources. Alf photoman 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added in some of Quadzilla's sources and links -- would you say it's okay now? Eeblefish 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add citations, which apparently do exist per comments of Quadzilla99. JCO312 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a vote, just full disclosure - I had forgotten about this article, which I wrote when I first started editing Wikipedia and didn't know the rules. Yes, it's about my own dad, which I now know is against Wikipolicy. I hope that doesn't mean it will be automatically deleted, but of course I understand if it does. Just as a plug for keeping the article in some form, he is quite notable in the furniture world, particularly in the U.S. where he is one of a handful of marqueteurs and has developed some innovative stylistic approaches to the art. Along with what's in the article, his work is on display in places like the Yale Art Museum, and he was featured on the end page of the NYT Magazine some years ago (long before it went online, making it hard to find). For what it's worth, he's also in the process of publishing a book on the history of marquetry. On the other hand, I'm obviously biased, so you can take whatever I say with a grain of salt! Anyway, everything in the article can be sourced, but I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to edit it anymore. If someone else would like to source and edit to give it a shot at passing AfD, that would be lovely, but this should probably be my last work on the subject. Anyway, carry on! - Sasha Kopf 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, not at all. You didn't do anything wrong, especially considering that you did it in 2004. I don't see there is anything wrong with uncontroversial things like digging up further sources. If you don't trust yourself to be neutral, then drop them on the talk page. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Silas Kopf's your dad? I can't WAIT to read his book on marquetry, a seriously under-rated and undervalued furniture art in the modern era, where people believe "solid wood" furniture is the mark of quality! Rock on for posting his bio in brief. Now, be good and get a close-up and full length photograph of a single one of his latest works and contribute it to the PD for Wikipedia. Awesome. KP Botany 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources Quadzilla99 dug up seem to be adequate, meets WP:V and WP:BIO, and it helps that despite the WP:COI issue the article tone seems moderate and not too self-promoting. --Shirahadasha 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied the sources to the article's talk page in the hope they can be used in the future to better the article. Quadzilla99 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per these sources. Eeblefish 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP! KP Botany 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Armalinsky

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

advertisement for hardly (if at all) notable author Errabee 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup there are purported sources, if those are legit then he would qualifiy as notable, as it seems his work would generally qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (books) since it's been the subject of several independent reviews (I understand that it isn't a perfect match, but I still think it's close enough). JCO312 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RS do not appear forthcoming, not to mention negligable WP:Notability /Blaxthos 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Australia

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

I couldn't locate much information of any use concerning this organisations claims. Delete as unverifiable. -- Longhair\^talk 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While they are a worthy organisation, I can't find any sources indicating notability and article doesn't provide any. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifiable info is provided. http://portal.pnc.com.au/ are an ISP with email addresses for some people in Society of Friends newsletters. Only apparently related links on the Friends website. Paul foord 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absent sources. Need sources to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:ORG. --Shirahadasha 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Montco 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unverifiable. S.D. ¿п? § 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article states they are "old and respected", and then talks about how they were founded in 1994. Thirteen years old does not make them old, respected, or notable. Probably a good organisation, but not notable enough, sorry. Lankiveil 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladma

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

This article was tagged for a speedy deletion as patent nonsense, which it obviously is not. But looking at it, I can't see how this "movement" is notable. --BigDT 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can establish why it's notable. "ladma international" gets exactly one non-Wikipedia google result, and even that one just links here. Eeblefish 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't even find any proof that this even existes/existed, much less that it's notable, covered by reliable sources, etc. While perhaps not technically nonsense in the "dksfhksjhfjgh" sense, it appears to either be a hoax or something which has apparently had no impact whatsoever on the world (that anyone's noticed, anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Pastordavid 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifable source added. Link claimed to the well-known Dogme movement but google for them both brings back nothing much. Edratzer 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The web site suggests what seems to be a small group of friends who've put together a web site and allegedly have shot some movie clips, although there doesn't seem to be any independent proof of that. Their studio "doubles as Ladma Christ's bedroom." Cool these folks know how to put together a web site and can spell "ism" and dangle a little art jargon, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. --Shirahadasha 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I understand the controversy regarding this entry. Basically we are a comedy group from England. We are going to rewrite the entry with correct citation and referencing - of various outside sources. If none of you object, would you allow us to use some of the above quotes as references in the new article? Ladma is not a movement as such but more a small comedy collective. We will place it within the appropriate section on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saltzman1959 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fist

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladma. This individual gets very few g-hits. The assertion of his notability is that he wrote a paper criticizing Ladma. I'm having trouble finding that this person meets WP:BIO. BigDT 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much like Ladma above, I can't even determinine that such a person exists. The title of his supposedly notorious essay gets not a single Google hit. There are other people by that name, but I'm not seeing anything to do with philosophy or politics. I'm sensing hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See WP:HOAX. If the guy has a web site that's at least semi-funny, consider adding to WP:BJAODN, otherwise, don't bother. --Shirahadasha 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Yeah, do it. I've never even heard of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saltzman1959 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrxoa

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

What appears to be an online community. None of their claims seem especially notable; 5,000 members is certainly not enough to justify inclusion on its own. Grasps at notability with POV sentences like "The forums also host a comraderie and fellowship not found anywhere else on the Web," but I don't think anything's there to justify inclusion. Alexa rank of 1,070,339. Article creator removed PROD notice and defended his reasoning on the talk page. Elmer Clark 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 5000 members? It is VERY HARD to justify inclusion based on that. Wikipedia is not a collection of information. DELETE. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "collection of indiscriminate information" (obviously it collects information). And I don't think particular section policy talks about this type of article; it's a pretty narrow section. However, this article does seem to fail WP:WEB notability guidelines so Delete. Dugwiki 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:WEB. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may again do this wrong, but here is a response to the above:

I did not intentionally remove anything. As I said, this is my first attempt at making a Wiki page and I really do not know what I can and cannot do. I made no attempt to justify my mistake in this talk page.

If I were trying to justify this page, I would not bother with the membership numbers.

Registered Members: 5,830 Total Threads: 33,175 | Total Posts: 463,980

The significant number is the number of posts, not registered members. More than 12 thousand people have registered over the 8 years the site has been there, but folks who register and don't come back get deleted. The membership number above is the number of active users.

What is at the ZRXOA of significant value is the technical information. The OA has thousands of posts of technical merit. These include every detail of the Kawasaki ZRX as delivered, and every modification that can be purchased, made or installed.

A comment was made about the camaraderie. Say what you will, be we take care of our own. We have have raised tens of thousands of dollars for the families of fallen members.

A similar page that already exists on this Wiki is here: [13].

The ZRXOA page fits this exact category. If that page is acceptable, so should this one. I can see that page has more development than one I started last night, but this one will develop as well, if allowed to.Unreasnbl 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from Talk:Zrxoa]:

Do not worry, you were well within your rights to remove the PROD notice (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). In fact, it was the proper course of action since you clearly believe the article should be kept on Wikipedia. Anyway, the difference between Zrxoa and Harley-Davidson is that Harley-Davidson has notability within Wikipedia's accepted definitions. WP:WEB lists the specific criteria web sites generally have to meet to be considered "notable;" this one does not appear to meet them. Feel free to make your contributions to the deletion discussion though if you disagree - these decisions are made by community consensus. Hope this clears some things up. -Elmer Clark 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link. I meant the HOG Harley Owners Group: [14]Unreasnbl 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a problem that the article does not assert the group's notability, and have tagged it as having that problem. However, a cursory glance at Google hits does seem to indicate that it is notable. Still, thanks for pointing that out. -Elmer Clark 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Friendship Games

Youth Friendship Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Prod expired with rationale of non-notable sporting event. As an international competition (even in Europe where international means less than in the U.S.), it might actually receive press. So I'm elevating to AFD to see if anyone can find sources. GRBerry 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: consider my nomination a technical nomination. GRBerry 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I heard about it, but no one else I know does. It fails WP:N. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP [22ndCW]Dell970 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  AFD is not a vote. Reasons for opinions are the most important part of discussion here. Would you care to expand upon yours? GRBerry 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As always, originator of an article is required to provide reliable sources (independent media or scholarly works) showing notability. Hasn't been done here. No prejudice to recreating article if sources are shown. --Shirahadasha 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are simply no reliable sources for this. -- Whpq 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - convinced by updates that more reliabble sources can be found. -- Whpq 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google search for "Youth Friendship Games" brings 9,660 hits the first bunch all seem directly related to the content. I did some rough clean up, and it needs more, but I think Youth Friendship Games is a fine starter article. Jeepday 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Heartwarming as the subject may be, I think the notability is a stretch. /Blaxthos 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, provided better use is made of the sources to make the notability (which it seems to me is there) clearer. HeartofaDog 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiel and Lucifer

Alexiel and Lucifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Essay about a couple characters from the manga series Angel Sanctuary. Has no reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V) and is full of information that would be of value only to fans of the series (WP:FICT, WP:FAN). As an essay, it is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated two other articles on Angel Sanctuary characters for the exact same reasons - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer/Kira Sakuya and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexiel --`/aksha 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alexiel and Lucifer both have quite large sections in the Angel Sanctuary article, but they both have their own articles as well: Alexiel and Lucifer/Kira_Sakuya. This article is orphaned from the main article, and there is a lot of redundancy as it is. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For that matter, those two individual articles appears to be redundant to the main article and also ought to be deleted. Snarfies 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be an unreferenced original essay analyzing two fictional characters, which fails WP:NOT#OR (personal essay). Dugwiki 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT and above. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Merge any usable content into Angel Sanctuary or associated single list of characters article. --Shirahadasha 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useable into main Angel Sanctuary article. Snarfies 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Alexiel already has a decent entry in the main Angel Sanctuary article, so no point trying to merge. --`/aksha 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- 9muses 13:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally in universe, does not meet WP:FICT. Madmedea 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werepyre (2nd Nomination)

Werepyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(2nd nomination) - (View AfD)

Article is not only non-notable fancruft. It is completely unsourced nonnotable fancruft which provides absolutely no context about where it comes from either. It is also a recreation of a previously deleted article, however nothing new or informative has been added to warrant such a recreation. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Original research, cruft, vanity (I'll bet). --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really, really hope this isn't a vanity article. On the other hand, the Internet can be a wild place at times :) Anyway, unsourced fancruft (from some game; I don't know which one) with no consistency among the Google hits. --N Shar 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Werepyre? Is that someone who turns into a funeral fire at the full moon? Seriously, there's no evidence this is anything beyond some sort of World of Darkness fansomething. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on this forum one day. Serpent's Choice 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and thanks to Serpent's Choice for actually finding the forum this comes from. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced probably original material. Violates WP:NOT#OR Dugwiki 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is in reference to AdventureQuest just as Serpent's Choice indicated. It is definitely not vanity though as I am staff on the game and I myself nominated it for deletion as pointless when someone posted it on those very same forums.— Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Falerin. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Intellectuals

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

non-notable book. All but one sentence of article deleted as copyvio. No indications of notability obviously, and book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 1,465,705. Elmer Clark 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Published by a major publisher (Norton). I'm a little concerned about expandability, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't think it is reasonable to go by publisher--very few publishers put out 100% notable material.--especially commercial publishers like Norton.DGG 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Lesnail 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Milks

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

Deleted PROD. Less than 300 ghits. Procedural nomination. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Real person, exaggerated claims. --N Shar 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged with PROD. When he is well known he is welcome back. Maustrauser 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced as by WP:BIO by end of this Afd Alf photoman 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas g. and the fantastic three

Jonas g. and the fantastic three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article asserts that band is planning a nation-wide tour, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Does not yet meet WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC -- so delete. N Shar 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - I'd db-band it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete non-notable music group (?). poorly written as well. --Tainter 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CarDomain

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

Wikipedia articles should not be used for Promotional advertisments for CarDomain.com. This domain is also a large contributor to the linkspam problem on Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#CarDomain). Fails WP:NOT and WP:WEB. see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.cardomain.com Hu12 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:WEB, in particular criterion 1 which asks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Cited in the article are non-trivial articles from both the New York Times and the Puget Sound Business Journal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There seems to be a linkspam problem related to this community, the same as with MySpace and others, but we have an article for MySpace irrespective of that problem. Whether it passes notability or not should not be linked to the actions of its member community. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Myspace presents a problem of those with accounts promoting their personal "myspace". Clearly a different situation here regarding this spam problem. This long term spamming of cardomain resulted into this example of article spam, i.e.216.254.9.2's contribs (Seattle). Shortly after creation, CarDomain.com was prodded (note: this is the 3rd time others have expressed it being inapropriate), this prod was removed by another Seattle based anon (24.18.188.16) who's history of promoting the domain is evident. Wikipedia should WP:NOT be used for promotion or advertising. I believe it difficult to conceive that someone without a direct interest in this article would act in that manner. The spamming anon IP's are all from Seattle, which is the same location of CarDomain.com [15]. Contributions are from single purpose accounts (Jmcdoggy (also created Www.cardomain.com) and Grseattle), and sock puppets created the sole purpose of maintaining this article. Wanted to make that observation.Hu12 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hu12, thanks for that clarification. That's more evidence than was previously presented in the linked discussion, and if that's the case, then it looks more like it is an owner spam problem. Clearly you've done the homework. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete -- is the Puget Sound Business Journal notable? We don't have an article on it. The Inc. article is "Things I Can't Live Without: Alex Algard" -- a list of gadgets the CEO likes and the CarDomain reference is in his bio -- yet it's a long bio for an article. That leaves the New York Times article which is about such sites in general, but only gives this one several short paragraphs 2/3 of the way through the article as another example of a car site; CarSpace gets a bigger, earlier mention. 734 unique Google hits for cardomain.com seems low for a web site in particular, notability-wise, although such a number might be high for article types such as notable 19th century Costa Rican politicians. Any "keep" or "delete" should probably be prefaced with "weak" -- this is a borderline decision either way. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Puget Sound Business Journal is the local version of American City Business Journals. They are surely notable, no? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if the local business paper is notable; if it is, then it should be noted that the article there is about CarDomain and is not just a passing reference as is the case with the other two articles.--A. B. ^(talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • American City Business Journals is a holding company that owns 41 local business weeklies. I note that only 4 of the 41 have Wikipedia articles. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Circulation: 22000[16] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are surely notable, no? No. They're thin little weeklies heavy on the rehashed press releases, local legislation, and local-business-makes-good stories. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam advertising--Hu12 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles are linked from the article, which clearly meets the requirements at WP:CORP. JulesH 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The media articles are, in fact, trivial -- one of them being about the category, not the site -- and one of them isn't even mainstream. The spamvertising is just icing on the cake. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with JulesH. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles from relevant publications feature CarDomain. Three if you include CarDomain also discussed in the Contra Costa Times. --if its fast, its probably fun! 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ← new user; this is their only edit to date. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Contra Costa Times article is about Boompah, not CarDomain. It mentions CarDomain more or less in passing. I encourage others to check out the links to this article and the other article, then make your own judgment of the references independent of my comments or those of others. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]